# Christianity is Illogical **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920 "2002-08-14T23:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/41 "2002-08-16T17:40:34Z")
Ben-Alright, don’t answer the question. You are right, you are under no obligation to. I was only curious because you seemed to have a strong opinion on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/42 "2002-08-16T18:06:33Z")
> [@](#): > > (“Know”, in this context, doesn’t mean “have heard of” or “be aware of”; it means “accept the truth of”.) That’s wrong–in this case, “know” does mean “have heard of.” It refers to virtuous pagans who have never heard the message of Jesus and to members of other religions who live virtous lives. Athiests and agnostics have heard the message and have no excuse for their rejection. From [Religioustolerance.org](http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm) > [@](#): > > Roman Catholic Teaching: > The Pope delivered a Wednesday address in St. Peter’s Square on 1998-SEP-9 on the topic of: “The Spirit of God and the ‘Seeds of Truth’ in non-Christian Religions.” He said in part: > > “Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior.” > > This would appear to imply that a Hindu, Buddhist, Neopagan, etc. can obtain salvation by worshiping his own God(s) or Goddess(es), even though they have never heard of Jesus or the Gospel. It would seem that the same statement would exclude Agnostics or Atheists from any hope of salvation. and also from the Catechism > [@](#): > > 1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” Ans ccording the nuns and priests of my childhood, ahtiests go straight to Hell. So who do I believe, you or Sister John of God, who taught my CCD class? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/43 "2002-08-16T18:08:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UDS \* > This do you? > > Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras 846 and 847: > > _This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation._ > > (“Know”, in this context, doesn’t mean “have heard of” or “be aware of”; it means “accept the truth of”.) > > An atheist, as I understand it, is someone who has considered whether there is a God and has either (a) concluded that there is not, or (b) not concluded that there is. Either way, he has sought God, and on this view he can attain salvation. > > What is quite clear is that only those who, knowing that there is a God, have rejected him, who are stated to be excluded from salvation. That certainly does not cover atheists. That’s an awfully liberal interpretation. I somehow doubt that the pope would agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/44 "2002-08-16T18:09:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lord Ashtar \* > **Sinning has nothing to do with whether a person is “good” or "evil."** Um, what does it have to do with, then? Presumably, you believe God (i.e., the Ultimate Good) cannot sin. There seems to be a connection there (to me, at least). \*\* > [@](#): > > No, we suffer because we all are sinners.\*\* You mentioned that you eat meat on Fridays. Catholics consider this a sin. You do not. Therefore, you do not feel you are sinning when you eat meat on Fridays. By similar logic, Christians consider blaspheming against God a sin. I am not a Christian, therefore I do not consider saying “Goddammit” a sin. If you’re not a sinner for breaking the Catholic rule to which you don’t adhere, am I also not a sinner for breaking the Christian rule to which **I** don’t adhere? \*\* > [@](#): > > We are all separated from God due to Original Sin.\*\* I’ve never really understood Original Sin, even when I was a Christian. Could you attempt to reconcile it with Deuteronomy 24:16 for me? > [@](#): > > “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” (NIV) If I’m to die for my own sin, then it doesn’t matter what the hell Adam and Eve did, right? \*\* > [@](#): > > All sins are equal in the eyes of God.\*\* Bullshit. For example, “blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” – Matthew 12:31. And besides, do you have any sort of Scriptural basis for your assertion that all sins are equal? Eh, that’s enough for now. Quix ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/45 "2002-08-16T18:13:23Z")
Oh, fine. Just sneak that post in there right before mine, **gobear** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/46 "2002-08-16T18:23:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*Lord Ashtar, have you ever seen a movie named “The Rapture?” \*\* Nope. What is its relevance to the OP? Incidentally, you are right. You are under no obligation to respond. However, I believe it to be unfair of you to throw out accusations like “Christianity is illogical” and then refuse to qualify it. Seems to me like you just got frustrated in the last thread and that you were confused **god** with **the Christian God**. Also, just out of sheer curiosity, how is calling you out on an assertion you made against the rules of this forum? It would certainly seem to me to be within the spirit of this forum if nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/47 "2002-08-16T18:26:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mordib \* > **would people agree that a loose definition of faith is believing in something without having facts and evidence to back up what you believe in?** I would not. In fact, I would consider that to be an all-too-common strawman misrepresentation of faith. Faith is belief without **proof**. It does not mean believing without any basis whatsoever. That is also why I disagree with the claims made in this thread that faith and logic are opposed to one another. They are not. What you defined is more properly known as “blind faith,” rather than faith _per se_. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/48 "2002-08-16T18:43:01Z")
What is proof, if not facts and evidence? I really don’t get the distinction you’re making. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/49 "2002-08-16T18:53:25Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > \*\* > Um, what does it have to do with, then? Presumably, you believe God (i.e., the Ultimate Good) cannot sin. There seems to be a connection there (to me, at least)._\* I’m not sure I see the connection you are trying to make here. Can you clarify? > [@](#): > > **You mentioned that you eat meat on Fridays. Catholics consider this a sin. You do not. Therefore, you do not feel you are sinning when you eat meat on Fridays. By similar logic, Christians consider blaspheming against God a sin. I am not a Christian, therefore I do not consider saying “Goddammit” a sin. If you’re not a sinner for breaking the Catholic rule to which you don’t adhere, am I also not a sinner for breaking the Christian rule to which I don’t adhere?** When **Baron** originally posted this, he said: > [@](#): > > Apart from the 10 commandments, you’d have trouble convincing most people that other sins (premarital sex, eating meat on Friday, and other “administrative” sins or “victimless” sins) are worthy of punishment. Using the Lord’s name in vain is against Commandment #2. > [@](#): > > **I’ve never really understood Original Sin, even when I was a Christian. Could you attempt to reconcile it with Deuteronomy 24:16 for me?..If I’m to die for my own sin, then it doesn’t matter what the hell Adam and Eve did, right?** I believe what He means here is that man is not to put other people to death for the sins of their parents/children. That goes back to God telling us that we are not to judge our neighbor. > [@](#): > > **Bullshit. For example, “blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” – Matthew 12:31. And besides, do you have any sort of Scriptural basis for your assertion that all sins are equal?** As I understand it, blasphemy of the Spirit is denial of God’s existance. One of the main points of Christian theology is that you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that you have to accept him as your Lord and Savior in order to get into heaven. If you deny His existance all together, how can you possibly get into Heaven? ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/50 "2002-08-16T18:54:57Z")
I understand your curiosity, but can you see how I would find it inappropriate for you and LA to complain about my asking a question? Asking questions is not only a time-honored rhetorical technique, but, if nothing else, I have to be careful. If I show that some aspect of Christianity is illogical, Lord Ashtar can always claim that _he_ doesn’t believe in that aspect, and that perhaps anyone who does isn’t a “real” Christian. The fact is that the Messiah-hood of Jesus is central to more or less all forms of Christianity, at least so far as I’m defining the term in this discussion. (I’m excluding the people of whom it is said, “All the best Christian theologians are atheists.”) If I’m going to explain part of the reason why I find Christianity to be illogical, it helps if a Christian- particularly Lord Ashtar- shows which OT prophecies Jesus fulfilled. But, quite frankly, I’ve given up on talking to Lord Ashtar. It was a mistake to get involved in this thread anyway. I will, however, explain my original comment, since you’re clearly sincere in your curiosity. My own experience is that as a young Christian, I wanted very badly to do God’s will. I suffered from the Glitch effect, though. No matter how hard I prayed, it was like talking to a pet rock. I decided, then, that if I couldn’t experience God through prayer, then I would read the Bible, and that _I would do so without preconceptions._ I would accept whatever the Bible said, and not try to shoehorn it into a party line. I was determined not to be one of those Christians who will say, “Lord, Lord, we cast out many demons in your name,” only to have Jesus say, “I never knew you.” Once I read the Bible like that, I was puzzled. It seemed like Paul was teaching a very different religion from Jesus. And Jesus’ own brothers, who, unlike Paul, had met Jesus in the flesh, agreed! I was very upset with this, and wondered if God wanted me to convert away from Paulism to Christianity. I also was puzzled about the fact that for all that my fundie teachers told me that the OT was full of remarkable prophecies of Jesus, I had read the OT myself, and I didn’t see anything whatsoever about Jesus. I was a lot of prophecies that a military leader would rescue the Jews from the Babylonians and whatnot, but where were the prophecies of the Messiah? Even so, I stuck with Christianity. One can debate why. Misguided devotion to God? Fear of becoming an outcast, the only real Christian among “Christians”? Fear of going to hell for making a simple mistake? But ultimately, the contradictions- contradictions of the Bible with itself, of the Bible with “Christianity,” or of my beliefs with real morality- became too much to bear, and “Christianity” collapsed under its own weight. Since then, I’ve learned about more contradictions. Take the false prophet Jeremiah, or the false ending of Mark. Jesus said that if your very _eye_ offends thee, cast it out. How many “Christians” are so devoted to God’s will over comfortable conformity that they will use an X-Acto knife to cast out these false passages of Scripture? Or what about the Book of Enoch? The Book of Jude, which is canonical, speaks about the Book of Enoch in ways that suggest that it was divinely inspired- so how many American Protestants are going to include it in their personal canon? How many Christians are going to decide for themselves, book by book, what is God’s Word? None- because doing so will simply make them too different from their peers. And, in the end, devotion to God is subordinated to getting along with people. That’s what I mean when I say that Christianity is illogical. It just seems to me that if one believes that God really exists and he’s giving us written instructions, then one should be very careful not to be complacent, not to blindly follow the goats, and to devote a lot of work to figuring out what God’s will really is. But instead, we get people believing whatever they want, and finding ex post facto excuses to justify it. Fundamentalists want to believe that homosexuality is sinful, so they twist the story of Sodom around to “prove” something completely different from what the Bible clearly and plainly says about the sins of Sodom. You can say the same thing about Christians who think it’s ok to get remarried after divorce. And they all twist the OT around to “prove” Jesus was the messiah. And if you challenge them on the canon, they can come up with all sorts of rationalizations to prove that the denomination they chose before any questions of the canon came up _just so happens_ to have made a perfect choice of canonical books all along, so there’s no need for them to go against the flow. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/51 "2002-08-16T19:13:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lord Ashtar \* > \*\*Nope. What is its relevance to the OP? \*\* It deals with some of the questions of sin and separation from God that have been raised in this thread. It’s a very good movie, BTW. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Incidentally, you are right. You are under no obligation to respond. However, I believe it to be unfair of you to throw out accusations like “Christianity is illogical” and then refuse to qualify it. \*\* Accusation? No, “Christianity is illogical” is an opinion, not an accusation. **You,** not I, are the one who casually throws out accusations, as I have explained more than once in the last few days. Unfortunately you never seem to acknowledge my criticisms of your accusatory behavior. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, just out of sheer curiosity, how is calling you out on an assertion you made against the rules of this forum? It would certainly seem to me to be within the spirit of this forum if nothing else. \*\* Come on. Do I really need to explain to you that it’s inappropriate to clip someone else’s statement and turn it into the OP of a new thread? Like I said, if I wanted to discuss this at length, I would have started my own thread. If I don’t want to go into the issue any further, you have zero right to put me in the hot seat against my will by effectively starting a new thread with me, in a very real sense, as the OP. You want to discuss whether Christianity is illogical? Fine, start a new thread all your own, but keep me out of it. And if people are convinced by your assertions in the absence of my rebuttals, so be it. You want to discuss the subject with me in particular? Then ask me whether I want to start a new thread, and if I say no, accept the fact that I’m not your trained argument monkey. It’s particularly noxious that even when I _do_ make moves towards discussing the subject with you, you more or less declare that my approach to the subject isn’t to your liking, and I have to do things your way instead. Look, there’s nothing mysterious in all this. Not only is it common courtesy, but not too long ago the moderators specifically spoke out against this kind of thread. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/52 "2002-08-16T20:15:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrVisible \* > \*\*What is proof, if not facts and evidence? I really don’t get the distinction you’re making. \*\* If you find a gun in a suspected murderer’s apartment, then you have evidence… but you don’t have proof. **This is a critical distinction that is all too frequently ignored.** Some theists – including some Christians – base their beliefs on blind faith. Others believe that there is reasonable evidence for a Creator, and that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but they don’t claim to have absolute proof. Is this distinction clear enough yet? ---
**Author:** ![p\_cific\_812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@p\_cific\_812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/p_cific_812)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/53 "2002-08-16T20:34:08Z")
Well said, **Ben**. I had my doubts at first, but I for one think you have quantified your position quite well. :: tips hat :: ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/54 "2002-08-16T20:47:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by quixotic78_ > **Um, what does it have to do with, then? Presumably, you believe God (i.e., the Ultimate Good) cannot sin. There seems to be a connection there (to me, at least).** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lord Ashtar_ > **I’m not sure I see the connection you are trying to make here. Can you clarify?** Yeah, I guess I wasn’t entirely clear (although it made sense in my head!) You said that sinning has nothing to do with whether a person is “good” or “evil.” I’m saying there most certainly IS a connection between being “good” and refraining from sin. For example, God refrains from sin and is therefore “good.” Satan does not refrain from sin and is therefore “evil.” If you’re saying that sinning has nothing to do with good&evil, what DOES sinning have to “do” with? \*\* > [@](#): > > Using the Lord’s name in vain is against Commandment #2.\*\* I think you missed my point. I know that saying “Goddammit” is against the Ten Commandments. Similarly, you know that eating meat on a Friday is against the “Catholic Commandments.” But you don’t feel like you’re sinning, because you’re not a Catholic. Similarly, I don’t feel like I’m sinning when I say “Goddammit,” because I’m not a Christian. Clearer? Good. Now discuss. Explain to me how I’m a sinner if I break the Christian rules, but how you’re NOT a sinner if you break the Catholic rules. \*\* > [@](#): > > I believe what He means here [“here” = Deut. 24:16 – Quix] is that man is not to put other people to death for the sins of their parents/children. That goes back to God telling us that we are not to judge our neighbor.\*\* So, once again, we have God breaking a rule that humanity is supposed to follow. Doesn’t that get your goat at all? I mean, wouldn’t you be upset if the President was legally allowed to rape women? IOW, if I, with all my mortal failings, have to follow these rules, how come God, with all his Divine Perfection, can break them with impunity? \*\* > [@](#): > > As I understand it, blasphemy of the Spirit is denial of God’s existance. One of the main points of Christian theology is that you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that you have to accept him as your Lord and Savior in order to get into heaven. If you deny His existance all together, how can you possibly get into Heaven? \*\* I could get into Heaven by being forgiven… except that blasphemy is the one unpardonable crime, according to Matthew 12:31. Hence, no, not all “sins” are equal. You didn’t say, “There are two types of sins: the unforgivable, and then everything else. The first category has one sin, Blasphemy against the Spirit. The second category has everything else, like murder and changing lanes without signalling.” But that’s NOT what you said. You said “All sins are equal in the eyes of God.” Something you haven’t yet backed up with Scripture. Quix ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/55 "2002-08-16T20:50:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > If you find a gun in a suspected murderer’s apartment, then you have evidence… but you don’t have proof. **This is a critical distinction that is all too frequently ignored.** > > Is this distinction clear enough yet? Actuall, I’d appreciate some further clarification. When does evidence become proof? In a court of law, it’s when a jury judges it to be sufficient for a conviction. Does the analogy hold in this case? If so, who is the jury? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/56 "2002-08-16T21:00:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \* > \*\* > I mean, wouldn’t you be upset if the President was legally allowed to rape women? \*\* > > Quix \*\* Wasn’t Clinton accused of this? (except for the legal part) Oh dear, WHY do I feel the need to post this here and now?? You may commense with my beating…😃 ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/57 "2002-08-16T21:18:36Z")
Y’know, **MrVisible** , we could talk all day about when evidence becomes proof, and we would doubtlessly generate a dozen more debates in the process. That’s matter for a whole 'nuther thread though, and it’s really not relevant to this topic. The fact is that _evidence is not the same thing as proof_. It is therefore erroneous to claim that faith means believing for no reason, as skeptics often allege. Earlier in this thread, a certain poster said “Logic has no use for faith.” With all due respect, I think that’s balderdash. If you define faith as belief for no reason whatsoever, then of course that’s illogical… but that’s not what faith means. Not by a long shot. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/58 "2002-08-16T21:24:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by p@cific@812 \* > **The very notion of “faith” flies in the face of logic. Faith is conciously willing oneself to suspend disbelief for the purposes of “knowing” that something completely unsubstantiated (at least as far as science is concerned) is true. > Faith is illogical.** Wait a minute. Are you seriously suggesting that science is the only way one can logically know something to be true? Of course, as evidenced in previous posts, I think your definition of “faith” is a strawman, but I think that has been adequately addressed. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/59 "2002-08-16T21:30:58Z")
So, you condemn someone’s definition of faith on the distinction between evidence and proof, and then refuse to explain that distinction? Interesting tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Banger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@Banger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banger)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920/60 "2002-08-16T22:48:35Z")
Both theism and atheism require a leap of faith. It is not that either is illogical, but rather that neither the existence or non-existence of God has been logically and conclusively proven. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-illogical/123920.md?page=4)