(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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1k0uwno/since_paul_believed_jesus_was_raised_into_a/

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.

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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1k3nb0p/if_there_is_any_proof_that_religion_is_a_human/

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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1k3c1gu/the_resurrection_narratives_coercive_logic_a/

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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1k4a21o/there_is_nothing_wrong_with_not_assuming_anything/

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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1k63l5r/is_the_modern_christian_tenet_of_needing_to/

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:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1k5g2qg/the_bible_assumes_a_prescientific_and_inaccurate/

The Bible assumes a pre-scientific and inaccurate cosmology and this is a problem for biblical theism.

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) Contradictions and strange rituals

It doesn’t take long for an open mind to investigate Christianity and conclude that it is full of unanswerable contradictions and poorly-imagined, strange rituals. As such, it survives today solely because of early brainwashing of children. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1kaq9lx/christianity_is_full_of_lies_corrupted_religion/

Christianity is not divine, it’s full of contradictions, lies and strange rituals like eating a man’s flesh, and a late salvation message that makes no sense. let’s stop pretending Christianity is a clean continuation of prophetic truth. It’s not. It’s a distorted system built on contradictions, strange rituals, and doctrines invented centuries later by councils , not by God.

Christians eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood in their holy ritual.

John 6:54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”

But God already said in Leviticus 17:10-12 that drinking blood is strictly forbidden. So now God changes His own laws? One day blood is cursed, next day it’s salvation juice?

Jesus never claimed to be God. He prayed, cried, begged… to who?

Mark 13:32 He doesn’t know the Hour. John 14:28 The Father is greater than him. John 17:3 Calls the Father “the only true God.” So how is he “God” if he doesn’t even know what God knows?

The Trinity? Not even in the Bible.

The message of salvation is late and unclear. Millions of people lived and died before Jesus even showed up.

Moses, Abraham, Noah , they didn’t know about Jesus. Were they all damned because they never worshiped someone who hadn’t even been born yet?

Christianity tells you to believe Jesus is the only way, yet Jesus himself says===> “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). So what’s going on? Was he sent to save the world, or just one tribe?

The religion depends on mystery, metaphors, and councils, not direct commandments from God. That’s not divine guidance, that’s organized confusion. Christianity asks you to believe things that don’t make sense and can’t be explained without the phrase, “It’s a mystery.” But divine truth is supposed to be clear. Moses didn’t say, “The law is a mystery.” He gave it plainly.

Even the idea of Jesus being sacrificed to forgive sin is unjust. Why does an all-powerful God need to torture His innocent son to forgive guilty people? That’s not mercy. That’s injustice.

Christianity today has over 45,000 denominations all disagreeing. Is that what divine truth looks like? Everyone making their own version of it?

The Bible contradicts itself. One gospel says Jesus carried his own cross, another says Simon carried it. One says Judas hanged himself, another says he exploded in a field. Which one is it?

Christianity today isn’t really about seeking the truth of God, it’s about tradition. It’s folklore that people inherited from family, culture, or society. Most people follow it not because they investigated it deeply, but because it’s what they were raised with. The rituals, holidays, and church customs feel sacred, but they’re just habits passed down not divine commands. God absolutely exists and that’s not the question.

How can a religion be from God when it contradicts the God-given laws of earlier prophets, introduces pagan-like rituals, rewrites salvation history thousands of years late, and requires a church council to explain who God even is?

If Christianity was true, God would have taken a focused interest in the construction of the Bible to ensure that it was free of contradictions and that it presented a theology that would stand the test of time. Neither of these happened- so the conclusion is rather obvious.

(5164) Nine arguments against the existence of god

The following presents nine arguments supporting the proposition that we live in a natural world that’s inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent god:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k9i22j/the_non_existence_of_god_makes_more_sense/

When someone claims that an all-powerful, all-knowing being exists and controls the universe, they are making an extraordinary claim. And with extraordinary claims comes the responsibility to provide solid evidence. But when we examine the evidence and the logic behind the claim, the idea of God simply doesn’t hold up. (the post may be long because i needed to get into the details)

1- Let’s start with some basic contradictions in the traditional concept of God. For instance, if God is all powerful, can He create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it? Either way, it undermines the concept of omnipotence. This creates a paradox, because if God can do anything, then creating a rock He can’t lift is both possible and impossible at the same time.

Similarly, if God is all knowing, He should already know the future yet the concept of free will assumes we have the ability to make choices that could alter the future. How can an all-knowing being coexist with a universe where free will exists? This is a clear logical contradiction.

2- One of the strongest challenges to the idea of an all powerful, all good God is the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If a benevolent and omnipotent god exists, why would there be so much senseless suffering? The existence of pain, disease, and tragedy doesn’t align with the idea of a benevolent deity who could prevent it. If God is truly all-powerful and all-loving, why is there so much unnecessary suffering? This contradiction makes the concept of God even harder to believe.

3- When we look at the universe, we see that it operates according to natural laws. The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are consistent and reliable, functioning independently of any divine intervention. From the behavior of atoms to the motion of galaxies, everything follows these predictable rules. If a god existed and created these laws, we would expect to see signs of intentional design or intervention. Instead, the universe operates without any indication that a divine hand is at work.

This is best understood through Occam’s Razor the principle that when presented with competing hypotheses, the simplest one is usually correct. The idea that the universe operates by natural laws, without any need for a divine creator, is the simplest and most consistent explanation. Introducing a god as an additional cause complicates things unnecessarily.

4- The cosmological argument suggests that everything in the universe must have a cause, and therefore, the universe itself must have had a cause which is God. However, this argument leads to the classic “who created the creator?” problem. If everything needs a cause, then who or what caused God? Saying that God is eternal and needs no cause is an unsatisfactory explanation. Why can’t the universe itself be eternal, or at least have emerged naturally? There’s no logical reason to exempt God from the same rules that apply to everything else.

Furthermore, modern science has shown that the universe might not require a cause at all. The Big Bang theory and discoveries in quantum mechanics suggest that the universe could have arisen from natural processes, without the need for an intelligent designer. Quantum fluctuations, for example, can create particles without a cause, challenging the idea that everything needs a reason for existing. This undermines the cosmological argument entirely.

5- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists is certainly extraordinary, yet the evidence provided to support such a claim is largely anecdotal, based on faith, and highly subjective. If we accept one extraordinary claim without strong evidence, we would be forced to accept all kinds of unprovable ideas. The lack of solid evidence for God’s existence makes belief in Him highly unreasonable.

Science has repeatedly shown that explanations based on natural causes are far more reliable than those based on supernatural or divine assumptions. Every time science makes a breakthrough, it explains natural phenomena that were once attributed to gods or divine intervention. Diseases, natural disasters, and other mysteries that were once seen as acts of gods are now understood as natural events. This demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are far more credible than supernatural ones.

6- If God created the universe, we would expect to see evidence of intelligent design in the universe’s structure, its rules, and its events. However, when we look at the universe, we see randomness and chaos. Planets collide, stars explode, and life evolves through natural selection a process that is not guided by any conscious being. The randomness and indifference of the universe don’t support the idea of a divine, purposeful creator. If God created everything with a plan, why does the universe look so indifferent and chaotic?

7-The theory of evolution by natural selection provides a natural explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. The idea that life evolved over billions of years through random genetic mutations and environmental pressures makes far more sense than positing a supernatural creator. If life on Earth had been designed, we would expect to see evidence of this design in the form of perfection or intentionality in every species. Instead, we observe imperfection, random variations, and maladaptations that suggest a blind, unguided process rather than divine design.

8- Over the centuries, religion and belief in God have continually clashed with scientific progress. Many scientific discoveries, from heliocentrism to evolution to the age of the Earth, were once met with fierce religious opposition. If God were truly all knowing, we would expect religion to be in harmony with scientific discoveries, not constantly in conflict. The fact that religious doctrines have had to change or adapt in light of new scientific understanding suggests that religion is more of a human construct than a divine truth.

9- The concept of God is not universal. Throughout history, different cultures have developed different gods with different characteristics, and often these gods were a reflection of the society that created them. For instance, the gods of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were all very different, yet each was considered the “true” god by their respective followers. The fact that religion is so culturally specific suggests that gods are more a product of human imagination and societal influence than the result of divine revelation.

If the god of Christianity exists, he has arranged things such that reasonable people can conclude that he doesn’t exist. If, on this basis, he penalizes those people, then he is a tyrant unworthy of respect, much less worship.

(5165) Judas breaks the illusion of divine justice

The story of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus and subsequent revilement over two millennia of Christian history lays bare a mammoth hole in divine justice. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1kcd0u1/how_judas_was_screwed_over_if_god_is_real/

Judas, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, is said to have betrayed him for thirty pieces of silver. According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus foresaw the betrayal. In John 13:26–27, Jesus explicitly identifies Judas and even tells him to act quickly. If Jesus is divine and omniscient, then he did not merely predict the betrayal — he designed the narrative that required it.

Judas’ role in salvation history is essential. Without his betrayal, there is no arrest, no crucifixion, and no resurrection. He is a structural necessity in the plan of redemption. Yet tradition places him among the damned — the most reviled figure in the Christian imagination. The implication: Judas was used.

From a cognitive perspective, Judas’s decision cannot be considered autonomous. Neuroscience reveals that:

• • Decisions are initiated unconsciously (Libet).
  • Rational thought is a narrative overlay that occurs after neural processes unfold.
  • Emotional impulses, guilt thresholds, and behavioral reactions are biologically conditioned.

Judas did not choose to betray Jesus from a sovereign self. His mind — including his limitations, his fears, his susceptibility to pressure — was created by God. God placed him in proximity to temptation, ensured his participation in prophecy, and allowed him to fall into despair without rescue.

Judas expressed remorse. He confessed, tried to return the money, and ultimately took his own life. And still, he is traditionally damned. This is not divine justice. It is cosmic scapegoating.

To condemn Judas is to punish a man for fulfilling a role that God both required and ensured. It is to damn someone for acting out a script in a story that could not unfold without him.

Judas was not evil. He was used. He was the instrument of a theological structure that demanded betrayal in order to justify redemption.

In that light, Judas is not the villain of the story — he is its victim.

His suffering, his guilt, and his death were not signs of rebellion. They were the visible cost of a divine plan that consumed the fragile mind of a man who never had a chance to choose otherwise.

Judas was not judged for sin. He was judged for being designed to sin.

He is the designed scapegoat — and his story breaks the illusion of divine justice.

The story of Judas fails every measure of good fiction- it is inconsistent, inconsiderate, and implausible. Christians better hope that this didn’t happen as documented, because if it did, their god is the unjust manipulator and destroyer of an innocent human being.

(5166) Most Christians are not true Christians

The following makes the point that Christianity as interpreted and practiced by most Christians represents a significant departure from what Jesus was preaching:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1k60h8q/the_vast_majority_of_christians_even_the_most/

So this probably applies to many other religions as well, but I want to focus on Christianity here because that’s the religion I’m most familiar with.

So this isn’t meant as a blanket statement, but I kind of find that particularly the most devout Christians often come across as rather self-righteous and kind of condescending. After all, they believe that they’ve found the one true religion. And so especially very devout Christians tend to believe that morality without God and without Jesus is wrong and meaningless, and that anyone who isn’t a Christian is lost and ignorant of the truth.

But I’d argue given how convinced especially the most devout Christians are that their religious teachings are superior, most of them don’t even follow the core teachings of Jesus. I’d actually say that for the most part, the overwhelming majority of Christians just cherry pick the kind of verses that they like, but actually ignore much of Jesus’ core teachings.

I’d say a lot of Christians tend to think that what matters most is primarily surrendering one’s life to God/Jesus and making a conscious decision to have faith in God, having a “relationship” with God by praying, reading your bible, singing worship songs, attending church, that kind of stuff, and then also trying to be a generally loving and decent person and following biblical teachings.

And most Christians tend to think that it’s perfectly alright to pursue a well-paid career, potentially even become an entrepreneur and become rich, go on expensive vacations, drive a nice car, live in a nice house, and then maybe donate a small percentage of your salary, or if you can find some time maybe volunteer every other week or every other month, and just generally try to be a decent and compassionate person.

But I’d actually say that goes contrary to Jesus’ core teachings. At his core, Jesus was an absolute radical. He didn’t say “it’s perfectly fine to pursue a well-paid career, and go on regular vacations and drive a nice BMW and have a big flatscreen TV and play golf on the weekend ….. as long as you also donate 10% of your salary and volunteer at your local soup kitchen 5 times a year.”

No, that’s not what Jesus taught. Jesus was an absolute radical. He called on people to sell all of their possessions and give to the poor. He said that it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of the needle. And he said that the poor widow who gave two small coins, that she gave much more than all the rich people who donated from their excess wealth.

And however you interpret those verses, I think one thing was absolutely clear from Jesus teachings, and I’d say that is that he demanded radical sacrifices from his followers. He actually said in Luke 14:33 ” In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples”.

And so I would argue that to be a true Christian one must be an absolute radical.

Modern Christians tend to think that Christianity is compatible with having a relatively nice lifestyle consisting of annual vacations, driving a nice car, relaxing in front of the TV in the evening with the wife and the kids and the dog or going to a fancy restaurant every once in a while. But I’d actually say that such a lifestyle goes contrary to Jesus’ core tecahings. Jesus was very clear that in order to follow him you must go all-in, meaning you must be willing to make radical sacrifices.

Yet it seems to me that almost all modern Christians tend to think that making relatively moderate sacrifices is perfectly fine. That as long as you donate a small percentage of your income, and you volunteer every once in a while and you’re generally compassionate that that’s fine in God’s eyes. And I’m personally not a Christian and I’m not claiming that I’m personally someone who’s willing to make those radical sacrifices. But yet from my reading of Jesus’ teachings I would say that anyone who’s only making moderate sacrifices CANNOT be a true Christian. You can only be a true Christian if you’re willing to make RADICAL sacrifices and make it your PRIMARY goal in life to help the poor, the sick, the oppressed or those who are otherwise marginalized.

And the vast majority of Christians are not making the kind of radical sacrifices that Jesus demanded. Therefore the overwhelming majority of Christians are not actually true Christians.

This argument does not immediately suggest that Christianity is false, even though it is not accurately practiced except by an exceptional few. But it does insinuate Yahweh for not impressing upon the majority of his followers that they are doing it all wrong. Wouldn’t he want Christians to be doing what Jesus preached and guiding them in that direction, if for no other reason than to accurately advertise the faith?

(5167) Chronology of blame for Jesus’ execution

There exists a conundrum in Christian theology that claims that Jesus needed to die to save humankind while at the same time placing blame on those who carried out this deed. Whatever. In the following, it is discussed how this nonsensical blame shifted over time:

https://www.bartehrman.com/contradictions-in-the-bible/

Pilate’s Declaration of Innocence: Present in John, Absent in Mark

Another important difference and a possible biblical contradiction concerns Pilate’s assessment of Jesus’ innocence. In John 18:38, 19:4, and 19:6, Pilate declares three separate times: “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

In stark contrast, Mark’s Gospel (15:1-15) contains no such declarations of innocence. Instead, Pilate’s role is portrayed as passive; he quickly succumbs to the demands of the crowd and authorizes Jesus’ crucifixion without protest or hesitation.

Why is that? Scholars have noted that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial and execution, when analyzed chronologically from Mark to John, become increasingly anti-Jewish. This progression likely reflects the evolving social dynamics and deteriorating relationship between Jews and Christians in the later part of the 1st century.

As Christopher Edwards, in his book Crucified: The Christian Invention of the Jewish Executioners of Jesus notes:

John’s gospel has mixed messages about who crucifies Jesus. On the one hand, John’s Jews testify that they are not allowed to put anyone to death, and after the crucifixion, the gospel recalls that the Roman soldiers carried out the execution. On the other hand, when John narrates the crucifixion, he clearly states that ‘the Jews [. . .] the chief priests [. . .] they crucified him’… The chronological examination of the relevant New Testament crucifixion texts displays the development of the accusation that Jewish actors killed Jesus from a parable in Mark to more explicit descriptions and declarations in Luke-Acts and John.

It’s pretty clear that the theology of Jesus dying to propitiate sin was an ad hoc scheme to cover up the embarrassment of his execution, when all along he predicted that he would lead the overthrow of the Roman occupation of Judea. Although the Romans were to blame for the crucifixion, it eventually became convenient for Christians to blame the Jews- who were recalcitrant in their refusal to buy into the resurrection and other aspects of the emergent Christian faith.

(5168) Prayer ineffectiveness casts doubt on Christianity

One of the best truth tests of Christianity is whether or not prayers have an effect commensurate with the promises in the Bible. This should be the ultimate acid test of the faith. As discussed below, Christianity gets an ‘F’:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1kate81/the_problem_of_prayer_is_a_sufficient_reasons_to/

The problem of prayer is a sufficient reasons to doubt the truth claims of Christianity

Premise 1: The bible says that if you pray for something, whatever it is, you shall receive it.

1 John 5:14 states: “And this is the confidence we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us.”

James 5:16 “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.

Mark 11:24 “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”.

John 15:7 “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done for you”.

Premise 2: Barring cases where the placebo affect could be at play, there is sufficient data to suggest that prayers does not work as described in the bible

As Evidence for premise 2 I will provide an excerpt from “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer” Published in 2006

Methods: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

Results: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Deduction 1: In light of the data against the efficacy of prayer, it is reasonable to conclude that prayer does not work in real life as it works in the bible

Conclusion: Since the bible repeatedly makes false claims regarding prayer, it is reasonable to doubt the truth of Christianity.

Addressing common counter arguments:

1. 1. Prayers do not work when measured because god does not like to be tested.

Sure she does. In 1 Kings 18, Elijah challenges the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel to a contest to prove which god is the true God. How come god no longer likes to be tested now that we have ways to empirically prove that prayer doesn’t work?

2. God only answers prayers when they align with her will

Assuming this is true, there’s a problem with this called the paradox of prayer

Premise 1: Prayers will only come true if they align with god’s will

Premise 2: If something is a part of God’s will, it’s going to happen whether we pray for it or not.

Deduction 1: Prayer has no effect on the likelihood of an outcome

Premise 3: The bible repeatedly portrays prayers as something that has a positive effect on the likelihood of an outcome

Conclusion: Since the bible repeatedly makes false claims regarding prayer, it is reasonable to doubt the truth of Christianity.

Alternatively, there’s one way to prove this entire post wrong. Just pray for something right now

If you believe god answers prayers, then pray that I get free VIP tickets to Tate McRae’s Upcoming tour. Please. Make my day.

Pray for literally anything and if your god does it, then I’m wrong. Pray for it to start raining everywhere around the world at the same time, pray for world hunger to end, pray that people will stop making low-effort posts about the islamic dilemma on this sub once every week.

But none of those things will happen because prayer doesn’t work.

If Christianity was true, it would be scientifically demonstrated that prayers have a salutary effect well beyond any statistical noise. But as there is no prayer effect, then Christianity must, for certain, be false.

(5169) Consciousness requires a physical cause

The following makes the argument that consciousness cannot exist without a physical component, such that the idea of a conscious afterlife, after the body has died, is unsupportable:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1kfmjeq/consciousness_requires_a_physical_cause/

Consciousness requires a physical cause.

I believe this to be demonstrably true, and you can experience, for yourself, that consciousness requires a physical cause to exist.

P1: You experience consciousness.

P2: Consciousness is either correlated with, or caused by, the physical state.

P3: Something caused by something else will cease being caused if the something else is removed.

P4: Something that only correlates with, but is not caused by, something else will not cease to exist if the something else is removed.

P5: Anesthesia destroys consciousness. You can experience this yourself, it’s a demonstrable fact. No human is immune to this. While anesthetized, your consciousness is non-existent.

C1: P3 + P4 + P5 -> Consciousness is caused by the physical state and requires a particular physical state to exist.

Potential objections:

“But maybe we can, once we fully separate from physicality, become conscious again!”

Whatever that state of existence or being is, it’ll be unrecognizably, fundamentally different from consciousness – to call it the same thing is simply a false equivalence. Total unfalsifiability aside, you should use a different term so as to not erroneously equate the two. You could call it “blraghlr”, since that provides about as much information about the idea as any other string you can assign.

“Something correlated with something else can stop existing if the thing it’s correlated with stops existing!”

This is also known as “causation”.

“There could be another, non-physical component!”

Cool – it by itself provably cannot cause consciousness, and it existing does not stop destroying the physical state from destroying consciousness.

“This assumes materialism!”

The argument is not that consciousness is purely, 100% materialistic (although, yes, I do think that’s more likely than not), but that consciousness requires a physical cause. Such a thesis is compatible with forms of dualism that treat post-death “awareness” as something completely distinct from consciousness.

“You’re just blocking the radio signal of consciousness the soul transmits to the body”

If consciousness continued while “the radio signal” was blocked, we would still have experiences. We don’t. If you’re arguing that it’s equivalent to being blackout drunk, and you can be conscious yet not storing memories, then you’re in for a strange afterlife if the physical is required for memories. I guess you can go into “the physical blocks non-physical memories except for when it doesn’t” or something, but that becomes very… twisty, hypothetical and unfalsifiable.

Any remnant of the thing you call “I” will be so different from your current life that it would be very unlikely to still be recognized as the “I” that you currently experience. It is incumbent on all of us to face the bald fact that death is final, the end of our memories and our consciousness.

(5170) The certainty of belief

Most religious people hold a measure of certainty about their beliefs that fails to meet even low standards of credibility. The following discusses this mismanagement of logic:

https://new.exchristian.net/2025/05/holy-certainty-dismissing-other.html

In this “Enlightened Age” of grandiose megachurches, faith healers, flat earthers, laughing revivalists and campaigners for creationism, one paradox remains as alive as ever: folks who are absolutely convinced they possess a direct line to the Divine still manage to consider everyone else’s beliefs as wacky fanfiction.

Yet, while demanding unflinching reverence for their own God—who coincidentally shares their political views, national identity, and taste in flags—they dismiss others’ deities as silly, quaint or downright dangerous. It’s not just ethnocentrism—it’s a full-blown tribal loyalty test, where the entry fee is suspension of disbelief (for your own ancient myths) and gleeful derision (for everyone else’s).

“The oddity of other people’s religion is always more apparent than that of one’s own.”

This quote, attributed to Anthropologist Pascal Boyer, can be found in summaries and paraphrased interpretations of his book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Said another way,

“What is ‘natural’ in one’s religious world seems ‘superstitious’ in another.”

This observation highlights a cognitive bias: people are socialized into a belief system from an early age, and that system becomes the default framework through which they view the world. Contradictions or fantastical elements in their own beliefs are either normalized or spiritualized, while similar elements in others’ faiths are ridiculed.

This phenomenon can be seen across cultures. A Christian may scoff at the Hindu belief in elephant-headed gods, while accepting, without question, the incarnation of God in a virgin-born man who walked on water. A Muslim may reject the Christian Trinity as polytheistic, while believing that a prophet split the moon. These acts of belief are often treated not just as matters of faith, but as non-negotiable truths.

But today’s faithful warriors have taken their manic thinking up a level. They don’t just see other religions as odd—they see them as threats to civilization, family values, and the delicate ecosystem of Christian bakeries. Meanwhile, virgin births, talking snakes, and zombie resurrections? Totally reasonable! Just don’t mention Ganesh or the Quran unless you’re ready to launch a culture war.

Let’s be honest: if you believe that God dictated a holy book, of course that book sounds like the Truth™—especially when it affirms your right to hate, judge and condemn total strangers, and use “thoughts and prayers” as a get-out-of-responsibility-free card. The faithful don’t just believe… They know! And with that knowledge comes voting patterns, campaign donations, and the occasional storming of a Capitol.

Case in point: American Christians who rail against Sharia law while pushing for Ten Commandments monuments in courthouses, and who denounce “religious extremism” while trying to criminalize abortion based on their interpretation of a Bronze Age manuscript. Religious humility? Please. This is a political project, dressed in choir robes.

As Scientist Richard Dawkins observed,

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

This quote appears early in The God Delusion, where Dawkins makes the point that even devout theists typically reject thousands of other gods—they just make an exception for their own.

But try suggesting that to someone who sees doubt as a spiritual failing and diversity as a liberal plot. You’ll be accused of persecuting them—by daring not to agree.

The real engine here isn’t doctrine—it’s identity. As Social Scientist Jonathan Haidt explains,

“Moral reasoning is not a means for discovering moral truth, but rather a means for justifying beliefs and actions that are already held for intuitive reasons.” — The Righteous Mind (2012), Chapter 4.

In essence, the mechanism underlying this double standard is not purely doctrinal; it is deeply emotional and tribal. Haidt argues that people primarily form beliefs based on intuition and emotion, then use reason post hoc to defend them. “We are not moral philosophers,” he writes, “we are moral lawyers, using whatever arguments we can muster to defend our team.” In religious contexts, “our team” includes family, history, and identity—making challenges to belief feel like existential threats.

So, people don’t form beliefs rationally and then live by them. No, they feel first, then backfill the logic later. So when someone says, “I just know this is true,” what they often mean is, “This is what my parents, pastor, and political party told me, and I’m too emotionally invested to question it now.”

It doesn’t help that many religions are built to self-insulate. Doubt is painted as temptation, questioning as rebellion, and alternative views as demonic deception.

Karen Armstrong, former nun and renowned scholar of religion, writes in The Case for God (2009),

“Faith is not about believing certain propositions. It is about doing things that change you.”

Yet in practice, religious identity is frequently reduced to rigid assent to particular doctrines, which in turn must be defended—sometimes aggressively—against outside influence.

It’s all so familiar. Believe in the exclusive truth of your tradition, then demand laws that enforce it. Strip other people’s rights in the name of your god, then act shocked when anyone suggests that’s not exactly democratic. Say you’re pro-life, but cut school lunches and universal healthcare. Preach forgiveness, but condemn anyone who disagrees with your theology or lifestyle.

At some point, the question isn’t why do people believe strange things, but why do they only find other people’s beliefs strange? The honest answer? Because recognizing the similarities between religions—their myths, miracles, and moral tales—would threaten the illusion of uniqueness. And for many, that illusion is all that’s holding up the whole divine pyramid scheme.

If your faith can’t tolerate comparison, conversation, or contradiction, maybe it’s not “truth” you’re defending.

Instead of defending truth, most religious people are defending tradition. Only convenient facts are accepted, and everything else is summarily dismissed.

Change in contact email- instead of [email protected] use [email protected]

(5171) We are just animals

Religion is a human-constructed system designed to make humans feel special- the ultimate product of a divine creator. The following destroys this concept, showing it to be the result of unwarranted hubris:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k345ej/we_are_just_animals/

We are just animals. Not figuratively. Not spiritually. Biologically.

We belong to the Animal Kingdom. We are mammals, part of the primate family, sharing over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. We didn’t appear out of thin air. We evolved—through natural selection, adaptation, mutation. Over millions of years. Gradually, slowly, without magic. That’s not a theory—it’s observable, testable science backed by DNA, fossils, and genetics.

And yet… every major religion was built on the idea that humans are not animals. That we’re “different.” “Divine.” “Chosen.” That there’s an invisible line between us and everything else that walks this Earth.

But there isn’t. That’s a lie. A beautiful lie. A powerful one. But a lie.

It is estimated that Earth is home to over 8.7 million species of life. Think about that for a second. 8.7 million. And out of all of them—religion focuses on one.

Us.

Religion doesn’t have anything to say about whales, gorillas, elephants, or dogs. It doesn’t care about ants, birds, or lions. It’s not concerned with the billions of life forms we share this planet with. It’s obsessed with humans—what we wear, what we say, what we eat, who we sleep with, what we believe.

That’s not divine. That’s ego. That’s a story we wrote about ourselves to feel important.

Most major religions—Christianity, Islam, Judaism, some branches of Hinduism and Sikhism—all push the same concept:
Believe, obey, follow God—or face consequences after death.
But that system only applies to us. Not because we’re “special,” but because we’re the only species capable of understanding the threat.

My dog doesn’t know about heaven or hell. He’s never prayed. He doesn’t read scripture. He doesn’t even know what a god is. And yet he’s peaceful. Loyal. Loving. Free of cruelty, manipulation, or hate.

He’s never had the opportunity to “accept” or “reject” any divine truth—because his brain doesn’t process theology. He literally doesn’t have the cognitive tools to engage with religion. And that’s what exposes the whole system:

If salvation only applies to species capable of understanding salvation… then it’s not universal. It’s targeted. It’s designed. It’s exclusion with holy branding.

Meanwhile, my dog dies in peace. And I—another animal, just with more vocabulary—get told I could suffer forever for not believing a book written thousands of years ago by people who didn’t know what atoms were.

Many Christians argue, “Well, God gave humans reason and free will. That’s why we’re held accountable.”

But if that’s true… then God created a system where being self-aware is the penalty. He made us smart enough to question—and then punishes us when we do.

Meanwhile, the other 8.7 million species? They just get to live. And die. No worship. No sermons. No judgment. Just existence. And peace.

Make it make sense.

The deeper you look, the more obvious it becomes: Religion wasn’t written by gods. It was written by humans—trying to explain their place in the world while putting themselves at the center of it.

It was never about truth. It was about control. Control over behavior. Control over identity. Control over fear. Once once you realize you’re just one species out of millions—just an evolved mammal with feelings, instincts, and a temporary body—it all starts to make sense.

We are animals. And religion has no answer for that. Just silence, guilt, and the threat of punishment.

If humans were inclined to think logically and dispassionately, once it became understood our connection to all living forms, the idea that we are divinely special should have been shelved. Instead, excuses were made, though the problem remains- religion is stuck in a pre-scientific view of humanity, ignorant of the fact that we are just a non-designed accident of nature.

(5172) Bible verses that challenge God’s tri-omniness

As Christianity evolved, followers bestowed additional qualities to their fictional god, and eventually he become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. The problem with this is that there exist many scriptures in the Old Testament that clearly place limits on God’s powers. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1kg53gd/a_couple_bible_verses_that_put_gods_triomniness/

A couple bible verses that put God’s tri-omniness into question:

Genesis 3:8 “the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden…” The idea of God walking in the Garden implies he not only has a physical body but that he can be at one place at a time, not really omnipresent.

Genesis 3:9 “But the Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’” If God is omnipotent he’d already know where Adam is. (I love Genesis 3. Not only does it disprove God’s all 3 tri-omni abilities but it also supports biblical polytheism and its Satan’s first and only appearance in the Old Testament/Tanakh)

Genesis 18:20–21 “I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me.” God has to go down to find out about the situation is Sodom and Gomorrah. If he was omnipotent he’d already know and if he was omnipresent he didn’t have to go down.

Judges 1:19 “The Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.” Why the fuck is GOD HIMSELF not powerful enough to defeat iron chariots? Dude if he’s real i can probably beat his ass up.

Exodus 33:14–15 “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” “If your presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here.” Implies God’s presence is something that travels, not fitting with the idea of omnipresence.

Genesis 11:5 “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.” Similarly Genesis 8:20-21 God had to go down to see whats going on and since he had to go down he wasn’t already there. He’s neither omnipotent or omnipresent.

Romans 9:13 “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” If God hates Esau he is not omni-benevoent.

Proverbs 6:16–19 “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him…” Includes “a person who stirs up conflict,” witch yeah an understandable group of people to hate but not if you claim to be omni-benevolent.

Deuteronomy 28:63 “Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper… so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.” He delights in ruining and destroying us. Add that to the problem of suffering.

Numbers 14:11 “How long will these people treat me with contempt? Will they never believe me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?” He doesn’t know how long will people treat him with contempt and whether they will ever believe him. He is also emotional here, and not omnipotent.

Hosea 9:15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them…” Hates the people of Gilgal, not omni-benevolent

Isaiah 63:3–6 “I trampled them in my anger… their blood spattered my garments… I crushed nations in my anger.” Due i need to explain why this implies he is not omni-benevolent?

Ezekiel 9:5–6 “Pass through the city after him and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark…” Show no pity? Self explanatory.

If a Christian wants to believe that their god is all-powerful, all-benevolent, and omnipresent, then they should make sure that they don’t read the Old Testament too carefully.

(5173) Christian belief is primarily emotional

The following essay explains how Christians come to believe based on emotional rather than rational thought:

https://articles.exchristian.net/2006/12/conversion-spiritual-epiphanies-and.html

I’ve never met a single person who became a zealous Christian after being presented an intellectual reason to believe. In fact, I would dare to say that there has not been one real conversion in history that can be entirely attributed to a simple, unemotional presentation of facts. That’s not how religion works. Religion finds fertile ground in the field of a person’s emotions. If a few random twigs on the periphery of a Christian’s faith suffer damage during a violent storm of logic, the roots of that faith tend to remain deeply buried, far out of site, and untouched.

I’ve never been accused of being overly sensitive or romantic, yet my own conversion to Christianity was highly charged with emotion. Tears ran down my face. I trembled uncontrollably. I felt that I was having a face-to-face meeting with the everlasting Godhead. Even today, the experience is strong in my memory. “How to Witness” classes I attended in following years encouraged me to rely on my subjective emotional conversion with statements like, “Unbelievers can’t argue with your personal testimony,” which meant no one could refute your personal experience.

Here I was in a witnessing class learning how to “disciple the nations,” yet the most reliable weapon against unbelief is subjective personal experience?

Is an emotional experience really that reliable? Does an emotional experience provide solid enough ground on which to build a life?

Admittedly, much of life rests on just exactly that type of foundation. For instance, do any of us scientifically and analytically pick a mate? Or, is our selection usually based on something less well defined, such as emotions and/or hormones? Do we choose our food after a thorough nutritional analysis? Or, is our dinner choice usually based on something considerably less researched, like what would taste good today?

Our religious choices fall along the same lines.

While a Christian, I was also a musician, heavily involved in the music ministry at a Charismatic church. I understood music’s power and knew how to use music to play on the emotions of the congregation. If you doubt that music has this ability, to play on your emotions, try watching an adventure or mystery movie with the sound turned off – just read subtitles instead. See if your anticipation for “what will happen next” is nearly as intense as compared to when the soundtrack is playing underneath the action.

When the music at church was “right,” and the volume swelled just so, ecstatic utterances — tongues, words of knowledge, prophecies — would bubble out of people’s mouths like milk boiling in a pot. After the service I’d hear, “Wow, the Spirit was really moving today,” and “The Lord really ministered to me today,” and “I felt the Lord all morning,” and so on.

I’d speculate about what would happen if we abandoned music during the services. I questioned whether anyone would still enjoy worshipping God. I wondered if the Holy Spirit would be felt at all.

Feelings. That’s really what the bulk of Christianity and religion is really all about: fabricated, fluffy, feelings.

Although I eventually wearied of the shallow emotionalism, I didn’t immediately give up on faith in the magical Christ. “People will disappoint you, but Christ is faithful!” That’s what I told myself for the next 15 years.

I went from church to church, searching for the real thing. “I” never “found it” in church. Along the way I catered to my appetite for deeper truth by consuming theological, historical, apologetic, and inspirational books of every stripe. My education wasn’t formal, but it was extensive. Gaining that knowledge altered my views dramatically. In time I began to realize how much Christianity had mutated over the centuries, and how nearly every “truth” that modern day believers hold dear evolved over time. Today’s 20-century-old Christianity would be unrecognizable to its First Century progenitors.

The details of each Christian “testimony” are varied, but the root of every conversion is some sort of a spiritual (emotional) epiphany. And the “high” that religion can bring will carry a new believer along for a considerable while. Eventually, if the believer has a questing mind, doubts will arise, and that’s when the vast libraries of apologetic books are brought into play.

As an aside, apologetic books sell by the millions, to believers. Unbelievers don’t generally purchase apologetic books. Apologetic books are not a tool for evangelism. Conversion is based entirely on emotion and not because the unbeliever finally collected enough information to be converted. While I’ve never known of a single person who was converted solely from reading an apologetic book, I do know people who have “backslidden” and later rededicated their lives to Christ after reading an apologetic book. However, rededication is not the same as conversion.

Christian logic is primarily the armchair variety: “When I look at the stars, sky, trees, and my new baby, it just seems logical to conclude (insert here: ‘It just feels right to me’) that the world was created by an incomprehensible, loving, spiritual entity. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God!” And, “This experience was wonderful. I was filled with a feeling of love so powerful, it was simply overwhelming. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God.”

So, how to interpret personal conversion experiences? If a harbinger of truth is knocking at the door, talking about his or her unquantifiable ecstatic “miracle,” and seems dogmatically sure of his spiritual experience, what’s a skeptic to do? Is it true that no one can argue with a Christian’s personal experience?

If Christianity were the only modern religion that provided powerful, life-changing, mystical experiences, then those things might add validity to their beliefs. If only Christianity provided these unexplained feelings, it might be reasonable to conclude that Christianity is unique. The problem is that disciples of other religions also have dramatic stories.

Here’s one:

I was born in China during the Cultural Revolution and brought up as a typical atheist. We were educated to believe that religious theories were made up by rulers to manipulate people’s minds and maintain their political power.

I came to this country in 1996 as a graduate student at the University at Albany. A few months after I arrived, a lady approached me outside a post office in Latham. When she offered me a religious pamphlet and asked if I believed in God, I proudly answered, “No!”

I can never forget the shock and pitying expression on her face. She said, “You don’t believe in God? You don’t believe that God created human beings?”

I found that idea inconceivable and pitied her for thinking that way.

One day in 1997, my best friend showed me a book she recently got from her parents in China. It was entitled “Zhuan Falun” (Turning the Law Wheel) by Li Hongzhi, founder of a traditional Chinese spiritual practice known as Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa. I opened it and could hardly put it down. Page after page, my lifetime questions were being answered one by one. I recalled my encounter at the post office, thought about the true meaning of life and moved away from atheism. The world became new to me. I finished reading the book in two days — the happiest days in my life. — Yu Chen

Here’s another:

(The) Hindu religion is a source of happiness in this and the other world. No other religion seems to be equal to Hindu religion. Those having mean and unwise bent of mind and give up this religion are wicked and base. Such people suffer greatly in this world and even Yamraj (god of death) does not get satisfied while punishing them. We are wise and learned. Why should we forsake Hindu religion? We have a permanent commitment and love for protecting our religion. — Guru Teg Bahadur

And this one:

“While I was speaking in Southern California a number of years ago, I met four young men who were members of Hare Krishna. It wasn’t a planned meeting, we just happened to strike up a conversation as we were crossing the same busy street in Los Angeles. To my utter shock, three of these lost souls were Jews. As I listened attentively to the testimonials of these oddly dressed fellows, each of them carefully described how their newfound religion had transformed their lives. They joyfully spoke of their joining this eastern sect and I could sense the elation and inner peace they felt. They were certain that what they believed was true and it was quite apparent that they were more spiritual now than they had ever been in their former lives.” — Rabbi Tovia Singer

I’d like to wind this down with a quote from George Boyd:

“Conversion by fundamentalistic groups is begun by introducing doubts about one’s fundamental beliefs about life, and using irrational fear to coerce confession of sin, repentance, and adoption of a primary religious belief system (faith). After this primary belief system has been established, basic guidelines for belief, morality, lifestyle, and behavior are inculcated and shaped through socialization into the “new family” of the Church. Finally, through asking for and challenging individuals to make progressively deeper commitments to the Christian community and spiritual life, they are led to a greater participation in the works of Christian charity, development of the church and active ministry. Rare individuals may undergo the transformation of character and reliance on inner guidance indicative of holiness.”

Fundamentalists need to recognize, however, that viable and personally rewarding solutions to the quest for personal meaning and value, and spiritual growth, across cultures and throughout history, have not been restricted solely to the Christian Church. They also need to appreciate that the same free will they so highly respect, does not function either freely or rationally when conflict is introduced into the subconscious mind through conversion tactics using fear, shame, guilt and the creation of doubt. If we are to survive into the 21st Century, we must recognize that we live in a world of multiple cultures and pluralistic religious beliefs, and tolerance and respect for others’ choices, however different from our own, must guide our actions.

OK, so what’s the point?

Christian conversion is emotional, much like falling in love, or going into an angry rage, or having an episode of hysterical laughter. Once the passion subsides, it’s often difficult to explain why it was ever felt in the first place. Emotional feelings can’t be proved or disproved, but they aren’t reality. Emotions exist, in essence, only in the mind.

In the decades since my emotional “real-to-me” conversion, I’ve left Christianity, obviously. I now have a better understanding of how my own mind processes information and the role my imagination plays in filling out my psyche. I realize now that I was initially so convinced of the truth of Christianity, so affected by the emotional appeal of an evangelist, so wanting to connect with the true God, so filled with guilt over my 11-year-old sinful life, that when I knelt down and prayed the prayer of faith, my mind fabricated a significant emotional experience that absolutely blew my mind. But that’s the only place that experience existed — in my mind.

If Christianity was true, there would exist many supporting facts separating it from other faiths, such that appeals to emotion would be unnecessary for generating belief. But as it is, it falls in line with all other faith traditions, lacking evidence for creating rational reasons to conclude its truth.

(5174) Why Christianity is not the one true religion

If one religion is true and the others false, then there are several attributes of that religion that should set it apart from the others. In the case of Christianity, this uniqueness does not exist. The following was taken from:

Why Christianity Is Not The One True Religion – Christian Website

Christianity is the world’s largest religion, with over 2 billion followers globally. However, while Christianity has had an immense impact on human civilization, it is not objectively the one singularly ‘true’ religion, for several key reasons that this article will explore in depth.

If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer: Christianity cannot be proven to be the one objectively true religion because of its reliance on faith rather than verifiable evidence, the existence of numerous logical inconsistencies and contradictions within its belief system, and the fact that its truth claims cannot be empirically verified.

Christianity Relies on Faith Rather than Verifiable Evidence

No Tangible Proof for God or Biblical Events

Christianity is centered around faith in a God and religious texts for which there is no definitive scientific or historical evidence. Beliefs about God, Jesus, and events like miracles described in the Bible rely entirely on religious scripture and doctrine rather than verifiable proof.

For example, while Christians believe the Resurrection of Jesus literally occurred based on biblical accounts, there is no tangible archaeological or scientific evidence to support this. The validity of Christianity rests solely on faith in the authority of the Bible and church tradition.

Other core beliefs like God’s existence, the Genesis creation narrative, and even Jesus’s divinity also lack conclusive evidence outside of the Bible itself. Unlike claims in scientific fields which can be tested and proven using empirical data, Christianity fundamentally requires adherents to accept teachings based on faith alone.

Other Religions Also Rely on Faith and Scripture

While detractors may argue biblical scripture provides unique legitimacy, nearly all faiths have their own religious texts making similar unproven divine claims that followers accept based purely on faith.

The holy scriptures of religions like Islam, Hinduism and Mormonism, for instance, also describe revelations, miracles and spiritual events that cannot be empirically verified. Their truth claims rely just as much on faith in doctrine rather than evidence.

In fact, most religions ask adherents to accept revealed teachings from prophets, mystics or traditions and have faith in their authority. Christianity is not unique for grounding its validity on faith rather than proof.

Thus while Christianity contends to be the singular “one true religion”, its lack of verifiable evidence for its supernatural claims and reliance on faith for belief makes it difficult to establish as exceptional or provable versus other faiths.

Logical Inconsistencies and Contradictions Within Christian Doctrine

Problem of Evil Directly Contradicts a Loving, All-Powerful God

One of the most compelling arguments against Christianity is the problem of evil and suffering in the world. If God is truly all-loving and all-powerful as claimed, why is there so much suffering and injustice? Over the years, several major natural disasters have killed thousands of innocent people.

For example, the Haiti earthquake in 2010 resulted in over 300,000 deaths. If God loved humans and had the power to prevent such disasters, why would God allow such catastrophes? This is an impossibly difficult question for Christianity to answer reasonably while maintaining core doctrinal claims about God’s nature.

Furthermore, the Christian idea of infinite punishment in hell for finite sins is seen by many as incredibly unjust. How could a God who is the essence of love and justice condemn souls to eternal torment for temporal offenses?

As author Keith Parsons writes, “the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime.” This seems outrageously unjust and makes it very difficult to believe in the Christian God.

Contradictory Accounts in the Bible Undermine its Reliability

There are also logical issues stemming from outright contradictions between biblical accounts. For example, Matthew traces Joseph’s genealogy differently from Luke. There are different accounts of Judas Iscariot’s death – he either hanged himself (Matthew 27:5) or he fell and spilled his bowels out after purchasing the Potter’s Field (Acts 1:18).

Such contradictory details in the gospels undermine the reliability of the Bible as a historical source. How are we to determine what really happened?

Additionally, archaeologists have found much evidence that refutes biblical stories. Claims in Exodus about Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt on a large scale or led out by Moses seem to be historically inaccurate or grossly exaggerated according to archaeology.

Many other Old Testament stories like Noah’s Ark, Jonah surviving in a whale’s belly, and Genesis creation accounts can be proven mythical in nature when compared to science and history. The abundance of myth blended with some historical facts ultimately undermines the entire narrative presented in the Bible.

Core Christian Beliefs Cannot Be Empirically Verified

No Scientific Evidence for Supernatural Claims Like Miracles and Resurrection

Many core Christian beliefs center around supernatural claims that cannot be proven or disproven by science. For example, the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine, and the resurrection go against the laws of nature and have no scientific explanation.

There is no way to empirically verify that these miracles actually occurred as described in the Bible. Furthermore, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles were written down decades after his death by authors who never witnessed these events firsthand.

This makes their factuality even more questionable from a scientific perspective.

The resurrection is undoubtedly one of the most central miracles in Christianity. Christians argue that the resurrection is well-evidenced historically, but there is no scientific explanation for how a dead body could come back to life after three days.

While Christians view the resurrection as a literal, supernatural event, those coming from a scientific perspective would need strong empirical evidence to verify that something so counter to the laws of biology actually occurred.

Ultimately, belief in the resurrection requires faith rather than scientific proof.

Historical Evidence for Jesus is Limited and Questionable

While most scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, the extra-biblical evidence for his life is surprisingly limited given his purported influence. There are no contemporary eyewitness accounts or archaeological findings that can corroborate Jesus’ miracles and resurrection.

The texts written about Jesus decades after his death contain inconsistencies and contradictions that call into question their historical reliability. So from an empirical point of view, the written records are not strong enough on their own to conclusively prove that Jesus performed supernatural feats.

For example, the Gospels give different details about the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus. This makes it difficult to piece together a historically accurate portrait. The Gospels also reflect the theological biases of their authors, who sought to portray Jesus in the most favorable light as the Messiah.

Given that no original manuscripts exist and there are no non-Christian sources confirming Jesus’ miracles, skeptics argue that his depiction in the Bible becomes somewhat shrouded in legend and myth.

The lack of strong empirical evidence gives critics room to doubt Christian claims about Jesus’ supernatural acts and the literal truth of the Bible.

Christianity’s Truth Claims Are Geographically and Culturally Subjective

Vast Majority of Christians Adopt the Dominant Faith of Their Region

It’s quite amazing how Christianity spreads primarily through cultural and geographical proximity rather than any inherent truth. According to surveys, over 86% of people in the United States identify as Christian. However, if you go to Saudi Arabia, over 90% of the population is Muslim.

In India, 80% identify as Hindu. It seems one’s religious identity has more to do with where they happened to be born than some kind of divine revelation or metaphysical truth.

In fact, a comprehensive global survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2011 examined this phenomenon. They found that “more than 85% of people worldwide identify with a religious group.” However, the specific religion they identified with almost always aligned with the dominant faith of their region or culture.

This shows that truth claims of many religions like Christianity are highly influenced by subjective factors like geography and family tradition rather than any objective spiritual reality.

Christian Ethics Have Evolved Significantly Over Time

If Christianity’s truth claims were eternal and unchanging as believed by many of its adherents, then its moral teachings and ethics would likely stay constant over time. However, history shows that Christian values have gone through profound changes and reversals on major issues like slavery, race relations, women’s rights, sexual ethics and more.

For example, the 19th century Protestant churches used the Bible to justify slavery in the US South. However, today, Christianity universally condemns slavery. The inferior status of women and systemic gender inequality was simply taken for granted in traditional Christianity.

But feminist movements driven by Enlightenment values of human equality eventually triumphed even within religious institutions. Acceptance of LGBTQ+ people and same-sex relations used to be seen as incompatible with the Christian faith by most denominations.

Yet now, major sections within Christianity are reconciling faith and sexuality in inclusive ways unimaginable just 30 years ago.

The fact that Christian morality seems to evolve relative to the cultural progress of the times rather than any inerrant biblical foundation casts doubt on the religion’s claims to universal, eternal truths.

Both history and comparative religious studies show the powerful subjectivity inherent in Christianity’s truth claims.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Christianity continues to provide community, meaning, and ethical direction for billions, it cannot be reasonably considered the one singularly true world religion. Its lack of verifiable evidence, logical contradictions, unprovable supernatural claims, and geographic/cultural exclusivity all undermine Christianity’s status as the sole universal truth.

Ultimately, Christianity’s enduring value stems from its moral guidance and community, not empirical facts, so it cannot be deemed the sole ‘true’ religion from an objective standpoint.

Quite clearly, Christianity lacks the pedigree of a theoretical ‘one true religion.’ Instead it ranks equally among others as a faith-based, fact-limited belief system, no more likely to be true than many others.

(5175) The ultimate exit testimony

In the following essay, the author reveals in great detail the process by which he lost a belief in the truth of Christianity and gained an acceptance of reality:

How I Figured Out Christianity is Not Real

My path out of Christianity began 30 years ago when I realized that evolution was a fact- that we evolved from very simple organisms that lived 4,000,000,000 years ago. I wondered why a god would use such a long, convoluted process to produce the desired human product, a process that included a 160,000,000 year reign of the dinosaurs and the countless suffering of animals that starved to death or were eaten alive. The way I got out of that conundrum was to suppose that God allowed everything to happen on its own and that only when intelligent beings evolved did he decide to intervene, and that perhaps he did the same on other planets where intelligent life evolved.

For a while, I was satisfied with that, but then I started to realize other problems. Modern humans have existed for 100,000 years, so why did God wait 97,000 years before he made contact? And why was that contact made with only a small tribe in the Middle East? The problem was further exacerbated by the question of why God would “choose” a certain people over another in the first place, while ignoring the many vibrant civilizations that existed all over the world at that time? Then it became worse when I realized that God allegedly not only favored the Jews, but he also helped them to fight their neighbors, even to the point of commanding them to kill the adversary’s women and children. Why would a god who had built the entire universe become involved in such cruel and petty absurdity? When looking at the other atrocities ascribed to God in the Old Testament, I also realized that no real god would ever act in that way. I also concluded that the god of the New Testament was very different and could not be the same as the one described in the Old Testament- though, if that is true, then Christianity fails a significant test of authenticity.

I was impressed by this quote from Richard Dawkins:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

There are scriptures to back up every adjective in this quote.

Another quote from Mark Twain:

“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our God with minute and remorseless exactness. The portrait is substantially that of a man—if one can imagine a man charged and overcharged with evil impulses far beyond the human limit; a personage whom no one, perhaps, would desire to associate with, now that Nero and Caligula are dead. in the old Testament His acts expose His vindictive, unjust, ungenerous, pitiless and vengeful nature constantly. He is always punishing—punishing trifling misdeeds with thousand-fold severity; punishing innocent children for the misdeeds of their parents; punishing unoffending populations for the misdeeds of their rulers; even descending to wreak bloody vengeance upon harmless calves and lambs and sheep and bullocks, as punishment for inconsequential trespasses committed by their proprietors. it is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading, by contrast.”

The story of Noah’s Ark never happened. But it was written as if it were a fact, so it made me wonder what other events in the Bible that, unlike Noah, seem plausibly true but are nonetheless fiction? What is even more telling in my observation is that if the story of Noah is true, as many fundamentalist Christians believe, would a god capable of such vicious cruelty be worthy of worship in the first place?

I also recognized that a real god would not require animals to be sacrificed for his gratification or demand that people who work on the Sabbath be put to death, or that disobedient children should be killed. It seemed obvious to me that men wrote scriptures that reflected the current culture and whatever appealed to them, but they were not in communication with or guided by a supernatural being during this process. Could the real god that made the whole universe be so petty, unjust, and jealous, or be a misogynist or homophobic, or be a racist, or be homicidal, or be so inconsistent and capricious as he is portrayed in the Old Testament? No, but humans certainly could. This god is nothing more than a reflection of the men who wrote the Old Testament, very much a fictional deity grounded in the times and environment of the people who created him.

That the Bible is a product of its times is also revealed by the Ten Commandments. Nowhere in these commandments is there a condemnation of slavery, genocide, child molestation, or cruel treatment of homosexuals or non-human animals, but it does suggest that a wife is the property of the husband (Commandment #10). It is apparent that the morality of modern civilization has surpassed that of the Bible, but if God was the author of these commandments, it begs the question: are we today more moral than God? It takes little effort by anyone to construct a more enlightened set of instructions than what is contained in the Ten Commandments.

I understood that the Bible viewed homosexuality as sin, but concluded that a real god would have understood the causes of homosexuality and would not have condemned what came natural to these people. He would have known that it wasn’t a choice, but rather an integral part of their essence. Such a god would not have condemned these people or their activity. The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality reveals its man-made origins.

The story of the Jewish exile to Egypt has been disproved based on the absolute lack of evidence either in the Egyptian historical records or corroborating physical evidence. The story of everything associated with this sojourn was apparently a myth that was later written into the books of Genesis and Exodus. Once again, this casts doubt on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

So the next rationalization for me was to completely jettison the Old Testament and consider it apocryphal- just a series of legends that might in some cases have been remotely tethered to real events, and that Jesus came to the earth to correct the errors of Judaism as well as other religions. There were problems with that concept as well because Jesus appeared to be supportive of Old Testament history and law. There seems to be no way to separate Christianity from its Jewish roots without destroying its authenticity.

At this point my faith was hanging by a thread. I looked at how the universe was constructed and how things worked in my experience of life. Well, the universe did not seem to be anything a god would design, there being too much chaos and asymmetry, with asteroids pounding planets, galaxies colliding, and so forth. The universe is too large for it to have been created just for human earthlings, and it also seems to be farcical that the god that made all of this is a male and looks like a human.

I considered a thought experiment, that I had been raised without any religious instruction or even hearing about religion as I grew up. Would I have concluded from what I experienced that there were supernatural forces at play? Did it seem like a world populated with gods, angels, devils, and demons? The answer was “no.”

The very concept of the Devil and Hell seemed to be a human invention, perhaps to scare and control people, but very unlikely to exist in reality. I understood that if I disbelieved in the Devil that I was also dangerously close to disbelieving in God.

I wondered how God could justify letting so much misery occur when he had the power to stop it. I examined the well-known quote by Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I found it hard to construct a convincing retort to this argument. After seeing people fall victim to Alzheimer’s disease, be eaten alive by flesh-eating bacteria, be drowned in tsunamis, be wracked with agonizing pain, I became weary of using the long-standing rationalization that ‘god works in mysterious ways.’ The amount of suffering in the world is too great to be considered a purposeful plan by a benevolent god. I realized one thing- if God is who most Christians think he is, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then he is not compassionate, not sympathetic, and not deserving of admiration or worship.

A corollary to this issue is to ask what would a god do if he sees a very tragic event unfolding or about to happen, would he just watch and let it occur? An example is 9/11, or the great Indonesian or Japanese tsunamis. It seemed to be unusual that an existence overseen by a supernatural god would see such terrible events occur, and happen in a way that appeared to be unrestrained by any governing mechanism. If a person withheld information that could have thwarted the 9/11 attack, he would have been prosecuted as an accessory before the fact. But god gets a pass on this by Christians who seem to rationalize that god thought this event was somehow necessary.

I also evaluated the effectiveness of prayer and concluded that the prayers I had said in my life had not shown any sign of being answered beyond pure coincidence. I wondered why God refused to heal amputees and quadriplegics. I also wondered why Christians and atheists respond the same way when they get sick or wreck their car- that is, it seemed that being a Christian offered no tangible real-world advantage.

I was bothered by the fact that Christians did not pray for anything that would clearly require a supernatural force, such as praying for a dead person to be raised back to life, or an amputee to have a limb restored, or for a polluted lake to be cleaned up. And I had ask myself why this was so, because the Bible seemed to suggest such things should be possible through an all-powerful God. I wondered if it was because Christians know that prayers really do not work and to be safe it is best to use them only in situations where a positive ‘answer’ might result from a natural process.

I also wondered why God would be so secretive and aloof, and allow so many false religions to flourish. Even in the Christian religion, there are hundreds of denominations each with a different philosophy of Christianity. Wouldn’t it make more sense to be upfront with us and let us know exactly what we were supposed to believe, how to behave, and who to worship? Further, why are so many people born into circumstances that make becoming a Christian almost impossible?

I wondered why a god would author the perception that men were in any way superior to women, or had dominion over them. Our society has moved to a paradigm of equality between the sexes. Wouldn’t a god have been similarly enlightened and have promoted this concept from the beginning?

I wondered about the inconsistency of salvation, given that an infant who dies is supposedly given a free pass to heaven, but if he lived to be an adult and did not satisfy God, he could be sent to Hell. This seemed to suggest that dying as an infant was the best thing that could happen, for why risk an eternal reward for a few short years of earthly life?

My read of the Bible also suggested something atrocious- That Ted Bundy, the serial killer of over 30 women, is in heaven, while Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian who devoted his life to alleviating the suffering of impoverished Africans, is in hell. It is consistent to make this argument from the text of the New Testament, which suggests that no man is worthy of heaven without accepting the grace offered by Jesus’ death on the cross and that any person still alive, no matter their history, can have his sins absolved. Bundy did accept Jesus before his execution and Schweitzer did not accept Jesus as being divine. This outlandish scenario caused me to question the morality of the New Testament, but more importantly, the likelihood that a god would use such an injudicious system of reward and punishment.

I wondered why a religion started by the Jews was any different from other religions created by other cultures. In all cases, the gods exclusively favored the group that invented them, so why should I assume that the religion of the Jews was any different?

I considered the miraculous elements of Christianity- the virgin birth, the guiding star, the visitation by nobility, being put to death and resurrecting, and found that all of these elements existed in religions that preceded Christianity. This didn’t disprove these events as described in the Bible, but it did suggest the possibility that elements of previous religions were borrowed by Christianity.

I looked at the New Testament and found two disturbing problems, the first being the Roman census that was supposedly conducted during the time of Jesus’ birth (BC 4). There is no record of this in Roman history (the only census that took place in this time frame was in AD 6-7 according to the Romans meticulous records and did not include the areas of Nazareth and Bethlehem) and it never made sense anyway. The Romans would not have required people to journey to their birth city. This would involve cases where families would have been split, going to different cities, but more significantly, the Romans would want to know how many people were living currently in each area rather than how many were born in a certain city. I also realized why this was written into the Bible- Jesus was a Nazarene, but the scriptures said that the savior was to be born in Bethlehem, so some device was needed to convince followers that Jesus was not born in Nazareth as everyone had assumed, but rather he had the appropriate credentials of the savior.

The other story was the release of Barabbas at the Passover. There is no record outside of the Bible of the Romans having a tradition of releasing a prisoner of the crowd’s choice during the Passover, and common sense suggests that this could not be true. The Bible suggests that a murderer named Barabbas was released in lieu of Jesus at the behest of the crowd. It was clear to me that this was written to make the point that Jesus was crucified at the will of the Jews and to exonerate the Romans. It also seems likely that the crowd screaming for the release of Barabbas was actually referring to Jesus, and that Barabbas, translated to “son of the father” might have been his nickname. It also seemed to be very peculiar that the same crowd that enthusiastically regaled Jesus on Palm Sunday would turn against him 5 days later and urge the Romans to crucify him while selecting a callous murderer to be released in his stead.

I convinced myself that these two stories were not true and further discovered the motivation that led to their inclusion into the gospels. When I realized that these two stories were not true, I began to question the validity of everything written in the New Testament.

As many historians theorize, Jesus was crucified by the Romans for the charge of sedition and was only one of many Jewish leaders of the time that met the same fate. The Romans were suspicious of any Jewish leader that was recognized to be a threat to the Roman occupation, and Jesus certainly fell into that category. But the gospels tell a different story- the Romans (Pontius Pilate) didn’t want to execute Jesus and left it up to the Jews to decide his fate. The Roman soldier was the first to comprehend Jesus’ divinity. The centurion had faith that Jesus could heal his servant. What may have happened is that after the Roman- Jewish war decimated the Jews , the existing oral traditions and scriptures were revised to favor the Romans, because they then became the focus of Christian evangelism. This proselytizing focus on the Romans would later lead to the explosion of Christianity across Europe and later the remainder of the world.

I considered the following scriptures:

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” -Matthew 16:28

And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” -Mark 9:1

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” -Luke 9:27

I had to conclude one of two things- either Jesus made this statement and was wrong, and was therefore not God himself, or it was purposely added to the scriptures to create a sense of urgency among the followers. I concluded that the latter was the more likely explanation, and likewise, this caused me to doubt the veracity of everything in the gospels referring to the words spoken by Jesus. This ploy would have caused people to be much more willing to donate their goods to the church and be more eager to serve the faith. In actuality, this tactic is still being used today by some evangelical preachers.

The philosophy that Jesus espoused was in many ways irrational and suggested that he thought the world order was about to end. Here is a list of what passes under the radar of most Christians:

• • If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
  • Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
  • Don’t plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
  • Don’t save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
  • Don’t become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
  • Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
  • Don’t work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
  • Don’t have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
  • Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
  • If someone steals from you, don’t try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
  • If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
  • If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
  • If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
  • If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

Very few Christians, even fundamentalists, follow even one of these precepts, and yet they will tell you that Jesus is their role model (What would Jesus do?). But clearly, it suggests a person who is convinced that the world is ending as it was known and that planning for the future or defending your possessions was a waste of time. Of course, if Jesus was really God, he would have known that the world would continue on for at least another 2000 years.

I realized that the Bible failed to offer any insights beyond the then-current understanding of science and considered this a piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that it was written by men without any inspiration from a supernatural source.

I looked at the historical sequencing of the books of the New Testament. Mark was the first, written about 30 years after Jesus died, followed by Luke, about 5 years later, then Matthew, about 10 years later, and John, about 25 years later. The time lag between the events and the documentation seemed long enough to be an opportunity for exaggeration and myths to contaminate the historical account. But more telling, the stories told in the gospels appear to grow in magnificence with each successive book. In Mark, there is no account of a virgin birth or of a resurrected Jesus interacting with the disciples (other than the last verses that were added much later), with Luke, the virgin birth is added, and with John, the raising of Lazarus is first presented and Jesus is for the first time equated with God the Father. Another example is that the temptation of Jesus by the devil grows in significance and details from Mark to Luke to Matthew. These examples reflect a classic illustration of mythmaking, such that over time events are embellished to make for a more compelling story.

Another example of the evolution of Christian writings is as follows:

Matthew 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

Luke 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”

John 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

In the first gospel, Jesus is expressing displeasure with God for allowing the crucifixion, but in the later gospels, Luke and John, there is no longer any hint of dissatisfaction. It suggests that the writers of the gospels made revisions to improve the image of Jesus.

This also brings up a theory that Jesus, as a man and not a god for this discussion, did not expect to be killed by the Romans, but rather thought that God would culminate his mission by miraculously expelling the Romans and establishing a free Jewish state. It is possible that Judas was sent to ensure that the Roman soldiers would descend on Jesus’ location in the Gethsemane Garden and that the miracle would happen there- this based on Jesus’ understanding of the scriptures. For this reason, Jesus was very nervous (supposedly sweating blood) and asked his disciples to pray with fervent zeal and was quite irritated when they appeared to be falling asleep. Judas was accordingly not a traitor, but was following Jesus’ instructions. Jesus was disappointed and disillusioned by his arrest and crucifixion and the cry of abandonment was a reflection of those feelings. It is probable when a statement appears in scripture that seems to be contrary to the major theme of the text as it appears in Matthew 27:46, that this is more likely to be an actual statement made by Jesus. It is also likely that a controversial quote by Jesus would be modified by later editions, and this is what we see in Luke and John.

This brought me to a realization that many of the anecdotal stories told by Christians are not true, but are deliberately made up or exaggerated for the purpose of strengthening the faith of family members and friends. A Christian can rationalize this tactic by thinking that the end justifies the means. If they see a family member waning in faith, then a fictional story of miraculous characteristics could possibly get them back in line, and the benefit of doing this is greater than the burden of lying. This caused me to be skeptical of any story that contained supernatural elements.

For a while I clung to the account of the disciples risking their lives and enthusiastically spreading the news about Jesus as an indication of the reality of Jesus’s mission. But this too was problematic because the book detailing these events (Acts of the Apostles) was written in approximately A.D. 63, or 34 years after Jesus’ (4BC-29AD) death. I couldn’t discount the possibility that much of the account included deliberate fiction to bolster the faith of the fledgling Christian followers. The number of people still alive who had witnessed Jesus’ life would have been very little at that time.

I questioned how the story of Jesus’s resurrection and visitations with his disciples thereafter could have become conventional wisdom if these events had not happened. What seemed possible was that his body was stolen, leaving an empty tomb for his followers to witness, and it is very conceivable that the dreams of the disciples and others involving Jesus could have been interpreted as actual instances of him communicating with them beyond the grave. Also, some disciples might have invented stories about Jesus to keep his memory and fame alive.

The story of the Romans guarding the grave of Jesus is almost certainly not true. There would have been no reason for them to do this, and remember, Jesus was only one of many rabbis crucified at about the same time for the crime of sedition. As long as Jesus was dead, the Romans were satisfied. But it seems very likely that the fictional story of the Roman guard was added to the scriptures to make Jesus’s resurrection seem more remarkable, and perhaps as a way to curtail a rumor that his body had been stolen.

Within the same framework of the death and resurrection stories, there is mention of graves opening following an earthquake with dead people coming back to life and walking the streets of Jerusalem. In Matthew 27:51-53:

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is clearly a fictional account and its inclusion casts much doubt on the authenticity of the neighboring text. It seemed to me that if something this artificial could be added by the author of Matthew, then other fictional stories might have been added as well. This caused me a lot of concern because it meant that some events written in the Bible might simply have been completely fictitious stories that the author thought would add more luster to the account. In this case, it appears that the author of Matthew did just that.

I looked at the result of the Jesus Seminar and found the conclusion was as follows:

… the Jesus Seminar, a colloquium of over 200 Protestant Gospel scholars mostly employed at religious colleges and seminaries, undertook in 1985 a multi-year investigation into the historicity of the statements and deeds attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. They concluded that only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus had a high likelihood of being historically accurate. So, in a very real sense fundamentalists—who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible—are not followers of Jesus Christ; rather, they are followers of those who, decades or centuries later, put words in his mouth.

One of the stories in the gospel of John talks about Jesus calling for the person without sin to cast the first stone at a woman caught in adultery. This story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and is not even commented on until almost 1000 years after this event supposedly occurred. It appears that it was added by a scribe as a means to further define the characteristics of a fictionalized Jesus.

In Matthew 5:29-30 the following quote is made by Jesus:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

This statement is probably meant to be figurative, though many people throughout Christian history have taken it to heart and mutilated themselves. The important point is why would a god make such an irresponsible statement? Most likely it was an addition from a previous Teutonic religious tradition.

I also explored the fractured relationship and doctrinal differences between Paul and the direct-witness disciples (James, Peter, and John) as well as the theory of many biblical scholars that two forms of Christianity existed in the first century, with Paul’s version surviving exclusively after the Roman –Jewish war resulted in the destruction of the temple and re-occupation by Roman forces in AD 70. It also made me wonder how God’s chosen people could suffer such a humiliating defeat.

It became important to realize that Jesus was a Jew and had no intention of establishing a new religion separate from Judaism. I was wary of the fact that the vast majority of Jews did not follow on to Jesus’s mission, but rather continued in their old traditions. What this told me is that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was hijacked by outsiders who deified him to create their own vision of God’s plan. It appeared that Paul was the major impetus to this undertaking and he might have been the unique inventor of modern Christianity. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He would have been appalled that a new religion founded on his name did precisely that- it dismantled much of the old Jewish law.

There is ample evidence that Jesus was a racist, considering the Jewish race to be superior to other races, both in this life and in the one to come. This is not a criticism of the man Jesus, because he was a product of his time, and was taught from birth that he was one of the chosen people. But it does suggest that Jesus was not a god, who if he was, most certainly would not have divided his grace unequally, much as a parent tries to treat all of his progeny with equal compassion.

Christianity has diverged and split into a multitude of denominations, which is expected when a man-made concept is subjected to a large population, but a god-made religion should converge and become more cohesive as time goes on, because only the churches that are truly following god should experience success.

Finally, I had to ask myself how a mythical religion could be so successful over two millennia. This was easily explained by the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Absent this, Christianity would likely not have survived to today. The modern day analogue of the Mormon Church established the fact that millions of people can become completely convinced of something that is obviously not true. Given the societal environment of 2000 years ago, this would seem to have been even more likely then.

There were other issues that strained the logical processes of my mind. I thought about the moment in time that a fetus or child becomes an entity destined for an eternal life either in heaven or in hell. Does a fertilized egg cell that fails to implant in the uterus and dies considered a person in the eyes of god and goes on to heaven? That made little sense. But then, I had a very difficult time trying to pinpoint a moment in the fetal development when immortality begins. No matter what stage of pregnancy or birth or age of child that I picked, I could see how arbitrary the choice was.

I also wondered about Christians who are hoping for the return of Christ in their lifetime, so they wouldn’t have to experience death and would be raised to glory in the rapture. What indulgent self-centeredness! So they want to cut short the life of their children or even stop everything before their children can have children? For someone who has lived out the bulk of their lifetime, it is insincere to wish an end to the world that would trim the life experience of those who are younger.

I also considered that many Christians believe in evolution. This creates another logical problem: when did the first hominids become eternal creatures in the eyes of god? Whenever this happened, it is unavoidable that the first persons so selected would be resurrected into heaven without their parents. They would be the only persons in heaven without parents. They could beg god to resurrect their parents, but if he did so, these parents would likewise be without their parents.

Next, I thought, why would a god want to immortalize humans in the first place? Why would god need all of this ‘help?’ Also, what is eternal life when the universe is only 13.7 billion years old?

I wondered why a god who set up the earth as a testing ground for humans would allow some to born with hampered mental facilities such as retardation or autism. However, these afflictions fit perfectly into a model of reality that has no supernatural overseer.

The final nail in the coffin for me was the realization that Jesus was a Jew and was following Jewish custom without making any effort to depart ways and start a new religion. The Jewish faith would not allow for a man to be a god, for the Jews were unyieldingly monotheistic. This is best description of this is a quote from Reza Aslin:

“If you’re asking if whether Jesus expected to be seen as God made flesh, as the living embodiment, the incarnation of God, then the answer to that is absolutely no. Such a thing did not exist in Judaism. In the 5,000-year history of Jewish thought, the notion of a God-man is completely anathema to everything Judaism stands for. The idea that Jesus could’ve conceived of himself — or that even his followers could’ve conceived of him — as divine, contradicts everything that has ever been said about Judaism as a religion.”

The book “Zealot” by Aslin points out that there were scores of Jewish ‘saviors’ roaming the Middle East contemporaneously with Jesus also with bands of followers and a promise of a second coming. This appears to raise the possibility that the Jesus described in the gospels is a composite mythical figure based on several of these preachers.

I confidently came to the conclusion that the god of the Bible is not real. I also concluded that if there is a god or gods in the universe, then it either does not know we are here or else knows of us but has decided not to interfere.

I also concluded that this life is the only life that we will experience, and that after death we will not have any consciousness, the same as before we were born.

I then tried to determine if Christianity is a net plus or minus for the world. Certainly, it has given many people a sense of community, a means of dealing with the deaths of loved ones, a spiritual basis for experiencing life, a sense of purpose, and a basis for doing good deeds and being charitable.

On the other hand, it has also caused some problems. It has triggered much division among people of different faiths, such as Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Christians and Muslims in Europe, and even among various denominations of Christians in the United States.

Over history, Christianity has been used to justify slavery, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the burning of witches, the suppression of women’s rights, and so forth. It is still being used today to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

Because many Christians believe that the end of times is near, it has desensitized people to the environmental challenges facing the planet, and these same people have voted like-minded people into political positions, resulting in a failure to take measures to ensure the long-term viability of the planet.

One of the more subtle effects of Christianity is that it has made people less likely to take care of their health, emphasizing spiritual health as taking precedence, as written in the scriptures: I Timothy 4:8: ‘For bodily exercise profits little: but godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.’ If one is convinced that after a short life on earth an eternity of time will follow with a perfect body, it lessens the incentive to make sacrifices in this life to live healthily.

Christianity also causes some people to make bad decisions because it encourages them to interpret voices in their head or circumstantial events to be a sign from God instructing them on a decision they must make. This can take precedence over objectively examining facts.

The belief that some form of personal protection (such as guarding angels) is available to Christians causes some people (admittedly a small minority) to take foolhardy risks, leading to death or serious injury.

Christianity has also shown itself to be vulnerable to being hijacked by influential people who use a distorted form of it to justify war, slavery, and torture, discrimination against homosexuals, the virtues of affluence, and the glorification of firearms.

It has also been associated with opposition to universal health care or any social safety nets for the poor, this being most ironic because it was one of the central themes of Jesus’s ministry. Historically, it has been used to justify the relegation of women’s rights.

Christianity has a history of impeding the advancement of science reaching back to the Middle Ages. Even today it manifests this tendency by watering down the teaching of evolution, restricting stem cell research, and opposing efforts to control climate change.

Christianity has been used in other ways that have resulted in public health crises, such as the Catholic Churches ban on birth control and the slow response to control the spread of the HIV virus by politicians who incorrectly interpreted it as God’s retribution on homosexuals.

It has also overvalued the exercise of faith, or believing in things without supporting evidence. This has a subtle but thoroughly permeating effect on the public at large as it allows for unscrupulous people to dupe others into accepting on faith a false product or assertion. The people who followed Jim Jones to their deaths in Jonestown, Guyana were all raised in the Christian faith as were the followers of Joseph Smith and David Koresh. In this sense, Christianity has stifled the exercise of critical thinking in its flocks, and promoted the preferred use of intuitive feelings to come to knowledge of the unknown.

I am struck by the difference in mindset between conservative Christians who object to same-sex marriage and the more liberal people who accept it, as depicted in the following quote from Jennifer Beals:

“I’m always shocked that gay marriage is such a big deal. You have to realize how precious human life is, when there are tsunamis and mudslides, when there are armies and terrorists–at any moment, you could be gone, and potentially in the most brutal fashion. And then you have to realize that love is truly one of the most extraordinary things you can experience in your life. To begrudge someone else their love of another person because of gender seems to be absolutely absurd. It’s based in fear, fear of the other, fear of what is not like you. But when you are able to see lives on a day-to-day basis, rather than reducing it to politics, then it humanizes a whole community of people that were otherwise invisible.”

Upon reading this quote it became apparent to me that Christianity as practiced by many Christians is rather ‘un-Christ-like.’

I concluded from these observations that Christianity has had a net detrimental effect on civilization. I further concluded that the world would be a much better place if all religions vanished from the face of the earth.

This rather thoughtful testimony as contrasted to those of most Christians reveals a wide gap in the use of objective reasoning. Most Christians accept their faith mostly though emotional reasons, but most atheists, including the above author, base their disbelief on an analysis of the pertinent facts.

(5176) Atheist view of the resurrection

Christians often use the alleged resurrection of Jesus as a proof of Christianity as a whole, and further claim that the evidence for this miraculous event is robust, and therefore should satisfy the concerns of any skeptic. However, there are many holes in this argument, as discussed below:

https://new.exchristian.net/2011/08/explaining-resurrection.html

Another blogger that I have been corresponding with asked me the other day how I, as an atheist, account for the resurrection. When I was a fundamentalist, I was told that the resurrection was incontrovertible proof of the truth of Christianity, the kind of proof that cannot be ignored even by an atheist. This argument made so much sense to me at the time that I couldn’t understand how an atheist could possibly explain it away. Those of you who are also from fundamentalist backgrounds may have been taught the same. So my goal here is not to upset anyone or start any debates, but simply to explain why atheists do not actually see the resurrection as proof of Christianity.

I will start with my friend’s question, and then offer my (somewhat lengthy) response:

How do you, personally, account for the story of Christ’s resurrection? It is fairly well documented. Do you think it was a hoax, a collective hallucination, or what? How do you account for the fact that so many of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths for the sake of a belief in something that never happened? I’m sure you have an answer of some sort, I’m just curious as to what it is. 🙂

How do you account for Joseph Smith’s discovery of the golden plates? It’s quite well documented. Do you think it was a hoax, a hallucination, or what? How do you account for the fact that Joseph Smith was willing to face persecution and ultimately death for his belief in the gospel he read in the golden plates he found, and that his followers like him faced persecution and even death for the sake of a belief in something that never happened?

How do you account for David Koresh’s belief that he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ? It’s quite well documented. Do you think it was a hoax, a hallucination, or what? How do you account for the fact that David Koresh was willing to face persecution and a horrible death for the sake of a belief in something that was not true, and that his followers were willing to join him in both and died a fiery death for the sake of a belief in something that was not true?

How do you account for Mohammed’s visions of the angel Gabriel? It’s quite well documented. Do you think it was a hoax, a hallucination, or what? How do you account for the fact that Mohammad was willing to face persecution, and even be driven from his home, for the sake of a belief in something that never happened, and that his followers were willing to join him in persecution and even risk their lives for their belief in something that never happened?

Dying for a lie?

You see, it’s not just Christianity. Every religion claims its beginning in a miraculous occurrence or revelation, and in each case the religious leader and his followers are willing to face persecution or even death rather than deny their newly held religious beliefs. Joseph Smith and his followers were chased across the country, and he himself was eventually murdered, as were David Koresh and his followers. Mohammad and his followers were run out of town because of their new beliefs. Jim Jones and nine hundred of his followers committed suicide by drinking poisoned punch. Thirty-nine members of the Heaven’s Gate group committed suicide in anticipation of the arrival of UFOs to take them to a celestial kingdom. And in all of these cases, it wasn’t just the followers who were willing to face persecution or death; it was the founders as well. So the fact that the disciples were willing to face death for their belief in the resurrection actually says nothing about whether or not their belief was true, that is, unless you are willing to assume that all the beliefs listed above were also true.

In fact, we don’t know for sure that the disciples actually did face the horrible deaths tradition says they did, because the only evidence of it is just that – tradition. There is no actual historical evidence for the disciples’ demises, just stories passed down through the years from Christian to Christian. In addition, early Christians were not actually persecuted to the extent that I was led to believe growing up. Rather than continuously having to hide or risk being thrown to the lions, as I had somehow thought, early persecution of the Christians was extremely local, and generally related either to people being upset about their relatives joining a strange new religion they viewed as an illegitimate cult or to the need to find a scapegoat for a local disaster. Other times Christians faced mob violence from other religious groups upset about losing members.

The first official persecution of Christians came in 64 AD, thirty years or so after Jesus’ death, when the Christians in Rome were used as a scapegoat for a great fire that engulfed much of the city, but this sort of official persecution was both local and temporary. For the first two hundred years of Christian history, this was how Christian persecution took place – it was local and it flared up at specific moments rather than being continuous. Then, during the third century, over two hundred years after Jesus’ death, official empire wide persecutions of Christians took place. The Roman Empire faced grave threats from barbarians on its borders, and the Roman leaders attributed their weakness to the fact that Christians, by now a growing percentage of the population, were refusing to honor the old Roman gods. They therefore enforced worship of the Roman gods, and those who refused to participate were killed. Official persecution of the Christians ended in 312 A.D. when Constantine called for religious freedom for the Christians in an effort to unify the empire. Then, in 395 A.D., Christianity was made the official religion of the empire, and persecution was turned on the pagans and Jews.

Documentation of the resurrection

Now, you say that the resurrection of Jesus is well documented. Actually, it is not. The only – I repeat, only – documentation of the resurrection comes from the New Testament. I think anyone can agree that a document written by the early followers of a religion is likely to be biased. Taking what the New Testament says about the resurrection at face value would be like taking the writings of Joseph Smith’s closest followers at face value, or taking the writings of David Koresh’s followers at face value, or the writings of Mohammed’s followers (the Koran) at face value. This is why I say that Joseph Smith’s discovery of the golden plates and David Koresh’s role as the reincarnated Jesus and Mohammed’s visions of the angel Gabriel are all well documented – because they are, by their followers.

Furthermore, the gospels were not written down until after 70 A.D., and not by eye witnesses. The stories recorded in the gospels had traveled as oral traditions for four decades and more, with ample time for shaping and reshaping. We really have no idea what actually happened to Jesus and his followers in Palestine in 30 A.D. All we have is oral traditions that were eventually written down forty years and more after the fact. In other words, we don’t know that there were Roman guards at the tomb, or that there was a huge stone that was rolled away, or that the authorities were concerned that the disciples might steal his body, or that one of Jesus followers encountered him outside the tomb, or that two of his followers encountered him on the road to Emmeus, or that he appeared to the eleven disciples or five hundred others. Any of that could easily have grown up over the years, as stories became embellished as stories do. We really can’t know for sure what happened.

Why did no one contradict the resurrection?

One argument I have heard for the resurrection is that these stories spread while people were still alive to contradict them. Well yes. They did. But I would make four points:

1. The ancient world didn’t have twitter or facebook or the blogosphere. They didn’t even have newspapers. It took months for news to travel, and indeed, months for people themselves to travel. If Paul was preaching the resurrection in Greece and Asia Minor, say, who was there to contradict him? His converts couldn’t google what he was telling them to see if it checked out.

2. Christianity started small, and without fanfare. It was people hiding out in basements and back alleys, not people converting all of Jerusalem overnight. What need was there to contradict that? People were worried about living, not about stopping some crazy belief their neighbor’s slave happened to hold. Plus, given the variety of crazy religious beliefs at the time, what are the odds that they would really even care?

3. Furthermore, how do we know that people didn’t contradict the stories about Jesus’ resurrection? All we have is Jesus’ followers’ side of the story, or rather, their story as shaped by four decades and more of oral tradition. We have no source of information outside of that written down by early Christians. I think it likely that early Christianity did have some nay-sayers. But guess what? Those nay-sayers have never stopped any religion. Joseph Smith had plenty of people calling him a hoax, but it didn’t stop people from following him. It was the same with Mohammed and David Koresh and essentially every other religion throughout history.

4. In addition, after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., the Jews were scattered across the Roman Empire. The places Jesus spent his life were destroyed or changed forever, and any possibility of Jewish witnesses countering Christian claims was silenced. This was convenient, for it was not until after this point that Christianity really began to grow by leaps and bounds.

And indeed, as Christianity became more popular, voices of opposition did arise. Many of the early Christian writings we have today outside of the New Testament are those of Christian apologists seeking to counter the arguments of prominent pagan critics. These pagans did argue against the resurrection, and against basically every point of Christian doctrine. When the emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, these voices were silenced. Regardless, you have to remember that Christianity did not become popular enough to warrant any sort of major opposition until the middle of the second century, over a hundred years after Jesus’ death. By this time, however, any witnesses who might have contradicted it were long gone, and Palestine as Jesus knew it had been destroyed. It was too late to go fact checking there – the evidence was gone.

Argument from ignorance

In essence, the argument that the resurrection is the only way to explain the origins of Christianity is an argument from ignorance. It essentially says “we don’t know how early Christianity could have developed without the resurrection, therefore God.” This is the same argument that is used any time we as humans encounter something we can’t explain. Our ancestors wondered what lightening was, and concluded that it must be God. And then we figured out what it actually is. Our ancestors wondered where the seasons came from, and concluded that it must be God. And then we figured out why we actually have seasons.

Just because I don’t know every detail of how Christianity, or any other religion, was founded and gained adherents does not mean that I should conclude “therefore, God.” It just means I don’t know. The fact that we don’t know exactly how Christianity started doesn’t bother me. Similarly, the fact that we don’t know how belief in the Greek and Roman Gods started doesn’t bother me, nor does the fact that we don’t know exactly how Hinduism started, or that we don’t know how exactly Mohammad came up with his new teachings, and on and on.

Possible Explanations

Now while it does not bother me that I don’t know exactly how the story of the resurrection originated, I can at the same time think of plenty of possibilities for how it could have happened. One possibility is that after Jesus was buried the Romans dug up his body and destroyed it hoping to keep his grave from becoming a tomb, and then the disciples found an empty tomb and concluded that he must have risen from the dead. The Romans might have tried to counter it at that point, but the disciples could have accused them of lying, especially if they had already disposed of the body. Another possibility is that there was a mix-up about where Jesus was to be buried and the disciples went to the wrong place, and found an empty tomb. Or perhaps the Romans decided at the last minute to dispose of the body themselves. It’s quite possible that the Romans didn’t think anything of the issue once Jesus, whom they had likely feared was contributing to unrest or plotting subversion, was dead, and therefore didn’t feel the need to counter rumors that he had risen from the dead, or maybe they didn’t hear of the rumors until much later. It’s possible that the Romans’ custom was to dispose of the bodies of the crucified themselves, and that the disciples, or perhaps even just one of them, hallucinated a vision of Jesus, and concluded that he had raised from the dead, and that the empty tomb story itself simply grew up later. There is an endless list of possibilities.

And really, new religious movements are not that hard to start. While in college, I actually became involved in a group that was on its way to becoming a cult. We had a leader, we had visions and revelations from God, we even saw demons and worked to cast them out. We believed that we were about to bring about a Christian awakening that would spread first to our college campus and then to the rest of the nation. But it wasn’t real. In the end, it turned out that our leader had mental problems and had to be medicated. Caught up in religious fervor, we imagined the whole thing, and were positive that what was happening was real. But it wasn’t. This sort of thing has happened again and again and again throughout history. Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Heaven’s Gate, David Koresh, Mohammed, and, yes, I would argue, even early Christianity.

Conclusion

I find it interesting that so many Christians seem to think that the resurrection is some sort of infallible proof of the truth of Christianity. To atheists, the entire idea that the resurrection might be an argument for the existence of God seems strange. I think the difference centers on the fact that the Christian believes that the New Testament is infallible and inerrant while the atheist does not. You can’t prove the truth of your religion using only documents written by followers of your religion. It doesn’t work that way. It’s circular. The Bible is inspired because Christianity is true, Christianity is true because the Bible says so. No. You have to prove it using something outside of the Bible. And when it comes to the resurrection, there simply is no documentation outside of the New Testament. Furthermore, in making this argument the Christian also forgets that every religion starts with some sort of revelation or miraculous happening, and that members of essentially every new religious movement across time have faced persecution and even death for their beliefs. If I must accept that Christianity is true because the disciples would not have died for a lie, then I must accept that every religion is true. And I don’t think it works that way.

In reality, the case for the resurrection is paper thin, and it therefore can be accepted only with a large measure of faith. Christian apologists grossly oversell the evidence for this miracle. If it really happened, it seems God would have given us much better reasons to believe it actually happened.

(5177) Magical thinking minus the magic

A belief in Christianity and other religions requires an acceptance of the existence of magic. Lots of magic happens in the Bible. But in every investigated instance where humans thought magic was working, it turned out to be a natural cause. This discrepancy is rarely considered by religious people. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/05/religions-survive-because-magical.html#more

In my article here last week I mentioned the Catholic sacrament known as the Eucharist, in which the wafer and wine—through the miracle of transubstantiation—actually become the body and blood of Jesus. So the church claims, based on really creepy Jesus-script in John 6:53-58. We’re dealing here with magical thinking, that is, the body and blood become magic potions that guarantee eternal life. Holy Water, which supposedly has healing power because it has been blessed by a priest, also reflects magical thinking. Hence baptism also falls into this category: the sprinkling of blessed water on an infant while reciting sacred words, protects the child’s soul. In 1981, following the assassination attempt on Pope John-Paul II, the pope had one of the bullets added to the crown of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. He was sure that Mary, Queen of Heaven, had diverted the bullet to miss an artery. This is crazy, illogical magical thinking: why didn’t the Heavenly Queen Mary divert the bullet to miss the pope altogether?

In fact, careful analysis of so many religions reveals heavy layers of magical thinking.

Recently Margaret Downey, founder of The Freethought Society, introduced me to the 2024 book by Robert S. Porter, The Answer Is Never “Magic”. This is a highly readable book, 187 pages, presented—as stated on the cover—in the form of “A Socratic dialogue on faith and religion between a skeptic and a believer.” But those dialoguing are two neighbors in modern America, identified as R (the religious guy) and P (the non-believer)—and R’s wife also eventually joins the discussion.

Along the way, Porter manages to insert humor and wit.

Throughout the dialogue, R and his wife remain firmly committed to their belief in the god who reveals his will in the Bible. I especially appreciate Porter’s continual description of this god as Yahweh, since that is the name of the god described in the Old Testament. Translators have done a good job disguising this fact by using LORD—all capital letters—when the original text says Yahweh. Anyone who takes the time to read the Old Testament carefully soon discovers how nasty and cruel Yahweh turns out to be.

Porter’s first chapter is titled Yahweh, and non-believer P tries to discover what exactly R believes about his god. After several pages of back-and-forth, P attempts to summarize R’s claims about his god:

“Yahweh is an invisible, and corporal mind that permeates the entire universe and instantaneously knows everything that happens everywhere in the universe, including the conscious and subconscious content of all human (and possibly animal) minds. It has unlimited, magical control of matter and energy, and space and time solely by directing its thoughts, rather than through any mechanism that follows or is even bound by currently understood (or to-be-discovered) natural physical laws.” (p. 14)

R finds this depiction “a bit stark and technical.” He points out that it “fails completely to capture the glory and, more importantly, the meaning of God’s presence in the world…” (p. 14) Why are believers so hung up on the glory of god? Isn’t that an admission that their god has an ego that must constantly be boosted and stoked? How else to understand the hymns of praise that are so popular? Holy! Holy! Holy Lord God Almighty!   How Great Thou Art     Amazing grace! How sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me! Is the creator of the immense cosmos with billions of galaxies and trillions of planets paying attention to humans singing—and gratified by this flattery?

This idea of meaning comes into play dramatically, later in the book, when Mrs. R describes a horrendous event. Backing out of the driveway, she ran over and killed her only son—she didn’t know he was there. This was during her first marriage, which was destroyed by the tragedy, and she turned to drink. But her despair was erased one night when she was at her lowest.

“… the point of our relationship with God is that when we love Him and let Him into our heart, totally trusting in Him, He leads us to peace and understanding…” (p 123) She grants that her current husband, R, has made good arguments for the existence of god, but…

“Well, those are all well and good, though I don’t understand half of them. I suppose they’re true, but to me they’re really beside the point. I know God exists because I feel Him in my life. He came to me. He helped me. He continues to help me. That’s the reality and all the proof I need… I have no doubt that God saved me that night. That’s why we speak of God as our savior. He literally saves us from a life of guilt and sin..” (p. 124)

I suspect that most devout churchgoers can offer only superficial arguments for god’s existence, e.g., “Look at the wonders of creation, and the exquisite design of nature we see all around us.” Such arguments have been thoroughly debunked, which is rarely grasped. We hear instead that people feel Jesus in their hearts—and that’s good enough. It was good enough for Mrs. R. But it’s highly unlikely that Mr. R can tell us exactly where we can find reliable, verifiable, objective evidence for the god he defends and champions.

In the 13th chapter titled, Science and Evidence, P poses this challenge to R:

“I mean wouldn’t you at least admit that there’s some inconsistency in the idea of a god that’s infinitely old and wise but wants praise and groveling like a Bronze Age king and flies into a psychotic rage at the least questioning of its wishes? A god that apparently wants to be involved in every aspect of our lives down to what we think, eat, and wear on our heads but hides from us like a timid bunny? Isn’t a little skepticism here reasonable?”  (p. 143)

I highly recommend this book. Robert Porter has done a splendid job depicting what a relatively polite discussion between believers and non-believers can look like.

By the end of the energetic dialogue, none of the participants have changed their minds—and we would have been surprised if that had happened—because R and Mrs. R cannot escape from the indoctrination that has determined their thinking. But P puts the truth bluntly, which is bad news for the devout of so many religious brands:

“Whenever we’ve figured something out, really gotten to the bottom of it, found the ‘real answer,’ the answer has never been ‘magic.’” (p. 154)

At some point, given trillions of events happening every second, if Christianity is true, a few of them should be determined to have involved a violation of the natural laws of nature. To date, the number of such occurrences is zero. Something doesn’t add up.

(5178) God’s message at Jesus’ baptism

The following discusses a discrepancy in describing the voice of God that allegedly boomed down from heaven when Jesus was baptized:

50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Most Shocking Differences

The accounts of Jesus’ baptism in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveal fascinating examples of discrepancy in the Bible regarding the words spoken by the divine voice from heaven. While all three narratives describe this pivotal event, the exact wording and audience of the voice differ, reflecting unique theological emphases and textual traditions.

In Matthew 3:17, the voice appears to address the gathered crowd, proclaiming: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus Interrupted (an excellent study of numerous contradictions in the Bible), notes: “The voice appears to be speaking to the people around Jesus, or possibly to John the Baptist, informing them who Jesus is.”

In Mark 1:11, however, the voice speaks directly to Jesus: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Here, the statement is more intimate, suggesting a personal affirmation of Jesus’ identity and mission.

Luke 3:22 presents an even more intriguing variation. In some of the oldest manuscripts, the voice says: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” This wording echoes Psalm 2:7 and carries significant theological implications, suggesting a moment of divine appointment or recognition of Jesus’ sonship at his baptism.

Obviously, only one of these accounts can be accurate, leading one to wonder why the other two are false. But in reality, it is far more likely that the voice of God has never penetrated the earth’s atmosphere, and the stories told in the three synoptic gospels are pure myth. Perhaps the author of the Gospel of John realized this and omitted the divine voice altogether.

(5179) Thirty-three year-old virgin

The story of Jesus as a celibate itinerant preacher is overwhelmingly unrealistic. Christians are guilty of idealizing a messy situation. The following was taken from:

https://new.exchristian.net/2025/03/the-33-year-old-virgin-most.html

Of all the wild, miraculous, and downright physics-defying things in the story of Jesus, perhaps the most absurd claim of all is that he died at the ripe old age of 33… without ever having done the deed.

Let’s be real—this is more unbelievable than walking on water. More far-fetched than feeding 5,000 people with a couple of fish and some stale bread. More ridiculous than coming back from the dead after being executed by an empire that specialized in executing people. Because while resurrection is improbable, celibacy in your thirties is downright suspicious.

The Bachelor Messiah

Picture it: First-century Judea. A handsome carpenter (because of course Jesus was handsome—every Renaissance painting confirms this). He’s well-spoken, compassionate, good with his hands (literally—he’s a carpenter), and performs magic tricks that would make even David Blaine jealous. He turns water into wine at parties. He heals the sick, raises the dead, and preaches about love, forgiveness, and sharing your wealth—essentially making him the ultimate “nice guy” in a world dominated by Roman egos and toxic masculinity.

And we’re supposed to believe that no one—not a single person—tried to see if the Son of God could also be the God of Lovemaking? Please.

The Disciples Were Definitely Side-Eyeing This

You can’t tell me that at least one of the disciples didn’t pull Jesus aside at some point, give him a little nudge, and say, “Hey, Rabbi… have you considered settling down?” Even Peter, who was known for putting his foot in his mouth, probably said something like, “Look, I know you’re the Messiah and all, but have you met Sarah over there? She’s really into prophets.”

And don’t even get me started on Mary Magdalene. Whether or not you believe the theories that she and Jesus had a thing, she was around. A lot. Devoted. Emotional at his execution. First at the tomb when he resurrected. That’s not just casual friend behavior; that’s “I had a situationship with this man, and now he’s dead” energy.

Not Even a Little Self-Love?

But okay, fine, let’s say Jesus did avoid sex. Maybe he really did take the whole holiness thing to heart. But you mean to tell me that he never even… relieved some stress? Not even as a teenager? Not even once?

We’re talking about a biological human male in his teens and twenties—peak testosterone-fueled, awkwardly waking-up-with-a-problem years—who just… ignored it? No tossing and turning at night, wrestling with more than just existential thoughts? No sheepishly excusing himself to “pray” a little longer than necessary? Not even a moment of curiosity during those long, lonely walks in the desert?

If Jesus truly resisted not just sex, but even the most basic human urge for private relief, that’s not just saintly—that’s suspicious. Because this wasn’t a man locked in a monastery with cold stone walls and no social interaction. He was surrounded by people. He traveled with them. He healed the sick, he comforted the suffering, and he was human.

And if he really never even experimented with himself, then forget the resurrection—that’s the real supernatural event in this story. You can tell me he raised Lazarus from the dead, but if he never even once had a teenage moment of discovery under the Nazareth moonlight, I’m calling divine intervention of the highest order.

The Roman Take on Things

Let’s assume, for a second, that Jesus was actually celibate. You know what the Romans thought of celibacy? Weakness. The Romans were all about indulgence—food, drink, and love affairs. The idea that someone with Jesus’ charisma and influence voluntarily abstained? It would’ve been laughable to them. Nero alone had enough scandalous affairs to fill a Netflix docuseries, and yet here was this wandering prophet just… choosing chastity?

And let’s not forget: This man had followers. Men and women who hung on his every word, traveled with him, and listened to him preach about love. He was basically a first-century rock star with a devoted fan base. Even Mick Jagger had a few road trip romances.

The Real Miracle?

If Jesus really was a 33-year-old virgin who also never even took care of himself in private, then let’s be honest—that might be the greatest miracle of all. Forget feeding multitudes with a lunchable. Forget turning water into a fine vintage. If the Son of God made it to his mid-thirties without any earthly temptations… well, that’s divine intervention at its finest.

Or, just maybe, we’ve been reading the story a little too… naively.

The concept of making a human into a god is preposterous as you look at the fallibilities and intricacies inherent to human life. Most Christians overlook this kind of issue. Jesus, if not mythical, was a flesh and blood human being subjected to the same restraints and desires as everyone else.

(5180) Issues with Mark Chapter 5

Any reasonably educated person reading Mark 5 should realize that they are reading fantasy literature. What is displayed in this chapter has very little connection to reality. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/05/an-honest-sermon-about-gospel-of-mark.html#more

It would seem that one of the primary goals of the author of Mark was to promote the idea that Jesus was a superior being from the spiritual realm. Indeed the Christian church would eventually claim that Jesus is a part of god himself, that is, he is one of the persons in the Holy Trinity. And Mark told stories to make this seem vividly real—stories that are clearly rooted in ancient superstitions.

For people with the least grasp of how the world works—even devout Christians—Mark 5:1-20 has to be an embarrassment. It is a patch of scripture they can do without, because it’s just too deeply rooted in beliefs that can no longer be defended.

 We read that a severely mentally ill man confronted Jesus:

“…immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. He lived among the tombs, and no one could restrain him anymore, even with a chain, for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces, and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.” (Mark 5:2-5)
 
Any mental health professional today would recognize that his fellow was suffering from severe mental illnesses. But at the time Mark wrote, the naïve, uninformed conclusion was that the man was possessed by demons. As Robert Conner has stated so well: “In an era of near absolute ignorance about the brain and its functions, it comes as no surprise that altered mental states were explained as symptoms of possession.” (Was Paul Insane? Substack, 10 May 2025)

Moreover, this meant that the deranged man was part of the spiritual realm, hence he was privileged to know who Jesus was—he was in on the secret that Jesus was divine: “…he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’” (Mark 5:7) In fact, the man was possessed by many demons: “My name is Legion, for we are many.” (Mark 5:9) He begged Jesus not to banish his demons to another region, but have them transferred instead into nearby pigs.
 
“Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding, and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine, and the herd, numbering about two thousand, stampeded down the steep bank into the sea and were drowned in the sea.” (Mark 5:11-13)
 
So he gave them permission. Yet more proof that Jesus had superior power in the spiritual realm. We wonder just what the author of Mark had in mind with gave them permission. Something Jesus thought, something he said? In either case, it seems that Jesus cast a magic spell to achieve the transfer of demons. This was a catastrophe—financial ruin—for the people who owned the pigs, and once word spread quickly what Jesus had done, he was asked to leave the region.  
 
The man restored to mental health wanted to follow Jesus, but Jesus told him to go home to his family, so that they could see the wonders of god’s mercy. “And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone was amazed.” (Mark 5:20) That sums up Mark’s goal: he wanted people to be amazed by the stories he told.

Unfortunately, this story has had high impact on Christian superstitions. The Catholic church still trains exorcists because it wants folks to believe that demons are real—just as angels are real. As one Catholic woman said following a school shooting in which twenty kids were murdered, “God must have wanted more angels!” When I heard that I was almost tempted to believe in demons, and if a priest has been present, he would have performed an exorcism to remove the demon from her catechism-damaged brain. All her life she had been attending churches with splendid works of art featuring angels—so of course they’re real—saints, and the ubiquitous Virgin Mary. The Catholic church has pushed belief in a large number of saints who reside in the heavenly realm, who answer prayers and offer guidance. The Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, still makes personal appearances around the globe.

In other words, this church thrives by maintaining among its followers strong belief in ancient myths and tiresome superstitions. The same goes for other Christian brands, of course, but the Catholic church appears to be the champion.

What Bible study means. Devout readers: Please make a careful comparison of Mark 5:1-20 and Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:26-39. Both Matthew and Luke, who plagiarized major portions of Mark, altered the story of the crazy man in the tombs. Matthew shortened it significantly, and Luke changed the wording here and there. It is hard to accept divine inspiration of scripture when different authors made such changes. The author of John’s gospel ignored the story altogether.

In Mark 5:25-34 we find Mark’s full embrace of magical thinking—to further enhance the divine nature of Jesus. This is the famous story of the woman “…who had been suffering from a flow of blood for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians and had spent all that she had, and she was no better but rather grew worse.” (Mark 5:25-26) She was confident that she would be healed if she managed to touch Jesus’ cloak. And so it was: “Immediately her flow of blood stopped, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.” (Mark 25:29) So the Jesus-magic flows even through his cloak, and just getting ahold of it—however briefly—does the trick. Moreover, Jesus felt that “power had gone forth from him” (v.30), and the woman was terrified by what she had done. But he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” (v.34)

Commanding demons to move from a man to pigs—presumably by words Jesus had uttered—is one level of magic, but here we find magical power transmitted by fabric. Jesus was aware of it only after it had happened. And he congratulated the woman on her faith. This is another key virtue for those who had signed up the Jesus cult: please believe that our theology qualifies as the one true faith. Faith also does the trick.

This story of woman cured instantly actually interrupts another episode designed to evoke awe among the faithful. The beginning of this story is found in Mark 5:21-24. Jairus, who is identified as a leader of the synagogue, begs Jesus to lay his hands on his daughter, who is near death. On the way, the woman with the flow of blood benefits from the Jesus-magic. When they resume the journey to go visit the ailing daughter, bad news arrives: “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?” (Mark 5:35) Once again, Mark makes his point about the importance of belief: “Jesus said to the synagogue leader, ‘Do not be afraid; only believe.’” (v. 36) When they arrived at Jairus’ house, there was a distressing scene, “people weeping and wailing loudly.” (v. 38) Jesus ignores the commotion, goes to her bedside and takes the 12-year-old girl by the hand, and she got up and walked around.
 
Strangely, Jesus “strictly ordered them that no one should know this.” (v. 43). Earlier, in the case of the man possessed by demons, he recommends the guy tell everyone what the Lord has done for him. Nor does he make any suggestion to the woman he healed to keep silent about the miracle. Mark’s primary message was that the Kingdom of God was near: that was Jesus’ enthusiastic proclamation. Why would he ask people to keep quiet about his amazing achievements? Mark’s cult-twisted thinking resulted in Jesus-script that doesn’t make sense, a primary example being Mark 4:11-12, in which Jesus tells his disciples that he teaches in parables to prevent people from repenting and being forgiven: only those in the cult have privileged knowledge (which I discussed in my honest sermon on that chapter).
 
The stress on faith and belief is a basic cult obsession—and so it continues to this day. At Pope Leo XIV’s first mass at the Vatican, this was his message:
 
“…the new Pope said there were many settings where the Christian faith was considered ‘absurd’ – with power, wealth, and technology dominating – but it was precisely there that missionary outreach was needed… ‘A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society…’”

Oh the irony—and blatant hypocrisy! Pious pronouncements by the new leader of a church whose reputation has been so severely damaged worldwide by the priests-raping-children scandal.
 
But by all means, keep promoting the faith, despite the reality that, on so many levels, Christian beliefs are absurd, as secular thinkers have been pointing out for a very long time. The gospels themselves, including Mark, the first one written, provide abundant evidence of the absurdities that the devout continue to embrace.

Reading Mark, Chapter 5 should be a game-ender for anyone considering becoming a Christian. It is nothing more than an Iron Age view of the world sprinkled with major scoops of superstition.

(5181) Impossibility of an equal test

The eternal consequences of Christian judgment would appear to require that every person has an equal chance for success- to make it to heaven. It is not controversial to observe that this is not the case.

It is impossible to have an equal test of faith for every single person ever lived and ever will.

It is a common theistic claim that the life on earth is a test. Some religions emphasize it more than the others but most of them consider it a test based on which your afterlife will be determined.

It is impossible to have an equal test for everyone on earth, because every single person is born in different circumstances, with different strengths and weaknesses, in different societies. A person born as a Hindu in India will have much less chance of finding Jesus or Allah than a person who is born to Christian or white parents. A person born in the poorest regions of Africa has a tougher time making sense of God and suffering compared to a person born to millionaire parents in a mansion. That doesn’t mean the rich kid with privilege has a better time finding God either, but the situations are completely different. A child born to religious parents are way more likely to be religious compared to a child brought up by atheist parents.

It is like in all kids in a class sit for a different test with different levels of difficulty, but whether they move to the next class depends on whether they can pass this test with random subjects and random difficulty. But swap this class with suffering of the earth and the next class with the afterlife and you got a chaotic evil test setter at hand.

Possible rebuttal: But God is all knowing so he can make sense of this random test.

Then why even bother with testing, just hand out the results? Wait, but he’s the creator too, so any soul that failed the test actually was destined to fail already, through no fault of his own. Either God intentionally set up this soul for failure or he’s not all-knowing.

The concept that life is a test runs into major headwinds considering the extreme variations in each person’s situation- and further that most of this is in a persons’ control.

(5182) The seven hurdles

In order to arrive at a sustained belief in Christianity, it is necessary to jump seven hurdles, as follows:

First Hurdle – the idea that a god is even necessary to start the universe. If a god can exist without a cause, so can the universe.

Second Hurdle – given a god did start the big bang, that this god survived this massive expansion of space

Third Hurdle – if a god survived the big bang, that this god is not limited, such that it doesn’t even know anything about the Earth or that humans have evolved there

Fourth Hurdle – If this god is unlimited and knows about the earth, that it doesn’t simply observe but does not interfere with it – This is best prediction of what a real god would do.

Firth Hurdle – that if this god decided the interfere with the Earth, that it doesn’t do so in a manner that is detectable by science

Sixth Hurdle – that if there were undetectable effects of God’s interference, that it wouldn’t apply such equally to all people without prejudice

Seventh Hurdle – that if instead of applying his service to all people, this god chose a certain people to be his favored nation but, somehow, that this nation didn’t dominate the entire planet

So even if we get over the first six hurdles, the seventh is a killer. Christianity depends on the biblical concept that God favored the Jewish nation for hundreds of years before he became a god worthy of the name and offered the entire earth an equal measure of his holiness. But if this is true, it doesn’t register that this favor that he applied to the Jews resulted in such insults as the diaspora and the holocaust.

So even if we somehow manage to leap over the first six hurdles, we fall on the seventh, and Christianity remains false despite all of the strained effort we undertook to ‘make it true.’

(5183) 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, behemoths, the Loch Ness monster, mermaids, hobbits, leprechauns, elves, alien abductions, wizards, witches, werewolves, centaurs, cyclops, angels, demons, dragons, satyrs, nymphs, gnomes, banshees, ogres, leviathans, vampires,  fairies, zombies, and unicorns are not real. And one more we can add to this list: Yahweh- the god of Christianity.