(5201) How critical thinkers lose their faith in God
It is no surprise that people who tend to think analytically rather than intuitively generally have less belief in God or the supernatural in general. The following discusses research in this area:
How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God | Scientific American
Why are some people more religious than others? Answers to this question often focus on the role of culture or upbringing. While these influences are important, new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles.
Gervais and Norenzayan’s research is based on the idea that we possess two different ways of thinking that are distinct yet related. Understanding these two ways, which are often referred to as System 1 and System 2, may be important for understanding our tendency towards having religious faith. System 1 thinking relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends to be slower and require more effort. Solving logical and analytical problems may require that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage System 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques that encourage us to do this. Using some of these techniques, Gervais and Norenzayan examined whether engaging System 2 leads people away from believing in God and religion.
For example, they had participants view images of artwork that are associated with reflective thinking (Rodin’s The Thinker) or more neutral images (Discobulus of Myron). Participants who viewed The Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs on a subsequent survey. However, Gervais and Norenzayan wondered if showing people artwork might have made the connection between thinking and religion too obvious. In their next two studies, they created a task that more subtly primed analytic thinking. Participants received sets of five randomly arranged words (e.g. “high winds the flies plane”) and were asked to drop one word and rearrange the others in order to create a more meaningful sentence (e.g. “the plane flies high”). Some of their participants were given scrambled sentences containing words associated with analytic thinking (e.g. “analyze,” “reason”) and other participants were given sentences that featured neutral words (e.g. “hammer,” “shoes”). After unscrambling the sentences, participants filled out a survey about their religious beliefs. In both studies, this subtle reminder of analytic thinking caused participants to express less belief in God and religion. The researchers found no relationship between participants’ prior religious beliefs and their performance in the study. Analytic thinking reduced religious belief regardless of how religious people were to begin with.
In a final study, Gervais and Norenzayan used an even more subtle way of activating analytic thinking: by having participants fill out a survey measuring their religious beliefs that was printed in either clear font or font that was difficult to read. Prior research has shown that difficult-to-read font promotes analytic thinking by forcing participants to slow down and think more carefully about the meaning of what they are reading. The researchers found that participants who filled out a survey that was printed in unclear font expressed less belief as compared to those who filled out the same survey in the clear font.
These studies demonstrate yet another way in which our thinking tendencies, many of which may be innate, have contributed to religious faith. It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than being skeptical. According to a 2005 poll by Gallup, 3 out of every 4 Americans hold at least one belief in the paranormal. The most popular of these beliefs are extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, and ghosts. In addition, the results help explain why some of us are more prone to believe that others. Previous research has found that people differ in their tendency to see intentions and causes in the world. These differences in thinking styles could help explain why some of us are more likely to become believers.
Why and how might analytic thinking reduce religious belief? Although more research is needed to answer this question, Gervais and Norenzayan speculate on a few possibilities. For example, analytic thinking may inhibit our natural intuition to believe in supernatural agents that influence the world. Alternatively, analytic thinking may simply cause us to override our intuition to believe and pay less attention to it. It’s important to note that across studies, participants ranged widely in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these variables were found to significantly relate to people’s behavior in the studies.
Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs. In addition, these findings do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefs—they simply speak to the psychology of when and why we are prone to believe. Most importantly, they provide evidence that rather than being static, our beliefs can change drastically from situation to situation, without us knowing exactly why.
If Christianity was true, the situation would be reversed. Analytical thinkers would be able to access and integrate all of the confirming pieces of evidence (that at this moment are completely missing) pointing to its truth. Intuitive thinkers would tend to be swayed by other faith-based beliefs and therefore have an overall lower rate of belief in Christianity.
(5202) Thirty reasons for being an atheist
There are many reasons why people embrace atheism as their earnestly-held concept of reality. The following lists thirty of them, of which most atheists will be able to identify with twenty or more:
30 Reasons People Choose Atheism – Housely
Becoming an atheist is rarely a decision made lightly. It often stems from a combination of intellectual inquiry, personal experiences, and philosophical considerations. Here are 30 reasons why people reject religious belief, exploring the thought processes, emotional journeys, and societal factors that lead to atheism.
Lack of Evidence
For many atheists, the lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of a deity is a decisive factor. They argue that belief in a god should meet the same rigorous standards of evidence as scientific claims. Without verifiable data like tangible miracles or undeniable divine interventions—they find no logical reason to accept theistic claims.
The Problem of Evil
The existence of suffering, evil, and injustice in the world poses a challenge to the idea of an all-powerful, benevolent deity. Atheists argue that a loving God would not allow atrocities like wars, genocides, or illnesses. The disconnect between religious teachings of a just God and the harsh realities of life reinforces atheistic perspectives.
Contradictions in Religious Texts
Atheists also often scrutinize religious scriptures and find contradictions, such as conflicting accounts of creation or historical inaccuracies. They also question moral teachings that condone actions like slavery, war, or discrimination. These inconsistencies and ethically problematic passages lead many to view religious texts as human constructs rather than divine revelations.
Scientific Understanding
As science advances, it provides natural explanations for phenomena that were once attributed to gods. The Big Bang theory, evolution, and neuroscience explain the origins of the universe, life, and consciousness without invoking a deity. Atheists often see science as a more reliable, evidence-based framework for understanding the world than religion.
Cultural Relativity of Religion
Religions vary widely based on geography, with different cultures worshiping different gods. Atheists argue that this cultural relativity suggests religion is a human invention rather than a universal truth. If one’s faith depends largely on where they are born, they reason, it undermines claims of absolute truth.
Indoctrination and Fear Tactics
Religions often use indoctrination from a young age and fear-based tactics, such as the threat of eternal damnation, to enforce belief. Atheists reject this as psychological manipulation, arguing that a truly loving God would not rely on fear or coercion to gain followers, further supporting their disbelief.
Moral Independence
Many atheists reject the notion that morality requires religion. They argue that ethical behavior is rooted in empathy, social contracts, and evolutionary biology, not divine commandments. By rejecting religion, they embrace the freedom to create their own moral code, which they see as more adaptable and relevant to modern society.
Negative Personal Experiences
Personal experiences, such as hypocrisy, abuse, or exclusion within religious institutions, often lead to disillusionment. For example, someone hurt by judgmental or corrupt religious leaders may question the validity of the faith they represent. These experiences can spark a deeper investigation into the foundations of religion, culminating in atheism.
The Burden of Proof
Atheists argue that the burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, such as the existence of a deity. Since believers have yet to provide convincing evidence for their claims, atheists see no reason to accept them. They adopt a position of disbelief until presented with sufficient evidence, much like a jury evaluates a case.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is often the best. For atheists, natural explanations for the universe and life are simpler and more plausible than invoking a supernatural being. They argue that adding the concept of a god complicates the equation without adding explanatory value.
Religious Wars and Conflicts
The long history of violence in the name of religion, such as the Crusades, witch hunts, and modern terrorism, leads many to reject faith. Atheists view religion as a divisive force that promotes intolerance and hostility, contradicting claims that it promotes peace and love.
Equality and Inclusion
Many atheists are troubled by the discriminatory practices and teachings found in some religions, particularly against women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalized groups. They reject faiths that perpetuate inequality, finding atheism to be a more inclusive worldview that values human dignity over divine authority.
Freethinking Ideals
Atheists often value intellectual freedom and critical thinking above adherence to dogma. They see freethinking as the ability to question, challenge, and evaluate ideas without fear of divine retribution or societal condemnation. For many, religion imposes limitations on inquiry, particularly when it demands blind faith or unquestioning obedience to authority.
Disillusionment with Prayer
For many atheists, the perceived ineffectiveness of prayer plays a pivotal role in their rejection of religion. They notice that prayers often go unanswered or produce outcomes indistinguishable from chance. This leads to skepticism about the existence of a divine being who listens and responds.
Naturalistic Worldview
Atheists who adopt a naturalistic worldview believe that everything in existence can be explained through natural laws and processes. They argue that invoking supernatural explanations for phenomena adds unnecessary complexity without providing tangible answers.
Religious Hypocrisy
The gap between religious teachings and the actions of religious leaders and followers often leads to disillusionment. Scandals involving clergy, such as financial corruption, abuse, or moral failings, expose a contradiction between the principles preached and the behavior exhibited.
Desire for Autonomy
Atheists often reject religion because they value personal autonomy and freedom of thought. They resist the idea of external authorities dictating how they should live, think, or believe. Religious doctrines, which often prescribe specific moral codes, rituals, and life choices, can feel restrictive and incompatible with modern values of individualism.
Lack of Personal Revelation
While many religious believers cite personal experiences or revelations as the foundation of their faith, atheists often report an absence of such encounters. Without tangible or transformative experiences to affirm the existence of a deity, they find it difficult to maintain belief.
Philosophical Materialism
Philosophical materialism—the belief that only physical matter exists—aligns closely with atheism. Atheists who adopt this view reject the supernatural entirely, including gods, spirits, and an afterlife. They argue that everything in the universe can be explained through material interactions and scientific principles.
Disillusionment with Organized Religion
The perceived flaws of organized religion—such as political entanglement, commercialization, and authoritarianism—drive many toward atheism. Atheists often see religious institutions as more concerned with power and wealth than with genuine spiritual guidance.
Exposure to Diverse Beliefs
Interacting with people from different religious and cultural backgrounds often leads to questions about the exclusivity of any one faith. Atheists may notice that every religion claims to be the ultimate truth, yet they offer contradictory narratives about the divine.
A Scientific Mindset
Atheists with a scientific mindset often prioritize skepticism, evidence, and falsifiability. They apply these principles to religious claims and find them lacking in empirical support. Religious concepts such as miracles, creation stories, or divine intervention often fail to meet the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry, leading to their rejection.
Lack of Coherence in Theology
Theological arguments often involve abstract concepts that atheists find incoherent or contradictory. For instance, the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God raises questions about free will and the nature of evil. Atheists also challenge the idea of infinite punishment for finite sins or the notion of divine omniscience coexisting with human autonomy.
Religious Exclusivity
The exclusivity of many religions, which claim to be the sole path to truth or salvation, is a significant turn-off for atheists. They question how a just and loving God could condemn billions of people who follow other faiths or no faith at all. This exclusivity often appears arbitrary and unjust, leading atheists to reject the idea of a deity who demands unconditional loyalty to one specific doctrine.
Existential Freedom
Atheists often find freedom in the idea that life’s meaning is not dictated by an external deity but is something individuals create for themselves. This existential perspective allows them to live authentically, pursuing their passions and values without fear of divine judgment.
Cultural Modernization
As societies modernize, traditional religious beliefs and practices often become less relevant to people. Atheists see this secular shift as a natural progression toward reason and equality. In many developed nations, education, technological advancements, and social progress challenge old dogmas, paving the way for a more skeptical and humanistic worldview.
Rejection of Miracles
Atheists often view miracles as events that lack credible evidence or verifiable causes. For them, stories of divine intervention, such as miraculous healings or supernatural occurrences, can usually be explained through coincidence, psychological biases, or scientific phenomena.
Psychological Insights
Psychological research shows that religious belief can originate from cognitive biases like pattern recognition or the need for agency. Atheists often reject faith after recognizing these psychological mechanisms at play. They argue that religion is a byproduct of human evolution and societal needs rather than evidence of divine existence, choosing to trust empirical findings over spiritual interpretations.
Focus on Humanity
Atheists often prioritize human welfare over divine worship, emphasizing compassion, empathy, and progress. They believe that addressing global challenges—such as poverty, climate change, and inequality—requires human action, not divine intervention. This focus on humanity aligns with their belief in self-reliance and collective responsibility rather than waiting for a higher power to intervene.
A Desire for Truth
Above all, many atheists are driven by a commitment to truth. They reject comforting illusions or unproven claims, choosing instead to base their worldview on observable, testable, and verifiable facts. For them, the pursuit of truth is intellectually fulfilling and a moral imperative, even if it leads to uncomfortable or unpopular conclusions.
If there was a 31st reason, it would be that the Bible and other religious texts show no divine influence and seem instead to reflect the ignorance, biases, and brutality of the people who wrote them. But when asked, most atheists will simply respond with ‘lack of evidence’ as their main point of (lack of) belief.
However, as expressed above, there are multiple facets to how a person can internalize their patterns of belief. Atheism is consistent with virtually every piece of evidence available as well as every mode of rational thinking. This suggests strongly that atheism is ‘true’ by any definition.
(5203) Nativity – the ultimate examination
The gospels of Luke and Matthew are wildly inconsistent when presenting details of Jesus’ birth. These two stories cannot be blended without creating insurmountable contradictions. This destroys the concept that the Bible is without error. The following is a comprehensive look at this problem:
The Fabrication of the Christian Nativity Story – Bad News About Christianity
Biblical inconsistencies are smoothed out and covered up so well by theologians that many Christians believe that the Bible tells a reliable and consistent story. Take for example the nativity story that is told each Christmas with the aid of selected gospel passages. Many Christians believe that the four canonical gospels contain consistent versions of the story of Jesus” birth, as re-enacted by millions of school children each year. A summary of it is as follows:
The angel Gabriel appears to Mary and Joseph with the news that Mary, a virgin, is pregnant and will give birth to Jesus. Before the birth Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Joseph’s home town, for a census and to be taxed. When they get to Bethlehem they can find no room at the inn and are obliged to stay in a stable. There, on 25 th December in AD 0, accompanied by an ox and an ass, Mary gives birth to Jesus. Lacking suitable facilities the new parents use the animals” manger (feeding trough) as a crib for their new-born child. A host of angels appears to shepherds watching over their flocks in fields nearby and directs them to the site of the birth. Meanwhile, a star appears in the sky. This star leads three kings, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar to the site. Mounted on camels they follow the star, taking with them three gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh. On the way the three kings let Herod the Great, King of Judea, know the purpose of their journey. Now aware that a King of Israel has been born, Herod orders the murder of all male children under the age of two. Having been warned of this by the angel Gabriel, Joseph and Mary escape to Egypt with their baby, until it is safe to return to Nazareth.
Familiar though this story is, it appears nowhere in the Bible. It is a conflation. Only two of the four canonical gospels give an account of the nativity at all. The two narratives give different and often contradictory accounts of the circumstances of Jesus” birth. Many of the subsidiary details are not mentioned in the gospels at all, nor anywhere else in the New Testament. Taking a few details one by one illustrates these points:
Gabriel According to Matthew the news of Mary’s pregnancy was conveyed to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 1:20). According to Luke the angel Gabriel appeared not to Joseph but to Mary and not in a dream, but in person (Luke 1:26-38).
Mary’s Virginity Both the Matthew and Luke gospels agree about this but, as we have seen (How Mary keeps her Virginity), the Virgin Birth seems to have been introduced as the result of an unsuccessful attempt to match the nativity story with an Old Testament prophecy.
Bethlehem Both authors place the birth in Bethlehem. However, according to Luke, the family originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for a census (Luke 2:4-7), whereas according to Matthew the family settled in Nazareth only after their return from Egypt (this is evident from Matthew 2:23).
The Census As we have seen (pages 44 ff), the story of the census is not credible. Apart from contradicting known facts it gives a date for the birth of Jesus that is incompatible with the dates of the reign of Herod the Great.
The Time of Year The date is not mentioned in the Bible. There is no reason to suppose that the birth took place in December. Indeed the fact that sheep were in the fields at the time makes it unlikely. As most Christian scholars now acknowledge the date was selected simply to coincide with the popular festivities that marked the winter solstice. The year of birth is not known either. The year was calculated in the sixth century by a monk, Dionysius Exiguus, who fixed AD 1 as 754 AUC (Anno Urbis Conditae = years after the founding of the city of Rome). It was subsequently realised that Herod the Great had died four years earlier than this, so a recalculation was made and the purported year of birth moved back to 750 AUC, or 4 BC. (There is no year AD 0 or 0 BC: the year preceding AD 1 was 1 BC.)
Kings Neither Matthew nor Luke mentions kings visiting the new-born child. No one does. Matthew mentions an unspecified number of wise men or magi, by which he probably meant Zoroastrian priests. Luke mentions neither kings nor magi. Tertullian was the first to suggest that these magi were kings. The idea seems to have come from unrelated passages in the Old Testament:
Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents unto thee. Psalm 68:29
The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him Psalm 72:10-11
The numbers of wise men, or kings, purported to have visited Jesus has varied over time. In early Christian art there were two, four or six. According to Eastern traditions there were 12. Other sources say “many”. The number three seems to have chosen because the Matthew author mentions three gifts. The names Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar occur nowhere in the Bible , and different Churches give the magi/kings different names: for example according to the Syrian Church they were called Larvandad, Hormisdas and Gushnasaph.
Camels The camels come from another unrelated Old Testament passage (Isaiah 60:3-6):
And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising…..The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the L ord.
Shepherds Luke has an unspecified number of shepherds coming to see the baby. Matthew does not mention them at all.
The Star According to Matthew the magi, having seen a star in the East, went to Jerusalem, which was the wrong place to go. Only after Herod had directed them to Bethlehem did the star reappear to lead them to the right place (Matthew 2:1-9). Stars were common portents in the ancient world, and the births and deaths of kings were frequently marked by such celestial events. Nevertheless, the author of Luke does not mention the star at all.
It is clear that the star story was continuously being exaggerated and embellished over time. For example, the star was soon being described as being miraculously brilliant*, and according to Ignatius of Antioch., all the rest of the stars along with the Sun and Moon gathered around this new star, which nevertheless outshone them all*.
The Inn In the original Greek none of the gospels mentions an inn. The Matthew author refers to mother and child in a house (Matthew 2:11). The Luke author uses the word katalemna meaning a temporary shelter and this was badly translated into English as inn (Luke 2:7). Elsewhere in the Bible katalemna was translated by the word tabernacle (as in 2 Samuel 7:6 for example).
The Manger No manger is mentioned by the Matthew author. The word used in the original Greek by the Luke author is thaten, a word that has a range of meanings, including a baby’s crib and an animal’s feeding trough. Obviously the meaning here is baby’s crib, not manger.
The Stable Neither Matthew nor Luke mentions a stable. The idea that one is involved apparently stems from the erroneous translation of thaten as manger. Other sources, such as the non-canonical Gospel of James, locate the birth in a cave. So do many of the Church Fathers*. The Koran (19:17-22), possibly repeating another ancient tradition, locates the birth by a palm tree in a far off place.
The Ox and Ass Neither Mark nor Luke mentions these animals. Their inclusion in the story is apparently attributable to later Christian scholars who picked up the idea from an unrelated Old Testament passage.
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib Isaiah 1:3
Significantly in the Septuagint the word corresponding to crib is thaten, the same word translated as manger in the Luke author’s nativity story. The ox and ass in the Christmas story first make their appearance in an apocryphal gospel (pseudo-Matthew) probably dating from the eighth century. St Francis of Assisi apparently set up the first model Christmas crib, with accompanying ox and ass, in the thirteenth century.
Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents The author of Matthew mentions this, but the author of Luke does not. One might have supposed that such a draconian measure would have been recorded elsewhere, as were less significant historical events. The mass murder of the infants has no historical corroboration, and is probably no more than an imaginative way of bringing both Bethlehem and Nazareth into the story. Indeed this massacre cannot have taken place as described, otherwise Jesus” second cousin and contemporary, John the Baptist, would have been killed, yet John survived to reappear later in the story. Once again it looks as though a story has been retrospectively added to the gospel, without thinking through all the consequences.
This sort of story was far from unknown in the ancient world. In the usual myth a king tries to kill a baby who, according to a prophecy, is destined to occupy his own throne. The king fails, though he does not know it, and years later he is supplanted by the child, now an adult, in accordance with prophecy. It is probably best known with some embellishments as the Greek story of Oedipus, but the same basic tale was also familiar in the Middle East. An earlier King of Media (where the magi came from) had ordered the murder of his own grandchild, because of a prophecy that the infant would grow up to overthrow him*. Like the infant Jesus, this child also escaped death to fulfil his destiny.
Matthew could not quote a suitable prophecy about a baby surviving an attempt to kill him, later to become king, because none exists in the Old Testament. Instead, Matthew cited a passage that he must have thought could be stretched to cover a massacre of children:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Matthew 2:17-18, referring to Jeremiah 31:15
As is the case in most of the prophecies cited by Matthew, the connection is tenuous and unconvincing. Wrong people, wrong place, wrong tense, and not a single child death. Matthew neglects to mention that, in the next verse of Jeremiah, God says that these children will return from an enemy country.
The Flight to Egypt Luke does not mention the flight into Egypt at all. Matthew does, apparently, as we have already seen (page 175), so that he can cite another prophecy.
No independent historical records support either Matthew or Luke’s story where they might be expected to: not the need to migrate for a census, nor the appearance of a new star, nor the massacre of the children. What seems to have happened is that both authors have improvised. Matthew has invented a story to fit Old Testament prophecies. Throughout the Matthew gospel references are made to current events fulfilling scriptural prophecies. These references are clearly intended to lend credibility to the stories and to impress readers. The prophecies, like those that we looked at earlier, are generally taken out of context, and in most cases they are not really prophecies at all in the sense that we now understand the term.
Luke has tried to give his story historical background. He seems to have heard, possibly from reports of the Matthew gospel, that Mary was a virgin, that her husband was called Joseph, and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, though it was widely known that he came from Nazareth. Apart from that there is no agreement at all. The two stories contradict each other on matters such as Joseph’s ancestry, whether or not he came from Nazareth or went there only after Jesus” birth, and the appearances of Gabriel. They disagree about the year, the flight into Egypt, the appearance of the star, the shepherds and the magi.
Neither of these authors mentions three kings (or kings at all, or three of anyone for that matter), nor camels, nor a stable, nor oxen or asses, nor the time of year. As a final indictment, it also seems that the stories were continuously being tampered with for generations. Surviving manuscripts show a range of alterations of varying subtlety and intention. No Father of the Church cites the birth stories exactly as we now know them in the gospels until Irenaeus of Lyons in the last quarter of the second century.
According to an ancient tradition (acknowledged in the Jerusalem Bible ), the original version of the Matthew gospel was written “in the Hebrew tongue”. This version is likely to have been the gospel used by the Ebionites. One of the interesting things known about this Ebionite gospel was that it was shorter than the Greek version. One reason for this was that the opening verses about Jesus” miraculous birth were absent. If this Ebionite gospel was indeed the original version of Matthew, then the nativity story must be a later Greek addition, which is exactly what many scholars independently suspect from other evidence. It is also significant that we know of early versions of the Luke gospel that also lacked the nativity story.
Even the most conservative Christian scholars now regard the stories of Jesus” miraculous birth as being historically unreliable.
If the gospels as a whole are to be taken literally, then the details about Jesus’ allegedly miraculous birth should be consistent. It would be OK if they presented different details or left out some of the details expressed by other gospel authors. But what is not OK is when they conflict in ways that cannot be reconciled- and that is the situation here.
(5204) All other gods are ridiculous
The following essay exposes the way that Christians summarily dismiss the veracity of every other religion, unwittingly based on the same reasons that should, if they are being rational, also cause them to dismiss Christianity:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/06/all-other-gods-are-ridiculous-except.html
I was once a special kind of True Christian™ believer — bold, confident — who thought ancient religions were laughable nonsense. Hindu gods? Absurd! Norse mythology? A joke! Indigenous cosmologies? Childish fairy tales! And yet… my entire True Christian™ worldview was built on a book where a snake talks, a woman is cloned from a man’s rib (Adam and Steve?), and a cosmic being sends itself to Earth to be tortured to death… by humans… to appease itself.
Even so, is there any doubt that other religions really are just mythology?
Let’s break this down.
It’s silly that Egyptian gods have animal heads? But according to True Christians™, it’s perfectly sane that God turned two cities into smoldering craters because he didn’t like the residents’ bedroom habits. Reincarnation is nonsense, but thinking an invisible war between angels and demons is happening right now, all around us in a war that somehow affects United States presidential elections is rational and reasonable!
The idea of people believing in volcano spirits is laughable, while kneeling before a crucified man-god hybrid who told people to eat his flesh and drink his blood is to be taken very seriously. Meanwhile, the guy meditating under a tree or lighting incense at a shrine is judged to be off his rocker.
And when someone brings up Zeus or Odin or any pantheon with the slightest sense of metaphor, True Christians™ respond with a disapproving frown or a smug chuckle, followed up later with a deep dive into the logistics of Noah’s Ark — how Noah somehow fit two of every living thing (don’t think too hard about the carnivores), shoveled mountains of poop for months, and then repopulated the Earth through a gene pool that wouldn’t pass a junior high biology class.
This isn’t faith. This is delusion protected by cultural majority. True Christians™ inherited a mythology, slapped the word “truth” on it, and now pretend everyone else is gullible for doing the same with their inherited stories. It’s mythological impertinence: “Our ridiculous stories are sacred. Yours are quaint and potentially dangerous.”
How convenient.
You want to talk about primitive? Let’s talk about a god who demands blood sacrifices, commits global genocide, incinerates cities, and gets jealous when people build a tall tower. That’s not divine wisdom — that’s Bronze Age warlord energy with a Marvel Comic vibe.
The truth is, people born in ancient Greece swore by Apollo. People born in Iran are typically praising Allah. True Christians™ were born into a culture that gave them Jesus. That’s it. And instead of being humbled by this fact, this cosmic lottery distribution has somehow convinced True Christians™ that everyone else is not just wrong, but stupid and speeding headlong into eternal perdition.
It’s not faith that leads True Christians™ to dismiss other mythologies. It’s arrogance while wearing a cross necklace.
So, if you’re a True Christian™, maybe, just maybe, before sneering at someone who believes in forest spirits or ancestral souls or elephant-headed gods, ask yourself: What part of a virgin birth, holy angels, talking snakes, global floods, and divine blood rituals sounds like the pinnacle of enlightened, rational thought?
Because to those of us who have escaped their cultural True Christian™ conditioning, it sounds like the same thing you laugh at — just with different branding.
Christianity gets around this problem by inculcating young people at an age before they have developed critical thinking skills. So the nonsense they are taught at an early age becomes entrenched, and it becomes impervious to the analytical skills that normally come into full strength by the teenage years.
(5205) Mark 6 is a playground fantasy
The 6th chapter of the Gospel of Mark is where the author got carried away and provided stories where, each one in fact, has elements of improbabilities and downright fantasy that clearly came from the colorful imagination of the author. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/06/honest-sermons-on-gospel-of-mark.html#more
Devout Christians have always been coached by their clergy to believe—to accept without question—that the gospels tell the true story of Jesus. Apparently this works pretty well, as long as the faithful decline to read the gospels. It seems they’re willing to be deceived. But whenever folks undertake critical reading of the gospels, and carefully compare the gospels that made it into the New Testament—and are willing as well to consider the stories from our modern perspective on how the world works—they can spot the problems and improbabilities right away. The 6th chapter of Mark’s gospel offers plenty of examples. Actually, Mark’s gospel is chock full of examples, as Richard Carrier demonstrates brilliantly in his 30 July 2024 essay, All the Fantastical Things in the Gospel according to Mark.
Mark 6:1-6, Jesus at his home town
We read here that Jesus preached at the local synagogue, and was not well received. People wondered how this home-town boy could presume to be a messenger from god. “Where did this man get all this?” The locals knew the family—the text even mentions the brothers of Jesus by name, James, Joses, Judah, and Simon—and “are not his sisters here with us?” It turns out that Jesus “could do no deed of power there,” although he did manage to cure a few sick people by laying his hands on them. But the punch line comes at the end: “And he was amazed at their unbelief.” The author of Mark had the Jesus cult in mind here: it was a serious error not to believe what the cult leader declared.
This text has also been an embarrassment for the Catholic church, which has indulged in Mary worship for centuries, that is Mary, Queen of Heaven—who remained, so the church claims, a virgin forever. But here is the list of Jesus’ brothers, and his sisters are mentioned as well. How can this be explained, to keep Mary forever pure? Some Catholic apologists have argued that these were actually cousins of Jesus, or even children that Joseph had from a previous marriage. But the earliest gospel writer didn’t have the heavy emotional investment in Mary, so mentioned Jesus’ siblings. When Matthew copied this section of Mark, he included the names of the siblings as well. Of course, scholars ponder the deeper question: where did Mark find this list of brothers? He wrote decades after the life of Jesus, and after the very destructive war that the Jews fought against the Romans, during which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Did any archives survive, where he could find the documentation about Jesus’ family? Mark did not mention his source; we have no reason whatever to credit Mark as a historian. It’s just as likely that this story came from his imagination.
So if Catholic apologists are okay with the Bible getting it wrong, they can breathe a sigh of relief about Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Mark 6:6-13, Jesus sends his disciples out to preach
After being disrespected in his home town, Jesus went to other villages to proclaim his message. But he also instructed his disciples to do the same thing, that is, they were to go out two-by-two in this campaign. Part of this delegation of tasks included the banishment of demons: he “gave them authority over the unclean spirits.” In making the case for the Jesus cult, Mark was confident that his holy hero had high ranking in the spiritual realm. In time, of course, Jesus would be considered part of the Holy Trinity of god. This high ranking included the ability to nullify unclean spirits, which were considered the source of mental illnesses, or even just weird behaviors. We have moved far beyond that concept, which is a relic of ancient superstition. We are entitled to wonder what the author meant when he wrote that Jesus gave them authority over the unclean spirits. Just how would he have done that? There is no hint that the disciples were especially bright—in fact, at so many points, they seem especially dumb. We saw in Mark 5 that Jesus had transferred demons from a man into pigs, with no detailed explanation as to how he did that. So we wonder too exactly how Jesus gave his disciples authority over unclean spirits. Naturally, ancient superstitions don’t yield easily to rational inquiry.
In verses 10 and 11, we find this Jesus-script: “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” However, when Matthew copied this story, he intensified the warning—and the punishment: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matthew 10:14-15)
Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to the ground by god’s wrath (Genesis 19). If any one of us turned away Mormon missionaries who had come knocking at our door, and then heard them yelling back at us that their god would burn our house down, we would probably mutter something like, “Jeez, what a nutjob cult!” It’s hard to resist the same conclusion when we read this alarming Jesus-script. But always keep in mind that the gospel authors were pushing their Jesus-cult, and verse 13 also is meant to prove its power: “They cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.”
Mark 6:14-29, The death of John the Baptist
In this section of Mark 6 we read about a banquet that King Herod had given for members of his court and for “the leaders of Galilee.” We are told what Herod said to his daughter after she had danced for the group—and what daughter and mother had said in private conversation. Any curious reader would want to know what Mark’s sources were for this information. Was someone there taking careful notes that somehow ended up in an archive that Mark was able to access decades later? That’s how authentic history is written. It’s worth noting, by the way, that when Matthew decided to use this story when he copied from Mark, he shortened it, leaving out sentences. So which one of them was divinely inspired to write the scene accurately?
Mark 6:30-44, Feeding the five thousand
This section begins with bragging about how popular Jesus was. The holy hero and his disciples “…went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them.” The problem for devout Jesus scholars is that there are no contemporary records of any such wildly popular itinerant preacher. But we’re told that Jesus had compassion on them, and proclaimed his message. When it got late, the disciples suggested that Jesus send them on their way to find something to eat. But this was an opportunity for Jesus to show off his miracle skills. The disciples had five loaves of bread, and two fish—and Jesus turned these meager provisions into enough food for five thousand people. With leftovers even! Twelve baskets of leftovers. Mark left out the details about exactly how Jesus did this trick. Today devout folks cherish this supposed miracle, without wondering how it was done—or showing much concern that it might be a fragment of ancient miracle folklore.
We are entitled to wonder why Jesus doesn’t perform such miracles today. Christians claim that Jesus has a real presence in their lives and in the world—but in the real world, thousands of people starve to death every day. Jesus no longer has the power to do something about that?
Mark 6:45-52, Jesus walks on water
After the busy day with the vast crowd of five thousand people, Jesus put the disciples in a boat, and went up a mountain to pray. Later he noticed them “straining at the oars against an adverse wind.” So he headed back down to the sea, and walked on the water to reach them, although Mark reports that “he intended to pass them by.” But there’s a happy ending: “…they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’ Then he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded…” Mark gets in a final warning about being aware of basic cult beliefs about their holy hero: “…they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” And it would not be a good idea to have hardened hearts about Jesus being able to walk on water.
Mark 6:53-56, Healing the sick in Gennesaret
The boat finally arrived on shore, at Gennesaret. “When they got out of the boat, people at once recognized him and rushed about that whole region and began to bring the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was.” And again, magic pulsed through Jesus’ clothing: “…they laid the sick in the marketplaces and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.” Mark was an expert propagandist for the Jesus cult; he possessed superior skill for using his imagination to the full.
I’ll give the final word to ORAXX, who made this comment on the Debunking Christianity Blog on 30 May 2025:
“The gospels were in fact, divinely inspired. What is not generally known however is that God had consumed several barrels of communion wine and was feeling puckish. Being fairly well pickled, he concluded it would be great fun to inspire the gospel writers to produce a confusing and ambiguous document, whereupon he could sit back and watch them fight it out. I made that up, but making stuff up is what we theologians do best.”
Any clear-thinking, un-indoctrinated person reading Mark 6 would easily understand that they are not reading literal history, but rather a series of made-up vignettes at the author’s indulgence. None of this represents anything remotely consistent with history as it is currently understood.
(5206) How Christians approach miracles or the lack thereof
The Bible is full of accounts of spectacular miracles, well beyond anything seen today. This puts Christian apologists in a bind- they must explain why miracles have ceased, or else somehow claim that miracles are still happening. They never consider the more obvious solution- there have never been ANY miracles- the universe doesn’t work that way. The following was taken from:
Why Are There No Miracles Anymore?
Recently, out of curiosity, I Googled, “Why are there no miracles anymore?” I wanted to know how Christian bloggers would handle this question. I found their answers to be all over the map. And everyone is an expert, it seems, since each appeared to be absolutely certain he had the correct answer.
There were some other interesting viewpoints in their responses, as well. For example, one writer claimed the “main miracle [the resurrection] happened and that we have been given enough evidence to believe without a miracle. After we come to grips with the fact that our unbelief is sin whether we’ve seen a miracle with our own eyes or not…”
So, we heathens aren’t just wrong because we don’t believe in the resurrection, we are sinners. Now that’s what I call leading with the fear card. You better believe, or else…
Christian bloggers’ opinions on the miracle question varied from those who agreed there are no miracles in our times to those who believed there are now more miracles than ever.
For example, one blogger wrote, “Contrary to the premise of your question, there are more miracles occurring in the world today than at any other time in history: The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk and the dead are raised- stop your doubting and believe!” He gives no further explanation or examples, so I suspect he is thinking about modern medical “miracles,” which, of course, aren’t miracles at all, but applied science. As the Googled question implies, I consider a miracle an event requiring supernatural intervention. I’m not talking about events that are merely rare and amazing.
One very interesting response came from @khanahk.
“I think it’s not the time – it’s the people. I’ve read stories from missionaries in third-world countries of miracles. Those folks have a more religious expectation than we secularized people do.”
Big surprise . . . people who believe in miracles are going to interpret more events as miracles. But he seems to assume that there really ARE more miracles among those missionaries. This reminded me of a statement another confirmed Christian made on the Web,
“A missionary I know watched a bullet headed for him do a RIGHT ANGLE before it got to him.”
Is there anything this guy won’t believe?
Another response was similar:
“I can understand your want to see miracles as they were recorded in the OT. One thing I have learned through experience is Miracles do not produce faith, nor do they convert. Belief and Faith will open your eyes to the miracles which surround you.”
Again, it seems you have to believe in order to see. This is similar to the claim that the Bible will make sense to you only after you believe it’s the word of god. In other words, act like you’re brainwashed and, voila, you will be.
Another take on this angle was the following,
“As much as miracles are great and wonderful, they never have and never will convert the hard, stony heart of man. Only the miracle of the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit will ever perform that miracle.”
I must admit that my first instinct upon seeing a “miracle” would be to attribute it to a magic trick. So, in a sense, maybe you really do have to believe first.
Another blogger wrote,
“A miracle is an extraordinary event caused by the power of God. . . Miracles are a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith is necessary in order for miracles to be manifested”
Is he also saying that you can’t see miracles unless you believe in them? If so, then this would be similar to the common claim that god and the Holy Spirit must exist because one can feel them. So, the proof of reality is in our feelings? That’s weird, isn’t it?
One fellow wrote,
“Miracles still happen. The world is a wicked place, and often these miracles are attributed to science. I see advancements in medicine, science, space exploration, energy, etc. as miracles. Why? Because God inspires man to invent, He gives them ideas and they run with it.”
So, according to him, all the great ideas of science come from god. Apparently, we humans are just pawns in this great cosmic drama.
Now here is a really weird take on miracles from Tim Keller:
“Miracles lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce. . . . Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead. Why? We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order.”
But, if Jesus wasn’t trying to impress and convince people, but merely to restore the natural order, then why didn’t he just remove disease from the world all at once?
One writer claimed that
“God is still in the business of miracles. I believe that the greatest miracle of all is that of converting a blind sinner to see their sin and to change the human heart … The miracle of human conversion is actually greater than any healing miracle because this brings eternal life in Christ.”
So, apparently, converting to Christianity is the real miracle. Given the extraordinarily sparse evidence for the whole resurrection story, I guess it is practically a miracle that anyone believes it.
At CoffeeHouseTheology.com, one Christian opined,
“Where I grew up, they said: ‘Miracles don’t happen anymore. They ceased with the disciples.’ I believed what they told me. Dozens of personal experiences and medically documented cases have caused me to do a 180 on this. Miracles are REAL.”
The author goes on to tell of numerous “healings” of medical conditions thru prayer. But, imagine my surprise when I saw that there were no prayer-only healings of baldness, cleft palates, amputations, glass eyes, and such.
Let’s close with this blogger’s recommendation:
“There is nothing inappropriate in seeking miracles for the proper purposes for which they are given by God: to confirm the truthfulness of the gospel message, to bring help to those in need, to remove hindrances to people’s ministries, and to bring glory to God. Miracles still happen, and Christians should avoid the two extremes of seeing everything as a miracle and seeing nothing as a miracle.”
Personally, I believe this is a case where Aristotle’s dictum of “all things in moderation,” as this guy is espousing, is all wet. Until just one event is proven by science to have been a miracle, involving supernatural intervention, I think it makes perfect sense to assume there are no miracles and there never have been. The world makes much better sense that way.
That final bold statement is the most sensible answer to the question of miracles. The universe works by the physical laws of nature and these laws have never been violated.
(5207) Number of denominations de-legitimizes Christianity
Christianity now sports over 45,000 denominations world-wide. This begs the question- why would a religion founded and overseen by an omnipotent god allow such a large number of schisms to fracture his church? Wouldn’t such a god have both the desire and ability to keep people aligned properly to the one true theology? The following was taken from:
Why does Christianity have so many denominations? | Live Science
Followers of Jesus span the globe. But the global body of more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist — the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. So why does Christianity have so many branches?
A cursory look shows that differences in belief, power grabs and corruption all had a part to play.
But on some level, differentiation and variety have been markers of Christianity since the very beginning, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor emeritus of church history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. “There’s never been a united Christianity,” he told Live Science.
The early church, which spans from the start of Jesus‘ ministry, in A.D. 27, to A.D. 325, was divided primarily based on geography. Worship styles and interpretations of Jesus’ teachings varied based on regional cultures and customs, according to Bruce Gordon, a professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale Divinity School.
But there were also major breaks, or schisms, over Christian theology during this time. One of the most notable early schisms, the Arian controversy in the early fourth century, divided the church on Jesus’ relationship with God. Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, claimed that because Jesus was “begotten,” or brought about by God, he was a lesser divinity than God. But Athanasius, an Alexandrian theologian, claimed that Jesus was God incarnate.
“This caused major upheaval in the Roman Empire,” said Christopher West, a doctoral student of ancient Christianity and medieval studies at Yale University. “It split Christians in the Roman Empire in half.” The Council of Nicea — a group of theologians and scholars gathered by Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325 — ultimately sided against Arius. But despite the church’s official view, Christians continued to be divided on the subject for more than a century.
Then, in 1054, the Eastern Orthodox Christians split from the Western Roman Catholics in what’s known as the Great Schism. The two groups disagreed on the taking of the sacraments — religious symbols believed to transmit divine grace to the believer. Furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox Christians disagreed with the Roman beliefs that priests should remain celibate and that the Roman pope had authority over the head of the Eastern church, according to Encyclopedia Britannica.
There was even a temporary schism, known as the Western Schism, within the Catholic Church itself in 1378, when two men, and eventually a third, claimed to be the true papal heir. The division lasted almost 40 years, and by the time it was resolved in 1417, the rivaling popes had significantly damaged the reputation of the papal office.
Despite this handful of schisms, the Catholic Church successfully suppressed other potential Christian offshoots “partly by sustained persecution [including] actual military expeditions against some labelled heretics, but then also a new system of enquiries into people’s beliefs, called inquisitions. With the backing of secular rulers, heretics might be burned at the stake or forced into denying their beliefs,” MacCulloch told Live Science via email.
But after the Protestant Reformation in 1517, the number of denominations really began to multiply.
The Reformation — instigated by a number of events, most notably Martin Luther’s 95 Theses — emphasized a personal faith. This movement was in reaction to the fact that interpretations of the Bible, grace (spontaneously given love and mercy from God), the absolution of sins and entry into heaven were all mediated through priests in Catholicism. Luther and his followers claimed that the Bible, not a church hierarchy, was the ultimate authority over all people, including priests and the pope, and that several ecclesiastical practices, such as granting indulgences (paying the church money to be absolved of sins), were corrupt.
Initially, there were just a few major Protestant groups, but ultimately, the Reformation ushered in more Christian offshoots.
By the 17th century, the contemporary word “denomination” began to be used to describe religious offshoots, Michelle Sanchez, an associate professor of theology at Harvard Divinity School, told Live Science via email. Protestants had used scripture to critique the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that any believer could read scripture and have a personal relationship with God. But then, “the obvious problem emerged: Whose interpretation of scripture was the right one?” Sanchez said in an interview. As believers debated the scriptures and sacraments, churches formed and split based on myriad biblical interpretations, ways of worship and organizational structures. From these debates, denominations such as the Presbyterians, Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers, among others, took root.
Other Protestant denominations were formed out of a play for power, such as when Henry VIII started the Church of England in 1534. “He wanted to establish the political autonomy of England, and one way to do that was religious autonomy from Rome,” West told Live Science. (He also famously wanted a divorce that the church refused to grant.)
Although schisms may be seen as divisive or even lead to violent conflicts between rival denominations, these splits do have an upside. “There’s kind of an anti-corruption mechanism in the fragmentation,” as these splits can offer agency to people in lower social positions, Sanchez said. For instance, after the Reformation challenged papal authority, townspeople could begin to question religious authorities about corrupt or questionable practices.
There’s likely more denominational splitting and forming to come. On judging the differences between them, MacCulloch offered advice from Jesus himself: “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). That is, you can learn about them “in terms of what they do, their behavior,” MacCulloch explained. “That’s a pretty good test.”
One good test of a religion is to see how well it remains cohesive over time. People are fractious, but God is allegedly of ‘one mind’ and has powers to influence the behaviors of his followers. So any religion with multiple denominations is likely of human origin. A religion founded by a real god should ideally have just one denomination. This doesn’t mean that a single-denomination religion is real, it just points out that it has escaped the problem that shows Christianity to be false.
(5208) Worshiping Yahweh is immoral
Consider the following statement:
IT IS IMMORAL TO WORSHIP A GOD WHO INTENDS TO BRING DEAD PEOPLE BACK TO LIFE FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO INFLICT ETERNAL SUFFERING.
Every non-religions person would agree with this point as well as most religious people too. It just seems like common-sense morality to allow someone who has died to remain dead, rather than to re-animate them just so they can be tortured.
So how do Christians handle this issue?
Well, most of them deflect it rather artistically by saying that people in hell are not painfully punished, rather they suffer solely from being separated from God. This gets them through the night- so problem solved, right?
No, the problem remains.
Their own scriptures beg to differ:
Mathew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matthew 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
OK, but let’s be charitable and say that Christians are right about hell. It is only a separation from God that does not include the element of painful torture.
Now- problem solved? NO, IT IS NOT.
Why not?
Because God’s earthly representatives have for centuries preached the horrors of hell- not as just a separation from God- but rather as a painful and endless sentence from the almighty. If this is not true, why would God have allowed his preachers to preach it? Why would God permit the reality of hell to be distorted to this extent- such as to cause the needless mental torment of people afraid of going to hell themselves or else who worry about having their apostate deceased loved ones being tortured there?
In other words, if hell is just a separation from God, why wouldn’t God have ensured that a scripture similar to the following would be included in the Bible?:
The disciples were concerned about what they had heard about hell so they asked Jesus, “What happens to those people who go to hell?”
“Be assured,” Jesus replied, “those people who are not admitted to heaven will indeed enter into hell when they die. Now, you have heard a lot of rumors about what hell is like. I want to make this clear to you and to those who come after you. God is not a demon. He does not relish in the sight of people in the throes of pain. So, in hell, people will exist similarly to how they exist now, except they will be deprived of the sight and love of the Father. No, they will not be tortured, they will not be in pain, they will just have to endure the sorrow of being separated from God.”
Such a scripture would be a world of relief to almost every Christian. But it doesn’t exist.
But let’s assume that the above invented scripture is correct in what it says but for some reason it was left out of the Bible. There is still a problem- let’s put it this way:
(Amendment One) IT IS IMMORAL TO WORSHIP A GOD WHO PERMITS HIS RELIGION TO BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE AN INTENTION TO BRING DEAD PEOPLE BACK TO LIFE FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO INFLICT ETERNAL SUFFERING.
Now, this puts a new spin on the original quote. This implies that even if hell is not a cauldron of endless torture, that for God to have permitted such a hideous concept to be preached for centuries to the intense mental anguish of billions of his followers is ALSO IMMORAL.
So, how would Christians deal with Amendment One above? I would beg to say that most of them have never even considered it.
This leads us to the following conclusion- If Yahweh is the real god of the universe, then he permitted his scriptures to be interpreted by his followers to include hell as a place of endless torture of his non-followers (even if that is not true). So, whether he exists or not, we can conclude with:
(Amendment Two) IT IS IMMORAL TO WORSHIP YAHWEH.
And obviously, if hell actually is a place where dead people are endlessly tortured, then Amendment Two stands as stated with severe emphasis.
(5209) Lack of evidence is sufficient
Christians often attempt to rattle the minds of atheists by asking them to provide evidence against the existence of their god. But as the following explains, all that needs to be pointed out is that there is a lack of evidence for this god:
Debating religion is always a difficult prospect. Religion, by definition, does not operate under the same rules of logic and evidence as science.
In reality, the only necessary argument against believing in God is simply that there is no evidence that any gods exist. As clarified above, an atheist doesn’t need to justify his or her lack of belief further than this; no evidence supporting the existence of any deities exist. This keeps the burden of proof on the side of the claimant where it belongs. The person making a claim has to provide the evidence for its validity. Would you believe in the claim that flying pineapples exist even if there is no evidence showing that they do not exist? Probably not! You would withhold belief until there is evidence to support such a claim.
All the same, it’s sometimes valuable to point out the fallacies in a claimant’s argument. At the very least, this creates constructive discussion where all points are considered and examined. This can also introduce doubt, causing the other person to reconsider his or her position or consider searching for evidence before accepting a claim.
Can We Say with Certainty That There Is No God?
Atheism exists on a spectrum. Some atheists claim absolute certainty in God’s nonexistence. Others simply remain unconvinced and refuse to believe in a deity without compelling evidence. However, once one has a high enough level of certainty about something, they usually treat it as certain for the sake of practicality.
After all, I cannot say with absolute certainty that my wife is not a professional assassin hired by the People’s Republic of China to exterminate me. But I don’t spend time worrying about the possibility because there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. The same is true for the existence of God, although my wife being an assassin is actually more likely; that scenario, at least, would fall within the known scientific laws without contradicting the prevailing models explaining the universe.
This website presents plenty of evidence against the existence of the Christian god, but as pointed out above, still, the strongest point is that there doesn’t exist sufficient evidence for this god (or any god) to merit a reasonable belief in it. And until and if that evidence becomes available, atheism is a reasonable default position.
(5210) We have a caveman operating system
The following essay explains why modern humans have brains that still operate under the modalities of our ancient ancestors. This creates a tendency to embrace religious concepts even in a reality that is inconsistent with such beliefs.
https://new.exchristian.net/2024/12/why-we-are-still-religious.html
In order to understand why humans have a seemingly instinctual inclination toward religious answers, you have to believe in evolution. If you don’t believe in evolution, stop reading now. You won’t agree with anything I’m about to say.
Here’s a statement that we don’t often consider; we evolved to do four things.
-
-
- Stay alive
- Attract a mate
- Procreate
- Raise children to the age where they can procreate
-
That’s all evolution was good for and nothing more. Those are the only things you needed to do to replicate your egotistical DNA.
Our brains did not evolve to show us what is true or to help us be our own person. If you meet someone who believes in fairy tales, or simply follows the tribe, they are not less evolved than you. Rather, they are the template of humanity. People who reject mystical answers have rebelled against many instincts that humans evolved to survive.
Caveman Operating System
Our bodies did not evolve to drive on freeways or work in a cubicle for eight hours. We can do those things because we’re adaptable and we we’re very good at mastering our environment.
But imagine you are a caveman. The year is 80,000 BCE. Agriculture will not be invented for another 70,000 years or so. You live in a small tribe of 18 people who migrates north and south along a peninsula to gather food and hunt for meat. You have 100% reliance upon your tribe to survive. You love them, and you need them to love you.
You have no idea about science. You aren’t aware of sanitation, bacteria, germs, or viruses. You don’t know why it rains, or even what the connection is between plants and rain. Lightning and thunder are scary as shit because you have NO idea what that is. You go to sleep at night full of terror from the mysteries of the world around you.
In spite of how ignorant you are, you are just as smart as the version of yourself that lives in 2024. You ask all the same difficult questions. You have the same mish-mash of complicated emotions that wax and wane every day. But the emotion you feel most is terror. Death is a harsh reality. Your uncle just died last week. You have had two children die. You have a little girl who is wheezing when she breathes, and you have no idea what to do. Last year your niece broke her leg when running downhill and some rocks broke loose and crushed her. You had to watch her suffer in agony for months until her leg mended, but she still can’t walk very well and she is still in constant pain. She can do a little gathering, but the tribe has to see to most of her needs. That means you need to get more food.
That kind of stress and anxiety is enough to drive a person mad. This would make that person less viable as a mate, so their DNA is less likely to replicate. However, if you can figure out a way to keep yourself from going nuts, you might survive and procreate. Hell, you might even thrive.
Here’s where the inclination to find a mystical solution becomes genetically favorable. You get creative. You start to imbue the world around you with something—anything—that will help you make sense of your surroundings. Suddenly you see it … those rocks that rolled down the hill and crushed your niece’s leg? Those aren’t just rocks. That was the earth spirit, and your niece disturbed it by running downhill. So even though she is suffering, there is a lesson for the tribe to learn. That night, around the campfire, you explain your belief to the tribe. They listen in wonder as you explain why everyone needs to be respectful of the earth spirit.
You tell this to your tribe and your tribe is suddenly filled with a deeper understanding of the world around them. Now … that understanding is totally wrong, but it keeps the entire tribe from falling into despair, and helps the whole tribe survive. Everyone believes your story. In addition, after telling this story, one of the females in the tribe wanted to bed with you. You got her pregnant and now your tendency to see mystical machinations in the world around you is passed along to your progeny.
Not only that, the tendency to go along with what your tribe believes is also heritable and advantageous. If your tribe believes in a crow God, it will be advantageous for you to put on the black feathers and dance around the fire saying CAW! CAW! If you scoff at how ridiculous it is, your tribe might reject you. Your DNA will not replicate.
Stories like the ones above happened tens of thousands of times to your ancestors, so the tendency toward mystical explanations became a favored characteristic. Over thousands of generations, an advantageous trait can become quite common among a species. And since it’s only been about 10 or 15 generations since the arrival of science and critical thinking, we all have a brain that compels us to believe things that aren’t true, and we have a tendency to go along with the crazy things that other members of our tribe believe.
We have a caveman operating system.
Modern Applications
I doubt I need to explain this, but we do not live in the same world as your caveman ancestors anymore. The gap between what we know and what we wish we knew has closed significantly. In fact, for the average layperson, that gap is nearly closed. Your caveman ancestor wanted to know what lightning was, what gravity was, what rain was, why his teeth hurt all the time, and what happened to him after he dies. You only ask one of those five questions, but there are a myriad more.
It is my opinion that the trait to assign mystical answers to life’s unanswerable questions is no longer necessary. We won’t be crippled with anxiety because we don’t know what a tornado is. Our brains still behave as if assigning that meteorological event to an angry sky god will give us an advantage—but our brains are wrong. It is no longer an advantageous trait. We know what causes tornadoes. We don’t need to make up answers anymore. In fact, fictional answers give people a disadvantage because they are not mastering their environment as well as a person who understands and believes in scientific principles.
To wit, people who do not believe in science are less attractive as a mate to those who do. Our caveman operating system explains why people are still religious in a day when religion has outlived its usefulness.
Rebel
The correct response to our flawed physiology is education and rebellion. We have to know this flaw about ourselves in order to overcome it.
If our brains were like Spock (a hyper-logical character in the 1960’s TV series Star Trek), it is likely that over 90 percent of us would be atheists. The data, history, and science all converge to suggest strongly that we live in a non-supernatural existence that precludes the existence of gods, angels, or demons. But because our brains are still tied by evolution to our caveman past, religion thrives in our current age of space travel and computers.
(5211) Why I hate Jesus
There are two Jesus’- the flesh and blood Jesus of 2000 years ago (assuming he isn’t a fictional character) and the Jesus that modern people worship. It it the latter Jesus that deserves hatred. The following was taken from:
https://brucegerencser.net/why-i-hate-jesus/
I don’t hate the flesh and blood Jesus who walked the dusty roads of Palestine, nor do I hate the Jesus found in the pages of the Bible. These Jesuses are relics of the past. I’ll leave it to historians to argue and debate whether these Jesuses were real or fiction. Over the centuries, Christians have created many Jesuses in their own image. This is the essence of Christianity, an ever-evolving religion bearing little resemblance to what it was even a century ago.
The Jesus I hate is the modern, Western Jesus, the American Jesus, the Jesus who has been a part of my life for almost fifty-eight years. The Jesuses of bygone eras have no power to harm me, but the modern Jesus – the Jesus of the three hundred thousand Christian churches that populate every community in America – he has the power to affect my life, hurt my family, and destroy my country. And I, with a vengeance, hate him.
Over the years, I have had a number of people write me about how the modern Jesus was ruining their marriage. In many instances, the married couple started out in life as believers, and somewhere along the road of life one of them stopped believing. The still-believing spouse can’t or won’t understand why the other spouse no longer believes. They make it clear that Jesus is still very important to them and if forced to choose between their spouse and family, they would choose Jesus. Simply put, they love Jesus more than they love their families.
Sadly, these types of marriages usually fail. A husband or a wife simply cannot compete with Jesus. He is the perfect lover and perfect friend, one who is always there for the believing spouse. This Jesus hears the prayers of the believing spouse and answers them. This Jesus is the BFF of the believing spouse. This Jesus says to the believer, you must choose, me or your spouse. It is this Jesus I hate.
This Jesus cares nothing for the poor, the hungry, or the sick. This Jesus has no interest in poor immigrants or unwed mothers. This Jesus cares for Tim Tebow more than he does a starving girl in Ethiopia. He cares more about who wins a Grammy or ACM Award than he does poverty-stricken Africa having food and clean water. It is this Jesus I hate.
This Jesus is on the side of the culture warriors. This Jesus hates homosexuals and demands they be treated as second class citizens. This Jesus, no matter the circumstance, demands that a woman carry her fetus to term. Child of a rapist, afflicted with a serious birth defect, the product of incest or a one night stand? It matters not. This Jesus is pro-life. Yet, this same Jesus supports the incarceration of poor young men of color, often for no other crime than trying to survive. This Jesus is so pro-life he encourages American presidents and politicians to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. This Jesus demands certain criminals be put to death by the state, even though the state has legally murdered innocent people. It is this Jesus I hate.
This Jesus drives fancy cars, has palaces and cathedrals, and followers who spare no expense to make his house the best mansion in town. This Jesus loves Rolexes, Lear jets, and expensive suits. This Jesus sees the multitude and turns his back on them, only concerned with those who say and believe “the right things.” It is this Jesus I hate.
This Jesus owns condominiums constructed just for those who believe in him. When they die, he gives them the keys. But, for the rest of humanity, billions of people, this Jesus says no keys for you. I have a special Hitler-like plan for you. To the ovens you go, only unlike the Jews, I plan to give you a special body that allows me to torture you with fire and brimstone forever. It is this Jesus I hate.
It is this Jesus who looks at Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Universalists, Secularists, Humanists, and Skeptics, and says to them before you were born I made sure you could never be in the group that gets the condominiums when they die. This Jesus says, and it is your fault, sinner man. It is this Jesus who made sure billions of people were born into cultures that worshiped other Gods. It is this Jesus who then says it is their fault they were born at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Too bad, this Jesus says, burn forever in the Lake of Fire. It is this Jesus I hate.
This Jesus divides families, friends, communities, and nations. This Jesus is the means to an end. This Jesus is all about money, power and control. This Jesus subjugates women, tells widows it’s their fault, and ignores the cry of orphans. Everywhere one looks, this Jesus hurts, afflicts, and kills those we love. It is this Jesus I hate.
What I can’t understand is why anyone loves this Jesus? Like a clown on a parade route, he throws a few candies towards those who worship him, promising them that a huge pile of candy awaits them when they die. He lets his followers hunger, thirst, and die, yet he tells them it is for their good, that he loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life. This Jesus is all talk, promising the moon and delivering a piece of gravel. Why can’t his followers see this?
Fear me, he tells his followers. I have the keys to life and death. I have the power to make you happy and I have the power to destroy your life. I have the power to take your children, health, and livelihood. I can do these things because I am the biggest, baddest Jesus ever. Fear me and oppress women, immigrants, orphans, homosexuals, and atheists. Refuse my demand and I will rain my judgment down upon your head. But, know that I love you and only want is best for you and yours. It is this Jesus I hate.
Perhaps there is a Jesus somewhere that I could respect, a Jesus who might merit my devotion. For now, all I see is a Jesus who is worthy of derision, mockery, and hate. Yes, hate. It is this Jesus I hate. When the Jesus who genuinely loves humanity and cares for the least of these shows up, let me know. In the meantime, I hate Jesus.
The real Jesus, assuming he existed, would frown heavily on how he is now portrayed. And if he was actually supernatural and eternal, he probably would do something to clean up the way he is used in modern society. Which is to say, even if you get over the first hurdle, and confirm that he existed, he falters on the second hurdle of failing to reign in his earthly followers.
(5212) 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.