(4801) God of ignorance

The concept of a god became a placeholder for human ignorance, but as humans began to understand the natural causes of observed phenomena, this god became less and less involved, and eventually was relegated to ‘another dimension.’ This god of ignorance is now flirting with extinction. The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/@phystro/the-god-of-ignorance-baee8aa8015e

Imagine the primitive human brimming with questions.

Where do the sun, rain, lightning, clouds, and wind come from? Where do rivers come from? why does the earth shake? or mountains explode? Why are there innumerable varieties of plants, animals, birds, and fishes? what about the moon and the stars?

Now imagine answering such questions a few thousand years ago, before the advent of science as we know it today. We didn’t have the tools (like telescopes and microscopes) to find the answers, nor did we have the time to do so. Humans spent an excessive amount of time hunting, foraging, defending, moving, fighting, gossiping, and socializing.

The situation only changed post-agriculture and post-civilization after we could store grain, adopt division of labor, and institutionalize inequality, allowing the elites to sit around and think.

You don’t need to stretch your imagination too far to picture life before civilization. Just watch some documentaries of aborigines and uncontacted tribes or read books about the state of the native Americans before colonial contact or the hunter-gatherer tribes. That should give you a sense of the condition of humanity before civilization.

None of those savages were scientists or Christians. They had to be saved by the missionaries. I wonder why Christ or Allah didn’t send them in with the default faith preloaded. Why trouble the missionaries?

Burdened with the unbearable pain of so many unanswered questions, man — in a moment of brilliance — invented a three-letter word that answered ALL questions in one swipe — GOD.

Suddenly, all mysteries of the universe were solved in one fell swoop. All personal and social happenings- the great triumphs and unspeakable tragedies were explained away with the simplest of explanations. Finally, humans could sleep at night.

Try abandoning a gripping Netflix series halfway and see how well you sleep. Our brain sucks at open questions. We need closure. “GOD” provided all the closure we needed and then some.

Humans are phenomenal inventors. We invented God to ease our psychological pain and help us sleep better.

But, of course, God does much more than help us sleep better. God helps us justify wars (crusades), oppression (to establish his kingdom), hate (the disbelieving pigs) and helps dictators and bigots claim divine legitimacy among many other things you can think up.

This invention was way too good for the rich and powerful to pass up. Once invented, they were hooked.

I don’t see in religion evidence of the mystery of the incarnation, but rather the mystery of social order. Religion associates heaven with an idea of equality that keeps the rich from being massacred by the poor.— Napoleon Bonaparte

That was that for a long long time…

But then some derelicts were unhappy with a three-letter answer. For them, it was too good to be true and wasn’t good enough. They still couldn’t sleep at night.

Then, one guy noticed something: even though the ground seemed flat as far as the eye could see, it was making shadows at weird angles, which could only happen if the earth wasn’t flat. Another suspected the narrative that humans were the rulers of a universe with the earth as its center. Another lunatic couldn’t leave it alone when an apple fell to the ground. An especially crazy one committed a cardinal sin and dared suggest that the majestic human may just be a type of monkey.

And, like that, one piece at a time, ignorance came crashing.

Bit by bit the ignorance of pre-scientific beliefs was replaced by the light of knowledge, one photon at a time. Here we are today in a bright glowing room of enlightenment. There are still dark corners, which the believers gleefully point out as evidence of god.

If we don’t know everything, then the gaps must be god is the believer’s logic. You will often notice it come up in conversations with believers “How do you explain this and that if not for god?”

Our knowledge started at zero, and we have covered enormous ground, but it’s still incomplete. Science is a work in progress; knowledge is a journey, not a destination.

But that is enough for the believers who eagerly point to the gaps (which will eventually be filled) as proof of god. Thus earning the aphorism, the god of the gaps. The god of the gaps is the god of ignorance.

In the English language, when we don’t know something, we say, We don’t know yet.

In believer language, we don’t know (yet) = it must be god.

The religious cannot give you any proof of god’s existence (except some made-up logic in their minds), so they are reduced to saying “Science does not (yet) explain everything,” hence it must be god. How pathetic to commit your entire life to something like that.

Wherever there were gaps in human knowledge, divinity filled that gap and was promptly kicked out when the gaps were eventually filled, by science.

A more apt description would be “god in the gaps.” And those gaps are sure as hell closing fast. That is why religion is on its last legs.

This was demonstrated in a fascinating recent paper published in Nature Human Behaviour, in which researchers documented the prevalence of supernatural explanations for different phenomena across 114 nonindustrial societies

The clearest takeaway from our study is that that people often seek supernatural explanations for events that lack clear human origins. Natural phenomena become prime candidates for supernatural explanation because they cannot easily be traced back to human actions. This tendency to supernaturalize the natural world suggests that the earliest human religious beliefs may have been attempts to grapple with the mysteries of nature.

Inventing gods is a time-honored human tradition, owing to the fact that ‘not knowing’ is a disquieting problem for human minds, so making up a solution to assuage our ignorance was highly incentivized. Science will continue to push religion into smaller and smaller gaps of human ignorance, until it finally becomes extinct.

(4802) Luke disagrees on salvation

Christians might think that the New Testament provides a consistent doctrine of human salvation- that is, the way to achieve heaven and to avoid hell. This is not the case. The author of Luke/Acts believed that salvation was dependent on active repentance and the acceptance of such (from those aggrieved, presumably), rather than the predominant New Testament view that accepting Jesus as one’s savior (and fall guy) was sufficient in its own right. The following taken from the website below is a summary of biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s view on this matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cnld1v/is_there_any_reason_why_luke_does_not_include_the/

“The predominant view of the NT is that Jesus’s death is that it is a substitionary sacrifice for the sins of humans. That is, Jesus takes the punishment meant for us and if we accept him as savior we are saved from eternal punishment. This is the view of Mark (Mark 10:45), Matthew (Matt 26:26-8), John (not explicit but Lamb of God imagery is plentiful), Paul (Romans 3:25) and most of the Universal Epistles (1 Peter 2:24). However, in Luke/Acts not only does the author not affirm this, he actively removes the language from Mark (and Matthew/Q) that says Jesus gave his life as an atonement for sins.

There is good evidence, therefore, that there was disagreement among early Christians about why Jesus has to die. For Paul and his followers (Mark, the Universal epistles) it was a death for atonement for humans sins. For some people like the author of Luke/Acts, Jesus died as a prophet who was rejected by the people (like the prophets of old) and his death was supposed to drive people to repentance and this repentance is how they obtained salvation. The author of Luke/Acts explains this more fully in the Book of Acts where even after Jesus’s death Peter explains (Acts 3:18-20) that Jesus death was a fulfillment of scripture and that through his death you would REPENT of sins and be forgiven- not that Jesus’s death was itself an atonement of sins. Also see Acts 5:30-32”

Luke’s counter-view of salvation is endorsed in the Book of James (2:14-17):

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Thus, the prevailing theory of atonement, that Jesus died for our sins, and that a mere acceptance of his sacrifice is sufficient for salvation, is not a consistent view of the New Testament. Given this reality, it is incumbent on Christians to explain why a matter so important, so central, to the mission of Jesus was left in a state of confusion.

(4803) Futility of knowing what Jesus taught

Christian pastors quote the gospel sayings of Jesus as if stenographers were present with Jesus or they had access to authentic audio-videos of him. Contrary to this artificial certainty, as the following essay points out, we have no idea for sure of anything that Jesus (assuming he was real person) said:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/05/the-desperate-desire-to-know-what-jesus.html#more

Most of the devout would have no clue what I’m talking about, i.e., that we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually taught. Their holy gospels, inspired by a god, are chock full of the words of Jesus. So can’t they just pick up their Bible and read the wisdom of Jesus? But New Testament scholars—many of whom are devout believers—know that the gospels present major problems for historians. Not the least of which is identifying/verifying what Jesus actually taught.

The gospels describe a preaching Jesus who attracted large crowds, but the gospels were apparently written decades after Jesus died, by authors who wanted to promote the new break-away sect. There is no mention whatever of Jesus in documents that are contemporaneous with his supposed ministry. According to Mark, by the way, it could have lasted no more than a few weeks. In John’s gospel it lasted three years. Scholars have been struck for a long time by how much the gospel authors didn’t agree.

But even if we acknowledge that Jesus had a huge following, how can we verify what he taught? Here are some of the problems: given the illiteracy rate of the general population (by some estimates, 95 percent), who among his listeners would have been able to write down what he taught? Who among them carried around pens and paper (i.e., the ancient equivalents)? We can be sure that Jesus was not followed by stenographers, nor did he use a microphone. So it’s a big question: When were his words written down for the first time?

Maybe his closest followers wrote down his words? But were his disciples illiterate as well? Then there’s this issue: Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek. How good were the authors at making the translations? The folks today who cherish their Bibles are also reading translations created by theologians who, far too often, want to “clean up” the language in the ancient texts.

Devout scholars have put considerable emphasis on the existence of “reliable oral tradition”—that is, the words/teachings of Jesus were handed down by word of month for decades before being written, at last, in the gospels. But how can we be sure that a story repeated many times over the years hadn’t been drastically changed/distorted? How could it possibly be determined that the oral tradition had remained “reliable”? As far as we know there was no “control committee” that monitored oral traditions as the stories spread far and wide.

And it is a puzzle indeed that the letters of the apostle Paul have almost no information whatever about the life, ministry, and miracles of Jesus. Was Paul simply unaware of the oral tradition that supposedly existed? Or perhaps he just didn’t trust it. In fact, Paul bragged that his knowledge of Jesus did not come from those who had known Jesus: “For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12) Believers cherish Paul’s visions of the heavenly Jesus, but the rest of us have no reason to take his hallucinations seriously.

What other devices have devout scholars come up with to argue that authentic words of Jesus have been preserved somewhere? New Testament academicians, aware that so many texts in Matthew and Luke are similar, became convinced a long time ago that both authors had access to an earlier document—now lost—made up largely of Jesus-script. This must have been their source, so the lost document was nicknamed Q, from the German word for source, quelle.

This idea has prevailed, with amazing staying-power, because it helps rescue the gospels from their desperate lack of historical foundation. This source supposedly was an early-stage preservation of the authentic Jesus teachings. But unless this document can be found, this is speculation, wishful thinking. Did this Q document identify its sources—but the gospel writers just failed to mention this vital information? And if Q suddenly popped into view—was actually located somewhere—how could its Jesus-script be authenticated, verified? This cannot be done with the gospels, and Q would no doubt present the same difficulties.

Mark Goodacre, in his book, The Case Against Q, demonstrates in the first chapter that the Q idea has been promoted so vigorously that it’s hard to grasp that it is speculation.

“…for most newcomers to the discipline, the interested outsider as well as the new student, Q will give the impression of being a concrete entity with recognizable parameters, a Gospel that has been ‘discovered,’ a once-lost text that has been found. The problematic element in this is that the newcomer is often refused access to the all-important fact that Q remains a hypothesis… its acceptance by so many, takes place in the context of rhetoric that discourages one from thinking about the question of its existence…instead, with its hypothetical nature hidden from view, students are not given the opportunity to ask the vital question of whether or not Q is a necessary hypothesis…” (p. 9, The Case Against Q)

We can be thankful that secular scholars—lacking Christian biases and agendas—have joined the analysis of the gospels. The obsession with Q has taken a hit, as Richard Carrier has stated candidly:

“It is a hypothetical document, whose contents, redactional history and even nature (whether written or oral) are endlessly debated in the scholarship. There are serious methodological flaws in the defenses made of the existence and contents of Q, and it looks far more likely to me that what we call ‘Q’ was nothing more than additions made to Mark by Matthew, which were then redacted into Luke. I see no merit in assuming otherwise without very good evidence, and the evidence presented even by staunch advocates of Q cannot honestly be described as even ‘good’. Whereas the evidence for Luke using Matthew is very good.”  (pp. 269-270, Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).

In his 5th and 6th chapters, Goodacre makes a detailed case for Luke reworking Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. Luke breaks it up, reduces its size, and even relocates it to a plain! Matthew seems to have added the long sermon to his Jesus story because there is so little ethical teaching in Mark, whose focus was the approaching kingdom of his god. But it seems Luke didn’t care for the Matthew’s long Sermon on the Mount so early in the gospel—and that had to be fixed. Luke also wasn’t happy with Matthew’s wording of the first Beatitude, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” and changed it to “Blessed are the poor.”

But, here’s the toughest question of all: Does the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain) derive from Jesus? Carrier presents his case against it:

The Sermon is “…a well-crafted literary work that cannot have come from some illiterate Galilean. In fact, we know it originated in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, because it relies on the Septuagint text of the Bible for all its features and allusions. It relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9. These are not the words of Jesus. This famous sermon as a whole also has a complex literary structure that can only have come from a writer, not an everyday speaker. And again, it reflects needs and interests that would have arisen after the apostles began preaching the faith and organizing communities and struggling to keep them in the fold. So it’s unlikely to come from Jesus.” (On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 465-466)

The New Testament is at war with itself, or rather, the authors of the various books had conflicting agendas and beliefs. They were no more united than Christians are today; indeed, they set the example for strife and division. Matthew wasn’t satisfied with Mark’s Jesus, thus added the long sermon. He also saw the value of razzle-dazzle: he added the virgin birth, a feature borrowed from other ancient cults (writing decades later, how could he possibly have known that Jesus’ mother was a virgin?). He added the angel descending from heaven to push the stone away from the tomb on Easter morning. Luke, not satisfied with Matthew’s anemic version of the virgin birth, added two huge chapters (80 and 52 verses) at the start of his gospel, linking the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, giving speaking roles to angels. Luke also tells the tale—found nowhere else—of Jesus appearing, post-resurrection, to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Here he borrowed elements from ghost folklore (see Robert Conner’s book, Apparitions of Jesus: The Resurrection as Ghost Story).

Most unnerving, most jarring of all, is John’s gospel with its drastically different portrayal of Jesus, including huge Jesus monologues that are missing from the other gospels (see my article published here, A Big Chunk of Cult Posturing in John’s Gospel). John deleted the virgin birth, the baptism of Jesus, and the Eucharist from the Last Supper—and in the bargain, gave Jesus a super-inflated ego. If the four gospel authors had been put in the same room, with orders to work out their differences, there would have been fist-fights.

It’s been the business of the church to shield the faithful from all this confusion. Thus it promotes its cherished Jesus with ritual, ceremony, exquisite music, art and architecture—so many spectacular cathedrals in the world! How can Jesus be anything other than wonderful!

Churchgoers are not commonly encouraged to explore the world of New Testament academia: for many generations now, devout scholars have written thousands of books, doctoral dissertations, and articles in journals, trying to deal with all the headaches presented by their scriptures, trying to smooth out the contradictions and flaws, especially trying to overcome and divert attention from so much superstition and bad theology. The clergy can breathe sighs of relief because few of the folks in the pews show any interest at all in what goes on in the ivory towers.

A far greater danger however, is presented by the Bible that everyone owns. Here again, however, the clergy can breathe sighs of relief because so few of the laity bother to read the gospels carefully and critically. If they did so, they too would desperately desire to know what Jesus actually taught. For the very simple reason that there is so much bad, mediocre, alarming Jesus-script in the gospels, as imagined by the men who created these stories. There is such a jarring disconnect between the Jesus promoted by the church and the Jesus depicted in the gospels. Modern Christians might suddenly sympathize with the family of Jesus, who “…went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’”  (Mark 3:21)

It should be obvious to anyone possessing a functional mind that if God was invested in dividing dead humans into two groups- one heaven-bound and the other hell-bound, that he would have left humanity with a book possessing impeccable credentials, such that we would know FOR SURE what Jesus said. On the other hand, if this was just a disorganized project of many human minds, we would expect it to look exactly the way it is.

(4804) John Henry vs. Jesus

There exists a tale of American John Henry who allegedly personally defeated a new steam drill in a head-to-head competition before perishing due to exhaustion. The following compares the potential historicity of this event against the resurrection of Jesus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1co364d/if_we_believe_jesus_was_resurrected_we_have_to/

If we believe Jesus was resurrected, we have to believe John Henry went head to head against a steam drill and won.

I assume everyone on this subreddit is familiar with the story of Jesus. Perhaps if you are not American, you aren’t familiar with the story of John Henry, so I will quickly summarize it.

John Henry is a folk legend about an ex-slave who worked as a steel driver. The story goes that he went head to head against a new steam powered rock drill, won, but shortly after succumbed to exhaustion and died.

Now, the story of John Henry is widely regarded as a folk legend, and essentially nobody believes it really happened. After all, the claim is quite extraordinary (although less extraordinary than a resurrection.)

But, curiously, we have an almost identical level of historical attestation for the story of John Henry as we do for Jesus’ resurrection!

We have the 4 Gospels to tell us about Jesus. These writings, though unsigned, purportedly come from firsthand witnesses or those who spoke to witnesses. They all agree (more or less) on the general story of the resurrection. They say that 500 people saw Christ risen from the dead.

We have 3 letters to tell us about John Henry. These letters are signed: by C. C. Spencer, F. P. Barker, and Glendora Cannon Cummings. All 3 of these letters agree that the race took place in Alabama. All 3 agree that the race took place in the 1880s. All 3 agree on the general narrative of the race. All 3 of these letters are written by people who either claim to have seen the race themselves, or spoke with eyewitnesses. They say that 300 or 400 people saw the race!

It looks like we have almost the same level of evidence for both events.

But wait! There is one difference. The writers of the Gospels, according to tradition, were martyred. They refused to denounce Christ and were killed for it. This lends more credibility to their accounts – after all, who would die for what they know to be a lie?

But we can’t cast doubt on the “Gospel of John Henry” over this difference. Nobody wanted to kill the writers based on this belief, so they never had the chance to put their lives on the line for it. Additionally, the nature of the claim itself is such that nobody would be willing to die for it, even if it were true.

Consider: You saw Jesus rise from the dead. If under threat of death you were told to renounce Christ, you would be happy to refuse, because you know that eternal life in Heaven is waiting for you.

But if you saw John Henry beat the steam drill, and under threat of death you were told to renounce the veracity of this story… Who wouldn’t? You have nothing to gain by telling the truth, there is no promise of Heaven, and there is no harm in lying.

So, because it would be unfair, we cannot use this difference to cast doubt on the “Gospel of John Henry.”

It appears to me that both of these historical events have a nearly identical quantity and quality of testimony. It follows that if you are consistent in the way you weigh evidence, you must believe the story of John Henry. But almost nobody does! How can this contradiction be reconciled?

The main reason why the Jesus story garners more popularity is that it grants the hope of an eternal life, while believing in John Henry delivers no palpable reward. Human psychology works that way. We believe in things that we want to be true, while objectively evaluating whatever confers little significance to our lives.

(4805) If God is real, it would be terrifying

Most people hope that God is real because it gives them a chance of surviving this life and moving on to something even better. But there is a downside to the existence of an omnipotent god, as claimed by Christianity and other faiths. It could result in terrifying consequences. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1cnjio3/finding_out_god_is_real_would_be_terrifying/

Finding out God is real would be terrifying

To put this is perspective, consider the following gospel passage:

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This implies that some Christians, confident of their post-life ticket to heaven, will instead be sent to hell. And to whom can they appeal this verdict? NO ONE. There is a downside to having an all-powerful god with no checks or balances. Christians SHOULD fear this god, and atheists should be very happy that IT DOES NOT EXIST.

(4806) To believe or not believe

It is instructive to analyze the reasons why someone believes in God versus reasons to disbelieve. In this process, it becomes obvious that one side possesses the more rational approach. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1cq8838/belief_in_god_cannot_possibly_be_rational/

To believe the possibility of gods, one needs to believe: 1: Humans are so exceptionally intelligent that we were able to deduce the necessity of god, and theorize the nature of god. 2: Humans possess some yet-to-be-discovered extra sensorial function or direct connection to god that allows them to sense god. Or 3: Man was given, or discovered, some proof of god.

To reject the possibility of gods, one needs to believe: That in the 100 or so years that humans have been exploring the questions of existence with a reasonable amount of scientific rigor, we haven’t discovered the answers to every question yet. But as the known causes for natural phenomena have literally always been natural, there’s no reason to accept god as a possibility, simply because the most complex of these questions have yet to be answered.

One of these beliefs seems much more rational than the other.

Most theists will point to #3 above as their basis for belief- that people thousands of years ago were given proof of God’s existence, such that they wrote it down in scripture. Most atheists will point to the second paragraph above, illuminating the fact that there exists no contemporary evidence, particularly scientific or observational, of anything that suggests the presence of a supernatural force.

If we were to weigh these two points of view, it makes sense to place more emphasis on what can be observed today versus what was believed by people yesterday. For example, we have many people in the past who claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland. But, in recent years, with the ubiquitous ability of anyone to take videos at a moment’s notice, we don’t see any evidence of this beast. So what do we conclude?: (1) the people who claimed to see the monster were telling the truth, but the monster has since died and therefore is no longer seen, (2) the monster is still alive but no longer makes any appearances that can be observed, or (3) the people were lying or deceived, none of their stories carry any weight of legitimacy, and thus the monster never really existed.

To bring this analogy around to God, we have (1) God existed, at one time interacted with humans, but has since died, and therefore we have no contemporary evidence of his existence, (2) God is still alive but has since ‘left the scene’ and no longer interacts with humans, or (3) the people who believed in God and who wrote the scriptures were deceived, lying, or simply making up what they observed as evidence for this god.

So the question of whether God exists closely parallels whether the Loch Ness Monster exists or previously existed. Now, most Christians will reject the three postulates above and claim that (4) God exists and did miraculous things before and continues to do miraculous things today. It is hard to debate people who insist on this, which runs against considerable counter-evidence. There is no objective evidence to support this claim.

So, for unindoctrinated people, only the three postulates above are possible. And the probability of God is closely aligned to the probability of the Loch Ness monster existing or having existed in the past. And because a dying god or one that once interacted so dramatically but has since just disappeared is so unlikely, we must settle on #3 as being the most likely truth- God has never existed and neither has the Loch Ness Monster.

(4807) Heaven’s Gate analogy

The apologetic attack that nobody would die for a lie, thus crediting the alleged disciples’ martyrdom as evidence for Christianity authenticity, is thwarted by the suicide deaths of the Heaven’s Gate cult in 1997. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1cabkpq/heavens_gate_shows_how_the_disciples_of_jesus/

Oftentimes Christians will argue that their religion is true since the apostles (in specific, Paul, Peter, James bro. of Jesus, and James son of of Zebedee) claimed to be faithful and were executed for their faith (this is controversial, but for the sake of the argument, I’ll accept that they were executed for their faith). This shows that they truly saw and witnessed the risen Jesus, and were willing to die for this faith.

The Heaven’s Gate incident, however, puts this argument into question. In the Heaven’s Gate cult, people followed 2 charismatic leaders, and even seeing one of the charismatic leaders as Jesus on earth (his second coming). The people who joined trusted the leaders so much, to the point where they gave away all of their wealth (like the apostles did), and the male members even castrated themselves. They were willing to give up tons for their beliefs, claiming that the leaders of Heaven’s Gate were being truthful in what they were saying.

Heaven’s Gate also claimed that UFOs would pick up these members, and bring them into eternal life. However, after one of the leaders died (like what happened to Jesus), the members of the cult had to rethink the whole religion/cult. They came to the conclusion that death is another way of bringing themselves into eternal life, changing the original message of the cult into something vastly different. Now, the belief was that when they would die, these people would be accepted onto a UFO and transferred into the next life. Ultimately, the remaining leader in the cult ordered the members to kill themselves, and that is exactly what happened (with only 2 survivors who didn’t do so). It must also be mentioned how the people who joined this cult were very smart and educated. Finally, after the Heaven’s Gate incident, people not even related to the cult movement started committing suicide in droves, putting faith in the movement that they didn’t even witness.

This ties into the whole discussion with Jesus. These cult members didn’t even witness actual miracles, from what we know, but were willing to give up their life for their beliefs. Furthermore, they lived in an age of technology, and were quite educated, but still fell for such a scam. Who is to say that the same didn’t happen to the disciples? That they believed in a false leader and died for a false belief? The people in the time of Jesus would’ve been even more gullible and superstitious, making it even more likely that they would fall for such a scam (such as what happened in Heaven’s Gate).

This also leads to the point that we have no idea what the disciple members actually saw or witnessed, and could’ve been as crazy/delusional as the Heaven’s Gate members. If you do believe in Christianity, it can only be done so on a matter of faith.

Human psychology works in mysterious ways, and people can become convinced of things based on insufficient evidence. This fact frustrates the idea that the disciples would not die for a lie. Even if we credit the very poorly evidenced claim that Jesus’ followers were willing to die rather than recant their belief in Jesus, it carries very little evidential weight in light of what happened with Heaven’s Gate.

(4808) Original sin unknown to patriarchs

Christianity presents us with the doctrine of original sin, that the sin of one man and one woman stains the soul of every human that came along later, and that this sin (along with others, presumably) must be expunged by the person believing in and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This magical belief is all that is needed to secure a condo in heaven, absent any need to do anything else.

One must wonder why so much time elapsed from that original sin until Jesus came upon the scene to provide the solution to the problem- we are talking at least 4,000 years. This is mysterious, especially considering that during that interim period Jesus was preceded by a host of recognized prophets, messengers, saints, and other associated holy men, none of whom referred to the inherent guilt of man, or the idea that babies were somehow tainted right out of the womb. If God was on board with the doctrine of original sin, why didn’t he tell Moses, Abraham, or Elijah? Why did he keep these prophets in the dark?

The obvious reason for this conundrum is that the doctrine of original sin was produced ex post facto by First Century theologians who creatively reinterpreted events documented in the Book of Genesis. But any unindoctrinated person can see what is clearly right before their eyes- if Moses, Abraham, and Elijah had been born with the stain of original sin, God would have informed them of the same, and we would see it as a prominent theme of the Old Testament- and the fix would have come around much sooner than the time of Jesus.

(4809) Everlasting covenant

Although Christians claim that God made a New Covenant that expanded his godship to cover the entire world, there is enough scriptural evidence in the Old Testament to make the case that God never intended to modify his original covenant with the Jews. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1croc5k/confidence_in_islam_or_christianity_as_successors/

It is a foundation of the Israelite faith, that its covenant with God is eternal and unchanging. God’s love for Israel will never be removed nor will His eternal covenant be altered, let alone rendered obsolete, fulfilled, or superseded by another covenant or another religion.

God’s covenant with Noah is eternal: “Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you…” (Gen. 9)

God’s covenant with Abraham is eternal: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you….My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant….Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” (Gen. 17)

God’s covenant with David is eternal: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’” (II Samuel 7)

Reaffirmed in Psalms: “He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant” (Ps. 105)

Repeated in Chronicles: “He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham, the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree, to Israel as an everlasting covenant” (II Chronicles 16)

Neither are God’s commandments (the “Law”) too hard to bear or to observe: “Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.” (Deut. 30)

In cases of disobedience or falling short of the mark, there will be chastisement (temporary) but not a removal of God’s love or a change in the covenant: “I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him…” (II Sam. 7:14)

And the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of a renewal of the covenant, not a “new” covenant: “It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant that they broke…But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days—declares GOD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts.” (Jer. 31)

Thus, OP is right: there was no expectation among the Jews that their religion or their covenant with God would ever be superseded; in fact Scripture (the OT) taught them exactly the opposite — the covenant, based on love, could not be broken, ever. It was eternal and unchanging (still is).

The way Christians deal with these verses is rather unsatisfactory. They say two things that are contradictory: First they claim the “fullness” of God’s plan was not revealed to the Israelites — they weren’t aware that the new dispensation would be coming until it arrived, thus Abraham, Moses, David, Ezekiel, Amos, etc. were all in the dark; and second, where they can interpret OT verses as forecasting the new covenant, then they claim the opposite — that these prophets did know a new covenant was coming and prophesied about it.

The Bible contains a howling contradiction when it strongly expresses the theme of an everlasting covenant with the Jewish people while later proclaiming this covenant to be null and void in light of the ‘new’ covenant. Something that is everlasting does not get canceled or amended. Because Jesus was a practicing Jew, there is no way for Christianity to sidestep the implications of the everlasting covenant- that is, they can’t change it be a temporary covenant, or to explain why God would not have alerted his patriarchs to the coming of a new covenant.

(4810) Two brick walls

Any attempt to legitimize the truth of Christianity runs into two major problems- two impenetrable walls- lack of evidence of God’s existence and the existence of senseless, purposeless intense suffering. Until something dramatic happens, these two barriers are sufficient in their own right to dismiss Christianity out of hand. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/05/the-cherished-so-called-evidence-for.html#more

But you do have to think about what is claimed as evidence for god(s). Does the evidence hold up to careful, critical analysis? What is the evidence usually cited? At the end of the 1942 film, Casablanca, Captain Louis Renault utters the famous line, “Round up all the usual suspects.” So let’s review the usual evidence-for-god(s) suspects, starting with…

Scripture/Revelation

The problem is that devout theologians/clergy have never been able to agree on which scriptures, which portions of scriptures, actually qualify as divinely inspired word-of-a-god. Once the New Testament had become the Christian scripture, the Old Testament was downgraded, especially since it includes so much god-generated brutality. It’s still in the Christian Bible, but much of it can be dismissed with “Oh, that’s in the Old Testament…” And it’s no surprise that Jewish theologians don’t give divine ranking to the New Testament. Nor are Christians about to add the Qur’an to their Bible, though it is considered the supremely divine word of Allah. You mean the Muslim theologians have it all wrong? And it would be hard to find any Jewish, Christian, or Muslim theologians who doesn’t think The Book of Mormon is a joke. It’ll never happen that these thousands of devout theologians from different brands will come to an agreement.

So, whom are we to trust with their claims of divinely inspired scripture?

It’s also a scandalous problem just within the deeply divided Christian faith, now splintered into so many conflicting, bickering brands. This derives in large part from disagreements about the Bible, based on stunning Bible contradictions and flaws—and so much bad theology in its pages. It’s awfully hard to maintain that a divine voice can be readily discerned from Bible teachings. John 3:16 (“God so loved the world”) is adored as evidence that God is Love, but the severity in John 3:18 and John 3:36 is alarming:

“Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath.”

So which is it: God is Love, or God is Condemnation and Wrath? Clever theologians—well, they think they’re clever—have written endlessly to explain how this makes sense, how their god can have such mood swings.

Visions

Here we can have even less confidence. When Pope Pius XII was a child, his mother had her children worship at a Mary shrine in their home. Statues of Mary are a prominent part of Catholic imagery, so we can’t be surprised that imaginations can run wild. Hence visions of Mary, worldwide, are so common, and they might even be classified as hallucinations. Protestants usually are baffled by such boasts about this goddess, Queen of Heaven. In fact, visions used to prove other gods—or versions of gods—are discounted/ridiculed by competing religions.

Miracles

Bible miracles stories draw so heavily on miracle folklore of the ancient world, so it’s risky to assume that miracles are evidence for any given god. It’s just the thing to say: “Our god is real—just look at the miracles he/she has done!” It’s especially risky for Christians to use miracles as evidence for their god, for example, Jesus feeding thousands of people with a few scraps of bread and fish. If their god has this spectacular power, why is there any hunger in the world today? Jesus healed a blind man by smearing mud—made from his own spit—on the guy’s eyes. If you’re inclined to believe such blatant superstition, then you have to explain why the powerful Christian god doesn’t heal all blind people now—but skipping the mud treatment.

“I know Jesus in my heart”

This is perhaps the last resort: my intense feeling that Jesus and I are in close touch. He comforts me and gives me confidence, or even “I belong to Jesus.” This “truth” crashes and burns because people have vastly different ideas about Jesus. Surely the apostle Paul had Jesus right because of his intimate visions of the heavenly Jesus, and Paul was blunt: “…those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Galatians 5:24) How many churchgoers would agree with that? For some believers, Jesus is the epitome of love and kindness, for others he is the guarantor of punishment and wrath for sinners. This is the case because there is so much confusion in the gospels about who Jesus was and what he taught.

The bottom line: what you’re feeling in your heart is evidence for what you’re feeling, which is not evidence at all for what god(s) may be like.

The First Brick Wall that the so-called evidences for god(s) smack into is this: reliable, verifiable, objective data for god(s) have never been found. None of the claimed sources of god-knowledge just mentioned meet this standard—despite the claims of theologians and clergy. Hint: Just try to find theologians and clergy, across the broad spectrum of theism, who agree about what god(s) are like and how they want to be worshipped. They cannot agree because they’re not using reliable, verifiable, objective data.

The Second Brick Wall is horrendous suffering, which cannot be reconciled with the claim that a powerful, loving, competent god has this planet under his management and supervision. Serious thinkers a long time ago began to suspect that things didn’t add up. Mark Molesky, in his book, This Gulf of Fire: The Great Lisbon Earthquake or Apocalypse in the Age of Science and Reason, makes this observation:

“…Europeans were suddenly confronted with a phenomenon of nature that could, without warning, throw one back into the chaos of blind and destructive forces. Once again in its history, the West found its conceptions of God, Nature, and Providence under a barrage of scrutiny. And many, as a result, began to ask the all-important yet profoundly disturbing question of theodicy: How could a Creator, both beneficent and all-powerful, have permitted such a catastrophe?” (p. 19, This Gulf of Fire)

The earthquake, which struck on 1 November 1755, killed perhaps 30,000-40,000 people in Lisbon, many of whom were crushed to death when churches collapsed; up to 10,000 died in Morocco.

It is no wonder that Christians place so much emphasis on faith, because if you have no evidence, then faith is all you have. But buyer beware- Faith is the selling point of a fraudulent product.

(4811) Divine hiddenness invalidates Christianity

Christian apologists have long advanced the idea that God deliberately withholds evidence of his existence as a test of humanity’s faith in him. In other words, he doesn’t want to make it too easy. This theory is deconstructed by the following essay:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1cncxhm/divine_hiddenness_invalidates_christianity/

The argument against the Christian God from divine hiddenness is as follows:

P1: If an all-powerful, all-loving god, who wants everyone to believe in him exists, then non-resistant non-believers (people with nothing against Christianity who simply don’t find the evidence they’ve been presented with convincing. aka, me) do not exist.

P2: non-resistant non-believers do exist.

C: an all-powerful, all-loving god, who wants everyone to believe in him does not exist.

I intend to build on this foundation with my own argument in order to prove that Christianity is unequivocally Untrue. Thank you in advance for your time.

My argument is simple:

P1: everybody has at least one experience that would cause them to believe in the truth of Christianity. For the sake of argument let’s call this experience Q. For some this may be a convincing argument or a heart-wrenching testimony or a personal experience, but regardless everyone has something that would convince them Jesus Christ is the lord and savior of humanity. If you don’t believe everyone has some Q then you must believe that there are people born incapable of becoming Christian, and therefore damned to hell.

P2: People cannot choose what they believe.

To prove this, I would ask you to participate in a little social experiment: Believe that twilight sparkle is the President of the United States. You can’t because that’s not how belief works. You could hear testimony from people who have claimed to have met her or see some vague evidence that she may or may not have been inaugurated but you know damn well that twilight sparkle isn’t the President of the United States. You cannot choose the believe in Jesus any more than you can choose to believe in Allah or Buddha or President Sparkle. You can only believe after being convinced.

For a less cartoonish example, consider doubting Thomas. A biblical example of a non-resistant non-believer. Despite hearing testimony from people he would have no reason to doubt, he simply couldn’t believe Jesus had risen until he saw the holes in his hands for himself.

P3: Romans 1:18-23, as I understand it, claims that god has revealed himself to EVERYONE and that the truth of his existence is self-evident. Although I wait with baited breath for someone to tell me I’m taking this passage out of context or something.

P4: An all-knowing god would know exactly what would need to happen to each person that has ever lived to make them believe in Him.

Deduction 1: If non-resistant non-believers exist, and god is all-knowing and has revealed himself to everyone, then he has purposely revealed himself in an unconvincing manner, at least to non-resistant non-believers.

Conclusion: The argument against the Christian God from Divine Hiddenness holds up, and the Christian God does not exist.

The only way around this argument is to concede that God plays unfairly with the outcome of human salvation, playing favorites, tilting the playing field, and acting with intentional malice toward a large segment of the world’s inhabitants. Presenting it as a god both fair and loving is not an option.

(4812) Non-resistant non-believers

Many Christians assume that non-believers have made a choice not to believe, even though they have received enough evidence to believe. This is untrue in virtually every case- the vast majority of non-believers do not believe, not because they are resisting belief but because there isn’t enough evidence available to cause them to believe. The existence of these people presents a problem for Christianity. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1cv08e2/non_resistant_non_believers_pose_a_problem_for/

Non resistant non believers pose a problem for the Gospel

Christianity’s salvation scheme works only if everyone is given an equal chance to believe, meaning that different amounts of evidence would need to be supplied according to the credibility limits of each person’s brain. As is, non-resistant, non-believers are being unfairly punished with an eternity in hell at no fault of their own.

(4813) Dark side of religion

Religion has been dressed up to entice people to think they are gaining advantages in this life, plus also given a chance to obtain an afterlife. But it is a fool’s errand. The underlying truth of religion is that it is a method to shame people, capture their money, and control their behavior. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1cvwtyf/the_first_task_of_organized_religion_is_to_make/

Religion is often viewed as a source of comfort, guidance, and hope. It provides people with a sense of community, moral guidelines, and a connection to something greater than themselves. However, it can also have a dark side. Many religious institutions rely on fear, guilt, and shame to control their followers. They may teach that humans are inherently sinful, that they must obey strict rules and regulations, or that they will face eternal damnation if they do not adhere to the teachings of the church.

These messages can be incredibly damaging to an individual’s self-esteem and self-worth. When we are constantly told that we are not good enough, that we are flawed, and that we must rely on an external authority to guide us, we can start to lose faith in ourselves. We may begin to doubt our own abilities, our own judgment, and our own worthiness.

Generally speaking, it’s impossible to sell salvation unless you can convince your victim that they’re already damned. That’s the con that Christianity has foisted on humanity. It is a debasing, sycophantic, dis-empowering brain funk trap that has imprisoned the minds of billions of people. Only those who have broken free can fully comprehend the depth of this duplicity.

(4814) Destroy rather than worship

The following essay explains why we should seek to destroy the Christian god rather than worship it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1cwv4pb/if_you_havent_seen_this_utheinfidelephant_explains/

The oldest known single-celled fossils on Earth are 3.5 billion years old. Mammals first appeared about 200 million years ago. The last common ancestor for all modern apes (including humans) existed about 13 million years ago with anatomically modern man emerging within the last 300,000 years.

Another 298,000 years would pass before a small, local blood-cult would co-opt the culturally predominant deity of the region, itself an aggregate of the older patron gods that came before. 350 years later, an imperial government would declare that all people within a specific geopolitical territory must believe in the same god or be exiled – at best. And now, after 1,500 years of crusades, conquests and the countless executions of “heretics,” a billion people wake up early every Sunday morning to prepare, with giddy anticipation, for an ever-imminent, planet destroying apocalypse that they are helping to create – but hoping to avoid.

At what point in our evolution and by what mutation, mechanism or environmental pressure did we develop an immaterial and eternal “soul,” presumably excluded from all other living organisms that have ever existed?

Was it when now-extinct Homo erectus began cooking with fire 1,000,000 years ago or hunting with spears 500,000 years ago? Is it when now-extinct Neanderthal began making jewelry or burying their dead 100,000 years ago? Is it when we began expressing ourselves with art 60,000 years ago or music 40,000 years ago? Or maybe it was when we started making pottery 18,000 years ago, or when we began planting grain or building temples to long-forgotten pagan gods 10,000 years ago.

Some might even suggest that we finally started to emerge from the stone age when written language was introduced just 5,600 years ago. While others would maintain that identifying a “rational” human being in our era may be the hardest thing of all, especially when we consider the comment sections of many popular websites.

Or perhaps that unique “spark” of human consciousness that has us believing we are special enough to outlast the physical universe may, in part, be due to a mutation of our mandible that would have weakened our jaw (compared to that of other primates) but increased the size of our cranium, allowing for a larger prefrontal cortex.

Our weakened bite encouraged us to cook our meat making it easier to digest, thus providing the energy required for powering bigger brains and triggering a feed-back loop from which human consciousness, as if on a dimmer-switch, emerged over time – each experience building from the last.

This culminated relatively recently with the ability to attach abstract symbols to ideas with enough permanence and detail (language) to effectively be transferred to, and improved upon, by subsequent generations.

After all this, it is proclaimed that all humanity is born in disgrace and deserving of eternal torture by way of an ancient curse. But believing in the significance of a vicarious blood sacrifice and conceding our lives to “mysterious ways” guarantees pain-free, conspicuously opulent immortality.

Personally, I would rather not be spoken to that way.

If a crypto-zoological creature – seemingly confabulated from a persistent mythology that is enforced through child indoctrination – actually exists, and it’s of the sort that promises eternal torture of its own design for those of us not easily taken in by wildly improbable extraordinary claims, perhaps for the good of humanity, instead of worshiping it, we should be seeking to destroy it.

The Christian god does not exist. But in the 1/1 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion chance that it does, it would behoove us to track it down and KILL IT.

(4815) Luke-Acts dated in 2^nd Century

Christian apologists like to make the claim that the author of Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (assumed by reasonable evidence to have been written by the same person) was a personal physician of Paul who accompanied him on his missionary journeys. Recent scholarship has poured water on this claim, making it much more likely that these books were written well after anyone accompanying Paul would have been dead. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1cxuyh0/the_authorship_and_forgeries_in_the_canon_bible/

For Luke-Acts dating late, and thus being a forgery, we have:

1. 1. An increasing number of scholars see canonical Luke as a redaction of a pre-canonical Luke that was used by Marcion, his form of which he called the Evangelion. Marcion’s Evangelion has numerous signs of being the original, and notably wasn’t connected to Acts in any way. There’s a great comment here that gives a summary of the arguments, and I have an older comment here discussing some of Jason BeDuhn’s other arguments.
   2. It should be noted that Luke uses Mark, and Mark was very likely written after 70 CE, as I discuss in a comment here. As a brief TLDR, Christopher Zeichmann has shown that the temple tax scene in Mark would be an anachronism before about 71 CE, and the way Mark interacts with Pharisees and the synagogues is highly indicative of the culture in Judaea and Galilee after the destruction of the temple. This puts a hard cap on Luke’s earliest date around 71 CE.
   3. Luke-Acts knows and uses Josephus’ Antiquities written around 95 CE, which would move up the earliest possible date it was written to already decades after Paul’s death, and near the end of when we could expect a companion of his to still be alive and writing.
   4. In a recent article by Mark Bilby, he makes convincing arguments for Luke-Acts potentially knowing the epistles of Pliny to Trajan, written around 111-113 CE.
   5. Going back to point (1) for a second, if Acts was not known to Marcion, and the canonical edition of Luke-Acts was indeed written in response to Marcion, as it’s been noted to have a distinctly anti-Marcionite character, this would set the earliest possible date instead further to 130-140 CE.
   6. The reception of Luke can only firmly establish a latest possible date for the gospel around 150 CE, whereas Acts has an even later reception that can hardly establish any certain use of it by any known writer before Irenaeus circa 180 CE. Even Justin Martyr, who died around 165 CE and who we have more extensive writings of, shows no sure knowledge of Acts.

All together, this evidence would be strongly suggestive of a date at least between 115-165 CE or so for our canonical Luke-Acts, even assuming we don’t accept their anti-Marcionite nature. This would be far too late for a traveling companion of Paul to have likely written it, and doesn’t even take into account the apologetic nature of Acts in trying to unify Paul and Peter, the differences between Paul’s epistles and Acts, and the literary character of Acts that all make better sense under the forgery hypothesis than the traditional authorship.

There is also nearly no reason to suggest Luke-Acts was written by Luke the physician in particular, even if it was written by someone who accompanied Paul on one or two missionary journeys. We don’t hear Luke attested as the author in specific until Irenaeus, with the attribution likely occurring some time between Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (165-180 CE).

All of this needs to be considered against the evidence for authorship by a companion of Paul, which is basically exclusively that the author seems to say he is during the “we” passages of Acts. When we know there were numerous early Christian forgeries circulating around during the second century that make similar claims (consider whether we take seriously the idea that the Gospel of Thomas was really written by Thomas Didymus, or that epistle of Peter to Philip was really written by Peter) there is not really a strong case to be made for traditional authorship. This is where scholarship is generally headed, with many of the historians supporting authorship by a companion of Paul having written before a lot of the best arguments have been made for Acts’ knowledge of Josephus, Pliny, or Marcion in recent years. To illustrate this a bit better, recently, in an episode of Misquoting Jesus, (at 18:35 here) Bart Ehrman said:

“I will say though that a lot of scholars now — I’m not completely on board on this but it seems to be the wave of the future — a lot of scholars now are thinking the book of Acts was not written until the year 120 or so.”

The later dating of Acts would suggest that it was hagiography rather than biography. It would be like someone writing stories about U.S. president Kennedy (1917-1963) today, without the benefit of any reputable sources. In other words, Acts is likely a made-up fantasy used in a failed attempt to ground early Christianity within a reputable historical setting.

(4816) Four levels of god delusion

The following is a likely scenario of how belief in gods evolved over time:

Level 1: We believe that there are supernatural beings that inhabit our world, and these beings sometimes do things as they see fit. We try to live and let live, and not bother them or make them angry.

Level 2: One of these beings is OUR god, who oversees our existence, and helps us when we are in need. Other people have their own gods that do the same for them. We try to live peacefully with these other tribes.

Level 3: Our god is more powerful than any of the other gods, so we are capable of overpowering neighboring tribes if a conflict happens. Our god will overpower their god, if necessary, so we will come out on top.

Level 4: Our god is the ONLY GOD IN EXISTENCE. Other people have no gods. Their gods are fake. We are God’s CHOSEN PEOPLE. We have the right to kill and plunder other tribes if God gives us the authority to do so.

It is easy to see that each level incites more hatred and warfare and less compassion than the previous one. It is also easy to understand that if everyone lacked a belief in gods, we would be living on a more peaceful planet.

(4817) Jesus’ unnecessary torture

Christians believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and that he wants to offer some people a way to survive this life and live another life in a paradise of his creation. Apparently the method he devised to separate those who will enjoy this afterlife from those who won’t was to have his son, who is also him(?), to suffer a really bad weekend, full of pain, bleeding, torture, and temporary death. When he could have done the same thing without any of that.

God could have simply had Jesus enumerate the qualities that God was looking for, such as being compassionate, fair, and loving, saying that everyone will be judged against that standard, and then leaving the planet by flying into the atmosphere and back to heaven (as we know he could do based on the Gospel of Luke) – thereby no need to die on the cross.

Perhaps John 3:16 is deserving of a revision. Perhaps instead of: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” it should be: “For god so loved the world that he sent his one and only son to be beaten, mocked, and killed so that he could do something that in no way requires his one and only son to be beaten, mocked, and killed.”

This ridiculous scheme is clearly the product of unenlightened human minds. There’s no good reason why the core symbol of the Christian faith is a device used to inflict torture and death. No god could be this stupid.

(4818) Keeping God outside our limits of perception

The Bible chronicles how human comprehension of God evolved over time, from a physical humanoid figure to a massless, omnipresent aura. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1cybak8/what_is_your_biggest_argument_for_god_being/

The bible has 66 books, each with at least one notion of god.
There’s the human god who walks (presumably naked) in the garden with Adam, tells lies, and can be deceived. We have the incompetent warlord of Exodus, who promises victory then fails to deliver, and allows his followers to get lost in a tiny desert for 40 years. Or the shy humanoid space alien who delivers commandments on a mountain but only lets you see his back.

So,

(1) None of these seem especially god-like.

(2) Christians in general don’t know any of this, so it’s rather unclear even to them what notion of god they believe in, and thus what they’re challenging us to disprove.

(3) As the bible progresses, god becomes ever harder to define, and thus investigate. This trend continues until the present day, where he’s become so vague and inconsistent, there’s nothing to investigate. This is the result of god being defined, refuted, and redefined for millennia.

If you check out the 27 books of the new testament, you’ll find the same is true of Jesus.

As humans became more aware of the universe, it became imperative to park their god in a more distant lot, so as to not invite an easy refutation of his existence. For example, it would no longer be feasible to describe God as a human-like figure walking about on the surface of the Earth. People would demand to see a video of this happening. But thousands of years ago, this idea was not so refutable, so it made its way into the Bible. Fast forward a thousand years, and you have scripture saying that Jesus flew up into the sky after his resurrection- once again, something that no longer makes sense. So, up against these constraints, the Christian faith has been forced to admit that God does not have a physical form, but is rather an ill-defined force inhabiting another dimension. By continually placing it behind the expanding limits of our perception, they are making sure that no one can positively refute God’s existence.

(4819) Book of lies

The Bible is full of lies that enslaved brains accept unconditionally, to the detriment of human dignity and progress. Here is just a smattering of those lies:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1cu96yb/comment/l4j9afh/

It is a lie that the Universe was “created” in 6 days, 6,000 years ago.

It is a lie that Adam and Eve were the first humans.

It is a lie that a talking snake tricked Eve into eating a forbidden fruit.

It is a lie that women are now subservient to men and have pain in childbirth because of it.

It is a lie that the result of 2 people eating a fruit means that we are now cursed with a “Sin Nature.”

It is a lie that human language was confused during a construction project.

It is a lie that all life on Earth was wiped out by a flood roughly 4,000 years ago

It is a lie that Abraham ever existed.

It is a lie that Moses ever existed.

It is a lie that the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians.

It is a lie that slavery could be justified under any circumstances – regardless of “the time.”

It is a lie that strength came from Samson’s hair.

It is a lie that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a fish.

It is a lie that Elijah called fire down from Heaven.

It is a lie that Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament.

It is a lie that the sun was blotted out for three hours when Jesus died.

It is a lie that Jesus died and then became alive again.

It is a lie that zombies roamed the streets of Jerusalem on the first Easter weekend.

It is lie that Jesus walked through a wall to visit his disciples.

It is a lie that Jesus lifted off the earth and flew behind a cloud.

It is a (confirmed) lie that Jesus will return in the lifetime of those hearing him make that promise.

It is a lie that the first 4 books of the New Testament were written by anyone other than anonymous authors, decades after the events they allegedly describe.

A book inspired by an omnipotent god would contain zero lies. The Bible is not the product of an omnipotent god.

(4820) Bloody knife analogy

Christian apologists often cite the scripture of 1 Corinthians 15:6, stating that 500 witnesses observed the risen Jesus, as representing good evidence for the resurrection. In the following, the fallacy of this claim is exposed by comparing it to an unfound bloody knife used as evidence in a murder trial:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d1x6s7/theres_zero_evidence_for_jesus_resurrection_and/

Jesus’ resurrection is THE most fundamental core teaching of Christianity. It also didn’t happen, or we have no reason to believe it did, because it’s a claim of something supernatural and seemingly impossible with absolutely no evidence; insert Hitchens’ razor.

“500 witnesses” is not evidence because that piece of evidence itself has no evidence. You cannot use a bloody knife with fingerprints as evidence John Doe murdered Jane unless you can actually produce the fucking knife you’re talking about. The only evidence of the 500 witnesses is one account FROM a writer in the Bible. The prosecution going after John Doe will not be allowed to admit a knife they can’t find into evidence, and cannot in its place submit a book that they wrote that describes what this knife’s characteristics were.

Paul’s reference to 500 witnesses would be dead on arrival in any court of justice, just as introducing as evidence a letter stating that someone found a bloody knife somewhere. For Paul’s claim to be taken seriously, he would have needed to provide much more information, including where and when this happened, the nature of the people assembled, names of some of the prominent attendees, and testaments of at least several of the gathering. With that, historians would have been able to verify some of these details, or else dismiss them- given that even according to Paul, some of these witnesses were still alive at the time he wrote the letter. As is, the legend of the 500 witnesses can be confidently and summarily rejected- it didn’t happen.

(4821) Bringing Judaism back to its Mosaic roots

Christians assume that Jesus intended to change Judaism into a new faith, Christianity, with different rules and dogma. This is contradicted by the gospels themselves, not to mention common sense. Jesus was a Jew and any deviation from that faith would have rendered him devoid of any followers. The following was taken from;

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d232on/exchristians_of_this_subreddit_how_do_you_respond/

Bible Jesus didn’t seem to think the OT was old hat. The ‘OT was replaced’ promoters usual cite Matthew 5-17 to support their case:

• • “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

What they ignore is the next 2 verses:

• • 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
  • 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The same point is made in Luke 16:17:

• • It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

and in John 7:19 Jesus admonishes some Pharisees:

• • Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law

The word ‘fulfill’ in Matthew 5:17 is translated from ‘pleroo’ which means ‘carry out’ or ‘execute’, so Jesus is saying he’s come to enforce the old laws of Moses, not replace them, and there are many instances in the NT of him doing just that, for example chasing the money lenders out of the temple, or chiding the Pharisees and Sadducees for not obeying the old law, for example in Matthew 23:1-3:

• • 2 Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else. (my emphasis)

In fact the whole of Matthew 23:1-34 is relevant to this point, especially the last verse:

• • 34 I will send prophets and wise people and experts in the Law of Moses to you.

Not, I suggest the actions of someone who thought the old law no longer applied.

It is true that Paul eliminated some of the laws, such as on circumcision, for example, but he did that on his own say so and clearly for marketing purposes, not theology. Nowhere does he cite Jesus as his authority for this.

Bottom line: the biblical Jesus was an observant Jew bound by and to the old law, not a Christian. There is no evidence that he was trying to forge a new religion, just the opposite, he seems to have wanted to bring Judaism back to its Mosaic roots.

It is nearly certain that Jesus’ disciples never became Christians, even if they believed that Jesus had resurrected- after all, they believed that Elijah did the same. They were born, raised, lived, and died Jewish. It was Paul and others who plucked Jesus’ life out of its historical and ecumenical setting and manufactured a new religion.

(4822) River problems in Genesis

Geography is not a strong suit for the Bible and the person who wrote scripture in Genesis Chapter 2 was unfamiliar with the lay of the land. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d3k0mg/the_geography_in_genesis_is_incorrect/

The Tigris and Euphrates are not branches of a larger river – they originate in eastern Turkey approximately 50 miles apart from each other.

Also, the Pishon River and the land is supposedly flows around has never been identified. The Gihon River has not be identified either and the land of Cush refers to Ethiopia, which obviously cannot share a mainstem river with the Tigris and Euphrates.

Genesis 2: A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, 12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

A god-inspired Bible should be devoid of mistakes of this nature. One written by men thousands of years ago would be expected to have lots of similar errors.

(4823) Imagine a world without religion

In the following story, it is imagined that a world based on facts and science, but no religion, was introduced to the New Testament stories of Jesus. Would anybody consider them to be even remotely credible? The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1d3037x/i_think_this_is_a_compelling_case/

“Imagine a world without religion. We are on the same planet, with similar scientific advances the difference being that religion never left it’s earliest forms. We never built churches, instead we build a heap of museums and science centers. The idea of different human races has long been disproved. We live in peace, we work together on solving important issues, Trump is not president and idiocy is not the norm.

In comes Brad. In his hands he holds ‘the New Testament’, a book written by our ancestors two thousand years ago . It tells the story of Jesus, the son of god, who could walk on water, turn one fish into a thousand, turn water into wine and heal the blind, the deaf and the crippled. Brad shows this book to all the people he knows, he shares it with the world, this old, forgotten piece of literature, he broadcasts himself reading it to the world, the story of how Jesus was born to a virgin, how three kings followed a star to his birth place and how he died on the cross so god could forgive humanity’s sins.

What would people think of this book?

Would they believe the stories? Would they believe there was a god who created us, despite all the evidence pointing away from that conclusion? Would they start believing in the supernatural? Would they, all of a sudden, believe in magic despite having never seen any such thing as magic, or would they discard it as just another fairy tale?

They would most certainly discard it for what it is. A fairy tale, no different than Cinderella, Snow White and the seven dwarfs or Aladdin.

The only people who believe in Santa Claus, dwarfs and flying carpets are children, and as it happens, they are the key demographic for religion.

Religion works because of continuous brainwashing at a young age. Parents hammer in their ideas of the world until their children can regurgitate them in their sleep. It’s a disgusting practice, there is no choice involved and for there to be real human advancement, religion has to die.

There is no god. Period.”

Essentially, what this story is elucidating is that adult belief in religious fairy tales is highly correlated with childhood inculcation. Absent that, hearing these miracle stories for the first time in adulthood would result in laughter and easy disbelief. The pre-conditioning of immature minds is the only reason that religion has been able to persist in the scientific age.

(48pp) Acts contradicts Exodus

There exists a contradiction between Acts and Exodus on the method planned by the Egyptian pharaoh to have the newborn Jewish boys killed. Acts indicates that the Jewish mothers were to abandon their babies to die from exposure, while Exodus has the Egyptians taking an active roll in their murder. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1d3tkas/does_acts_719_point_to_a_separate_literary/

During Stephen’s speech to the council in Acts 7, he recounts the basic events of Genesis and Exodus, but when he gets to the killing of newborn boys as ordered by Pharaoh, he says instead:

“He dealt craftily with our people and forced our ancestors to abandon their infants so that they would die.” Acts 7:10 NRSVUE

Now to me, this sounds like a pretty marked departure from what is said in Exodus:

“When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” Exodus 1:16 NRSVUE

and when the midwives don’t follow through, it is followed by:

“Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”” Exodus 1:22 NRSVUE

So instead of the straight-up killing of new-born boys, the author of Acts instead seems to be saying Pharaoh ordered Hebrew women themselves to abandon their sons (presumably to die of exposure). One could say that the Israelites were being forced to abandon their children so they could be killed by the Egyptians, and that is what is meant, but that seems to fly in contradiction to the plain reading of the text which (at least to myself reading it in English) implies that the abandonment itself is what leads to the death of the infants.

It did occur to me that this could come from a separate oral tradition, but it seems weird to me he would include a story from oral tradition here, and not mention what was actually written, when he doesn’t seem to do so anywhere else.

It can be conjectured that the author of Acts was attempting to temper the condemnation of the Egyptians as relationships between these two nations were important for commerce. Whether or not this motivation existed, a contradiction of this order should not exist in the Bible.

(4825) Eleven ways religion destroys humanity

The following essay explores the various ways that religions have destroyed human progress, human compassion, and human peace:

https://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/10/the-problem-with-faith-11-ways-religion-is-destroying-humanity/

Religion has been a part of humanity since the first astronomers peered into the sky and created elaborate stories to define the movements of our universe. It made its way into our minds as we fearfully created devils and demons to explain the danger lurking in the darkness of night. It has both enchanted and burdened us as we attempt to define our world with the information available to us as we work our way through history.

However, things are quickly changing. For a growing number of us worldwide, what was once indescribable is now easily explained by the vast data we have gathered as we work towards refining our understanding. We are becoming painfully aware that, although our religions gave us a starting place for thinking about how our world functions, they no longer serve us in that process; and in fact, have left a trail of destruction in their historic path.

Here are 11 ways religion is destroying humanity:

1.) The assumption of truth.

Most of our world’s major religions each assume that it is their faith alone that is the “absolute truth” and refuse to concede that those traditions may be mistaken. Instead, they discover ways to force conflicting information to adapt to their own doctrine; no matter how effective the evidence is at actually disproving the rationality of that particular religion.

Many religious adherents have no problem understanding the irrationality of others beliefs, but are unable to apply the same logic when observing their own doctrine. Instead, every effort is made to justify why it is their – and only their – religion that is void of any fault. If they were to observe their own faith with the same set of scrutinizing eyes that they see through when evaluating other’s faiths, they would understand what many of us have already concluded – all of our religious texts were written by people, not gods. They are the stories and traditions that we created in order to explain our world in the past.

For instance, the majority of Christians would agree that the idea of Mohammad riding a flying horse into the heavens is an impossible fairy-tale; while simultaneously, they are unable to see how their own story of a talking snake or a man living inside a fish for three days is also impossible. We know that horses can’t fly. They are not airborne animals, they are land animals. We know that snakes can’t speak – they lack the vocal cords to produce the sounds necessary for speech. We also know that the digestive mechanisms of the fish would make it impossible for a man to actually live (let alone breathe) inside of a fish for three days. These stories, some of them with deep and purposeful meanings, cannot be understood, let alone correctly interpreted for beneficial use, when they are assumed to be truth, rather than for the allegories that they are.

The problem with this is that by insisting that (an obviously fabricated story) is absolute truth, the opportunity of arriving at the actual truth is greatly diminished. It creates a world where stories are placed above reality and reality is never within reach. It creates a mental mindset in people that is driven by misinformation and then passed on to future generations where misguided concepts are perpetuated.

2.) The promise of reward.

The faith of many followers hinges on the idea that there is some reward for devotion to their deity. For the Islamic gentleman, it is a promise of virgins after death. For the Christian, it is a perfect place of infinite peace and comfort. For Hindus, it is escaping the grueling task of reincarnation; and for the Buddhist it is reaching Nirvana. 

How many of these same enthusiasts would subscribe to their religion if there were not a reward for their commitment? Without a reward, the faith does not carry the same power to control its congregate. There must be a conclusion to every religious story – a reason for carrying the belief to its completion.

It’s not difficult to understand why this is necessary for the ongoing functioning of a religion. Human beings are rarely motivated to commit to anything without a reward for their commitment. We work diligently through school for the reward of a career and money. We work hard in our relationships for the reward of satisfying unity with other human beings. We work attentively on our goals for the gratification of living a purposeful, meaningful and accomplished life. We take time daily to exercise and eat healthy to maintain a fit and healthful body. We humans do everything to reap the rewards of doing that thing.

…And those who create the religions our world follows know this well. Without the reward, the base of followers cannot sustain itself. This is a problem because it keeps people hinged to a system that they never question because they are so immersed in the promise of the reward that they never stop to question if the reward is real, or human-conceived.

Religion keeps people bonded to beliefs that may actually hinder human progress rather than helping procure our growth. It prevents individuals from progressing beyond antiquated thinking. Only they cannot see the problem because no matter what personal sacrifice is made in this life – there is a reward in the end – even if they can’t see that reward until the life they now have is gone from them.

3.) The superiority complex.

Religion enables people to act callously and inflict mental punishment on those they label “evil” without consequence to their hatred; and then permits them to honestly believe that their hatred is defensible as “good moral conduct”.

I remember when I first left my religion. People who I thought were friends and close family members labelled me as “wicked” simply for leaving my faith. Suddenly, I “needed” the prayers of family and friends, even though I had not said that I was going through anything difficult. “I’ll pray for you” became a common theme in many of my talks with these people. Pray for me? Have I done something wrong? Have I made some kind of mistake? Why do I need your prayers?

~ Anonymous

This is the illusory carrot of religion: an eternal reward for an elected few, and infinite punishment for everyone else. It is a narcissistic mindset that keeps adherents both comforted and terrified; a virtual mental prison to which the follower is consciously unaware. It saturates their relationships, often keeping those relationships from ever truly holding any love and kindness when those they interact with do not agree with their religious interpretations.

This is not always completely true for more kindly religious adherents; but unfortunately, even the kinder followers can sometimes hold internal judgements against their non-believing counterparts – simply for not believing.

4.) The usefulness of control.

Most religious supporters are not mindful of the fear that has been instilled in them, often from birth. It is a fear that is so subtle that it goes undetected for much of the follower’s life. It is so deeply embedded that it is not even recognized as fear, but as truth; when in reality, it is a most destructive form of control.

For those who take the time to study the origins of religious beliefs, they are well aware of how, when and for what purpose a religion began. They are aware of the common themes and beliefs during the time the religion was created. They know what literary archetypes the religion was taken from in order to create the new doctrine. They understand the historic flow of language and the written word and how it has influenced our world – including our many religions.

Unfortunately, a great number of religious followers are either prevented from or discouraged from learning the truth about how their religious system was established. This is highly evident in modern theocracies where citizens are restricted from viewing numerous websites that would offer the information that would reveal the truth about the origin of their religion.

There is a very fundamental reason why many religions insist that their followers do not look elsewhere for answers to life’s questions. It is the questioning that leads to the answers that free people and give them an understanding of the whole picture rather than the narrow view from a small corner of their mind. It is the refusal to ask the questions that keeps them devoted to one specific answer. Take away the questioning and you ensure a future of followers. How do you take away the questioning? You make everything else evil. You make everything scary and frightful so that the follower is actually afraid of swaying from that one answer they have been given. You take away their desire to ask the questions.

Why do many believers refuse to study ancient religions, cultures, science, and philosophy? Why do they refuse to befriend or feel scornfully towards those who do not share their beliefs? Why are these things, these other people around them, these conflicting ideas automatically wrong? Have they been taught this mindset?

Anything that fervidly opposes diligent inquiry is not representative of the truth.

Former believers are most aware that the reason for this fear is that their god, their family or peers, their religious leaders and their own internal self-judgement will be discontent with their “inappropriate” curiosity. They fear that it is “the enemy” tempting them away from their faith by introducing them to ideas that conflict with their religion’s version of the truth. They have been taught (often from birth) that questioning is wrong – that seeking answers and gaining knowledge was not meant for us. These concepts are so deeply embedded in their thought that they can even feel guilty just thinking about questioning their faith. Many rarely stop to think about why they have been discouraged from asking questions and understanding things outside their religious sphere. Does the truth need restrictions if it is the truth? No, not unless the truth is being hidden in order to perpetuate the misconception in order to reap the benefits of the purpose of hiding that truth. This becomes overwhelmingly obvious to those who do ask the questions and honestly think about the answers. How obvious this becomes when we recognize how hiding the truth can profit those who discourage their followers from questioning the validity of their beliefs.

How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us.

~ Pope Leo X (1513 -1521)

Even those who have chosen to leave a religion must deal with the remnants of fear until it has been sufficiently purged from their life; that is, until they consciously choose to stop believing in monsters and ghosts and demons and the devil and feathered angels and ask the questions that they have spent much of their life needlessly fearing.

When you keep people from asking questions, you maintain control of them. Kings and queens know this. Religious leaders know this. Governments who restrict internet access that provides many of those answers know this. The wise know this. It’s time religious followers know this too. It’s ok to ask questions. It’s ok to find the answers. Asking questions is where you truly find freedom.

5.) The distraction of division.

As most propagandists understand, by separating individuals from their peers, they are usually able to think more clearly and logically about the information being presented to them. However, when consistently surrounded by their peers, if they are not cautious, they may likely fall prey to being persuaded into believing a “truth” that is not true at all. Religion depends on this human herd mentality in order to maintain its stronghold. When you keep a person within a specific religion, reinforce the ideas of that group and then make everyone else outside of the group somehow immoral, maintaining control of hatred towards others is effortless. The best way to do this is by teaching followers the religion’s concepts from birth; and then reinforcing those ideas throughout the entirety of their life.

Religion segregates people into clusters of believers and non-believers, making human unity and peace nearly impossible. It teaches people that those who disagree with them on a variety of life’s issues are perceptively evil and unworthy of their friendship, or even of their humanity.

The problem with this is that it perpetuates a cycle of division in societies. That division causes an insurmountable distraction that enables the internal corruption that destroys nations. Those in power are well aware that a community divided amongst itself has no strength to withstand tyranny or corruption. But, a society unified and aware is able to make lasting changes to benefit all.

For human unity and peace to ever become a part of our experience, we must become more aware of how our beliefs divide us and work to reconcile this division by placing our humanity above our religious contentions.

6.) The threat of theocracy.

Many individuals who support religious leaders and concepts do not realize the impact that a theocracy will have on their own lives and freedoms. Some people simply follow certain political and religious leaders and trust that they have their best interest in mind; but, in reality, the agenda they support will both further corrupt and further oppress their own country and its people.

A modest study of modern and past theocratic societies easily demonstrates how oppressive religiously governed countries are towards their people. How many more societies do we need to watch crumble beneath the stranglehold of religious oppression? How many more women are to be disparaged, mutilated and controlled by governments whose religious rule makes such atrocities acceptable? How many more religiously motivated wars, massacres, stonings, bombings, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, bigotry, intentional suppression of knowledge and tyrannical and inhumane policies do we need to experience before we will finally realize that theocratic government rule is a horrific way to live as a citizen?

7.) The illusion of love.

Is it? There may be some parts that describe love and encourage positive relationships amongst members of the human race; but, what about all the other parts? Are we to ignore some things and only identify with the good?

Here is the problem: Many of our most revered religious texts have hundreds of verses where the deity of the story literally instructs people to abduct and rape young girls whose family members they have just murdered, kill disobedient children, kill disobedient women, commit genocide and infanticide, subdue and silence women, commit incest, oppress mass communities, force marriage on rape victims, torture people, enslave people and loot and pillage entire societies. All by the instruction of or in the name of their god.

Here is the bigger problem: It’s one thing that these words are written, but it is a terrifying thought that many people in this world actually excuse this behavior simply because a god they worship did it or authorized it. They rationalize that this behavior is acceptable if an all knowing being approves it or that their god was punishing “sinful” people who did not agree with the same teachings they follow. This enables atrocious people to justify inhumane actions if they commit those actions in the name of their god. Many even go as far as to change the meaning of the (quite plainly written words) to mean something else than what is written outright in order to justify the action, rather than facing the reality of what their text is actually communicating.

If a human being were to commit these same types of offenses as listed above, we would label them sadistically insane and sentence them to death; yet, many dismiss the corrupt nature of these horrifically unethical crimes when it applies to a deity.

In their defense, many people are raised with their religious background and taught that it is completely about love. At the same time, the religious leaders that instruct them do not even attempt to discuss the negative characteristics of their text. Often, when they do, it is glossed over and never given full thought as to the magnitude of what is being described. If we really thought about it, we would be able to draw the same conclusions for the wrongdoings of our man-made deities as we do for those human beings who choose to commit similar hideous acts.

Instead, the most horrific parts of our text are ignored – or sugar-coated – and then wrapped in an illusion and fed to the people in a mental package labeled “god is love”. It is not love; and it skews our interpretation of love when we agree that sadistic and violent acts against people are justified because a god instructed those actions.

A scenario to consider: Suppose you were to have a serious conversation with a parent who told you that, since their child did not obey, love and trust them – they were going to take the child to the basement and burn him until he learned his lesson. Would you turn that parent in to child protective services for potential child abuse? If you heard or read that some parent had tortured their child for not behaving, what would you think of that parent. How would you feel for the child who endured that punishment? Of course you would turn the parent in; of course you would feel awful to hear about such a tragic story! You would want to protect the child because you know that no loving human being would ever do that to their child, no matter how awful they’ve behaved.

Yet, children across the world are forced to endure hideous mental intrusions on a consistent basis in one of our world’s largest belief structures. If they do not believe in their religious deity, he will take them down to hell and torture them forever and ever. They will live in a place of fear and anguish for eternity.

If you would not threaten this to your own child as a punishment you personally would inflict upon them, why tell them someone else will? Is it acceptable because it is not you who will do it?

Another scenario to consider: If your friend told you that she was raped and that her rapist paid her Father for the injustice and is now forcing her to marry the person who raped her, what would you tell your friend? Would you encourage her to follow through with the marriage or would you encourage her leave both the rapist and her Father behind and move on with her life? Would you help her find a safe place to go in order to flee the situation? Or, would you encourage her to follow through with the dreadful plans? Of course you would discourage your friend from following through with such a horrible situation for her life. You would likely even encourage her to file charges against the perpetrator.

Yet, this is the exact instructions found in one of our world’s most popular holy text. One of many scriptures only recently coming to the forefront of religious debates as countless people are becoming more aware of the unethical ideas written in many of our ancient books. (See Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If you have to explain or justify why a horrible atrocity was committed by the deity you worship; what does love really mean to you? Love is…

8.) Justification for inequality.

A simple and honest study of our world’s theocracies (and countries such as America where those issues are being debated) reveals how our holy texts are used to discriminate against women, LGBTs, and foreigners. Our top three world religions’ texts are full of discrimination against these groups. In fact, it is openly used as justification for that discrimination.

Religion facilitates erroneous rationalization of the attempts to remove basic rights from others. It prevents people from living in peace as a community and within their own lives. It forces entire groups of people to work tirelessly to create and preserve rights that should be available to them already.

Many of our religions treat women as subhuman property rather than the part of the human species that gives life to every one of us – a position that deserves respect. Many of our world’s countries have so drastically restricted the rights of women that they are not allowed to attend school to earn an education, drive a car, be seen in public without a male family member, hold a career, or even speak their own thoughts. In each instance where this gender based bigotry is enforced, it is always attached to a religiously based belief system.

Religion also treats the LGBT community with disdain, even to the point where some countries prescribe death as a punishment for not following that religion’s definition of what sex should look like. The problem with this is that homosexuality can be found in many species, not just amongst humanity. Anyone who has done their research knows this. Unfortunately, religion has not caught up to this reality. Although homosexuality has existed for millennia, religion still persists in fighting what comes natural to much of nature. Is it a god that gave us permission to interrogate and murder people based on sexual orientation, or is it the people who wrote our religious texts and simply did not understand or agree with that part of nature?

Sadly, our religious texts have been used to discriminate against a vast assortment of people, including, tribes, minorities and foreigners. People outside of a religion’s belief structure or cultural background have been tortured, enslaved and stripped of their human rights – all in the name of a god and the religion that god represents.

Religion gives followers justification for treating others who are not like them in inhumane ways. It enables our world to perpetuate the cycles of hatred towards others and justify our efforts in restricting the happiness of our fellow human beings.

9.) The subjugation of advancement.

We are moving towards a time where we no longer need to base our ideas on things that we cannot see or explain (faith). We can explain much more than ever and our ability to explain our world is expanding rapidly.

Now that science can explain our world, we no longer need mythology to do it for us.

We have a plethora of information available to us today. Information that enables us to become aware of the origins of our religions, the origins and functionings of our planet and of our universe. We understand how weather works and that it is not simply the anger of our gods being poured upon us as our early ancestors believed. We can interpret weather patterns, send people into space, and predict future atmospheric, economic, planetary and biological disruptions and much much more.

Unfortunately, religion has never been much a friend to human knowledge and advancement. Even now we are plagued by leaders who seek to oppress our access to and progression of our knowledge. Religion is known for insisting that it is not humankind’s place to understand things – to seek knowledge of our world. In fact, it makes seeking that understanding wrong and it’s not difficult to find followers who will even quote text supporting why we should not explore our world, ask questions and look for answers.

This is a religious tactic that keeps people in ignorance; and it has worked for thousands of years. Since we know that it is people who wrote the concepts that make up our holy texts; it makes much more sense that it is not god who wanted to keep us in ignorance – it is those who wrote our holy books, created our religious doctrines and insisted that knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge is evil. Religion perpetuates ignorance in societies. It hinders humanity’s mental progression and, thus the quality of our lives, health and environments.

10.) The fear of “end times”.

For thousands of years, religion has used the fear of “end times” to control the masses. What began as mythology that told gruesome stories of a horrific end to our world has evolved into periodic religious mania over an impending doom lurking above the future of humanity.

Fortunately, we have grown enough in our understanding to realize that prophesies of war, famine, atmospheric disruptions, pandemics and expulsion of redundant belief structures are effortless formulations when one comprehends that these occurrences have been and will remain a repetitive element of the human experience. In other words – it is not difficult to predict the future when you understand how human beings think and how nature functions. Anyone who understands the natural world and the mind of human beings can make a fairly accurate prediction of what will occur 10, 20, 100 or even 5,000 years from now. History does repeat itself. Nature repeats itself. This is the cyclical part of life – when you understand the cycle, you are never shocked by the result.

The problem is, we are still living amongst an assortment of end times theories and religious fables that insist we are living in that time. Strangely, every generation since the stories were created lives in that time. Even more menacing is how an entire community of believers can completely ignore the time frame in which their own text plainly states that the horrid event will occur, and then apply the same story to every future generation. Why? Because the story always perpetuates itself – it must perpetuate itself in order to survive. If the story is fulfilled, the story ends and we all move on. It must continue generation after generation in order to live on in the minds of human beings. This is how religion works.

Here’s the painful truth. When you have a story that billions of people believe, there will inevitably be some people who have the power and the invested interest in making that story appear as fact. This doesn’t make the prediction true – it makes it a purposeful effort. It is a problematic illusion where those who want it to be true work to make it true; and those who are unaware of the work others have done to make the illusion appear real – believe it is real.

If our world is truly going to explode in a fiery furnace of wrath and agony – it will be by our own hands when we destroy one another by our human hatred. Or, it will be by the mechanisms of our universe; a common way planets and stars actually do experience their “end times”.

11.) The oppression of terror.

It would be easy for some to look at the violence in religion today and point fingers at one specific religion. The propagandist that dominate many of our mainstream news outlets ensure this. But, the truth is, many of our religions have already asserted themselves through force and violence in the past. This is not merely a modern problem.

Humanity’s most vicious ambitions have been carried out in the name of gods no one has ever seen and beliefs followers are not willing to question and investigate. Until humankind learns to more closely examine their beliefs, wars waged in ignorance will continue to plague our species and prevent lasting peace.

Our history is full of examples of this religious human dilemma; and is even written in the pages of some of our own holy text. It is a truth that many deny because it is easier to deny atrocity then to face it; especially when that barbarism has been committed by the very same faith that we follow. Our religions excuse the terror and oppression we inflict upon our fellow human beings. It’s time our excuses are called out for what they are – irrational thinking based upon archaic concepts that no longer serve our human advancement towards a sustainable and peaceful future.

It’s time to let go and rise above the outdated and cruel exploits of our past that we inherited from our ancestors, and realize that our early misinterpretations of our world do not have to define the future of humanity. We have grown. We have reached a time in our history where the misunderstandings of the past must be reconciled and the truth about the origins of our early beliefs must be revealed. It’s time that our world’s religions face the tragic horrors of their past and make honest progression towards love and kindness for all of humanity. Our world, our peace and our growth all depend upon us and our ability to move forward in our understanding. It’s time to embrace our humanity and cultivate the harmonious future we all deserve.

What should be obvious is that if there was a true religion- first of all, it would easily dwarf all of the false religions, resulting in no religious warfare or strife, and second, it would assist rather than retard human progress, compassion, and peace. The current landscape of human religions screams loudly that they are all false- not a single one of them has any truth, none whatsoever.

(4826) Who made the request?

Comparing the two scriptures below, an obvious problem appears:

Mark 10:35-40

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Matthew 20:20-23

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

“What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

This is clearly talking about the same event. While in Mark the disciples make the request, in Matthew their mother does the asking. It is an interesting game of conjecture to figure out why the author of Matthew, who was copying text from Mark, decided to make this change. Most scholars believe that the author was trying to protect the image of James and John being humble men, leaving their mother to make such an extraordinary request. No matter what, this contradiction exists in a book where no contradictions should appear if Christianity was true.

(4827) Musings about Paul

In the following, a seminarian relates problems he noticed as he studied and compared the writings of Paul and the way that Acts portrayed Paul’s missionary history:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1d5ntxz/what_was_the_moment_where_you_finally_realized/

When I was in a seminary course I was taught that there are some “minor discrepancies” between the letters of Paul and what the Book of Acts says about Paul. We got the apologetics alongside the information about discrepancies. Paul just was not as elegant a writer as Paul. There was nothing to worry about. Move along.

Few people read the letters of Paul, which are a part of the Bible. Usually, people only open Paul’s letters to check on quotes.

When I sat down and read Paul’s letters, I found that I liked Paul. He had a big ego, but he came across as honest. He had had a “born again” experience and was a true believer. He reminded me of many ministers I knew and respected

One of the immediate problems is the missing miracles. In Acts, Paul does stuff like making prison walls fall down. He raises two people from the dead. He has a big shipwreck miracle. I was hoping to see those stories from Paul’s perspective. Paul doesn’t mention them. He mentions being imprisoned. He mentions being shipwrecked multiple times in his travels. He says he and other ministers did some healings on his last visit. But there is no mention of miracles associated with the shipwreck or the imprisonment. His claim about healing is generic of the type ministers frequently make that probably involves a placebo effect and other not-really-miraculous miracles. Certainly, nothing rose to the level of raising people from the dead.

The usual apologetic argument for the missing miracle stories in Paul’s letters is that they may have happened, but Paul didn’t mention them in the letters that were preserved. That seems reasonable at first. But in some of his letters, Paul is listing his credentials for being an Apostle and a spokesman for Christ. In fact, that is the context for him mentioning those events; he is trying to establish his authority. If he had done the things as described in Acts, that would have been an extremely likely place to mention them.

Another discrepancy I noticed was that in Acts, Paul and Peter become best buddies. In Paul’s letters, Paul mentions meeting Peter. Paul is not impressed with Peter. In Paul’s letter is is pretty clear they disagree and don’t like each other.

Third, there is Paul’s “Road to Damascus” experience. The version of the story that everyone knows is from Acts. It happens on the Road to Damascus. Paul’s traveling companions see a flash of light. Paul is struck blind, and his traveling companions take him to Jerusalem to be healed. Paul’s account is much less dramatic. Paul is in Damascus. He doesn’t mention any witnesses or flashes of light. He doesn’t mention being struck blind or being healed. He says he is not sure if the vision was in the flesh or in the spirit only. (Since then I have learned that Paul used a word that could mean either a dream or a waking vision.) He said that after the vision he went to Syria for a few years before he went to Jerusalem.

I went looking for apologetic arguments about Paul’s vision. They were weak. The apologists say that Acts doesn’t say how much time passed between the vision and when Paul went to Jerusalem, but it clearly suggests it is immediate. Apologists say that Paul’s followers were taking him around to various healers in Syria before they gave up and took him to Jerusalem. But none of that is in Paul’s account. It is barely plausible to think that neither Acts nor Paul’s two accounts of his born-again experience mentioned the important missing element of finding alternative healers.

Since then, I have continued to study the Bible. Even though I did not notice it at the time, I find the gospels questionable because of Paul’s letters. He doesn’t seem to know any of the major stories about Jesus. He doesn’t know about the Virgin Birth. He doesn’t know about the miracles. He doesn’t even mention the empty tomb. That suggests that the stories may have been made up after Paul wrote his letters.

The Empty Tomb seemed to be a big missing element to me. Reading Paul carefully, it looks like Paul believed the resurrection happened in heaven, not on earth. That would certainly explain the lack of an empty tomb story in Paul’s letters. I have learned that this perspective is something that a significant number of Christian scholars and theologians are moving toward.

This represents a critical flaw in Christian theology and brings into doubt the exploits of Paul as documented in the Book of Acts. Most historians would tend to support the idea that Paul’s authentic letters are the best source of information for determining the truth. Nevertheless, this mismatch tells us that something is wrong.

(4828) Crucifixion not stoning

Christian scriptures would have you believe that Jesus was killed because he ran afoul of Jewish religious leaders for the crime of blasphemy. If that had been the case, he would have been stoned. Instead he was crucified, which was the Roman punishment for insurrection. The following quote from Bart Ehrman was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1d5xkei/why_was_jesus_condemned_with_stoning/

What is clear is that Jesus was killed on political charges and nothing else.

Many people seem to think that Jesus ran afoul of the authorities because he committed blasphemy or offended the religious sensitivities of the Jewish leaders of his day (Pharisees, e.g.; the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin; etc.). But in fact, the Romans didn’t care a TWIT about Jewish blasphemy or about internal Jewish disputes about doctrine and/or practice.

Moreover, the record is crystal clear of what the charges against Jesus were. They were political in nature. He had been calling himself the King of the Jews.

Why Was Jesus Executed? Because He Called Himself the King of the Jews

He didn’t mean it in a spiritual sense and the Romans didn’t interpret it in a spiritual sense. Being King meant being the political leader of the people of Israel. And only the Roman governor or someone the Romans appointed (like Herod) could be king. Anyone else who claimed to be king was usurping Roman prerogatives and was seen as a threat, or if not a threat, at least a public nuisance. Romans had ways of dealing with lower-class peasants who were trouble makers and public nuisances.

In other words, even if there were some overlap in the sense that Jewish leaders were uncomfortable with what Jesus was teaching on a spiritual level, that’s not WHY he was crucified. The Romans wouldn’t have cared about that aspect at all. This tells us all we need to know that the infamous scene with Pontius Pilate being weighed upon by the Jewish crowd to kill Jesus is pure fiction.

The gospel authors struggled to make us believe that Jesus was killed because of the Jewish leaders being scandalized by his ministry, but instead they left us with the easy conclusion that his crucifixion was a result of the standard Roman penalty for insurrection. And through the centuries, this mis-representation of the facts (regardless if this was not an entirely made-up narrative) led to the persecution of innocent Jewish people.

(4829) Lack of miracles is solid evidence

It is hard to prove a negative, but it is easy to question a positive when the claims thereof fail to materialize. Christianity is a religion of miracles, where the natural forces of nature can be bent at the whim of unbridled faith. So why aren’t we seeing this happen? The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1d8os1o/if_christianity_were_true_we_would_expect_to_see/

If Christianity were true we would expect to see a lot more miracles than we do

Yesterday I started randomly thinking about all the miracles Jesus allegedly performed and more specifically when he says in John 14:12 that those who believe in him will do all the miracles he’s done and even greater miracles. And something hit me that I’m genuinely surprised atheists don’t really bring up:

Where are all the miracles workers?

I’m not talking about televangelists supposedly “healing” people on stages as that can and has been easily faked. Jesus and his disciples did some much more impressive miracles. including, but not limited to:

the time Jesus walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33)

the time Paul got bit by a venomous snake and survived (Acts 28 1-6)

the time Philip literally teleported (Acts 8:34-40)

the time Jesus created several baskets worth of bread from 5 loaves. Which I’m pretty sure violates the first law of thermodynamics. (Matthew 14:13-21)

That one time Jesus wasn’t welcome in a samaritan village so James and John offered to call down fire onto the village (Luke 9:54)

Or the time Jesus basically told a storm to shut up (Matthew 8:26)

Where are all the Christians doing this and much greater things?

But, “they don’t have enough faith” I hear you say. And I’m rather skeptical of this. As a low estimate, there are about 2 BILLION Christians in this world. Are you trying to tell me that none of them are Believing hard enough? Fat chance.

Just for you, let’s make a conservative estimate and say 99% of self proclaimed Christians are Christians in name only. They celebrate Christmas and pray when the going gets tough and wear a crucifix but that’s about the extent of it.

That’s still 20 million people

Let’s again, assume 99% of these people do go to church and pray daily, but they aren’t giving their all to god, or something. They love their family more than him for example.

That’s still 200,000 people

Let’s now assume 99% of these people are truly devout Christians but just don’t have enough faith to walk on water. Like peter for example.

That’s still 2000 people

Do you mean to tell me that even 2000 people out of the 2 billion Christians in this world aren’t “believing hard enough” to perform miracles?

I don’t know about you, but If I could walk on water, and I wanted to evangelize, the first thing I would do is go into a public space with a large body of water, stand on it and read the bible as loud as I can. And when someone eventually notices “that guy is standing on water” people will eventually listen to what I have to say. Causing more people to believe. and causing more people to be able to perform miracles and spread the word of god.

Do you mean to tell me there’s nobody with enough faith to go to a developing country and multiply the food until there’s enough for everyone? If even 10 people could do this, they could end hunger in so many places. Not to mention it would cause others to believe therefore allowing them to go to other countries ending hunger. And traveling to these countries would be cheap too, with the teleportation and everything.

if even 100 people could simply cure diseases with a thought the world would be so much better than it is now. I personally would just walk into a hospital and yell “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you all to be healed” And when all the people who were bedridden previously and only had a few months to live make it to the waiting room, I would start telling them the good news.

How come there are no reports of this happening?

This is all without mentioning the time Jesus said “If you would have faith as a mustard seed you can move mountains” (Matthew 17:20).

If these things are true, wouldn’t we have expected somebody to move a mountain by now?

Things like this would be much more effective at proving god’s existence than a cosmological argument. And the absence of things like this is incredibly telling.

And I’m aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but in this particular case, it kind of is. If even 10 people could literally move mountains don’t you think, in our internet age we would have heard of at least one case of this happening?

If Christianity was true, we would be seeing at least several verified miraculous events every day. Instead, we have seen precisely zero of such events in recorded history. Maybe if we had just one that all could agree on (none of the ones claimed to date have been authenticated by scientific peer review), then we could start a discussion. Until then, it is safe to dismiss Christianity in its totality.

4830) Did Jesus really exist?

Atheists have no concern whether Jesus was a real historical figure because it’s painfully obvious that if he was, his exploits were wildly exaggerated by later authors. But to Christians, this question is critical. The following essay explains why there is a high probability that a unique Jesus never lived, or that there might have been an amalgam of such figures that were morphed into one mythical figure. Either way, the historical evidence forcefully denies the existence of the magical Jesus of scripture.

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/historicaljesus/

Did Jesus Really Exist?

The short answer is “no”.

The slightly longer answer is “Maybe, but only if you’re willing to accept extremely loose definitions of the words ‘did’, ‘Jesus’, ‘really’, and/or ‘exist’.”

What’s in a name?

For starters, nobody would have been named ‘Jesus’ approximately 2000 years ago. That name came into existence much later, as an Anglicization of a Latinization of a Hellenization of the Hebrew/Aramaic name “יְהוֹשֻׁעַ“, which is more accurately rendered “Yeh-shu-ah”. A direct translation of that name to English would give you “Joshua”, not “Jesus”.

This is not itself an argument that the character is purely mythical (after all, it doesn’t really matter if Chinese historians refer to “Confucius” or “Kǒng Zhòngní”), but it’s important to keep in mind. In the interest of clarity, this article will continue to use the name “Jesus” to refer to the main character of the Gospels. This is distinct from the name “Yeshua”, which was a fairly common name in first century Judea, and which might plausibly have belonged to some hypothetical person who served as the inspiration for that character.

What evidence is there?

It would be wrong to say that there is literally no evidence of Jesus’ existence as a real person… but only in the same sense that it would be wrong to say the same thing about Hercules, Osiris, Sherlock Holmes, or Captain America.

Gospels

First, there’s the gospels themselves. The earliest estimates for the earliest version of the earliest gospel come in around the year 70 CE. The canonical gospels didn’t attain anything recognizable as their current forms until nearly a century after this.

But even if they  contemporary sources, they would be terrible sources. To put it bluntly, they are fairy tales. The historiographic analysis of the genre of ancient documents is a good deal more complex than simply sorting things into two piles labelled “fiction” and “non-fiction”, but as linear Hero’s Journey narratives, full of spells and curses and elements contrived to “fulfill” hilarious mistranslations of Old-Testament prophecies, they fall much closer to the “fiction” end of the scale.

Even if we choose to take a very charitable interpretation and ignore all of the magical events, they openly conflict with known historical, geographical, and cultural knowledge, to the point where many scholars suspect that none of their authors had ever even visited the region where they took place. They also constantly contradict each other, to the point where they can’t even agree with each other about the most important parts of the narrative.

The idea that every myth and fairy-tale must have a real-world king or hero at its origin point was first posited by the philosopher Euhemerus in the 4th century BCE, and was mostly regarded as a silly idea even back then. Ironically, it enjoyed a resurgence in popularity a thousand years later when Christian missionaries tried to use it convince various “pagan” peoples that their gods (unlike Jesus) had all once been mortal humans whose stories were later exaggerated or misunderstood.

Epistles

Then there’s the other half of the New Testament: the Epistles. About half of them are known to be later forgeries, but of the half that are thought to be “authentic” (a phrase which here means “written by the person they claim to have been written by”, not “containing accurate information”), some of them are a bit earlier than that 70 CE lower bound given above. Do those give us any useful information about the life of Jesus?

Nope. In fact, in most cases, they suggest that their authors believed that Jesus was (and had always been) an archetypical spirit being, not someone who had been walking around as a flesh-and-blood human well within living memory.

Religion, as a wise man once said, reverses everything. The origins of the Jesus narrative are no exception. If you evaluate the documents in the order they were actually written, rather than the order in which they were compiled by later Christian apologists, you will see that he character of “Jesus” began as an unearthly being in the spirit realm, then he acquired a mythical symbolic death-and-resurrection in the abstract “long long ago”, then he was assigned a adulthood in a recognizable time and place, then (as a grand finale) he was given a big miraculous Nativity. It would be another two and a half centuries before the Council of Nicea, where “Jesus was definitely a real guy who lived a real human life, not an angel or a hologram or a series of visions or something like that” was established as the Official Position™ of the Official Church™. By popular vote.

Extra-Biblical Sources

At this point, you might be quite tired of listening to people quoting the Bible in an attempt to prove the claims in the Bible. You might, quite reasonably, come to the conclusion that this approach is not significantly different from quoting the Harry Potter books to prove the existence of Harry Potter.

The occasional miraculous claim about a historical figure isn’t necessarily enough to conclude that the figure was definitely made up entirely out of whole cloth, but you should be extremely wary of relying exclusively on books full of men walking on water, flying through the sky, and rising from the dead.

After all, we have mountains of evidence that a man named Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809, and would go on to serve as the 16th President of the United States before dying of a gunshot wound in 1865. The existence of a 2010 novel which portrays him as a professional vampire hunter does very little to call Lincoln’s historicity into question. If, however, this novel were the earliest extant source that such a man had ever existed, with not a single document from the preceding 145 years giving this allegedly important man so much as the briefest of passing mentions, the situation would be very different.

With that in mind, let’s examine the many contemporary sources which talk about Jesus:

• • [Cricket Noises]

Sorry, did I say “many”? I meant “zero”.

Apologists often make reference to second-century scholars named Josephus and Tacitus. Not only were those gentlemen not born yet when the events allegedly took place, but neither of them ever actually said most of the things which Christians claim they said. The few paragraphs of pro-Jesus testimony attributed to them are known to have been forgeries, created centuries later, by christian monks. Of the writings that are considered to be authentic, there are scattered mentions of Jewish heresies that might refer to some of the groups which would eventually become known as “Early Christians”, but no endorsement that any of the beliefs of those groups are actually true. Tacitus wrote about the followers of Heracles using the same language he used to write about the followers of “Chreestos”, and very few people consider that to be proof that this should be considered a historical document.

Arguments from Popularity

…are not evidence at all.

When a Jesusist is confronted with the above facts, they will often assert that their position is supported by “A consensus of every single historian in the world!”. Sometimes, they’ll even compound this lie by claiming that not only is their evidence not nonexistent, it actually outweighs the evidence for figures like Augustus Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte or Barack Obama. (Spoiler alert: It doesn’t.) Ultimately, this tactic is a lead in to an Argument Via Name-Calling – they either imply, or state outright, that with this “consensus” on their side, anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs must be crazy.

This is, of course, another Big Lie. The vast majority of the time, they will offer no sources at all for this claim. The rest of the time, they will cite fellow “Christian Scholars” who cite fellow “Christian Scholars” who cite fellow “Christian Scholars”, sometimes with a detour through a vandalized Wikipedia article, but never with any actual evidence at the end of the chain. Occasionally, they will take an out-of-context quote from an actual historian from a very vaguely related field, who defers to the Jesusits to avoid upsetting them.

If this seems like a very flimsy “consensus”, that’s because it is. Authority backed up by nothing more than “Because I said so!” or “Agree with me or you’re a dumb-dumb face!” is not authority at all.

Even if this claim were taken as read, that still wouldn’t prove much. A hundred years ago, it was equally “fringe” to suggest that Moses might have been a mythical figure; and two hundred years ago, it was popular to mock those who questioned the historical existence of Noah or Adam. Many early archaeologists set out, honestly expecting to find evidence for these stories, and were genuinely surprised when the balance of the evidence turned out the other way. Likewise, humanity’s scientific understanding improved, it became more and more obvious that it was simply impossible for these stories to have played out the way they’re described in the book. It was only as the power of Christianity gradually waned that it became socially acceptable to publicly base one’s positions on what the actual evidence said, rather than on what it was necessary to say to avoid having your university burned down by an angry mob. These days, you’ll have a very hard time finding any credible historian who believes that any of those gentlemen actually existed.

Eventually, even many practicing Jews, Christians, and Muslims found themselves retreating to “mumble mumble metaphor” with regards to these figures. Of course, this transition is far from complete even now: over 40% of adults in the USA identify as Young Earth Creationists, and even the Catholic Church (which makes a big show of how “scientifically compatible” it is) officially teaches that a single literal Adam and a single Eve were literally the ancestors of all human beings. If reality were a popularity contest, the state of biology, geology, and astronomy would still be stuck in the 14th century.

This exact same process is playing out again today for the Carpenter King. Society is very gradually realizing that, when you look past the arguments from faith and arguments from authority to see what actually lies underneath them, there’s very little actually there. It’s not necessarily nothing (see below), but it’s not nearly enough to make claims of an “undeniable consensus”.

So, wait, is there ANY evidence? Like, at all?

One of the very few scholars who has even attempted to support the Historical Jesus Theory through real historical analysis (rather than “because I said so!”) is Bart Ehrman. His work isn’t perfect, or even conclusive (it still occasionally relies on arguments from popularity and arguments from incredulity) but it’s literally the best their side has ever had. And even he admits, right off the bat, that nothing even resembling such a “scholarly consensus” has ever existed: “Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived.”

Furthermore, its conclusion is much, much more tentative than Jesusits would like to claim – to the point where it falls into the above-mentioned category of “ideas which, a few hundred years ago, they would have gladly burned you at the stake for suggesting”. It paints a picture of the “Historical Jesus” as being a relatively insignificant cult leader with no magical powers and no significant personal accomplishments, whose legend would later be greatly exaggerated through third and fourth-hand accounts, and whose contribution to the New Testament consisted of its authors frequently “misquoting” him. This hypothetical “historical Jesus” is already about as far from the “Jesus” of the Gospels as the historical Prince Vlad III of Wallacia is from the “Dracula” of Bram Stoker’s novel, and few people will object to referring to Dracula as “a fictional character”.

Crucially, getting even that far requires Ehrman to lean heavily on guesswork about stories naturally being more likely to be grounded in truth than entirely made up. Still, if you want to read the “best” arguments in favour of the Historical Jesus Theory, Ehrman’s work would be the place to start, and some of it is linked below.

If you think you possess actual evidence (that is to say, something that’s significantly better than what Ehrman and seventeen centuries of his predecessors have been able to come up with), please don’t waste your time posting about it on a pseudonymous internet forum. Go get it peer reviewed, and if it turns out to be real, you’ll quickly become the most famous archaeologist of the century.

What evidence should we expect?

When an apologist is confronted with this deafening silence, their typical response is to Move The Goalposts, and claim that we shouldn’t expect to see any evidence of one of the most influential figures in all of history. This is, of course, nonsense.

History works a little bit differently than science, but that’s not the same as having literally no standard of evidence. There’s still the process of trying to come up with the most parsimonious explanation for the available facts, but it’s often difficult to test these hypotheses against each other without learning new facts, which often aren’t readily available.

Define “Jesus”

The current state of evidence regarding the origins of Christianity can be explained by a relatively insignificant itinerant preacher, who founded a cult that languished in obscurity for a few decades after his death, then experienced rapid growth. It could also be explained by a mystery cult built around a mythical god-man who “died for our sins” in the mythical “long long ago in a galaxy far far away”, which was only later changed into “a few generations ago in Jerusalem”. Neither of these models is perfect, and despite what some religious apologists might assert, neither one is universally accepted by the relevant historians. It could even have resulted from the merger of a few cults from column A and a few from column B. Any, all, or none of these God-men may have been known as Yeshua in the early years of their cult. Given the paucity of evidence, it’s hard to distinguish between these explanations.

What we can rule out with a fair degree of certainty, however, is the Rockstar Terrorist Jesus you get if you take even half of the non-magical claims of the gospels seriously. The man who preached before crowds of hundreds of thousands of people, who attracted the attention of the most influential people in the region, who lead an armed raid on Jerusalem’s temple complex, and who both the Sanhedrin and the Roman courts apparently thought was important enough to completely ignore all their own traditions in order to convict him. There are plenty of historians active in that place and time who would have noticed a guy like that, and absolutely none of them did. Any hypothesis which includes Rockstar Terrorist Jesus must account for how every one of them managed to miss somebody that impressive while noticing relative nonentities like Appollonius.

Of course, if we’re talking about “Jesus”, the main character of the gospels, we’re not just talking about a man with political powers, but magic powers as well. Even establishing the existence of Rockstar Terrorist Jesus would not be sufficient to establish the existence of Magic Superman Komodo Dragon Vampire Hovercraft Jesus. Somebody who attempts to assert the historicity of this figure has to contend with every problem of the Rockstar Terrorist Jesus hypothesis a hundred times over, and also explain why the laws of physics decided to take a vacation.

The historical record of the time, while extensive, is far from perfect. There are plenty of gaps in which a nobody from nowhere, who did nothing of any significance, and said nothing that any literate witness would have thought worthy of writing down, might be hiding. But if this hypothetical person didn’t perform any of the deeds attributed to a character, and there’s no record of them saying any of the quotations attributed to that character, and they don’t share a name or a birth place or even a zodiac sign with that character, in what meaningful sense can anyone claim that this hypothetical person is that character? And why should anyone care?

What can we conclude from this?

It’s not unreasonable to assume that a photographer named Peter has, probably, at some point, lived in New York City.

It is completely unreasonable to refer to this hypothetical person as “The Historical Spider-Man” and mock anyone who dares to question the “Word of Stan Lee” and the “Consensus of Comic Book Scholars”.

These two claims are sufficiently far apart from each other as to be more or less unrecognizable. To pretend that they are equivalent, that by arguing for the first one you have somehow established the second one, or that anybody questioning the second claim is making the positive assertion that the first claim is impossible, is to engage in a logical fallacy known as “Equivocation“. Anyone who does so can and should be called out for their dishonesty.

In the same sense, an insignificant preacher named “Yeshua” could well have existed. It’s a fairly common name, and a fairly common job, so it’s likely that five or six of them existed. But “Jesus”, the main character of the gospels, sure as hell didn’t.

Does it even matter?

To us? Not really.

At the end of the day, the nonbeliever has nothing to lose if it turns out that the Gospels were very loosely based on the life of one of the thousands of schizophrenic preachers who were roaming around first century Judea, rather than being a composite of several such men with elements from many earlier myth archetypes mixed in.

We know that Kim Jong Il was a real person, but that doesn’t mean we have to take his various claims of magical powers seriously. If evidence was uncovered that established beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospels were, in fact, all based on a single guy, that guy would find himself in the same category as Best Korea’s “Eternal President”, and not much else would change.

Likewise, lots of details in the lives of much older figures like Socrates are tragically sketchy, but nothing about the history of the classical world turns on whether any given “Socratic Dialogue” was actually composed by him, or a couple decades later by his student Plato. Neither does it matter much to us if any particular line of apocalyptic nonsense was originally uttered in ~33 CE by a schizophrenic carpenter, or in ~60 CE by a schizophrenic Pharisee, or in the 400s CE by a mischievous scribe.

By contrast, Christians have a lot to lose if the Gospels are anything less than perfectly accurate historical documents.

This might be why they immediately jump to tone arguments, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority when their extraordinary claims are challenged, rather than making even a token attempt to support them with actual evidence.

See Also

Recommended Reading

• • RationalWiki’s much more exhaustive summary of the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.
  • https://www.salon.com/2015/07/06/5_good_reasons_to_think_jesus_never_existed/
  • http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/05/demolishing-the-historicity-of-jesus-a-history/
  • http://atheomedy.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/not-even-a-carpenter-why-a-historical-jesus-no-longer-passes-muster/
  • http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams

Recommended Viewing

• • Bart Ehrman Lecture at Washington & Jefferson College Time 1:26 (1h26m)
  • Jesus, the Law, and a “New” Covenant 1:18
  • Progressive Spirit – Jesus Before the Gospels 26m
  • How Jesus Became God – UCC Part 1 of 3 4:15 total
  • American Freethought with Bart Ehrman 28m
  • Drew Marshall Show – How Jesus Became God 22m
  • NC Bookwatch: Lost Christianities 25m
  • National Cathedral Lecture – Misquoting Jesus 48m
  • Legends, Fictions, and Manuscripts that Illustrate Christ’s Story 1:20
  • National Cathedral Lecture – Misquoting Jesus 48m
  • Bart Ehrman & Jesus, Interrupted – Commonwealth Club 1:04
  • Misquoting Jesus in the Bible – Professor Bart D. Ehrman 1:35

If a god sent his ‘son’ to the earth to perform an assignment that would ultimately decide whether each human would spend eternity either in a blissful or painful place, ‘he’ would have made sure that this event would be reliably documented for the benefit of future generations. This didn’t happen, and because of that, we can confidently dismiss the ‘if’ statement at the beginning of this paragraph.

(4831) What’s so great about faith?

Christianity would have you believe that it is greater to believe in something without evidence than it is to base belief on factual evidence. This, allegedly, is why God withholds evidence of his existence. The following explains why this is a completely ridiculous concept:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1dar9tz/god_faith_is_so_important_to_me_that_i_will/

GOD: Faith is so Important to me that I will withhold all evidence of my existence so that you can only believe in me through faith

Also God: I’m going to set up the universe I build so that faith is a demonstrably unreliable path to truth in literally every other aspect of reality so that faith appears to be useless. Then I’m going to torture you for eternity if you believe every one of your senses, empirical reasoning, and common sense telling you that faith is a bad way to determine truth.

Faith is not a good thing. We’re conditioned to think of it as an admirable thing, a good quality; a thing to be desired and sought after…

…but why?

Faith isn’t a reliable path to truth in any aspect of our reality. It’s just the fervent belief/confidence in something without evidence or proof. That’s not admirable. That’s ignorance.

A man divorcing his wife for cheating on him, when zero evidence exists for her infidelity except his faith that it happened would be considered a lunatic.

A man claiming he has unshakable faith that he can fly would never be encouraged to jump off a building because everyone has so much confidence in his faith. He’d probably be committed for his own safety, in all honesty.

The only place faith is considered anything less than crazy or ill-advised is when it becomes faith in god’s existence.

This is because every aspect of reality demonstrably shows us that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, which causes me to ask the question:

Why? Why would your god set everything up that way, especially when it plans to torture us for eternity for not believing?

Doesn’t that seem absolutely monstrous for it to set a trap like that? To purposely deceive us like that?

If faith is so important, why doesn’t it work? If your god wanted us to come to truth through faith, then why make it so that faith appears, by all quantifiable metrics, to be a complete failure as an arbiter of truth?

What is so damn great about faith?

Faith is the selling point of a fraudulent product. If you have no evidence, then faith is all you have. But if faith is so great, why don’t we base our entire lives on faith- why demand evidence for anything? Faith is a failed manifestation of human brain function and should be discouraged in every arena- religion included.

(4832) Yahweh’s hand in child sacrifice

If the Bible is accurate then Yahweh dabbled in the throes of child sacrifice during his early association with the Jewish nation. Given the universal moral objections to such a practice and the fact that Yahweh was involved with this abomination, it is the easy and immediate conclusion that he is fictional. The following is an excerpt from Heath Dewrell’s Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel:

Despite the widespread assumption that the differences in the various forms of the law of the firstborn can be attributed to some kind of diachronic development, I remain skeptical. In particular, there is no reason to assume that the sacrifice of firstborn children was limited to an early period of Israelite history and then fell out of use with the “progress of civilization” or some such. Although it is true that the version of the law that mandates these sacrifices, Exod 22:28b–29, appears in the Covenant Code, which is considered by most to be the earliest of the biblical legal collections, 46 these firstborn sacrifices are most clearly and explicitly condemned in Ezekiel’s oracles (Ezek 20:25–26), which date at the earliest to the late monarchic period.

Thus, it is not possible to assume that the sacrifice of firstborn children represents a primitive form of the rite that gradually gave way to redemption. Instead, it appears that sacrifice of firstborn children was practiced in some circles both in a relatively early period as well as during the last days of the monarchy. Although it is theoretically possible to argue, like Fishbane, that child sacrifice was an early rite that fell out of general practice but then again arose under the influence of Israel’s neighbors, it seems equally likely that the ritual simply continued to exist throughout a relatively long period of Israel’s history, only finally falling out of practice during the exile.

On the other hand, that child sacrifice was probably never a universal means of fulfilling the firstborn requirement in ancient Israel is demonstrated both by the paucity of evidence for the rite in biblical narrative and by the very existence of other versions of the law (on which, see chapter 5 below). Why did several different procedures for satisfying Yahweh’s claim to firstborn children apparently coexist?

Stavrakopoulou suggests that various forms of the rite “would give families the option of sacrificing either a firstborn child or an animal, presumably depending upon the circumstances of the (extended) family.”47 Although it is appropriate to emphasize the lack of uniformity of religious practice in ancient Israel, this explanation seems to put more emphasis on the individual family than would likely have obtained in an ancient society. It is unlikely that parents, even in consultation with their extended family, would have had the “option” of choosing whether to sacrifice the child, as prescribed in the Covenant Code, or to redeem the child with either an animal sacrifice or a donation to the temple, as prescribed in other versions of the law.

More likely, in my opinion, is Ackerman’s suggestion that sacrifice of the firstborn was “possible within some circles of Yahwism” [emphasis mine].48 These circles were probably geographically delineated, at least to a degree, as J. Hutton argues; he concludes that “child sacrifice was in fact a legitimate feature of at least some forms of Judahite, if not pan-Israelite, cultic expression” [emphasis mine]. 49 Even though there is unfortunately little evidence for identifying the specific geographic locations(s) of the group(s) that practiced firstborn sacrifice, there does seem to be evidence for the existence of these groups both at a relatively early period (Exod 22:28b–29) and during a relatively late time (Ezek 20:25–26). At present, however, we can say little more about these groups other than they do seem to have existed.

Christians might try to squirm out of this problem by stating that the Jews of that time were doing child sacrifice on their own, not at the command of Yahweh. But, if this was true, then Yahweh the Omnipotent, nevertheless, is responsible for failing to put an immediate and decisive end to this practice and to keep his holy bible unbesmirched by any reference to such an odious ritual. Either way, Yahweh is shown to not exist.

(4833) Age of accountability is non-scriptural

An often overlooked issue that erodes confidence in the Christian salvation theory is what happens to children when they die before having any opportunity to meet the (various and somewhat contradictory) scriptural requirements needed to earn a place in heaven. The Bible fails to address this problem and apologetic attempts to tackle it have fallen short. The following was taken from;

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1db6ago/because_the_doctrine_of_the_age_of_accountability/

Because the doctrine of the Age of Accountability is contradicted by what the Christians’ scriptures say about salvation, Christians who assert the Age of Accountability make Christians’ scriptures seem less worthy of trust as a guide to salvation to non-Christians

I begin this post by acknowledging that the Christians’ scriptures are inconsistent about what a person must do in order to be saved, and these differences, far from being merely trivial points seized upon by Non-Christians, have created considerable disagreements between Christian communities about what salvation requires a Christian to do. For further details if interested, see https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/gm7od4/because_the_bible_is_contradictory_about_what_one/ .

But my current debate topic is not about whether any or none of the Christians’ scriptures’ models of salvation are correct; rather, I focus in this debate topic upon the key fact that all claimed models of salvation within the Christians’ scriptures are spoken about in terms of deeds which all people must do in order to be saved. No exception is made for any person to be saved due to youth or inability to do the required salvific rite (whatever that may be).

The Christian who believes in some type of age of accountability often appeals to verses within the Christians’ scriptures which speak about YHWH’s mercy and love for all people. But such arguments are flawed for 4 reasons.

1. 1. They require 1 to regard the Christians’ scriptures’ clear statements that all people who want to be saved must do certain things (even if that thing is only believing in Jesus) as not true.
   2. They ignore the Christian scriptures’ claims that all people, with no distinction based upon age, are sinners who need to be saved through Jesus. See, for an extreme and direct example allegedly from Jesus’s mouth, GJohn 3:36, “Jesus said this: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Notably, in this passage, Jesus does not say, “He who is adult and believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him if he be an adult.” Therefore, in order to accept that an age of accountability exists, the Christian must indirectly accuse Jesus of lying about salvation or not telling the truth about salvation. Similarly, Paul, in Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, in Romans 3:24 says that YHWH has offered salvation through faith in Jesus to all people, and Paul elaborates upon such sentiments in Romans 5:1-10. In none of these passages from Paul is any exception made for people below a certain age. Therefore, in order to accept that an age of accountability exists, the Christian must indirectly accuse Paul of of lying about salvation or not telling the truth about salvation.
   3. They ignore the fact that YHWH, according to the Christians’ scriptures, does not care about infants sufficiently to avoid harming them, but to the contrary sometimes kills babies (as in 2 Samuel 12:13-18) and sometimes orders his followers to kill babies (as in 1 Samuel 15). Furthermore, YHWH is taught by the Christians’ scriptures to be unchanging (James 1:17). So, a god who is capable of hating babies from a given ethnic group so much that he orders his followers to kill them and is capable of himself killing a baby is capable of condemning to be unsaved even babies who do not do whatever a person must do in order to be saved.
   4. They ignore the fact that even Christians have recognized that there is no such thing as an age of accountability; such is taught, to cite 1 example, in the Christian preacher James Janeway’s book “A Token for Children”, in which he wrote, “Are the souls of your children of no value? They are not too little to die.. not too little to go to hell.”

2 Timothy 3:16 says that YHWH is the author of all of the Christians’ scriptures. Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 assert that YHWH cannot lie. Romans 3:4 encourages Christians to regard YHWH’s words as true even if all people must be regarded as liars. Stringing these claims into a coherent picture, we get the following claim easily enough: because the Christians’ scriptures were written by an always truthful entity, Christians should believe the Christians’ scriptures rather than any human claims which contradict the Christians’ scriptures.

For this reason, Christians, if they truly believe their scriptures, would reject the age of accountability as a false doctrine and teach that even a baby, if dying without having done what is necessary to be saved in Christiany, is not saved.

Yet some Christians claim otherwise. These Christians are free to do so, of course, but when they assert that an age of accountability exists, they indirectly reveal that they do not believe the Christians’ scriptures’ claims about salvation. And when Christians do not believe what the Christians’ scriptures say about salvation, that raises the further question of why non-Christians should believe what the Christians’ scriptures say about salvation, which in turn makes Christians’ scriptures seem less worthy of trust as a guide to salvation to non-Christians.

The standard apologetic fallback position is that babies and young children will get a chance after they die to accept Jesus. Even in a fictional setting, this seems wildly improbable. And any plausible age of accountability claim is destroyed by the identical twin paradox- two non-Christian twins are injured in an accident and one dies a day shy of the age of accountability, and goes to heaven, while the other dies a day after, and goes to hell.

(4834) Ten fatal flaws of the Bible

The Bible enjoys the biased view of many Christians who are taught early in life to revere it and to not question it. But when that command and admonition is ignored, and the Bible is put to routine objective scrutiny, it is easy to see that it is fatally flawed. The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-fatal-flaws-of-the-bible-24ef7a305f3f

Below are ten reasons why it is objectively impossible to view the Bible as being inspired by a good and perfect God, assuming of course that we define the words “good” and “perfect” the same way they are used in everyday life.

1. The New Testament manuscripts contain more differences than it has words:

Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical and fundamentalist, who graduated from Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College before obtaining his Masters in Divinity and PhD at Princeton Theological Seminary and now one of the world’s most respected New Testament scholars, cites a fact that has been documented by many other scholars that the New Testament manuscripts have more variants than there are words in the New Testament…well over 200,000 of them. Some scholars now count closer to 400,000 of them.

While most do not affect any doctrine, there are some that make a big difference in how it is interpreted. Dr. Ehrman explains many of these in detail in his sixth New York Times bestselling book, Misquoting Jesus, the Story Behind who Changed the Bible and Why.

If it was the intention for a perfect, all-knowing God to inspire a perfect book so that His creatures would have His word and instructions, it would be of little value unless He made sure all copies of it were also correctly copied. Surely, one should expect that a perfect God would have his word made available to every creature that is 100% accurate and not have over 200,000 variants in the copies.

2. It declares many erroneous things about basic facts and the reality of proven science:

If basic facts about how the earth came to be and how it operates were mistaken by the authors of the Bible, a perfect God certainly could not have inspired them to write the things they did.

Despite what the Bible tells us in Joshua 10:12–14, the sun did not stand still nor did the earth stop rotating. Physics is clear; if the earth ever stopped spinning for even a second, all people, animals, rocks, topsoil, trees, buildings, and so on, would be swept away into the atmosphere. In addition, there is no recorded history anywhere in the world about areas having a long day or long night.

Adam and Eve never existed. The fossil record, DNA, and other sciences all prove how human sapiens came to be. And it was long after our sun and many stars existed, and long after many species of plants and animals lived and became extinct, despite the chronology seen in Genesis.

When was Eve created? Genesis 1:24–27 says it was at the same time that Adam was (on the sixth day) but Genesis 2:18–23 says it was after Adam and the animals were created in order to find a better companion for Adam.

Despite the Bible saying otherwise, there is no need to explain that rain and snow are not released through windows in the sky, or that two and a half million people outran the Egyptian army, or that Solomon was the wisest man on earth, or that Lot was righteous (see reason #4). And of course, everybody except a Biblical author knows that bats are not birds nor is leprosy cured by sprinkling the blood of birds seven times throughout the house (Leviticus 14:49–53).

3. The food chain and innocent helpless animals:

In Genesis 1 we hear God say several times that His creation was good.

But how is it possible for a good God to create the animal kingdom, millions of various creatures, most of whom must kill and eat each other in order to stay alive. Innocent animals who must live in constant fear and then die a painful death, whether by disease, starvation, drought or torn apart piece by piece while being eaten alive, unless they are killed and eaten by humans first.

All He had to do was make them with solar cells in ears or with any other energy producing device that a smart God could easily have designed or just spoke into existence. These creatures are totally innocent, and their near universal suffering serves no purpose in a world created by a good God. Solomon was even honored in 1 Kings 8:63 for killing 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep as a sacrifice to God while dedicating the new temple.

Apologists often say it was because Eve ate the apple. If that satisfies you, then go out and enjoy watching them suffer a painful and slow death while praising God for the wonderful and “good” world he created. Do not forget to enjoy watching the mourning and painful grief that many will visibly show when they see their child or parent dead or dying. After all, it would be your God’s doing. As an aside, could it be that how we evolved, explains our history of cruelty and racist tribalism?

4. Immoral to the extreme…just a couple examples of many:

Lot offered his two daughters to a group of sex seeking men to do to them whatever they wished (Genesis 19:8). Later, he impregnated both daughters, but the Bible of course blames the girls, and accuses them of conspiring to get their father drunk so that they could rape him to become pregnant. (Genesis 19:30–36). In the New Testament 2 Peter 2:7 says that he, their father was righteous.

Deuteronomy 21:10–13: ”When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her (that means to rape her) and be her husband and she shall be your wife.” (Rape and kidnapping were not only approved by the Bible, but they were expressly authorized as part of God’s Law)

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 mandates that if a young virgin is raped, she must marry the rapist if he pays her father 50 shekels of silver.

Yes, those above and many other similar immoral events and laws are right from the “good book” itself.

If right and wrong means anything, can anyone truly call the Bible a good book?

5. Defies reasonable logic:

Ever since Homo sapiens organized into groups, they created thousands of Gods who they worshiped and sacrificed to with utmost devotion. Their worship was generally based on superstitions and fear of the unknown. Other times, the common people were just conned by a person seeking power, control, and/or money. There was never any evidence for their faith, except maybe a little fake magic trick now and then, or a leader’s superior understanding of how things work; yet thousands of Gods were believed by the masses to be real and true. Yes, THOUSANDS of them were really and truly believed to be Gods! Believed by smart, normal, and ordinary people.

If there was in fact, one good God who was actually real who had all power and who loved his or her creatures, why did he or she never intervene in the thousands of deceptions taking place during the thousands of years that their creatures were being fooled? Christians claim that He finally did, 2000 years ago. Yet billions of people before and after never got a word from him. Would an all-powerful God who loved his creatures and desired them to know him, just refuse to or not know how to communicate with them?

Is there any difference between that and a person who beats an untrained dog for not knowing what the words “sit” or “fetch” mean?

6. Numerous contradictions:

There are literally hundreds of clear contradictions in the Bible and only apologists and their followers try to explain them away. Just a few examples that show the impossibility of a perfect God inspiring this book follows. (To be perfect is to be without error or mistake).

When was the empty tomb first discovered by Mary Magdalene? It was after sunrise according to Mark 16:2, but John 20:1 said it was still dark. Worse yet, John even tells us she saw that the stone had already been removed while it was dark but in Mark, we see her going to the tomb after the sun came up wondering who would move the stone for her to get in. Any attempt to reconcile this will only dig their hole deeper.

1 Kings 7:15–22 says that the two pillars at the temple were 18 cubits high. However, 2 Chronicles 3:15–17 disagrees and say they were 35 cubits high.

Has anyone ever seen God? Saying no are John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16 and 1 John 4:12. Saying yes are Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11.

How is a person saved? Just a few of over two dozen ways the Bible gives are: Paul says in Galatians 2:16 & Romans 3:20 that it is by faith alone. James 2:21–24 states that it is by works. Acts 2:21 & Romans 10:13 say to just call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. However, Matthew 7:21 states that not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Matthew 25:34–46 teaches that heaven is obtained only by helping the poor and needy and without doing those things one is eternally condemned. Romans 8:29–30 & Romans 9:15–16 clearly states that salvation is only the result of election and predestination by God, regardless of what anyone does. Many more “roads to salvation” are documented in the above link.

The “perfect and good God” has admitted He made a mistake in Genesis 6:6 so he decided to drown everyone except eight, including all the pregnant women, babies, toddlers, and animals. Elsewhere in 1 Samuel 15:29 and Numbers 23:19 His word declares that He never changes His mind or repents about anything.

A careful reading of Genesis 11:26 & 32 and that of Genesis 12:4 and Acts 7:4 will show that Abram was only 75 years old after he had already lived 135 years. You really must read the fine print if you are going to stake your life on this book.

7. Not a good God by any definition:

Dan Barker was an evangelical and fundamentalist pastor for almost 20 years and who also composed many songs, some of which are still sung in churches today. His book Godless (without a God) is his autobiography explaining how he lost his faith with many chapters explaining why. His latest book, God, the Most Unpleasant Character in all of Fiction, quotes word for word over a thousand verses (all quoted in full) that describes certain attributes of the God of the Bible. He gives each attribute a separate and sizable chapter. Just a few chapters are Blood Thirsty, Ethnic Cleanser, Infanticidal, Aborticidal, and Misogynistic. The book contains 300 pages of word for word “inspired scripture” for anyone who wants to know the full story. Most of the passages are obviously ignored by Christian preachers and authors who only dwell on a few of the nicer stories and verses. I stole a couple of his chapter titles in the paragraph which follows below.

Just like most Christians, most Muslims are Muslims because they believed their loving parents who taught them it was true. The same for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zeus, Osiris, Baal, Diana, Apollo, the many Egyptian Pharaohs, who were believed to have divine attributes, and thousands more. To condemn a person with eternal torture for the sin of obeying and respecting the teachings of their loving and caring parents is not anything a good God or even an evil person would think was fair. Given the fact that almost none of them had a Bible (despite its dozens of contradictory ways one must be saved by and its 200,000 plus variants), I rest my case. It would make him nothing but a merciless, sadomasochistic, unforgiving, unjust, and a capriciously malevolent monster.

Thomas Jefferson had the same thoughts when he wrote his “adoptive son” and secretary who was also a career diplomat William Short on August 4, 1820. In his letter (see it here) he writes referring to the God of the Bible as “a terrible character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” His evidence was solely based on the scriptures themselves.

8. Broken promises:

John 14:13–14 “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” If true, some people are now 2000 years old.

John 16:23–24 “And on that day, you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.”

Matthew 18:19–20 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” If true, why is there still cancer and malaria?

Luke 12:6–7: “Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” Yet every year 600,000,000 birds are killed by colliding with window glass and another two billion are killed by cats. Those figures are just in the United States.

There are many people who are always claiming that God has healed them…but never has an amputee ever grown a new arm or a new leg. Explanations such as natural remissions which occur quite frequently, or the placebo effect are seldom ever considered. It seems the most miracles he is credited of performing by his faithful followers are finding lost car keys, giving goosebumps and healing headaches.

9. Is unabashed child abuse:

Religious Trauma Syndrome is a real psychological and serious problem with millions of children and even adults.

Untold thousands of children suffer nightmares and/or depression believing that their dead alcoholic father or best friend whose loving parents taught them another religion is burning in hell.

Parents do not own their children. They have a duty to help their children grow and to think and make good decisions by using critical thinking skills. Sadly, many parents and Christian organizations promote instruction and indoctrination that is absolutely the same as brain washing…the same way they would build a robot; to program it to think and act only in the way the “builder” decides.

Many innocent children are punished for asking questions and are told that to doubt is a serious sin. Many thousands are kicked out of the house and some have all support denied for the sole reason that their logical working brain sought answers and explanations to things that were not clear or did not seem to make logical sense to them.

To believe the Bible literally, is the same as concluding most of human history, science discoveries, biology, physics, geology, astrophysics and others are all frauds. Such blind faith stunts their intellectual and social growth and prevents the necessary skill of critical thinking to develop. That is why many cult members and followers of crazy conspiracy theories are those who were indoctrinated to accept things on blind faith. In essence, they were taught that obtaining and weighing evidence was not important. Many were taught that that was downright dangerous…that it could destroy their faith. It is no coincidence that the majority of climate deniers, flat-earthers, and QAnon followers also espouse strong religious views. Sadly, they lack the skill to think critically.

For a deeper understanding of this neglected problem, please explore the many resources at Recovering from Religion and Journey Free. Qualified therapists can be found at the Secular Therapist Project.

10. Absurdities beyond any logical basis:

In order to cure and remove leprosy, Leviticus 14:49–53 says “to cleanse the house then, he shall take two birds, cedar wood, a scarlet string, and hyssop, and he shall slaughter the one bird in an earthenware vessel over running water. Then he shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet string, with the live bird, and dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird as well as in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. So he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird and with the running water, along with the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet string. However, he shall let the live bird go free outside the city into the open field. So he shall make atonement for the house, and it will be clean.”

Numbers 22:21–30 is about a talking donkey. Surely, an all-powerful God could very easily make a donkey or snake to talk (remember Mr. Ed)? That is not the issue. The absurdity is the two-way discussion that the donkey had with his master, Balaam. Read it and decide for yourself if it has the least bit of plausibility. Balaam speaks to the donkey exactly as he would another person…shows no surprise or shock that he is talking to an animal.

Only the most ignorant man could write, in Leviticus 12:1–5 and say that the mother is unclean for seven days and must be segregated for 33 days whenever she has a baby boy or is unclean for 14 days and must be segregated for 66 days whenever her baby is a girl. And millions of people say that every word of the Bible is inspired by an all-knowing and perfect God.

Believing anything without evidence, is not only foolish but it is dangerous. Thousands of Gods and religions have once existed, most of which have now completely vanished, and all were based on blind faith, wishful thinking, superstitious or childhood indoctrination…yet most had fervent believers willing to die (and many did) for their non-existing God. It’s one thing to think that a God may have started the universe, but it’s another thing to ignore the many flaws of the Bible and still claim that it contains no errors and was inspired by a “good” and “perfect” all-knowing God.

The evidence is in and it is overwhelming! To suggest that faith without evidence (blind faith) somehow supersedes or is more credible than scientific facts or obvious and logical realities, that has been proven over and over again is not reasonable. It is pure and simple, utter nonsense for adults to continue in such thinking and to refuse to use the wonderful brain that evolution has developed.

The jury has reached a verdict, 12-0, the Bible is not the word of a supernatural god, but rather the thoughts, beliefs, fantasies, opinions, and whims of a pre-modern people who did their best to understand the world and to explain the mysteries of their existence. It is OK to see it as an important historical document that provides some good advice about how to live life, but it’s also important to see it for what it is not- a timeless answer to the human experience.

(4835) Twelve reasons to leave Christianity

Two thousand years ago, Christianity was easy to sell to people who knew no science, no history, and who couldn’t read. That sale is much harder today, and it usually succeeds only when they can infiltrate immature brains with their brainwashing tactics. But the dam is about to break. Even those thoroughly indoctrinated are being assaulted by many inconsistencies in what they have been taught versus what they observe and experience. In the following, 12 reasons are listed for why this is happening:

https://medium.com/excommunications/twelve-reasons-why-millions-are-leaving-christianity-c5e9ab9b8937

The Baby Boomers and ALL earlier generations grew up in a time when the sciences lacked much of the knowledge and information that they do today. Not all that long ago, it was quite rational to think that lightning and volcanoes were supernatural events causing great fear. Major discoveries are made every year that clearly debunk many of the things that once were very reasonable to believe. Advanced technologies just in the last few decades have discovered a wealth of new knowledge from DNA and the size and make up of our universe. Among many other things, with the discovery of millions of additional fossils and new aging techniques, we have a very good understanding of how our species evolved. Even plate tectonics did not become a consensus until the late 1960s.

Many things that our parents and preachers taught us not only seemed logical and reasonable, but there was no way to fact check many of them. In addition, we had no real access to alternative opinions to even consider. We now know that the human race did not begin how the Bible told us it did with Adam and Eve. (See links below for greater details.) Among numerous other things, archaeology has shown that the Bible’s account of the Exodus just did not happen. Ditto with Noah’s flood, thanks to modern geology, hydrology, and genetics. The Tower of Babel story is debunked by linguistics research, even though the idea that a powerful and all-knowing God feared man’s attempt to build a stairway to His abode in heaven was absurd on its face. And we also know for sure that the earth is not 6,000 years old, despite the fact that numerous churches still teach that it is. Since the Bible is so incredibly wrong with so much, how can we reasonably accept anything else it says as fact?

Yet, many are still teaching (indoctrinating) children that everything in the Bible are facts direct from God, thus the children learn to view science and the humanities with the utmost suspicion, if not outright contempt and rejection. Some suggest that to even explore things like some of the sciences or philosophy is to invite Satan into your life.

Thankfully, with the internet, Google, and social media, the ability to fact check things in real time gives us many resources to help determine fact from fiction. (That assumes facts are what is being sought.) Millions of former sincere Christians, like me, came to realize that they no longer had an excuse to continue in their false beliefs. We had to be true to ourselves, so we just moved on. For many, this process was very difficult and costly. Loss of families, jobs, and entire communities of friends and support has occurred to many of them. Many children were literally thrown out of the house, and college tuition was cut off. Due to childhood indoctrination (brainwashing), such as an eternal hell for unbelievers, the process was long and difficult. Millions, in their hearts, know that it is not true, but remain mute about it because of fear or because of the high cost of coming out.

Interestingly, there are over a thousand active clergy in the support group, The Clergy Project. It consists of vetted clergy who now no longer believe in the supernatural, but if known, they stand the real possibility of losing their family and financial ruin. Many are not trained in anything other than the ministry. The goal is to support and assist, often with money, their transition with as little pain as possible.

Here are a few of the reasons why millions are leaving Christianity: (additional links are below for more detailed documentation.)

The Bible is not from God:

It is easy to confirm that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors; thus a perfect God could not possibly have inspired it, or if He or She did, it was not at all important to preserve its original messages. So why even inspire it to begin with? Certainly, any all-knowing God would not have been wrong about anything. Further, an all-knowing God would have known that its many ambiguities and multiple possible interpretations were going to result in many wars, murders, and tortures, including racism, slavery, witch burning, and other atrocities. A perfect God would have been a master of clear communication. Since it cannot be from Yahweh or Jehovah God, who according to the Bible is both all knowing and all powerful, there is no longer any rationale to fear an eternal hell.

Modern discoveries:

As stated above, recent discoveries have proven that the Bible is full of scientific and historical errors that, again, no perfect God could have inspired them. We now know its account of Adam and Eve could not possibly have happened, nor are the Exodus, Noah’s flood, or the Tower of Babel even plausible. The sun never stood still to allow Joshua to finish one of his genocides, nor is the earth 6,000 years old.

The Bible by any definition is immoral:

It became harder and harder, and finally, impossible to justify the many atrocities and immoralities that the Bible not only condoned but many times even commanded to take place. Genocides, slavery, and rape are several examples.

On top of those, how could a good and loving God ever create the food chain that required almost all animals that desired to live or feed their babies to be forced to kill and eat other animals to do so? Not only was the sacrifice of thousands of animals commanded, but several times the Bible indicated that God loved the smell of the burning meat. Imagine that, God having the same traits as men. Did an all-powerful God really inspire this thing, or does it sound exactly like things that ignorant old men would write? Karen Armstrong was right-on when she opened her book The History of God, with the line that read, “In the beginning, man created God.”

It is extremely anti-women:

The Bible did not respect, nor did it even try to protect the rights and dignity of women. As society became more enlightened and understood that females had equal worth as males, (and were often smarter and wiser) the Bible’s utter discrimination of women became intolerable. Just one example is, if a woman marries a man and it is determined that she was not a virgin, is found in Deuteronomy 22:20–21: But if this charge is true, and they did not find the girl to have evidence of virginity, then they shall bring the girl out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death… How they “determined” that she was not a virgin shows the absolute ignorance of its author(s). Meanwhile, her husband was allowed other wives and sex slaves, politely referred to as concubines.

If you are still not convinced, here is Deuteronomy 21:10–13: When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house and mourn her father and mother (who had just been killed) a full month; and after that you may go in to her (that means to rape her) and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29: If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.

It is very very racist:

The Bible was racist to the core. Slaves and genocide were condoned and often outright advocated. Over and over again we read that the Bible’s God was the “God of Israel” who commanded them to enslave many foreigners, kill many others, and burn down entire foreign cities. The reason? God did not want the foreigners nearby, as his people would then be tempted. Deuteronomy 20:16–18: Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave anything that breathes alive. Instead, you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they will not teach you to do all the same detestable practices of theirs which they have done for their gods, by which you would sin against the Lord your God.

1 Samuel 15:3: Hear the voice of the God of the Bible instruct His priest: “Now go and strike Amalek and completely destroy everything that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Not only did we learn just how racist the Bible was, but that racism became deeply incorporated in the church. Any honest reading of U.S. history shows it was used to justify slavery. I would think that a good God would have clearly stated that no one is ever allowed to own another human being, or to rape a woman, or to kill and destroy entire ethnic communities.

It is not a small world anymore:

Given our ability to travel today and to observe people interacting around the world, we realized that our culture was not superior when it came to morality and ethics. Moral and smart people lived everywhere, and many were sincere and devout followers of other religions. Thus, there was no evidence that having the “right God” resulted in a higher standard of morality or a greater love, unlike what we were taught by our parents and preachers.

No longer a captive:

Many who were forced to attend church as children disliked it so much, that when they became independent, they just quit for no other reason.

No mercy for the abused:

Many were abused and/or had friends who were. Rather than be provided with support, comfort, and therapy, they were often forced to be quiet about it and some were even blamed for being abused, just as women are often blamed for being raped. In the last decade, approximately eight billion dollars has been spent by the Catholic Church in settlements and attorney fees regarding clergy abuses. Protestant churches have had their share of scandals too.

MAGA politics:

Politics caused many to flee the church. While some churches are better than others, the fact remains that over 80% of white evangelicals proudly supported a pathological liar, a serial adulterer who bragged about sexual assaults, was an outspoken racist, and who did not even possess a single “fruit of the spirit” or one of the “seven virtues.” It became clear that their church had nothing to do with morality and love; rather it was usually just about money, power, and white supremacy. This is not to suggest that there are not many good and sincere Christians, there certainly are, but the majority of white ones made it completely untenable.

Even those who were less extreme and who had soft spots for suffering humanity, rarely raised their voices making them totally complicit.

Hypocrisy to the max:

Social issues is another major reason for many who left the church. While many evangelicals try to justify their vote for the protection of the “unborn,” the fact is, that same conservative platform also attempted dozens of times to strip health care from over 20 million people and they fight very hard against any attempts to provide fair housing, fair justice, equal education, equal voting, and safety nets that desperately are needed by families with children who have already been born.

The nicer parts of the Bible instructs true believers to heal the sick, feed the hungry, love their enemies, and among many other humanistic things, to comfort and protect the immigrant. Hypocrisy is really a kind word given that the loudest so-called Christians advocate the total opposite.

Just a thought question: If you truly believed that the unborn has a soul and will go to heaven if it is not born, is it really better having them to live, rather than most ending up in hell?

LGBTQ+:

Many were gay or had close friends or family members who were. Other “straights” were put off with the rampant discrimination and hatred. Yes, while Leviticus 18:22 does seem to refer to gay men, many “righteous” and outspoken Christians very conveniently ignored the other verses in the very same book of Leviticus that condemn having tattoos, wearing clothes that are made with mixed fabric (cotton, linens, polyester, etc.) adultery, eating pork, cursing your parents, planting more than one kind of seed in a field, and the trimming of sideburns and beards (See Leviticus chapters 19–20.) It makes no distinction as to any of them being worse than the others.

The hypocrisy and cherry-picking to single out just one of them for condemnation is nonsensical and is outright appalling, not to mention, dishonest.

Broken and false promises:

It became obvious that the Bible’s promise to answer prayer did not work. Generally the poor remained poor, the depressed remain depressed, and the sick remained sick. While there were a ton of testimonies about miracles, assuming it was not just made up, it always had other plausible explanations. Often God was credited with someone receiving a job offer or finding lost car keys. Healings were usually headaches that went away or other natural explanations, such as the common occurrence of cancer remissions or a high temperature dropping. Those remissions usually came back a year or two later.

Never ever was there a miracle such as an amputated limb growing a new one or anything else that could be explained only by the supernatural. There are billions of hungry people in the world, many of which are children and yet no multitude has ever been fed with just a couple of fish and a loaf of bread. A poor person never had a set of needed car tires instantly installed from thin air, nor if stranded in the desert with an empty gas tank, have it miraculously filled. Many died praying.

If Christianity is a car, it is moving in a deserted area with no gas stations in range. It soon will be running on fumes, then come to a stop as it runs out of fuel. Then it will sit and rust and finally disappear, thankfully, from the face of the earth.

(4836) Book of Enoch

When an ancient text is bandied about, in and out of the biblical canon, stirring up controversy, and then is finally banished from most bibles, it is good evidence that supernatural forces are not at play. Rather, it appears to be nothing more than the ongoing project of many disparate human minds. This is what we observe with the Book of Enoch. The following was taken from:

https://medium.com/@edwinkingsly203/the-book-of-enoch-why-was-it-excluded-from-the-biblical-canon-a3fc4b24740c

The Book of Enoch, an ancient Jewish text, is one of the most intriguing and enigmatic writings associated with biblical literature. Despite its fascinating content and historical significance, it is not included in the canonical Bible of most Christian traditions. To understand why the Book of Enoch was banned from the Bible, we must delve into its origins, content, theological implications, and the complex history of biblical canon formation.

Historical and Textual Origins:

The Book of Enoch, traditionally attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, is believed to have been composed between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE. It is a collection of various writings, including the “Book of Watchers,” “Book of Parables,” “Astronomical Book,” “Dream Visions,” and the “Epistle of Enoch.” These texts were written in Aramaic and Hebrew, with the most complete versions preserved in Ge’ez, the ancient liturgical language of Ethiopia.

Content and Themes:

The Book of Enoch is notable for its elaborate cosmology, angelology, and eschatology. It describes the fall of the Watchers, a group of angels who descended to Earth and fathered the Nephilim, a race of giants. This narrative offers a detailed account of heavenly hierarchies, the origins of evil, and the eventual divine judgment of the fallen angels and their offspring.

One of the most striking features of the Book of Enoch is its apocalyptic vision. It presents Enoch’s travels through the heavens, where he witnesses the mysteries of the universe, the future judgment of the wicked, and the ultimate redemption of the righteous. These themes resonate with other apocalyptic literature but also diverge in significant ways that were controversial for early Christian theologians.

Theological Implications:

The theological implications of the Book of Enoch played a major role in its exclusion from the biblical canon. Its detailed descriptions of angelic beings and their interactions with humans raised theological questions about the nature of sin, the origin of evil, and the structure of the divine realm. The idea that angels could procreate with humans and produce offspring challenged the prevailing doctrines of many early Jewish and Christian communities.

Additionally, the Book of Enoch’s portrayal of Enoch as a messianic figure who ascends to heaven and receives divine revelations was seen as problematic. This portrayal could be seen as conflicting with the unique status of Jesus Christ in Christian theology. The early church was cautious about texts that might elevate other figures to a similar or competing status.

Canonical Controversy:

The process of determining the biblical canon was complex and spanned several centuries. Early Jewish and Christian communities had varying collections of sacred texts, and the criteria for inclusion were not uniform. Factors influencing the inclusion or exclusion of texts included apostolic authorship, consistency with accepted doctrine, and widespread liturgical use.

The Book of Enoch was widely read and highly regarded in certain Jewish and early Christian circles. It is quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1:14-15) and influenced the writings of early Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Origen. However, its acceptance was not universal. The growing Christian church sought to establish a canon that reflected a coherent and unified theological stance, and texts that presented divergent or speculative doctrines were scrutinized and often excluded.

By the 4th century, the development of a more standardized biblical canon saw the Book of Enoch falling out of favor in most Christian traditions. It was excluded from the canonical lists established by influential councils and synods, such as the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363 CE) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 CE).

The Ethiopian Exception:

One notable exception to the exclusion of the Book of Enoch is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. This ancient Christian tradition considers the Book of Enoch canonical and includes it in its Old Testament. The preservation of Enoch in the Ethiopian Bible underscores the diverse attitudes toward sacred texts within early Christianity and highlights the rich tapestry of early Christian literary culture.

Conclusion:

The exclusion of the Book of Enoch from most biblical canons is a reflection of the complex interplay between theology, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority in the early centuries of Christianity. Its fascinating narratives and profound theological insights continue to captivate scholars, theologians, and readers, offering a glimpse into the diverse and dynamic landscape of ancient religious thought. While it remains outside the official canon for most Christian denominations, the Book of Enoch endures as a testament to the rich and varied heritage of biblical literature.

If a god was involved in the construction of a holy text of his design, it would be unlikely that the canonization of the Book of Enoch would have been controversial. Rather, this god should have created an alignment of opinion that would have been consistent from the beginning as to which books he wanted to be included in his bible. The story of the Book of Enoch suggests the absence of such divine oversight.

(4837) Mark’s fig tree story and the Jewish temple

Scholars have long wondered about the significance of the enigmatic story in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus curses a fig tree that later dies. In the following, it is conjectured that the fig tree is a metaphor for the Jewish temple, that, because it stopped producing ‘fruit,’ became vulnerable to destruction by the Romans. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1dek5t4/what_are_some_facts_from_the_bible_that_a/

The fig tree story is actually interesting. Mark, or so I read, is written as a descending series of ‘bookends’, where an event will be matched later by a subsequent event that form ‘bookends’ around a segment of the story told by Mark.

When Jesus sees the fig tree and fancies a fig (even though it is not the season for figs, notes Mark) he becomes angry and curses the tree because … no figs. He and his entourage then continue on into Jerusalem where he goes to the Temple and overturns the tables of the money changers and causes a commotion. The group then leaves the Temple and on the way back again pass the fig tree, which Mark notes is now withered (ie dead).

So what does this bizarre segment mean? What I’ve read is that Mark was written sometime after 70AD, when the Roman legions finally over-ran Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. Mark is trying to explain why this happened, or why the Jewish deity allowed it to happen. In this dying-fig-tree tale, the fig tree is an allegory or represents the Temple, which has stopped producing fruit for the people. It is no longer serving it’s purpose and has no value – it has become a den of commerce and a profit-center, not a place of worship. So Jesus curses the Temple, foretelling it’s eventual destruction. So Mark is saying the Romans did not ‘destroy’ the Temple, the Jews did that themselves by making it just another commercial site for business transactions.

Given the structured composition of Mark, the allusions to Greek stories, the use of well-known Greco-Roman literary tropes (ie the “missing body” or empty tomb), it is legitimate to wonder if Mark actually knew anything at all about some real dude named Jesus or if it was all just invented from scraps of Old Testament stories etc?

Nevertheless, I suspect 99% of persons who call themselves Christians will have absolutely no idea what Mark was saying in this tale!

The more that we probe and attempt to understand the Gospel of Mark, the more it looks to be a predominantly fictional story steeped in literary allusions. There is nothing in this gospel that can be considered to be hard history. In fact, it may contain no factual information at all.

(4838) Five questions that befuddle pastors

Most church leaders do not encourage questions being asked of them, but prefer that their congregants mindlessly absorb what they are being taught. When that fails, all bets are off. The following lists five questions that pastors tend to stumble on because, unfortunately for them, there are no good answers:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/06/christianity-thrives-because-of-failure.html#more

ONE: “Reverend, please show us the evidence that what you tell us about god is true.”

The folks in the pews rarely muster this kind of curiosity because their clergy have the aura of authority. They have titles and costumes to enhance this status, and, of course, seminary degrees: what better proof that they know what they’re talking about? They’ve studied god intensively, so how can they not be right? Having spent eleven years in seminary myself—working on a Sacred Theology degree and my PhD in Biblical Studies—I made the discovery that the aim of such schools is enforcing and justifying already held beliefs. What you’ll learn about god at a Catholic seminary is different from what you’ll learn at a Southern Baptist seminary.

Nor would most of the laity be able to challenge the claim of the clergy that the Bible provides abundant information about god. The Bible is adored as divinely inspired, until you read it carefully, critically; surveys have shown that most of the laity don’t bother to do this. There is so much wrong with the Bible, just in terms of its depiction of god(s). Once you dig into it seriously, the claim that it was divinely inspired evaporates.

Catholic clergy are likely to claim that their true knowledge about god is based on visions and the powers of the saints (who deliver on prayer requests). Protestant clergy rarely take such an approach, and, indeed, ridicule the vision claims, especially the heavy emphasis on the Virgin Mary showing up all over the planet. Proper Christians pay no attention of vision claims of other religions.

Prayer experiences are especially suspect. If we asked a few hundred of the most devout Christians to consult their god about a wide range of issues (e.g., gay rights, climate change, equal rights for women), the answers would be all over the place. We can be totally skeptical of prayer knowledge.

 TWO: “Reverend, on my drive to church today, I passed six churches of other denominations. How do we know that our denomination is the right one?”

This is so awkward: Christians do not agree on what Christianity is! By splintering into thousands of different brands, it’s pretty clear that devout believers are certain that other versions of the faith are wrong. How did this happen? The Bible certainly helped, because there are so many differing theologies in the scriptures. Pick a few texts that appeal to you, and you can build one version of Christianity; others pick a few that appeal to them, and an alternate version of the faith is created. If you want to believe that Jesus is coming back, there are texts to support this idea (although the specific timing mentioned in the texts has to be ignored). If Jesus coming back is of little interest to you, there are other texts to emphasize. Christians have been fighting over the meaning of Bible verses forever.

Egos and the desire for dominance also play their roles. During Tim Sledge’s many years as an evangelical preacher, he saw how this happened:

“Take a group of these born-again, new creations in Christ—to whom God is giving directions and guidance for day-to-day life—put them in a church and wait. Eventually, some of them will get into a disagreement about something. Sometimes, they work it out, but often, no matter how much prayer takes place, one group gets angry and leaves, often to start another congregation. Wait a little longer, and the process will repeat—over and over—and that’s one reason we have not only thousands of churches, but thousands of Christian denominations.” (Tim Sledge, Four Disturbing Questions with One Simple Answer: Breaking the Spell of Christian Belief, p. 16)

THREE: “Reverend, I want to read the best Jesus story. Which of the four gospels should I pay the most attention to?”

This question might be greeted with stunned silence. Because, chances are the clergy have studied all four gospels, and have themselves struggled with the many problems they present. There’s a broad consensus in New Testament scholarship that Mark was the first gospel written. Matthew copied most of it, and seems to have written his gospel with the goal of correcting Mark’s version. Luke wrote his gospel intending to correct what he considered Matthew’s mistakes. John was annoyed with them all, and imagined a vastly different Jesus. All this has to be one of the best-kept secrets of the clergy, and they have developed ways of deflecting attention from the multitude of mistakes and contradictions.

Scholars try their best to take them in stride, and have even developed tools to make the mistakes and contradictions more obvious. One of these tools is the printing of gospel parallels, that is, a book with the four gospels, chapter by chapter, printed in parallel columns. It’s easy to spot the omissions, additions, changes in wording. The clergy are not likely to recommend this book to lay readers.

Honest, brave clergy might suggest that Mark’s gospel is the best place to start. “After you’ve read it carefully, we can talk about the theological problems you’ve noticed.” Another major issue will probably never be addressed: in the gospels we have Jesus-script created by their authors, who pursued their own theological agenda. There is no way whatever to verified that any of their Jesus-script is based on anything Jesus actually said. “Oh, but we know the authors were divinely inspired” is more fantasy.

FOUR: “Reverend, I get panicked when I think about dying. Please tell me exactly what god expects me to do to deserve eternal life.”

If only the New Testament provided a clear answer! In Matthew 19 we find the story of a rich young man asking Jesus what he had to do “have eternal life.” The bottom line, verse 21: “…go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven…” Not many Christians I know—so caught up in consumerism—would welcome this advice. Compassionate behavior seems to be of vital importance, which we also find in Matthew’s description of the Final Judgement (chapter 25). Those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison will “inherit the kingdom.” But this text is damaged by the severity we find at the end: those who fail this compassion-test will be thrown into “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). This is a mark of cult extremism.

Other New Testament authors stressed correct belief as the sure path to heaven. The author of the long ending of Mark’s gospel stated bluntly: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (16:16). So also the author of John’s gospel: “Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18)—and “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but must endure God’s wrath” (John 3:36). Then this author descended into the world of magic potions; strangely, he omits the Eucharist from his account of the Last Supper, but in his chapter 6 he states that eating the flesh of Jesus, and drinking his blood are the keys to eternal life. The apostle Paul also stressed correct belief: “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).

Of course all such promises have no meaning whatever if there is no such thing as eternal life. This has been the primary gimmick in Christian marketing forever, yet there is no evidence—let alone proof—that it is a reality. How do you remove it from the realm of fantasy?

FIVE: “Reverend, where are we in the Cosmos?”

Curiosity about this, I admit, is probably pretty low. Even among the laity who are aware of space exploration and the dramatic information gathered by space telescopes, might not think too much about it. They may even realize that the ancient Bible idea of the cosmos cannot be taken seriously, but the stark reality of our extreme isolation on planet Earth might not have grabbed their thinking. But our extreme isolation renders all theologies suspect: here we are on one tiny planet, lost in space in the vast Milky Way Galaxy—which is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies—and the professional god-thinkers claim to know for sure what their gods are like. Based, of course, on revelations they’ve received. Yet even the many Christian god-thinkers cannot agree on the attributes of their god. Have the revelations been hopelessly garbled? It’s far more likely that the revelations are fantasy. We prefer reliable, verifiable, objective data about gods. Maybe, someday—very far in the future presumably, if humanity manages to survive—we’ll be able to compare notes with other civilizations in the galaxy that have outgrown superstition. Where we are in the Cosmos hasn’t yet permitted that. Sam Harris described our situation accurately: “Surely there must come a time when we will acknowledge the obvious: theology is little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings.”

Religion is the only enterprise that operates successfully in a vacuum of evidence. Any other business would fail immediately given the same circumstances. Part of the reason for this success is that the laity have been discouraged to question the tenets of their faith, but rather to accept them at face value. It’s when congregants become inquisitive and ask questions that the trouble begins- because there are no satisfactory answers.

(4839) Conspiracy theory truth test

Christianity is the greatest and most successful conspiracy theory ever devised. In the following, seven steps are recommended to evaluate the truth of conspiracy theories. Christianity fails on all seven steps. The following was taken from;

https://www.iflscience.com/how-to-tell-if-a-conspiracy-theory-is-probably-false-74168

Conspiracy theories are everywhere, and they can involve just about anything.

People believe false conspiracy theories for a wide range of reasons – including the fact that there are real conspiracies, like efforts by the Sackler family to profit by concealing the addictiveness of oxycontin at the cost of countless American lives.

The extreme consequences of unfounded conspiratorial beliefs could be seen on the staircases of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and in the self-immolation of a protestor outside the courthouse holding the latest Trump trial.

But if hidden forces really are at work in the world, how is someone to know what’s really going on?

That’s where my research comes in; I’m a social psychologist who studies misleading narratives. Here are some ways to vet a claim you’ve seen or heard.

Step 1: Seek out the evidence

Real conspiracies have been confirmed because there was evidence. For instance, in the allegations dating back to the 1990s that tobacco companies knew cigarettes were dangerous and kept that information secret to make money, scientific studies showed problematic links between tobacco and cancer. Court cases unearthed corporate documents with internal memos showing what executives knew and when. Investigative journalists revealed efforts to hide that information. Doctors explained the effects on their patients. Internal whistleblowers sounded the alarm.

But unfounded conspiracy theories reveal their lack of evidence and substitute instead several elements that should be red flags for skeptics:

• • Dismissing traditional sources of evidence, claiming they are in on the plot.
  • Claiming that missing information is because someone is hiding it, even though it’s common that not all facts are known completely for some time after an event.
  • Attacking apparent inconsistencies as evidence of lies.
  • Overinterpreting ambiguity as evidence: A flying object may be unidentified – but that’s different from identifying it as an alien spaceship.
  • Using anecdotes – especially vaguely attributed ones – in place of evidence, such as “people are saying” such-and-such or “my cousin’s friend experienced” something.
  • Attributing knowledge to secret messages that only a select few can grasp – rather than evidence that’s plain and clear to all.

Step 2: Test the allegation

Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea. Rarely do they put their idea to the tests of logic, reasoning and critical thinking.

While they may say they do research, they typically do not apply the scientific method. Specifically, they don’t actually try to prove themselves wrong.

So a skeptic can follow the method scientists use when they do research: Think about what evidence would contradict the explanation – and then go looking for that evidence.

Sometimes that effort will yield confirmation that the explanation is correct. And sometimes not. Like a scientist, ask yourself: What would it take for you to believe your perception was wrong?

Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs

When theories claim large groups of people are perpetrating wide-ranging activities over a long period of time, that’s another red flag.

Confirmed conspiracies typically involve small, isolated groups, like the top echelon of a company or a single terrorist cell. Even the alliance among tobacco companies to hide their products’ danger was confined to those at the top, who made decisions and enlisted paid scientists and ad agencies to spread their messages.

False conspiracies tend to implicate wide swaths of people, such as world leaders, mainstream media outlets, the global scientific community, the Hollywood entertainment industry and interconnected government agencies.

The online manifesto of Max Azzarello – the man who self-immolated on the steps of a New York courthouse in April 2024– railed against a conspiracy allegedly including every president since Bill Clinton, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even the writers of “The Simpsons.”

Remember that the more people who supposedly know a secret, the harder it is to keep.

Step 4: Look for a motive

Confirmed conspiracies tell stories about why a group of people acted as they did and what they hoped to gain. Dubious conspiracies involve a lot of accusations or just questions without examining what real benefit the conspiracy nets the conspirators, especially when factoring in the costs.

For instance, what purpose would NASA have to lie about the existence of Finland?

Be particularly suspicious when conspiracies allege an “agenda” being perpetrated by an entire sociodemographic, which is often a marginalized group, such as a “gay agenda” or “Muslim agenda.”

Also look to see whether those spreading the conspiracy theories have something to gain. For example, scholarly research has identified the 12 people who are the primary sources of false claims about vaccinations. The researchers also found that those people profit from making those claims.

Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations

If you can’t figure out who is at the root of a conspiracy allegation and thus how they came to know what they claim, that is another red flag. Some people say they have to remain anonymous because the conspiracists will take revenge for revealing information. But even so, a conspiracy can usually be tracked back to its source – maybe a social media account, even an anonymous one.

Over time, anonymous sources either come forward or are revealed. For instance, years after the Watergate scandal took down Richard Nixon’s presidency, a key inside source known as “Deep Throat” was revealed to be Mark Felt, who had been a high-level FBI official in the early 1970s.

Even the notorious “Q” at the heart of the QAnon conspiracy cult has been identified, and not by government investigators chasing leaks of national secrets. Surprise! Q is not the high-level official some people believed.

Reliable sources are transparent.

Step 6: Beware the supernatural

Some conspiracy theories – though none that have been proven – involve paranormal, alien, demonic or other supernatural forces. People alive in the 1980s and 1990s might remember the public fear that satanic cults were abusing and sacrificing children. That idea never disappeared entirely.

And around the same time, perhaps inspired by the TV series “V,” some Americans began to believe in lizard people. It may seem harmless to keep hoping for evidence of Bigfoot, but the person who detonated a bomb in downtown Nashville on Dec. 25, 2020, apparently believed lizard people ran the Earth.

The closer the conspiracy is to science fiction, the closer it is to just being fiction.

Step 7: Look for other warning signs

There are other red flags too, like the use of prejudicial tropes about the group allegedly behind the conspiracy, particularly antisemitic allegations.

But rather than doing the work to really examine their conspiratorial beliefs, believers often choose to write off the skeptics as fools or as also being in on it – whatever “it” may be.

Ultimately, that’s part of the allure of conspiracy theories. It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong.

H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It should be noted that if Christianity was true, it would pass successfully on all of these seven steps. A failure to pass even one strongly indicates that it is not true.

(4840) Old Testament is Israelite propaganda

Christianity hangs on the fact (hope?) that the Old Testament accurately reflects the historical exploits of their god, Yahweh. Otherwise, the foundation of the faith crumbles. But when you look objectively at the OT, what you see is nothing more than self-serving propaganda that the Israelites invented to make them feel special, and give them the right to plunder their neighbors’ property, lands, and virgins. The following examines the elements of this agenda:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dguc3v/old_testament_israelite_propaganda/

In my opinion the Old Testament contains elements that can be interpreted as propaganda, promoting Israelite identity, territorial claims, legal norms, and more. Here are the main points:

One: Chosen people narrative

• • Exclusive covenant: Emphasizes the Israelites as God’s chosen people.
    • Example: Deuteronomy 7:6 – “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
  • Propagandistic element: Promotes a unique identity and sense of divine favor and superiority.

Two: Divine endorsement of conquest

• • Conquest of Canaan: Depicts God commanding the Israelites to conquer and destroy other nations.
    • Example: Joshua 6:21 – “They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”
  • Propagandistic element: Justifies territorial expansion and violence as divine commands, legitimizing actions and territorial claims.

Three: Historical revisionism

• • Selective memory: Highlights victories and divine interventions, while downplaying failures.
    • Example: The miraculous victories in battles, such as the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6), while less emphasis is placed on failures like the sin of Achan (Joshua 7).
  • Propagandistic element: Creates a glorified national narrative, reinforcing collective identity and pride.

Four: Promotion of legal and moral codes

• • Laws and commandments: Presents laws as directly given by God.
    • Example: Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14:3-21 – “These are the animals you may eat… and those you may not eat.”
  • Propagandistic element: Strengthens internal cohesion and control by promoting adherence to specific norms.

Five: Demonization of opponents

• • Negative portrayals: Depicts enemies as immoral or deserving punishment.
    • Example: Deuteronomy 20:16-18 – “However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.”
  • Propagandistic element: Unifies the in-group and justifies conflict, enhancing group solidarity.

What is plain as day is that the Old Testament cannot in any sense be viewed as the product of the ‘universal, fair, benevolent god’ that Christians believe. The propaganda elements of the Old Testament are sufficient evidence to conclude that Yahweh is a fictional god, invented by the Jewish people, to grant themselves a feeling of status, superiority, and privilege.

(4841) What convinced you?

The answer to that question is pertinent to qualify a person’s faith as being legitimate. But few Christians can answer it a cogent fashion. The following lists 10 arguments for belief, but also how each fails to be a pathway to objective truth:

https://medium.com/excommunications/what-convinced-you-78550c1a4b8b

Religious people always tell these fantastical tales of what they believe…or what they’re told to believe. But what actually convinced them to believe in the first place?

It’s not like these stories made sense to them from the get go. Something must have made them make sense.

You bring up Scientology, Mormonism or even Jehovah’s Witness to a mainstream evangelical Christian and they’ll laugh like they have a hairy caterpillar in their pants.

Most supernatural myths are unbelievable at best, and laughably absurd more often than not.

I know, in a lot of instances it’s indoctrination from a young age. But what about the ones who are at an age to know better? The born-agains and the born-again agains?

Let’s breakdown the main reasons for belief:

1. Culture/Demographics

There is definitely a cultural and demographic aspect to it. If you live in India, most likely you are a Hindu, followed by Sikh and then other religions as the percentages and chances go down. Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are mostly Muslim. A high number of Italians and Brazilians are Roman Catholic…You get what I’m saying. Generally speaking, the area of the world you live in, dictates the main religion you are exposed to and ultimately identify with.

2. Indoctrination

Second in line, I would say, would be indoctrination. Following the cultural and demographic influences of specific religions…parents impart their inherited beliefs onto their children, and so on and so forth down the generational path. Not to say this can’t be broken…but more times than not, childhood indoctrination sticks, causes irreversible harm and allows the ideas to take hold. Religious organizations have been using these tactics for millennia…they’re pretty good at it.

3. Tribalism

Not only are you going to go along with the culture and traditions you were brought up in, but you’re going to fight for them like a sports team fan. “Joseph Smith was NOT a criminal, he did read the golden tablets in his hat and when his friend’s wife destroyed the first papers he translated, the angel Moroni was angry and changed the story a bit.” It’s a natural human instinct to belong to a tribe and defend it to the death…or at least stick up for it behind a keyboard.

4. Pretending to believe

This is one of the most significant, and I would argue, highly popular reasons. Most atheists I know (including myself), were forced to pretend to be religious to fit in. A lot of times, they even want to believe it (again, myself). Good faith attempts are made, brain cells are fully dedicated and evidence is intensely desired…but it always falls short, and we are left with anger, resentment and/or disappointment.

5. Desire to believe

Insufficient evidence for the belief, but full dedication to it. I think they call that faith. It’s the number one answer given, when asked why someone believes their religion is true. Which is not really a reason to believe, but more of a method to express belief. It’s belief in belief. You believe that you believe the stories…and that’s good enough for some people.

6. Religious Texts/Holy Books/Oral Stories

Epic adventures, retold tales of glory, mythical creatures and a dash of reality thrown in for good measure. A lot of the stories in these texts are rehashed from previously practiced religions and traditions. Noah and Gilgamesh share some striking resemblances, to name one. Some characters have been shown to a high degree of certainty, that they didn’t exist at all. Indigenous legends also fall into this category, with just as much believability as modern contemporary religious storytelling.

9. Supposed Scientific Evidence

Many people think that their holy books point to observations made in science today. A lot of them are a big stretch. There is nothing significant, science wise, in the books to warrant bragging about it. There are no lessons to be learned about important facts that keep us healthy, happy or even alive. All of these luxuries came from proper scientific investigation. Even the moon cycle that helped Christopher Columbus steal food from the indigenous people, was discovered through the scientific method. He then used it to lie about his god to get his way.

Lots of arguments are made that try to prove the existence of deities by examining the natural world around us, and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Side note: evidence would negate the need for faith. This causes a lot of issues for religions that require belief without perception.

10. Theological Arguments

Fine tuning, the Kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc etc etc. All have been debunked or rendered unfalsifiable…due to the open nature of the topics being discussed. Could there be a god? We don’t know. Could the cosmos be the thing that’s eternal? We don’t know. Are we living in a simulation? We don’t know.

Cool story bro.

All of these reasons above have one thing in common…they don’t answer the question of what convinced you.

After many lengthy discussions with theists of many flavours, that’s the one question I can’t get an answer to.

All of the above have been used in conversations on the topic. But when I ask very specifically, “did any of these things convince you?” They answer with, “no, I already believed it.”

I would love to know how you know your beliefs are true, and what method you used to determine that.

Maybe, just maybe, what convinced you would convince me.

As I’ve stated before, I’m willing to accept evidence for the existence of a god or gods…but if you don’t know how you came to believe what you believe…that’s a problem.

So, I’m going to ask again for the umpteenth time…

…what convinced you?

In the end, it is just like asking someone why blue is their favorite color. There really isn’t a good answer. It is what it is. Likewise, faith in Christianity, or any religion for that matter, just happens. We believe in the existence of Mars based on sound evidence. We believe in gods based on unsound feelings.

(4842) Why don’t we know?

There exists a monumental problem for the Christian faith that few Christians face with any degree of sincerity, and that is- why is so much of the theology clouded in such a haze of uncertainty? If God as a human visited our planet, wouldn’t he make sure that the details of such a visit would be made certain in the minds of human beings? Certainly he wouldn’t leave such important truths in doubt- truths that allegedly affect the eternal consequences of each person’s destiny. But consider:

Do we really know that Jesus rose from the dead?

Or that Jesus was divine.

Or that Jesus was prophesized by Old Testament scripture.

Or that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Or that Jesus performed actual miracles.

Or that Jesus had a large number of followers.

Or that any one of the gospels represents reasonably accurate history.

Or that we know exactly what Jesus said.

Or that anything Jesus said was new.

Or that everything Jesus said was true.

Or that Jesus will return.

Or that Jesus even existed at all.

Why don’t we know for sure the answers to the above? This perhaps is the strongest argument against the authenticity of Christianity. There seems to be no way to square the potential monumental importance of this message against the high degree of ambiguity of its truth. And because of this we can confidently conclude that Christianity is false- pending the unlikely receipt of new and powerful evidence to the contrary.

(4843) Bible is against homosexuality for unscientific reasons

An objective review of biblical scriptures indicates that the prohibitions against masturbation, homosexuality, and bestiality were at least partly the result of a misunderstanding of human reproduction. People of that time assumed that male semen contained the entire ‘seeds’ of proto-human life, and needed only be deposited in the female womb for incubation. They had no concept that the sperm needed to unite with a female egg cell to become a fetus. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ditlgx/the_bible_and_homosexuality/

I believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality for unscientific reasons.

The Bible does speak against the practice, but it is a matter of whether every word of the Bible is divine, or whether it can contain human error.

I believe the Bible’s reasoning on the subject is demonstrably human, and not that of God. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at the famous Leviticus 18:22 attack on homosexuality:

They believed that a baby was created by the man’s “seed”, which was a tiny seed human life, that needed to be planted in the womb to grow. If sperm was not deposited in the natural place of female womb, it would be thought to kill the child that would be.

Thus, it was forbidden, because it “wasted seed” outside of the natural place of the womb, which was considered to be killing the offspring. Which is why the verse is preceded by one about child sacrifice, and followed by one about sex with an animal. Child sacrifice is obviously to kill offspring. The next two were considered killing the offspring, because the man’s seed was wasted outside the natural place of the female womb, destroying the life

So gay sex was considered wrong, since the sex could not result in conception, which was seen as the purpose of sex. But this is not how conception works: The sperm is only half of the genetic material required to make a fetus. First it must join with an egg to make human life. Wasting seed is not to kill a child, as they believed.

Therefore, this unscientific reasoning seems less likely to be that of an all-knowing God, but likely the thoughts of ancient, pre-scientific Jews, who didn’t know any better. These scientific errors, and others, seem to indicate the Bible is not the perfect word of God, as it claims, but a spiritual book that is subject to human error.

EDIT: my proof:

This view of wasting seed is not mentioned in Leviticus 18, but can be seen elsewhere, and in the quotes of scholars around the time of the Bible. Remember, it’s a chapter about sexual prohibitions that suddenly changes topic to forbid child sacrifice, then male-male same sex activity, and sex with an animal. All three are a category- forbidding killing offspring, whether through child sacrifice or sex that wasted seed.

In the Bible, wasting seed is demonstrated in the Biblical story of Onan, but I’ll show the quotes from ancient thinkers first:

There are a few quotes from Philo and Plato, which demonstrate this ancient view of wasting seed, and they are in the context of gay sex:

Philo Judaeus (Jewish scholar, contemporary to Paul, born ~15 B.C.E):

“And let the pederast know that he is subject to the same penalty, since he pursues a form of pleasure contrary to nature, and since, as far as he is concerned, he does his best to make cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the creative seed. And, moreover, he does not shrink from being a guide and teacher of those greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy, adulterating young men when in their prime, and making them effeminate in the flower of their youth, which ought to have been trained for strength and might of body.”

(Philo On The Special Laws, as in Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. p291

This same view of wasting seed can be seen from Plato (born ~428 B.C.E):

“that in regard to this law I had an art that would promote the natural use of sexual intercourse for the production of children—by abstaining on the one hand from intercourse with males, the deliberate killing of the human race, as well as from the wasting of sperm on rocks or stones where it will never take root and generate a natural offspring, and on the other hand by abstaining from any female field in which you wouldn’t wish your sperm to grow.

(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 838e-839b)

The same sentiment is hinted at by Plato again here:

“But maybe, if a god would be willing, we could enforce one of two ordinances regarding erotic matters: Either no one is to dare to touch any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife, and no one is to sow unhallowed, bastard sperm in concubines or go against nature and sow sterile seed in males; or we should abolish erotic activity between males altogether.”

(Plato Laws, translated by Thomas L. Pangle. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1980, 841d)

These quotes indicate that this view of wasting seed was present in the ancient world in biblical times.

In the Bible, this view of wasting seed is intimated in the famous story of Onan:

‭‭Genesis 38:8-10 KJV‬ [8] And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. [9] And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. [10] And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.38.8-10.KJV

Onan was obliged by religious tradition to provide a child for his dead brother. But as we see in the quote, he didn’t want to, and instead spilled his seed on the ground. The text assumes that the sex act here would result in a child, but Onan wasted his seed. This implies that he killed the child that would be. Thus, the harsh reaction of the Lord to strike him dead. He not only disobeyed God, but he killed the child he was supposed to beget.

Scripture rooted in human ignorance would not appear in a bible inspired by an omnipotent god. The examples above are but a small subset of many other similar issues.

(4844) The god of Job

Christians who claim that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent will have a difficult time navigating the Book of Job. All of those traits are put to the test. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/

God originally had a body (Genesis 3:8-10; 32:20-30; Exodus 33:21-22). He had sons (Genesis 1:26; 6:2; Job 1:1) and lived in the sky above, from which he looked down on the earth below (Job 1:6). No omnipresence here. God needed a servant, Satan, to check on the sincere loyalty of his subjects. God subsequently allowed Job to be put to the test twice by Satan. But there was no need to test Job if God knew he would pass the test, which he did (1:22, 2:22). No omniscience here. If Job was tested for a show, then God is an egomaniac only interested in being praised at the expense of others. What we see here is the only great-making quality God had in those early days, absolute power over his subjects, just like other Mesopotamian kings. He had the power to destroy people at will, including Job’s children and servants (Isaiah 45:7). This is something his subjects should never question. It’s the main point of Job  (chapters 38-42). No omnibenelovence here.

The Book of Job clearly paints God as having a specific location, is not all powerful nor all-knowing, and nor is he all-loving. To be consistent with the current view of God, the Book of Job should be removed from the Bible.

(4845) Three major flaws of religions

The fact that religions are localized, depend solely on human-supplied evidence for their truth, and that they routinely retreat and have to modify their claims in the wake of advancing knowledge, collectively comes within a whisker of proving that they are all false. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1djuhx3/3_big_major_flaws_of_religions_that_all_highly/

There are three major flaws of religions that collectively suggest there is no God.

1st is that for the vast majority, religion is based on geography. United States is Christian. India is Hindu. Thailand is Buddhist. Iran is Muslim, etc. So we have that supernatural beliefs from the start are not even based on truth. They’re based on what part of the world you happened to be born in. (Yes I know there are exceptions.)

2nd is that no religion can prove they are of divine origin. All claims of inspiration from divinity are unverifiable. But what I do see is people write holy books. People speak on behalf of gods, and people take actions in the name of gods. In all cases I see only writings, words, and actions of man. The gods are nowhere to be found. Highly points to the fact that all religious thought and ideas come from man, and not from God’s. Any God can show up at any time and correct us. But of course they don’t.

Finally, and the nail in the coffin is the god of the gaps argument. Throughout human history, the unknown has been attributed to supernatural causes, but then when we understand the phenomenon, it is no longer supernatural. Lightning is not the anger of Zeus anymore. Tornadoes aren’t acts of angry gods anymore. Bacteria, viruses, and disease aren’t witches, warlocks, or demons anymore. That being said, what are the chances that our continued lack of understanding constitute a divine origin. Looking at that track record, I have to conclude that in the highest probability there is no God.

If Christianity was true, it would have developed in multiple parts of the planet (given that any god worth its name would not play favorites), would possess proofs of its truth beyond human proclamations, and would not claim anything that would later be revealed untrue by science. Christianity fails on all three counts, and therefore can be dismissed as false.

(4846) Bible’s flawed view of gluttony

The Bible takes a dim view of gluttony, but science has since discovered the principal reason for it, and that is a condition outside the control of the affected individuals. Here are some scriptures condemning gluttony:

Philippians 3:19
Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Proverbs 23:20-21
Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

Proverbs 23:2
And put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.

Proverbs 25:16
If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Psalm 78:18
They tested God in their heart by demanding the food they craved.

Philippians 3:18-19
For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

1 Corinthians 10:31
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Deuteronomy 21:20
And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.”

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

1 Corinthians 6:12
“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything.

Proverbs 23:20
Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat,

Galatians 5:16-26
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Proverbs 28:7
The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.

Matthew 11:19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

Romans 12:1
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Luke 7:34
The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!

The following is taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1dlymsp/does_modern_neuroscience_disprove_parts_of_the/

According to the Bible, gluttony is a sin against the biblical god. But we now have a handle on what causes people to overeat.

This is way oversimplification, and I’m happy to be corrected, or have this expanded, as I’ve only given the scientific reports a cursory reading, and I’m certainly no expert in the subject:

Feelings of satiation are brought about by the release of a hormone that connects with neurons which, when activated, produce that feeling. Every brain is different, in that some brains have more of these satiation neurons while others have fewer. The fewer of these neurons, the less that individual will feel “full” so they’re more likely to eat excessively. So to the outside world they appear “gluttonous” when in reality they just aren’t feeling full because of biological differences from other individuals.

One would think that a god which knows all the hairs on one’s head would also know all the neurons in one’s brain, too, and wouldn’t hold it against you when you had too few of them. Thus, we can disprove gluttony as a sin.

It would seem that an omniscient god would have been aware of the bio-chemical reasons why some individuals have a tendency to overeat, and therefore would have tamed down the anti-gluttony rhetoric in his inspired message to humankind. On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable that clueless humans would see gluttony as a sin write these types of verses.

(4847) The goblin behind the bush

The following analogy displays the futility of making an extraordinary claim in the absence of sufficient evidence:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1dl2a4f/prove_that_theres_not_a_goblin_behind_that_bush/

Person A: Prove that there’s not a goblin hiding in that bush.

Person B: Goes to look I don’t see anything.

Person A: Prove that the Goblin isn’t invisible. Maybe you just can’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Person B: Feels around I don’t feel it either.

Person A: The Goblin is speaking to me.

Person B: I don’t hear anything.

Person A: Because you are unenlightened, I am chosen by the Goblin to say his message, he says that slavery is okay and being gay is bad and you need to cut off your foreskin and shellfish is banned.

Person B: What?

Person A: Yeah and the Goblin says when you die you actually come back to life and he tortures you forever unless you do what he says to.

Person B: What kind of psychotic goblin is this?

Person A: Do you really want to risk not obeying the goblin? It’s a pretty serious thing to just gamble with.

Person B: So, is there any reason to believe in the Goblin though, other than pure chance? Because anything could be true by pure chance, there’s infinite possibilities other than this particular one. Pure chance really means nothing.

Person A: The Goblin says that not believing in him is blasphemy and you need to go to jail for saying that.

Person B: I didn’t hear anything.

Person A: Are you disrespecting me and my beliefs? That’s disgusting. The Goblin says all beliefs and cultures other than its own must be destroyed by the way.

Person B: That’s kind of hypocritical actually because you just said…

Person A: In fact, the Goblin says his rules should be displayed in every public school classroom.

Person B: Wait, we still haven’t proved the Goblin actually exists yet why are we taking all these actions before we do the most essential thing?

Person A: Well it’s okay to take actions based on my belief since maybe the Goblin just doesn’t want you to know he exists because he works in mysterious ways.

Christianity works on this model- we can’t point to evidence that is sufficient to prove that it is true, but you must believe, because if you don’t, and Christianity is true, you will wind up in hell being tortured for eternity. So just believe, baby!

(4848) The poisoned cup analogy

In the following, an analogy is made between a kidnapper who compels you to chose between two cups, one of which contains poison, and allows you the freedom to chose, rather than informing you of the status of the cups- and fundamental Christian theology:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dm194k/this_response_to_the_problem_of_divine_hiddenness/

One of the responses to the problem of divine hiddenness is to say something like ‘knowledge of all morally relevant facts or reasons compels action’, or ‘if God made himself obvious, we wouldn’t be fully free to choose him’.

Now, imagine you are kidnapped by a guy who puts two cups in front of you (like in Sherlock Holmes), and tells you one is poison, and one is not, and you have to choose one. Whatever you choose, you chose freely in a certain sense, but in the case where the poison kills you, would you say you chose to die?

More to the point, would you say your decision was more free since you didn’t know which cup was which? If he were to tell you, ‘by the way, this is the cup with the poison in it in case you were wondering’, would you lament your loss of freedom in choosing which cup to drink?

It seems to me the answer is obviously no.

This argues for the plain expectation that a god who was intent on bringing dead people back to life to either reward or punish them would make it CRYSTAL clear what each person needs to do or believe to achieve a good result- there is no argument that can be made that such a god would leave something of such critical importance in a state of ambiguity. This is perhaps the best argument against Christianity.

(4849) If Christianity is untrue, what would we see?

The essay below addresses the question of what the world would look like if Christianity was untrue. The result is that it would look just the way it is. The following was taken from:

https://jeremiahsaunders.medium.com/what-if-biblical-christianity-wasnt-literally-true-89fca6bfc5a9

I’ve spent a fair amount of time the last several years of the deconstruction/reconstruction struggle asking myself, “But what if conservative biblical Christianity really is true?” I’ve had to wrestle with the perceived notion of taking God’s place as a moral arbiter, why there is something rather than nothing, the mysterious circumstances around Jesus’ death/resurrection, or how my understanding and epistemology must pale (to put it lightly) in comparison to a tri-omni supreme God.

However, something I’ve been thinking about lately is the converse of that question: What if conservative biblical Judeo-Christianity wasn’t literally true? What would we then expect to see from the Bible, the history of the Jewish people, and Christianity throughout the ages until today?

The answer? Generally, exactly what you would expect from an evolving religion mediated by humans that has continued its development up until the present. Below are many pertinent pieces of data from history and the world around us that seem to align very well with what would be expected if Christianity was not literally true.

What we see in the Hebrew Bible (OT) borrowed from the ancient Near East cultural milieu:

• • Ancient creation and flood myths
  • Firmament and waters above/below cosmology
  • God depicted as a tribal war deity via commanded genocide of Canaanites, endorsed slavery, and lack of regard at times for human life (ie. Uzzah, Egyptian firstborns, David’s unborn child, Achan and his children, etc.)
  • Polytheism in the form of the divine council of gods (Elohim) with each one presiding over their given territory/people group
  • Elements of the Torah’s legal code may have been borrowed from Code of Hammurabi
  • Ritual animal sacrifice

What we see from the Bible and the history of Christianity:

• • Archaeology and adjacent historical accounts being unable to corroborate many of the Bible’s (mostly OT) claims regarding important people, places, and events
  • Generic prophecies within the OT that generally refer to someone/thing within their own time, and for which Judaism has an alternative interpretation
  • Theological progression from the ancient Israelite belief of the sleepy Sheol afterlife to punishment in Gehenna/Hades heavily influenced by neighboring cultures
  • Diverging narrative accounts, direct contradictions, errors, perplexing metaphor and theological literary genre, etc. are all seen within the Bible
  • Modern historical-critical methods of biblical scholarship often reveal layers of redaction, editing, and adaptation over time
  • Judaism (the religion of Jesus and Paul) as a whole did not accept Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah or Paul’s reforms to the Jewish faith
  • Philosophical influence from pagan Greek Neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism, as well as Persian Zoroastrianism
  • Development of critically important doctrines such as the Trinity, Christology, salvation, and even the formation of the biblical canon, debated by leaders within the church for over 300 years after Jesus’ death
  • Christian religion being co-opted with the state leading to structures of power that brought the Crusades, marginalized the poor, and contributed years of war between Catholic and protestants
  • Self-professed Christians with slightly dissident views about the nature of Christ or the Godhead being put to death or excommunicated by the church.

What we see in Christianity and our world today:

• • Lack of unity within the faith and growing number of church schisms and denominations formed every year
  • In some geographical areas of the world, there are extremely few Christians and much religious diversity heavily influenced by upbringing and cultural environment; in others, Christianity has been syncretized with many of the prior faith traditions resulting in the emergence of distinct regional expressions of Christianity
  • Christian ethical teachings have evolved in response to changing social, political, and cultural realities
  • Significant theological disagreements and diversity in scriptural interpretation within Christianity
  • Standard expression of Christian practice includes things like prayer, fasting, group worship, chanting, confession, baptism, communion, attending a service weekly to hear a persuasive speech from an evangelizing pastor, tithing, and daily Bible reading/devotionals which all reflect a social conditioning-type behavior to enhance emotions, in-group feelings, and achieve heightened states of spiritual transcendence
  • Supernatural events, many of which are non-falsifiable, are reported to have occurred often 2000+ years ago in a very small part of the world to a comparatively small group of people, and yet most people have no direct experience of the supernatural today
  • Over human history, you see a constant pattern of supernatural explanations being replaced by naturalistic explanations as human understanding progresses (prime example: creation ex nihilo vs. evolution by natural selection)
  • High moral failure rates among Christian leadership as more disagreeable and narcissistic personality types rise to the top
  • Existence and popularity of the prosperity gospel
  • Scientific studies show no discernable positive effect from intercessory prayer
  • Research has shown a measurable negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity
  • Areas of the US highest in religiosity also have the highest rates of poverty and teen pregnancies
  • Pain, suffering, evil, natural disasters, disease, and death all seemingly occur by natural chance
  • A person can seem to be non-resistantly unaware that God exists (would an all-loving, all-powerful God allow this?)
  • The Christian in-group response to those who have doubts or leave the faith
  • The parousia (second coming) and imminent end to the Cosmos described in the Bible has not been realized, yet for 2000 years it has provided a heightened sense of last days apocalypticism and theological urgency

Now, all of these data and observations about reality as we experience it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is untrue, or Christianity is false, but it should be accounted for and incorporated into the worldview of those who claim complete confidence in the conservative Christian paradigm. I actually consider myself relatively open to events occurring outside of our materialistic understanding of the universe. But over time as I’ve pondered on the above titular question and moved further away from an apologetic mindset, I’ve had to ask myself, which explanation better explains the circumstances we see in the world of history and today? As I’ve reflected, I’ve continued to discover more and more elements of reality that would be exactly as expected sans a supernatural religion. While I do think there are certainly good arguments for theism, incorporating all the data sets in my purview seems to result in an inability to hold any definitive belief towards the Divine with a reasonable level of confidence. Instead, for now, I choose to embrace the Divine mystery.

There is an adage that goes something like this: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably IS a duck. Christianity looks like a myth- in every way imaginable…so, yeah, it’s probably a myth.

(4850) Scholarly doubt about Jesus’ existence

It should be noted that if Jesus came to the earth to deliver a critically-important message to humankind, that the historical truth of such a visit (and message) should suffer precisely ZERO doubt. Of course, this is not the case, and discussed below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/jesus_is_more_likely_than_not_a_myth_or_perhaps/

I’ll take a moment to note that although it’s often said that “the consensus” of historians is that there was more likely than not a historical Jesus, the fact is that most historians, even historians of ancient history, don’t investigate the question themselves or even care about it. They are just repeating the claim uncritically. Their opinions don’t carry any real weight.

Even most scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies don’t bother to investigate the question of whether or not he was a historical person. They simply accept that claim as true. What they then try to do is discover from the gospels what we can know about the thoughts, motivations, daily life, etc. of this person presumed to exist. So, even most of those in the field are repeating the claim uncritically or, if they do offer some reasons, they tend to be vague, not academically rigorous reasons. Again, their opinions on this specific question don’t carry any real weight.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming consensus of scholars in the field itself who have published peer-reviewed literature assessing the methodologies used in the past to supposedly extract historical facts about Jesus from the gospels is that these methods are fatally flawed. Some citations include:

• • Tobias Hägerland, “The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13.1 (2015)
  • Chris Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.4 (2016)
  • Mark Goodacre, “Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources,” in Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming, 2012)
  • Joel Willitts, “Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the ‘Historical Jesus’: Or, Why I decided not to be a ‘Historical Jesus’ Scholar.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005)
  • Kevin B. Burr, “Incomparable? Authenticating Criteria in Historical Jesus Scholarship and General Historical Methodology” Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020
  • Raphael Lataster, “The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Methods” in “Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse”, Brill, 2019
  • Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005)
  • Rafael Rodriguez, “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment” (Ibid)
  • Stanley Porter, “The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals”(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)

There are also well-argued critiques of extrabiblical evidence for Jesus, examples include:

• • Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015
  • Hansen, Christopher M. “The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus’s Information on Christians.” Journal of Early Christian History 13.1 (2023): 62-80.
  • Carrier, Richard. “The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44.” Vigiliae Christianae 68.3 (2014)
  • Allen, Dave. “A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum.” Revista Bíblica 85.1-2 (2023)
  • Raphael Lataster,, “The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Sources” in “Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse”, Brill, 2019

While despite all of that it may yet bizarrely remain “the consensus” that Jesus was a historical person, that same scholarship is in fact creating a shift within the field. Examples of this would be:

• • J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, “Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth”:

“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.”

• • NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book “The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told”.
  • Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus’ historicity is “rigoureusement indécidable” (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled “ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique” (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation).
  • Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, “Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus” (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014.
  • Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid).
  • James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster’s book, “Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.”, Brill, 2019, that

“scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.”

• • Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, “More Ingenious than Learned”? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not “irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.”
  • Richard C. Miller, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Chapman University, stated in his forward to the book, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, Hypatia, 2021 that there are only two plausible positions: Jesus is entirely myth or nothing survives about him but myth.
  • Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that

“Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.”

• • Gerd Lüdemann, who was a preeminent scholar of religion who stated that “Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.”
  • Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD’s in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, “Nature of evidence in religion and natural science”, Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474:

“the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty” and that “peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”

It really doesn’t matter whether Jesus existed or not. The case is closed. Whether he was real or not is not the problem. The problem is that his existence is in doubt. His actions and messages are in doubt. There is no way a competent god could have allowed this to happen- not when the eternal souls of people are at stake.

Follow this link to #4851