Refuting Christian Fundamentalist Presuppositional Apologetic Gaslighting

[First Draft] 
[Part 1 in a series] 

[Link to discussion]  
Re: "What I find difficult to debate against the idea that the Christian God is the necessary force behind truth and logic. In order to argue against the Christian God you would have to borrow rationality and logic from the Christian worldview. You can’t just say there is a neutral ground. You have to adopt a worldview where you have your logic justified. I don’t see any justification for truth and logic outside of the character of the Christian God."

---

Saying (anyone) (who wants to refute Christian fundamentalism; since that absolutely is the flavor of Christianity presuppers are presupposing)
"would have to borrow rationality and logic from the Christian worldview"
...
is like saying:
(anyone) who wants to refute Westboro Baptists' claim to being the most loving and peaceful religion ever to exist ... "would (first) have to borrow love and peace from the Westboro Baptist worldview".

However, for the sake of the thought experiment,
let's pretend that Christianity (as expressed by Christian-fundamentalist interpretations of Christian canonical texts)
... is rational and logical.

In this hypothetical universe (a universe where those are not comically Narcissistic, habitually gaslighting, violently colonizing, mafia-networking, authoritarian-grifting, Master-Racist, PSY OPs),

...
What happens if such a "rational and logical" Christian wants to refute Hinduism?

They'd run into the very same "wall of logic" they *imagine* protects them from the scrutiny of skeptical non-theists.

If we humor the
flag planting, 
history revising,  
thought-stopping,
conversation-blocking,
discovery avoiding, 
accountability-preventing,
obnoxiously steamrolling,
social-dominance-leveraging,
Narcissistic ego-gorging, 
of presuppositionalism,

...  Anyone who wants to refute Hindu theology
(which far predates all the Abrahamic theologies) would have to borrow rationality and logic from the Hindu worldview.

That would mean that any Christian who refutes Hinduism first needs to borrow rationality and logic from Hinduism.

However, when Christian presuppositionalists arrive to use those intellectual properties they got from Hinduism (in an attempt to refute Hinduism),
...
they should discover that rationality and logic didn't begin with those religions or "gods" either.

Any given Hindu *might* imagine their gods granted them special capacity for logical reasoning.
But if they were literate enough about human history,
they'd know they merely inherited a place in humanity's chain of messily progressing critical faculties.

Humans in all religions (to varying degrees) utilize the mental abilities they inherited via factors such as biological evolution. These are also heavily influenced by exposure to cultural evolution, which includes factors like music, math, diet, etc..
This works the same way for the religious and the non-religious.

Such abilities do not originate with any religious icon or movement.

Anyone is free to theorize that various human abilities were gifted to either
a.) our whole species
or
b.) a group of special religious people ...
by some mysterious Super-Powered Super-People (aka "gods" or "God").

However, history and science tell a different story.

Biological and cultural evolution generate gradual and sporadic steps forward in our species' cognitive faculties. Granted, sometimes societies (such as predominantly Christian societies) roll quickly backward in their cognitive abilities.

However, the historical trend for humans has been a messy meandering forward. 

If some literal and pre-existing Super-People gifted humans those abilities, they were very messy about how they gifted those to us. 

The same can (and should) be said about human ethical and emotional values. 

Any hypothetical "God(s)" were tragically unjust;
as those were distributed so unequally among humans.

It was also unjust that no "God" bothered to equip humans to foster and protect our own cognitive faculties. 
[ie. "God" randomly lacing bodies of water with undetectable heavy metals; and not even bothering to let us know that was a thing]
[link] 

In fact, that would be even more profoundly unjust if humans were going to be judged based on
a.) what we think about any "God"
and
b.) how those perceptions manifest in how each person lives, loves, and identifies.

In any case, our rational abilities did not originate via Christianity.

Christianity is just a religious theme. It's just another fractal branching tree of ideological evolution; spreading as complex viral memetics. They've been inspired largely by a.) cross-cultural religious folklore, b.) perpetually refining, mind-hijacking, mental technologies [link][link], and c.) predatory-leader ambitions.

Meanwhile, all religions are built from concepts they heard, borrowed, and adapted from other cultures.
 [Example:
The Christian canonical mythos borrowed heavily from Greek philosophy (such as the works of Plato) and fantasy literature (such as the works of Homer). 

All religions continually experience ideological evolution.
Many die out rather abruptly. This is often due to wars, enslavement, plagues, or sudden shifts in regional cultural paradigms.
Others live on. However, those eventually change so much that they become a new religion; even if they keep using the same name and other "identity markers" of the religion(s) they've replaced.
In fact, Christianity is a great example of this.
Christians fail to understand the theological beliefs attributed to Jesus by Christian Bible writers.
In those stories, neither Jesus nor his apostles were Christians. They were members of a fringe Judaic mystery cult.
The "prophecies" which that cult invented after Jesus died ... had automatically failed when the last of his first followers died off.
The end of the world was supposed to happen before then.

That cult was NOT open to recruiting Gentiles.
Nor were they attempting to replace Judaism with a new covenant.

When Paul took over that cult, he wanted to allow Gentiles to join a special new version of Judaic-religionists.
He wanted everyone who was not born as a Jew ... to be allowed to join Judaism; but with different (much less strict) religious obligations.

Those Gentiles would have a new contract (aka "covenant") with the Jews' patriarchal war deity.
They would not fall under the Mosaic Law Covenant.
However, the Jews would remain under the Mosaic Law Covenant.
Paul wasn't trying to replace the Judaic religion with something new.
However, Paul was powerless to prevent religious evolution.
After he was dead,
his new cult quickly turned into a new (and more virally marketable) religious movement.

 That new religious movement claimed divine appointment to entirely replace Judaic religion(s). 

 They did a 180 turn from what Paul intended. 

They switched from the idea of Gentiles joining Judaism ... to Jews being allowed (and also required) to join a new universal religion; under threat of eternal damnation (a loaded gun flamethrower to the head) for all humans that refuse to join before we each run randomly out of time.