I know one logical dilemma which can be attributed to the incoherence of Christian dogma. A classic example is the
Epicurean Paradox, which basically shows that it would be impossible for God to be omniscient, omnibenevolent
and omnipotent simultaneously
View attachment 717013
Christian dogma states that God posesses all three qualities, but the Epicurean Paradox proves it's not possible. The only solution is that God must lack one of the three stated qualities:
Either God is limited in intelligence, God's approach to the creation of life was sadistic or negligent to some degree, or God's power is limited or inhibited in some way that's beyond his control. The Epicurean Paradox can easily apply to the inconsistency of Christian dogma
No. Appeal to prevalence of a shared opinion is a flawed approach to the justification of a belief. The trueness of a belief would not necessarily be validated by the fact that a large amount of people share it. Because people can be ignorant and it seems the potential for ignorance has no bounds, which means (in theory) any amount of people can share a false opinion they consider true. The fact that many liberal globohomo supporters claim Christian dogma is stupid doesn't necessarily validate the truth of this claim. There are other more weightful reasons that can support the claim of Christianity is stupid (e.g. Epicurean Paradox)
Could have been lucky
Agreed that Western civilization surpassed Eastern societies, but I think Western society may have already had the advantage over other societies, because they have the oldest religions that survived to modern era, and it seems they have the genetic advantage of being JBW compared to sub-standard non-white genetics
Apparently Abrahamic religions (mainly Judaism and Christianity) are the oldest religions in human history that have survived to modern era and remain followed by millions of people internationally. Having the oldest surviving religion would surely give Western societies the advantage over other societies? As the older the religion, the more time they have to mature and be fine-tuned or adapted for contribution to human advancement
Also the Aryan genetics of Western society --- Clearly the genetics of JBW are higher quality than non-white genetics based on intellect alone. Historically, the vast majority of the world's most intelligent and diverse thinkers were JBW, barely any of them were ethnic. Perhaps by natural design, the high-quality genetics of JBWs enabled White people to optimize in rational thought, abstraction and organization, enabling them to become more advanced than other societies that don't have JBW genetics (like Indians and the Far East)
Perhaps a good question for this would be why is the West declining? Maybe a mix of varied factors, like restriction of ability to access resources essential to human advancement (e.g. education), mass immigration of lower IQs and specimens of inferior genetics, outsource of labour to AI robots and ethnic subhumans in third-world countries?
I agree with this
Also agree

. But perhaps Eastern religions would be the better religion to contribute to human advancement from here on into the future? It's clear that rices are becoming smarter, more resourceful and more powerful in the military / financial world. Plus they are set to surpass the West within a few decades. So maybe for this era in modern society, Far Eastern religons are proving to be more effective for human advancement than Abrahamic religions of the Middle East & West?