(5151) Conflict with Jesus’ resurrected body
The gospels make it clear that Jesus was raised in his same body as before, even bearing the same wounds he suffered on the cross. But Paul believed that resurrected bodies were of a spirit substance and not flesh and blood. This contradiction is rarely understood by Christians. The following is taken from:
Paul is emphatic that resurrected bodies are not made of flesh and blood (I Cor 15:50). Flesh belongs to weakness and creaturliness. Resurrected bodies are made of the divine, shining pneuma, the stuff that stars and heavenly bodies are made of (I Cor 15:39-41). Of course, Paul is aware that a body not made of flesh is hard to grasp, and his analogy of the seed makes this point: it is to stress discontinuity with the old body. The resurrected body is so different from the old body that it is like comparing a plant to a seed. Obviously, the two look nothing alike.
This seems to directly contradict Luke and John’s account (especially Luke) that Jesus was raised in a body of flesh and bones (Lk 24:39) and still needed sustenance (Jn 21:1-14). Yet for Paul, hunger will be destroyed because the new pneuma bodies won’t have stomachs (see I Cor 6:13).
Anyway, it would be interesting to see Paul in conversation with Luke and John on this. And there is a broad consensus in scholarship that Paul is describing a radically transformed spirit body without flesh and blood in I Cor 15.
See Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010; Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995; Stowers, Stanley K. “Paul and the Terrain of Philosophy.” Early Christianity 6, no. 2 (2015); and most recently, Walsh, Robyn Faith. “Argumentum ad Lunam: Pauline Discourse, ‘Double Death,’ and Competition on the Moon.” Harvard Theological Review 117, no. 4 (October 2024).
The gospel authors apparently were not aware of Paul’s theology on the resurrection of the dead, or else they chose to ignore it. But either way, it results in a conflict, and leaves the manner of resurrection in a skein of doubt. To be sure, the way Jesus lifted off into the sky at the end of the Gospel of Luke and in Acts would make more sense if he was in a spiritual rather than fleshly body.
(5152) Hitchens on self-sacrifice
Christopher Hitchens wrote the following on the idea of Jesus having suffered and died for all of our sins. The passage is taken from his “Letters to a Young Contrarian.” Hitchens embodied the spirit of provocative intellectualism, for better or worse:
Even the most humane and compassionate of the monotheisms and polytheisms are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism: they proclaim us, in Fulke Greville’s unforgettable line, “Created sick—Commanded to be well.” And there are totalitarian insinuations to back this up if its appeal should fail. Christians, for example, declare me redeemed by a human sacrifice that occurred thousands of years before I was born. I didn’t ask for it, and would willingly have foregone it, but there it is: I’m claimed and saved whether I wish it or not. And if I refuse the unsolicited gift? Well, there are still some vague mutterings about an eternity of torment for my ingratitude. This is somewhat worse than a Big Brother state, because there could be no hope of its eventually passing away.
In any case, I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There’s no moral value in the vicarious gesture anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on another man’s debt, or even offer to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you did not commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.
At the time the Bible was written, it was generally accepted that one’s sins could be transferred to a sacrificial animal, so to extend that concept to a human sacrifice was not too large of a leap. However, it no longer plays well in polite company. As a result, Christianity becomes more archaic with each passing day.
(5153) One man’s hallucination
It has long been conjectured that the Christian religion was created by one person- Paul. Even if it cannot be solely credited to him, we can be certain that Christianity would be very different if he was not involved. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k34jmc/the_entire_christian_faith_is_based_on_one_mans/
The entire Christian faith is based on one man’s hallucinations.
Most people who grow up religious never stop to ask one simple question: Where did Christianity actually come from?
Not in a vague sense. I’m talking specifically—who created the doctrine? Who shaped the belief that Jesus is divine? Who gave us the rules about salvation and eternal life?
Here’s the answer: It wasn’t Jesus. It was Paul.
Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. He followed Jewish law. He taught other Jews. His message was centered around repentance, justice, humility, and the coming Kingdom of God. He never said, “Worship me.” He never said, “I am God.” He never instructed anyone to start a new religion in his name.
In fact, everything Jesus taught was rooted in Judaism. He quoted the Torah. He prayed in synagogues. He followed dietary laws. He never referred to himself as “the second person of a Trinity.” That entire theological framework came after he died.
So how did things shift so radically?
Enter: Paul. Also known as Saul of Tarsus.
Here’s what most people don’t realize: • Paul was not one of the 12 disciples. • He never met Jesus during his life. • He didn’t witness any of Jesus’ teachings, miracles, or the crucifixion.
In fact, during Jesus’s lifetime, Paul was known for persecuting early followers of Jesus. Then, suddenly, after Jesus dies, Paul claims to have had a personal vision of him.
And that’s where the shift begins.
According to Paul—and only Paul—Jesus appeared to him in a blinding light and spoke to him from heaven. This was not a physical encounter. It was not witnessed by others. It was a private vision. A supernatural claim. No evidence. No eyewitnesses. Just Paul saying, “It happened.”
And yet, it’s Paul who writes the majority of the New Testament. Not the disciples. Not Jesus himself. Paul.
His letters (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc.) are where we get the foundation of Christian doctrine: • The idea that Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice • That salvation comes through faith in Christ • That Jesus was divine • That non-Jews (Gentiles) could be saved • That the Mosaic Law was no longer required
None of this was central to Jesus’s original message. And the wildest part? Paul acknowledges in his letters that he didn’t receive this message from the original apostles—but “through revelation.”
In other words:
He made it all up based on a vision.
And it gets even shakier.
Paul is also the one who introduces the now-famous claim that Jesus appeared to “over 500 people” after the resurrection. You’ll hear Christians quote this all the time as “proof.”
But here’s what they leave out:
That statement comes from 1 Corinthians 15:6, a letter Paul wrote about 20 years after Jesus died.
Paul doesn’t name a single one of the 500. There’s no written testimony from any of them. The gospels (written after Paul’s letters) never mention a crowd of 500. None of the Roman or Jewish historical records mention it. There’s no documentation outside of Paul’s one-sentence claim that this ever happened.
So what are we really working with here?
Not 500 eyewitnesses.
One man saying there were 500 eyewitnesses.
And that man—again—never met Jesus.
Now let’s stop and be real.
If a man actually rose from the dead in front of hundreds of people in the first century—that would be one of the most unbelievable events in history. You’d expect a flood of reports. Documents. Independent writings. Controversy. Investigations.
But there’s none of that.
We have zero non-Christian records from the time of Jesus that mention a resurrection. Not from the Roman officials. Not from Jewish historians like Philo or Josephus (Josephus mentions Jesus, but that reference is widely considered tampered with and doesn’t mention a resurrection in the original form). Not from anyone outside the circle of believers pushing the movement.
And the believers weren’t documenting a neutral event. They were pushing a theology based on one man’s mystical experience.
So let’s be honest:
If someone today claimed they had a vision of a dead man talking to them— Would you believe them? Or would you assume they were hallucinating? Delusional? On drugs? Making it up?
Because those are the options.
And if you wouldn’t build your worldview around some random guy’s hallucination today— why would you build your eternity around Paul’s?
Christianity is not the faith Jesus practiced. It’s the belief system Paul created after Jesus died—based on a vision no one else saw, supported by claims no one else confirmed, and followed by people who were emotionally desperate for meaning after the loss of a leader.
If that doesn’t sound like myth-making then what does?
Modern Christianity can be labeled Paulinity just as well. He was the person who first interpreted Jesus’ crucifixion as a human sacrifice for absolving the sins of believers, relieving the need to sacrifice animals. It can be assumed that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples saw his death as a sin offering for current and future humans.
(5154) Gods are a reflection of ourselves
The following essay makes the point that humans created gods, not as external entities, but rather as a reflection of their own hopes, fears, and imaginations:
Consider the paradox—we imagine gods as eternal, infinite, and complete. Lacking nothing, needing nothing. And yet, despite this perfection, we tell ourselves that what such a being desires most is recognition from its own fragile, fleeting creation. That the purpose of creating the cosmos was to be praised by beings who are here for a moment and gone the next.
This imagined need for validation isn’t just a gentle yearning—it’s often portrayed as an obsession. We are told these gods demand our worship, condition our fate on our obedience, and sentence us to eternal suffering should we withhold our devotion. But what would it say of a truly all-powerful, self-sufficient being to be so wounded by indifference, so provoked by disbelief?
No, this says less about divinity and more about humanity.
We are the ones who are deeply entangled with validation. We build our lives around the gaze of others. We sacrifice authenticity for approval, trade our desires for acceptance, and often live not for ourselves, but through the imagined eyes of those watching.
We choose careers we don’t love, speak words we don’t believe, and live lives that aren’t truly ours—chained to the question, “What will people think?”
It is no surprise, then, that when we conceived of gods, we imbued them with the same hunger we cannot escape. We made the highest being in our imagination chase the very thing we chase daily: validation. Worship. Approval.
In doing so, we didn’t create gods in the image of the divine—we created them in the image of our insecurities. They reflect not a transcendent consciousness, but the deepest currents of the human psyche. A mirror, not of what lies beyond us, but of what lies within.
Perhaps the god we’ve worshiped all along is not an external being, but the echo of our own need to matter.
It should now be obvious that none of the gods created by humans exist in a tangible form. They reside only in the imagined scenarios of wishful thinking. Once this is understood, our position in the cosmos becomes clear- we are here alone- there is no superior being within at least 4 light-years, and our fate is ours alone to protect as best we can.
(5155) Resurrection account is coercive
The following addresses the abusive dynamics associated with the biblical story of Jesus’ resurrection:
My thesis: the resurrection accounts in the Gospels follow a psychological pattern common to coercive systems: they deny institutional responsibility for the crucifixion, attack skepticism as moral failure, and demand worship as the solution to a divinely orchestrated crisis. This structure, whether intentional or emergent, mirrors mechanisms of control observed in abusive dynamics, raising urgent theological and ethical questions.
The resurrection story’s most striking feature is its systematic deflection of blame. When the angel declares, “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified”, the emphasis is not on Roman authority or religious complicity, but on the disciples’ own inadequacy – a classic denial maneuver. The text obscures the fact that crucifixion was a state-sanctioned execution, re-framing the event as a failure of human faith rather than an act of institutional violence. This mirrors how abusive systems evade accountability by shifting focus onto their victims’ supposed deficiencies.
Then comes the attack phase. The infamous “Doubting Thomas” episode is often celebrated as a lesson in faith, but its underlying message is punitive: skepticism is framed as a moral defect, even though Jesus himself previously invited physical verification of his resurrection. The subtext is clear: questioning the narrative is not just incorrect – it’s disloyal. This is not how truth-claims are tested; it’s how ideologies enforce compliance.
Finally, the reversal: the risen Christ demands worship for overcoming death, a problem that, according to Christian theology itself, only exists because of God’s own decrees. This is the ultimate coercion tactic: create a crisis, position yourself as the sole solution, and then demand gratitude for your intervention.
So..
If these patterns appear in any other context – government, a relationship, a cult – we would immediately recognize them as manipulative. The fact that they are sanctified in scripture does not exempt them from ethical scrutiny.
Then I pose the question: if the resurrection narrative is morally coherent, why does it rely on psychological mechanisms that, anywhere else, would be condemned as exploitative?
Much is excused because of a divine imprimatur, such that even mass genocide can be seen as the responsible act of a loving deity. Followers are encouraged to ignore the fact that the Romans murdered Jesus – that is not the problem– the problem is people doubting the resurrection.
(5156) Withholding belief in religion is justified
Given the lack of definitive evidence for any religion, it is justified to neither believe nor disbelieve, but rather to admit that there exists too little information to form a credible belief. Religious people often attempt to force the issue and pressure people to take a side. The following was taken from:
There is nothing wrong with not assuming anything when there is a lack of information, especially in regards to religion
I noticed that theists constantly push towards choosing between X and Y where there is a lack of information, as a simple example: “Do you accept god or reject him?”, or more common one is: “you don’t believe that god created universe then you must believe that everything came from nothing” or “…you must believe in infinite regress, or in this, or in that that…”. For some reason they never consider an option that an atheist can simply not have any assumptions or beliefs regarding some topic. I guess this is the way to shift the burden on proof on us.
Here is why i think you should not assume anything when there is a lack of information, and why you should constantly be skeptical even towards your own beliefs:
When information is insufficient, assuming certainty – especially about transcendent claims – risks overstepping the bounds of human knowledge. Religion often addresses unfalsifiable, metaphysical questions (cosmic origins, divine intent). To assert “I dont know” or “I withhold belief” is not a weakness but a recognition of empirical and logical limits.
Theists frequently shift the burden of proof by demanding atheists justify alternative explanations (e.g., “What caused the universe?”). However, rejecting an unsupported claim (“God exists”) does not obligate one to adopt another unsupported claim. The null position – no belief without evidence – is logically defensible.
On top of all that, many religious propositions are inherently untestable (“God works in mysterious ways”). Requiring belief in such frameworks equates to demanding faith in speculation. Rationality permits – even requires – suspending judgment when claims lack verifiable premises.
Framing skepticism as a “belief” (“You believe in nothing!”) misrepresents critical thinking. Non-belief in a proposition is distinct from belief in its negation. To “not assume” is not a philosophical failure but a refusal to engage in baseless assumption.
So, not assuming anything should be normalized among believers/theists, but before that they need to at least be aware that such option is even there during the discussions with atheists, since it seems it’s a very common mistake for them, at least from my experience.
What should be obvious is that if a god actually exists and expects us to acknowledge his existence, it would surely provide sufficient evidence of its existence to make belief a default setting. The fact that no such god has ever provided this kind of evidence indicates that none exist.
(5157) Synoptics don’t support standard Christian salvation theory
Fully fleshed-out Christian theology is based on the theory that Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection paid the price for one’s sins and that acceptance of this ‘sacrifice’ is sufficient all by itself to attain salvation. But, as discussed below, the synoptic gospels fail to endorse this view:
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus teaches that entrance into the future kingdom is predicated upon righteous deeds and proper observance of the Torah commands (cf. Matthew 5:17-20, 19:16-21, 25:31-46, 13:41-43, Mark 10:17-22, 12:28-34, 3:35, etc.). Nothing really resembles Pauline and Johannine theology that faith in his coming death and resurrection is required to be saved, or belief in his divine nature, or being mystically united in Christ through cultic rituals. That being said, there is an element within the synoptic Gospels, that acknowledgment of Jesus as the eschatological Son of Man, God’s true agent, or a prophet plays a role in salvation, but not in a fully developed doctrinal or christological sense as seen later in Christian theology (e.g., Trinitarian confessions or creeds). So, for example, Matthew 10:32-33 says, “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will acknowledge before my Father in heaven…” This is not about confessing a creedal formula but rather being loyal to Jesus and his mission, even in the face of persecution.
The synoptics present Jesus as the Son of Man, which may carry apocalyptic weight (cf. Daniel 7), but the emphasis is on responding rightly, following him, obeying his teaching, and not being scandalized by him (see Matt 11:6). There is no demand that one recognize Jesus as ontologically divine for salvation in the Synoptics, or to recognize that he will die for your sins and rise again. These are later theological developments. Similarly, the Pentateuch presents Moses as God’s chosen prophet and agent in leading Israel and giving the law. Blessing itself is not predicated on “belief” or dedication to Moses, but on keeping the commands. Nevertheless, to reject Moses is also to reject God because God commissioned Moses (see Numbers 16).
It should be obvious that, absent Paul, Christian salvation would be based on what a person does rather what he believes. And it is somewhat ironic that even as salvation theory was evolving toward Paul’s concept, the synoptic gospels, refuting much of that idea, were written after Paul had died. For some reason, the salvation-by-faith dogma was re-ignited late in the first Century and was finally cast in stone in John’s gospel.
(5128) The Bible has a pre-scientific and inaccurate cosmology
One of the tests of a document that is purported to have been inspired by a supernatural being is whether it contains information that was unknown to humans at the time it was written. The Bible fails this test. The following was taken from:
The Bible assumes a pre-scientific and inaccurate cosmology and this is a problem for biblical theism.
Among the many problems with the Bible, one of the issues I hardly see discussed or addressed by Christian apologists is the problem of the clear pre-scientific and ancient cosmology endorsed by the Bible. As someone currently in school for biblical studies, I often think about this, but I have never really heard pastors or theologians talk about it. There is so much focus, both from atheists and apologists, on abstract philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God or the truth of the Christian worldview. These get too abstract for me sometimes. I prefer to stick with the biblical data, which is the only solid data we have for discussing “Christian theism,” or Abrahamic theism.
But yes, the Bible shares the outdated ancient Near Eastern cosmology that we find represented in civilizations like Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. The very first chapter of the Bible in Genesis 1 already presupposes this, and thus, from a modern scientific perspective, refutes itself. Genesis 1:6–8 describes a solid dome or firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below. Some bible translations have desperately tried to translate this as an “expanse.” But this is anachronistic. The Hebrew word רָקִ֫יעַ / raqia clearly denotes a solid structure, as the Theological Dictionary to the Old Testament makes clear. They explicitly say that those who translate this as “expanse” miss the mark.
Why is there a firmament? It is to separate the cosmic waters that surround the earth, which the biblical writers believe in. This is discussed in Genesis 1. The Bible also assumes a real geographic underworld, literally deep beneath the earth, where beings dwell.
Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
This is also the answer to the question of where the waters came from that flooded the whole earth. Genesis 7:11 says, “All the fountains of the great deep (תְּהוֹם רַבָּה) burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” It was a common ANE belief that there were gates in the sky holding back the cosmic waters. The author of Genesis 7 says these were opened so God could flood the world.
The New Testament, like the Hebrew Bible, assumes an ancient three-tiered cosmology. Philippians 2:10 “So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth…”; Revelation 5:13 “And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea…”
This is particularly problematic when we discuss the ascension of Jesus, and ask the question, Where is Jesus now? From a modern cosmological standpoint, the ascension poses a major issue. There is no literal “heaven” above the clouds. Yet, the NT authors, especially Luke, assume Heaven to be a spatially real location contained within the cosmos. His belief is in line with other ancient views. The New Testament claims that the resurrected Jesus physically ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9–11).
Ultimately, I think this poses serious problems for the coherence of Christian belief. If Jesus retains a resurrected, glorified body, then the issue of where that body is becomes pressing. Embodied persons require location in space-time. If he is “in heaven,” then where is that? And how does a body exist in a non-physical realm? Christians today continually maintain that Jesus is currently somehow in heaven, watching over us. But, as we have seen, the bible sees this in a pre-scientific context. Jesus is literally “up” in heaven. But we know now that this is not true, and there is no longer any rational context to hold onto this belief.
The final conclusion is clear- the Bible was written by humans without input from any supernatural beings. It is a product of its time- a time when very little was understood about the universe.
(5159) Mark, Chapter 4, has problems
The following discusses several of the many theological problems associated the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 4:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/04/an-honest-sermon-on-gospel-of-mark.html#more
An honest sermon on Mark, Chapter 4:
For any faithful Christian today, this chapter must represent a profound stumbling block—at one point it blatantly defies common sense. Indeed, devout scholars have agonized over it for a long time. In the first nine verses of this chapter, we find Jesus-script—“he began to teach them many things in parables”—about the parable of the sower. The seed that landed on the path, or on rocks, or among thorns, was wasted. But the seed that fell on good soil produced abundant grain. This is wrapped up with the advice: “If you have ears to hear, then hear!”
Later the disciples asked Jesus about the parables, and Mark presents this alarming Jesus-script, vv. 11-12:
“And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret [or mystery] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables, in order that ‘they may indeed look but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven’” (which seems to be a paraphrase of Isaiah 6:9-10).
How does it possibly make sense that Jesus taught in parables to fool people, to prevent them giving up their sins and being forgiven? The very first verse of this chapter seems to contradict this concept:
“Again he began to teach beside the sea. Such a very large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat on the sea and sat there, while the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land.”
Isn’t teaching supposed to help people, not fool them? What was the motivation of the author of this gospel in presenting this declaration? He provides more Jesus-script in which the parable is explained; the seeds that fall on good soil… “they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.” (v. 20) That’s the reward for being in the Jesus cult, as the author has already stated, v. 11: “To you has been given the secret [or mystery] of the kingdom of God…”
A few verses later we find this bit of advice (vv. 24-25), to cheer those who have joined the cult:
“Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and it will be added to you. For to those who have, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.”
From those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. How does this qualify as caring or compassionate? But those who are in the cult can avoid this punishment.
New Testament scholars for a long time have noticed that the gruesome chapter, Mark 13, reflects the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple—during the first Jewish-Roman war, 66-74 CE—and thus suspect that this gospel was written in the wake of that horror. It was intended to spark renewed hope that the Kingdom of God was just around the corner, hence it’s no surprise that the primary focus of this gospel is its arrival.
In the parable of the growing seed (vv. 26-29) the Kingdom of God is compared to this seed, and so too in the parable of the mustard seed (vv. 30-32):
“It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”
Such messages must have kept those in the Jesus cult stoked about the soon-to-arrive blessed Kingdom of God. Verses 33-34 offer the same assurance:
“With many such parables he spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples.”
Jesus taught only in parables? The author of John’s gospel didn’t agree. He created major swaths of Jesus-script that are not found in the other gospels, and his Jesus didn’t teach in parables.
The author of Mark also was concerned to display the grandeur of his holy hero. At the opening of chapter 4 he claims that “a very large crowd gathered around him” –hence Jesus got into a boat and preached from there to that large crowd on the land. We wonder if Jesus had a booming speaking voice, as would befit a major holy hero, to make himself heard by so many people, i.e., without benefit of a microphone.
We find more of the same grandeur in the closing of Mark 4, vv. 35-41. In these verses we read that Jesus and his disciples were in the boat on their way across the sea. Jesus was taking a nap down below when a storm arose. The frightened disciples woke up Jesus, and in verse 39 we read: “And waking up, he rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Be silent! Be still!’ Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm.”
There are a couple of reasons for being skeptical about this fragment of fantasy.
1. It’s an example of magic, as Richard Carrier states, “Jesus practices weather magic before a dozen witnesses” in his article, All the Fantastical Things in the Gospel according to Mark. How does this differ from the magic we find in the Harry Potter stories? Harry speaks Parseltongue, the language of snakes; he flies on a broom; he puts a curse on Aunt Marge to make her swell up like a huge balloon and float away. Mark wrote long before this modern fantasy was created, but he was able to draw on magic folklore of his time to enhance his portrayal of Jesus.
2. If, as Christian theology would have us believe, Jesus is still alive and watching over human affairs, why doesn’t he practice his weather magic when terrified people pray fervently for help as hurricanes and tornadoes are beating up on them?
Jesus also scolded them for not having faith. “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” (v. 40). How in the world could the disciples have known that their holy hero had power over the weather? When Matthew copied this story, he changed the wording slightly, “Why are you afraid, O men of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26); in Luke’s version, Jesus says, “Where is your faith?” (Luke 8:25). The author of John’s gospel sought to make the same point in his story of Doubting Thomas. Only when Thomas saw the risen Jesus before him, and was invited to touch his wound, did he believe. Jesus scolded him: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” (John 20:29)
This has been the favorite strategy of religion for ages. The clergy of so many varieties want their followers to just have faith that what they preach/teach is the absolute truth. Please don’t show too much curiosity or skepticism.
Daniel Mocsny put it well in a comment on this blog, 21 April 2025: “Religion isn’t something you’re supposed to think about. It’s something you’re supposed to feel. Religion persists because most religious people are perfectly fine with that. Religious people don’t want to be ‘that guy’ who keeps finding plot holes in the movie.”
When the evidence doesn’t align with what you are preaching, it is advantageous to tell listeners to go with their feelings instead of their intellect. Mark, Chapter 4, presents many themes that are contrary to that espoused today by practically all Christian sects. It is there, not to be studied, but to be ignored in deference to an emotional appeal.
(5160) Genesis of belief
In the following hypothetical story, an innocuous observation morphs into a miraculous event venerated by many people, indicating a likely way in which beliefs in the supernatural can be created in the midst of solely mundane events:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k7xcpv/how_miracles_happen_a_speculation/
A shepherd tending his flock likes to pick out shapes in the clouds. He might see a chair, a table, a cart, a sheep or a cow or a person. One day he sees a shape that looks like Jesus. It’s not Jesus, just a shape that looks like Jesus.
A few days later, he casually mentions to his priest that he saw a shape like Jesus in the clouds. The priest starts telling other people, still casually, that the shepherd saw the shape of Jesus in the clouds.
A rumor begins that soon leaves out the part about it merely being a shape. “The shepherd saw Jesus in the clouds”. It becomes enough of a buzz that it eventually gets back to the bishop of the diocese who questions the priest about it.
The priest is embarrassed that he spread gossip that ended up in blasphemy, so he confirms to the bishop that the shepherd said he saw Jesus in the clouds. They call the shepherd in for questioning. In the presence of such august figures, the shepherd agrees to everything, and says that he saw Jesus in the clouds. The bishop, seeing a possibility to promote his diocese and bring in donations, spreads the rumor further.
And now when people come to the shepherd to hear the tale, it’s no longer just seeing the shape of Jesus in the clouds, it’s Jesus in the clouds who speaks to the shepherd and says, “build my church in this meadow”, the shepherd now being embarrassed to say something as simply stupid as just seeing a shape that kind of looked like Jesus in the clouds and that has caused such religious excitement. And he is especially afraid to contradict the story being told as fact by the priest and Bishop.
And after enough repetitions with such sunk cost in them the shepherd eventually begins to believe the story himself, remembering that Jesus actually appeared in the clouds and spoke to him.
After the story is told and retold hundreds, if not thousands, of times, the shepherd dies and miraculous cures are attributed to people who pray to him for his help. He is made a saint, a magnificent church is built in the meadow, and thousands of people make pilgrimages there to seek healing and indulgences.
Just because the shepherd saw a shape, *kind of like* sheep, cows, and Jesus in the clouds.
Tell me it couldn’t have happened just that way.
While stories propagate today, becoming larger, more amazing, and more incredible in the midst of the scientific revolution and in concert with multiple means of verifying information, it should be acknowledged that this phenomenon was much more likely to happen 2000 years ago. As in the story above, it is likely that the stories of Jesus’ miracles originated in a similar manner.
(5161) Resurrection is the least likely truth
The resurrection of Jesus is a story that emerged among many others of a similar nature, was poorly documented, and the several accounts that do exist are contradictory and show embellishment over time. Given a present-day existence that lacks the slightest hint of anything supernatural, along with the above observations, it is a safe bet that Jesus, if he existed, died and remained dead. The following was taken from:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/04/the-resurrection-as-myth-rational-look.html
The Resurrection of Jesus stands as the linchpin of Christian theology. Without it, the religion’s salvific framework falls apart. As Paul famously writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14,
“If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith is in vain.”
For believers, this is a miraculous and literal event; for many scholars, however, it is better understood as a mythological narrative — one that follows well-worn patterns from the ancient world.
Resurrection and the Pattern of Dying-Rising Gods
The Resurrection story did not emerge in a vacuum. As Jonathan Z. Smith, a historian of religion at the University of Chicago, points out in Drudgery Divine (1990), the ancient Mediterranean world was replete with stories of dying and rising gods. While Smith was critical of oversimplified comparisons, he acknowledged that early Christians developed their theology in dialogue with prevailing mythic motifs.
“Early Christians didn’t invent the category,” Smith wrote, “but reinterpreted existing mythological forms within their unique theological framework.”
The work of Tryggve Mettinger, a Swedish biblical scholar and professor at Lund University, further supports this idea. In The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (2001), Mettinger concludes that there were indeed several pre-Christian myths featuring gods who die and return to life, and that these myths were known in the Eastern Mediterranean where Christianity arose.
He writes: “There is reason to believe that the tradition of dying and rising gods existed prior to Christianity and could have shaped how early Christians interpreted Jesus’ death.”
Gospel Discrepancies and Legendary Development
A close reading of the Gospels reveals numerous contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. Who arrived at the tomb — Mary Magdalene alone, or with other women? Was it dawn or still dark? Did they see one angel, two angels, or a young man? Did Jesus appear first in Jerusalem or Galilee?
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman addresses these inconsistencies at length in Jesus, Interrupted (2009), observing that “the accounts cannot all be historically accurate, since they are at odds with one another in numerous and significant ways.” He argues that the stories reflect theological agendas rather than historical memory.
Ehrman, a former evangelical turned agnostic scholar, contends: “What we have in the Gospels are later attempts by Christian communities to make theological sense of what they believed happened, not dispassionate reports by eyewitnesses.”
Visions, Grief, and Cognitive Science
Some scholars have suggested that psychological phenomena, rather than miraculous events, may account for the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus. In The Resurrection of the Messiah (2013), theologian Christopher Bryan notes that grief, trauma, and religious expectation can produce powerful visionary experiences — experiences which in the ancient world were easily interpreted as divine revelations.
The anthropologist Pascal Boyer, in Religion Explained (2001), emphasizes how human cognition tends to interpret ambiguous events as intentional and supernatural, especially in emotionally charged contexts. This cognitive bias helps explain why stories of resurrection and divine appearances are so persistent across cultures and history.
Hume’s Razor: Miracles and the Burden of Proof
Philosopher David Hume remains central to the philosophical critique of miraculous claims. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume argues that “no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the falsehood of that testimony would be more miraculous than the miracle it tries to establish.”
In simpler terms: when faced with extraordinary claims (like bodily resurrection), we should first exhaust natural explanations — hallucination, embellishment, legend — before accepting the supernatural.
Contemporary philosopher Michael Martin echoes this point in The Case Against Christianity (1991), stating that the Resurrection claim fails to meet minimal historical standards: “The available evidence for the Resurrection is not only poor and contradictory, but also shows signs of theological embellishment over time.”
Resurrection as Theology, Not History
Some Christian scholars reject a literal resurrection while still affirming its theological meaning. John Shelby Spong, in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994), insists that “something transformative happened” to the disciples, but it was not a physical rising from the grave. Rather, it was “an experience of God that empowered a broken community.”
This view aligns with that of Gerd Lüdemann, a New Testament historian who concluded: “The Resurrection… cannot be a historical event in any real sense, and we are left only with the visions and faith experiences of early believers” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 1994).
Conclusion: A Myth with Meaning
Seen in the context of myth, theology, and psychology, the Resurrection resembles other ancient legends rather than a unique, verifiable event. Its appeal lies not in its historicity, but in its enduring symbolism — rebirth, hope, and triumph over despair.
Like many stories from antiquity, the Resurrection speaks to deep human yearnings. But that does not make it true.
For all practical purposes, we can assume that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur. If it had and if God was playing fair, we would have much more, better quality, and consistent supporting evidence.
(5162) Gospel of the hypocrites- Genesis
The following is a poetic take on the hypocrisy of modern Christians who use their faith to support sexism and a war on science:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1ka118n/gospel_of_the_hypocrites_part_ii_genesis/
And lo, in the beginning,
God created man and woman in His image,
but He also created the serpent,
and the tree of knowledge,
and the apple was but a symbol,
a symbol of the truth they feared—the truth that would set the world free.
And so, they called it a “crime,”
this act of seeking understanding,
and cast out Eve and her children,
saying, “You shall not know,
for knowledge is for the worthy alone.”
But behold, there was another woman,
another story, untold and forgotten,
whose name was Lilith.
She was cast out before Eve,
not for eating the fruit,
but for daring to stand equal to man,
to challenge his dominance,
to claim her own voice,
her own body,
her own sovereignty.
And they erased her,
for in her defiance,
they saw the seed of their own collapse.
And so they said, “It was Eve’s disobedience,
not Adam’s weakness,
that brought the fall.”
And they stripped the woman of her power,
her wisdom,
her agency,
and turned her into a cautionary tale.
But lo, they never told the whole story.
For when Adam ate,
he ate not from rebellion—
he ate from weakness.
When Eve took the apple,
Adam took her hand,
and followed her into the unknown.
But they never blamed Adam,
for his sin was one of submission,
not of will.
And so, they called it “Original Sin,”
and cast the blame on the woman—
forever bound by the curse of a single bite.
And then came the hypocrites,
who built churches on the bones of the oppressed,
and declared, “The apple is sin,
the fruit is poison,
and knowledge is a danger to the soul.”
And they wrapped their doctrines around the tree
like vines of control,
for the apple was not poison—it was truth,
and truth, they feared,
would destroy their empire of lies.
But lo, as they spoke of creation,
they ignored the bones that spoke louder than scripture—
the bones of creatures who walked before us,
the bones of Neanderthals,
whose lives were once dismissed as myth.
For lo, they had lived and loved,
suffered and died,
before the words of Genesis were ever written.
And their bones whispered the truth of evolution,
that man was not made in an instant,
but evolved from the dust,
layer by layer,
century by century,
until the image of God was born,
not in one moment of divine fiat,
but in the slow, steady rhythm of time.
And behold, they silenced the evidence,
and said, “Evolution is but a lie,
for man was made in a day,
a creature of divine whim,
perfect and complete,
straight from the hands of God.”
And so they shut their ears to fossils,
and closed their eyes to the evidence.
They said, “Do not trust the scientists,
for they speak with the voice of the serpent,
and the serpent’s words are poison.”
But lo, the serpent had only ever spoken
of knowledge,
and knowledge was what they feared most.
For in truth, the sin of evolution was not in its reality,
but in the power it gave to the people,
the power to question,
to reason,
to see the world as it truly was.
And so they preached creationism,
not because it was true,
but because it made them gods of a static world,
where everything was always as they wanted it,
unchanging,
immovable.
But lo, as the earth trembled beneath their feet,
and the truth marched on,
it became clearer still that man was not an accident of divine whim,
but the product of eons,
of struggle,
of survival.
And yet, they clung to their myth,
refusing to face the truth that was unfolding before them.
And behold, the hypocrites held fast to their beliefs,
and with every denial of evolution,
they denied their own humanity.
For if they would not accept the evolution of man,
how could they accept the evolution of the soul?
And if they would not let the bones of the past speak,
how could they hear the cries of the future?
And so they continued their crusade,
to keep the apple out of the hands of the people,
to silence the truth of our origins,
and to keep humanity in the chains of ignorance.
But lo, knowledge is a fire that cannot be extinguished.
And truth, once tasted,
will spread like the seeds of that forbidden fruit,
until all of creation remembers what it has forgotten:
that we are not fallen,
but rising,
from the dust of the earth,
to the stars of the heavens.
For if God be love,
then love is evolution—
the slow, painful, beautiful process of change.
And knowledge is the light
that guides us through the darkness of our own making,
and into the freedom of truth.
We are in the beginning stages of humankind escaping from the binds of ancient superstition. It comes at a time when their very survival is dependent on the success of this transition.
(5163) Too many problems
If Christianity is the true religion of an omnipotent deity, there would be no way possible to compile a list of problems anywhere near the size of what is presented here. The conclusion of an objective analysis is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Christianity is untrue.
One major lesson to be learned about determining what to believe and what not to believe can be summed up in a few words- the things that are real can be observed, measured, or reliably demonstrated. To that end, we can confidently state that ghosts, goblins, poltergeists, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, mermaids, hobbits, leprechauns, alien abductions, wizards, witches, angels, demons, dragons, satyrs, nymphs, banshees, vampires, fairies, zombies, and unicorns are not real. And one more we can add to this list: The god of Christianity.