(5301) Unmasking the unknown
For centuries, Christian theology fed on the vast amount of information that was unknown to humans as the sustenance supporting its view of its supernatural deity, Yahweh, or Jesus. This window of ignorance has been virtually shut in recent centuries as the unknown has become known, resulting in a god vanishing to the ends of the universe and beyond. The following was taken from:
From its earliest days, Christianity has proclaimed the existence of an “Unknown God,” a mysterious, hidden deity beyond human comprehension. Paul, in Athens, pointed to an altar inscribed “To the Unknown God”, claiming that this unknowable presence was the God of Christianity. Over centuries, theologians built doctrines around this mystery….about the soul, creation, and divine order….yet modern discoveries reveal that the true “unknown” is not supernatural but the astonishing plasticity and intelligence of life itself.
Christianity’s conception of spirit illustrates how theology abstracts natural phenomena into divine authority. The Hebrew ruakh, meaning wind, breath, or animating force, was translated into Greek as hagios pneuma….the Holy Spirit….a detached, immaterial entity. What was originally observable energy animating life became a supernatural mystery. Similarly, Christianity appropriated Heraclitus’ Logos, a description of the universe’s rational order, transforming it into Christ as a personal, incarnated deity. This is a fundamental misreading: an impersonal, emergent principle of nature was converted into dogma, obscuring the self-organizing intelligence of the cosmos.
Modern science unmasks these “mysteries” as tangible realities. Michael Levin’s research in bioelectricity demonstrates that cells communicate, store information, and self-organize to shape bodies. By manipulating these electrical signals, scientists can regenerate limbs, reprogram tissue, and even construct xenobots and anthrobots….living entities that challenge the notion of fixed form and externally imposed design. Life, it appears, is distributed intelligence in action, self-organizing without divine intervention.
Intelligence in life is not confined to the brain. The heart contains tens of thousands of neurons, forming a “heart brain” capable of memory, decision-making, and influencing cognition. The gut’s enteric nervous system, or “second brain,” regulates digestion while affecting mood and thought. These discoveries undermine the Christian idea of a single, immaterial soul controlling the body. Life’s intelligence is diffuse, emergent, and intrinsic.
Perception further destabilizes theological claims. Humans experience reality through subjective lenses: synesthesia merges senses in ways that defy ordinary logic, and tetrachromacy allows some individuals to perceive millions more colors than average. If perception is fluid and varied, any claim to a single, revealed truth becomes untenable.
Christianity also claims moral authority over sexuality, often condemning LGBTQ+ identities. Yet nature demonstrates the fluidity and diversity of sex: clownfish change sex, earthworms and snails are natural hermaphrodites, and slugs defy binary categories altogether. Life’s design, far from conforming to doctrinal norms, thrives on nonbinary, adaptive strategies.
The human mind is similarly malleable. Tulpas, autonomous thought-forms generated by consciousness, illustrate that the mind itself can create independent realities. Identity and agency are emergent, co-created by perception and thought, not fixed in a preordained soul awaiting judgment.
Christianity’s vision of the Unknown God, of spirit, and of Logos was an attempt to explain phenomena it could not understand. Modern discoveries….bioelectricity, distributed neural networks, xenobots, heart and gut brains, perceptual plasticity, sexual diversity, and emergent consciousness….show that life itself holds the “unknown” within it. The divine, once conceived as a supernatural overseer, is revealed instead as nature’s intelligence unfolding: self-organizing, creative, and irreducible to dogma.
Christianity’s doctrines, formed in an era of ignorance about cellular communication, neural networks, and the fluidity of life, now appear outdated hypotheses, myths constructed to explain what we now observe empirically. The Unknown God has not disappeared….science has simply relocated the mystery from the heavens to the living, thinking, adaptable, and emergent world around us.
A true religion would have incorporated a complete understanding of reality such that it would never have become obsolete. Christianity is not a true religion.
(5302) Robots in heaven
Christian apologists try to soften the fact that God hides himself by claiming that if he did a full reveal we would have no option but to worship him unconditionally- and become something analogous to a robot. But the concept of heaven contrasts with this assertion and seems to imply that life there will be robotic by default. The following was taken from:
When asked why God doesn’t simply reveal himself to everyone, Christians will often reply that to lay eyes on God would instantly rob you of your free will and transform you into a mindless robot that would have no choice but to automatically worship God, and “God doesn’t want robots.” However, what they claim about the afterlife contradicts this assertion.
Christians claim that your nature will be fundamentally transformed when you go to Heaven. They claim that human nature is sin, that there is no sin in Heaven, and that you will be reprogrammed to eliminate inherent aspects of your being.
Christians claim that you will have your memory rewritten when you go to Heaven, so that you will no longer remember any friends, family or loved ones who were sent to Hell, or you will be perfectly fine with their having been sent to Hell.
Christians claim that you will be able to perform a single, repetitive task (specifically, praising God) for eternity, without pause, without tiring and without question. That is not something a human is capable of doing, but it is something a robot is capable of doing.
For these reasons, and probably others that I am forgetting, an entity with the characteristics above can only be considered a robot. And that’s not even accounting for the fact that, if you believe in Calvinist doctrine (which they do), then we are already robots and always have been.
There is no good argument for why a god would do a furtive reveal rather than doing it openly such that everyone would get the full and proper information. But any religion started by humans would necessarily have the characteristics of Christianity as being initially localized and demonstrably pedestrian (because it would contain no actual supernatural elements).
(5303) Food chain rules out a good god
From a strictly biological perspective, it would be possible to populate a planet with animals that are strictly vegetarian. This condition would not violate any known physical laws. Virtually any human given the chance to design their own universe would make it such that animals don’t eat each other. But any planet evolving life without an overseeing god would most probably have a food chain similar to that which occurs on the Earth. The following was taken from:
Premise 1: The existence of the food chain entails suffering for animals.
Premise 2: A good God cannot permit unnecessary suffering: every suffering must have a logical justification or an indispensable purpose.
Premise 3: God is omnipotent and omniscient and can achieve any logically possible good through alternative means.
Premise 4: Any greater good that might emerge from the food chain (e.g., ecological balance, biodiversity, evolution) does not logically require predatory suffering. it is not a logical impossibility like a 4 side triangle
• In other words: predatory suffering is not impossible to eliminate by the law of logic; it is simply contingent.
Conclusion 1: The suffering caused by the food chain is unnecessary, because it is not logically impossible to achieve the same goods through alternative means.
Conclusion 2: If the suffering that derives from the food chain is unnecessary, then the food chain cannot be the work of a perfectly good God.
The food chain of carnivorous animals points to one of two possibilities- God is not as kind as any human would be given similar powers, or God does not exist. A perfect, benevolent god is out of the question.
(5304) Passage that would make me a Christian
One of most alarming problems with the Bible is that it contains no knowledge that was unknown by humans at the time of its creation. It would seem that a god-inspired document would have contained some nuggets of prescient facts that would have been confirmed later by the eventually progress of science. The following is a hypothetical passage that, if contained in the Bible, would provide sufficient evidence to support the idea that it was inspired by an actual living deity:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1ndpoo3/a_passage_that_would_make_me_a_christian/
A passage that would make me a Christian:
Hark, my servant, and etch my words not upon clay, but upon the very heart of your people, for this knowledge is a seal upon my testimony.
You have written that I formed man from the dust of the ground. This is true, but I shall now reveal to you the nature of that dust, a truth that will lie sleeping in your scrolls until an age of great curiosity and cleverness.
Know this: the stars in the firmament are not mere lamps hung in the vault of night. They are great furnaces, fires of a scale that would consume your world a thousand times over. In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth, but the substance of creation was simple, like the lightest of air.
It is in the heart of these great stars that I forge the very stuff of your world. As a smith in his fire, I take the simple dust and, with immense pressure and unbearable heat, I crush it into new forms. The iron for your plowshare, the gold for my Ark, the silver for your shekels, and even the very substance of the rock under your feet and the chalk of your bones—all are born in the fiery bellies of these stars.
But this treasure is sealed away. Only when a great star has run its course and I command it to die in a blaze of glory—a light that outshines all others in the sky for a season—is this new, heavier dust thrown out into the great, dark void.
It is this star-dust, this celestial ash, that has gathered to form the world beneath your feet. The iron in your own blood that gives it the color of life is the ember of a star long since vanished.
Write this down.
For a time will come when the descendants of your people will build instruments of glass and light. They will gaze into the heavens and read the light of the stars as a scribe reads a scroll. And in that light, they will see the signature of iron, and gold, and all the elements they know on Earth.
They will then turn their instruments upon themselves and see that their own bodies are made of the very same materials. They will be baffled. They will wonder how the dust of the earth could be the same as the dust of a distant, burning star.
And they will find your words.
And they will know. They will know that no man of your time could have guessed this. They could not have seen it in a vision or learned it from a foreign king. They will know that the One who forged the stars and the One who formed man from the dust are the same, for man is, and has always been, made from the dust of stars.
This will be my sign for them, in a time when their wisdom has made them blind. Now, write.
The Bible is nothing more than a wasteland of human ignorance that marks the limits of human knowledge existing at the time of its creation. It shows no sign of possessing super-human insights that should be there if a universal deity was orchestrating its formation.
(5305) Why atheism is rising globally
The following essay discusses a youtube video by ‘Cognitive Drift’ that describes why religion is steadily losing ground in a world that stubbornly refuses to deliver the goods that otherwise could confirm its truth:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/08/oh-irony-religion-is-shooting-itself-in.html#more
Surveys have shown that the number of “nones”—folks who admit they no longer follow religions—has been growing. I recently came across a YouTube video by Cognitive Drift, titled, Why Atheist is Rising Globally (just under 26 minutes). It is very well done, a calm description of how and why religion is losing ground. Here is an excerpt that reflects the mistakes and scandals I’ve mentioned:
“…in many cases religion is undermining itself. Scandals, abuse, corruption—these aren’t rare exceptions. They’re patterns and people are noticing when institutions preach humility but hoard wealth; preach purity but hide predators; preach love but foster division. The credibility collapses. People aren’t leaving because they want to sin. They’re leaving because they no longer trust the messengers and when the messenger is flawed, the message stops sounding holy.”
Near the start of the video, we find this assessment:
“…the rise of non-religious identity is one of the most significant shifts of our time, and when you look closer it makes sense because it’s not just about rejecting gods. It’s about waking up from something, about no longer needing the answers we used to cling to, about outgrowing ideas that once felt necessary but now feel out of place. To understand why this is happening we need to zoom in on something that often gets overlooked: the silent discomfort that religion creates for people who are really paying attention.”
Yes, paying attention is the key, but vast numbers of the faithful can’t be bothered to pay attention. Curiosity and critical thinking have not kicked in. Hence probably the majority of those devout folks who attended that First Communion service were not inclined to ask the priests for evidence that transubstantiation is a reality—instead of a variety of hocus-pocus. During the so-called miracle of the mass, the wafer turns into the body of Jesus, and people are willing to eat Jesus? When people fail to pay attention—when they neglect to ask for evidence—they fall victim to bad theology. How can eating Jesus not be bad theology? It is based on the pagan superstitions stated bluntly in the gospel of John 6:53-58.
It would also seem that the clergy, no matter the denomination or brand, don’t want their parishioners paying close attention to the debates, the major tensions, that exist in the world of Biblical scholarship. In recent years, there has been heated discussion about the reality of Jesus himself: did he really exist, or was this hero of the gospels a mythological invention from the get-go? The many errors, flaws, contradictions, and differing portrayals of Jesus in the gospels have kept Christian theologians busy for a long time, i.e., trying to make sense of it all. And the folks in the pews are largely unaware of all this. The clergy want to keep it this way.
Another excerpt from the Cognitive Drift essay illustrates this truth:
“…the more people learn about the world, the more they see how belief systems were formed not from divine insight, but from politics, power, fear, tradition and most of all uncertainty. Religion was never just about truth, it was about survival, it was about control, it was about filling in gaps we couldn’t explain. And as those gaps closed, as science, philosophy, and psychology move forward, the role of religion becomes harder to justify. This isn’t about science versus spirituality, it’s about whether certain ideas still make sense in light of what we now know.”
Religious fanaticism played a large role in the terrorist attacks that took place on 9/11. That horrible reality prompted serious thinkers to speak out against the harmful impacts of religious belief. Enough is enough!…seemed to be the primary motivator. Famous atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett published their thoughtful critiques of religion. These books encouraged others to publish as well, resulting in what might be called the atheist publishing boom. But it’s not just books. Here’s another important insight from Cognitive Drift:
“…we’re told that doubt was a spiritual failing, but now the space to ask is wider than ever. The internet, books, podcasts, forums—they’ve made it easier than ever to explore these ideas without fear. And when people finally start looking, what they find is often surprising. They find out that morality doesn’t collapse without religion, that life doesn’t feel empty when you let go of sacred beliefs, and that meaning isn’t something handed down from above, it’s something we build day by day…”
It’s also a fact that religion continues to shoot itself in the foot. Religious idiots say things, out loud, that turn people off. In 2012, a few days after the Sandy Hook school shooting in which twenty kids and six adults were murdered, a devout Catholic woman offered her explanation: “God must have wanted more angels.” Was she just grasping at straws, looking for an excuse to get her god off the hook? —or does she really believe in an evil god who murders school children as a way to get more angels? This woman’s phenomenal insensitivity is matched by scam televangelists, churches that protect pedophile clergy, and ongoing indoctrination in ancient superstitions and magical thinking.
The Cognitive Drift essay ends on this note:
“…freedom means more than religious liberty. It means freedom from religion too, and where truth isn’t something to be handed down, but something to be pursued together. That’s the future more people are stepping into, and that’s why atheism is rising. Not in anger but in awakening, not as a rejection of meaning, but as an embrace of reality, and maybe, just maybe, that’s the most human thing of all.”
Time is on the side of the atheists. For theists, time is running out as saviors keep refusing to return, science keeps unmasking the Bible, miracles keep failing to happen, prayers keep going unanswered, and children keep getting cancer.
(5306) Rebutting God being outside time and space
When questioning theists to state where God is located, they will often punt to the idea that he is outside of time and space. This rather disingenuous cop out is easy to debunk. The following was taken from:
Let’s talk about my favorite little debate tactic, the one that gets pulled out whenever a logical corner gets a bit too tight: the “God exists outside of time/space/reality” card.
It sounds mysterious. But it actually is a semantic sleight of hand designed to make an unfalsifiable claim by secretly redefining the most fundamental term in the entire discussion: “reality” itself.
1. Let’s Get Our Definitions Straight (Because Apparently We Have To)
Before we go any further, I am going to use what is called a Stipulative Definition. I am explicitly telling you what I mean by the word “reality” for the purpose of this discussion, so we can avoid any games.
Reality: The set of all that exists.
Full stop. That’s it. It is the most all-encompassing category possible. If a thing “is”, in any sense of the word (whether physical, metaphysical, abstract, or divine) it is, by definition, a member of this set. There is nothing “outside” of it, because if there were, the set would simply expand to include it. It’s a logically closed definition.
And let’s be crystal clear about which version of “Theism” is in the crosshairs. Theism is a broad church. My argument is aimed squarely at the popular, classical, interventionist model: the belief in a personal God who is transcendent and actively intervenes in it.
2. The “Two Realities” Trap and the Inescapable Meta-Reality
The common counter-argument goes something like this: “You’re thinking of our created reality. God exists in His own transcendent reality.”
Cute. But this move fails instantly.
Let’s play along. Let’s say there’s Reality_A (our universe) and a separate Reality_B (where God hangs out). The very moment you propose the existence of both, you have implicitly created a larger, overarching framework that contains them.
Let’s call this container the Meta-Reality. Meta-Reality
= {Reality_A, Reality_B}
Guess what? This “Meta-Reality” is what I meant by “reality” in the first place.
You haven’t escaped my definition. You’ve just taken a scenic detour to prove my point. You can invent as many nested or parallel realities as you like; they will all be subsets of the one, true, all-encompassing set: Everything that exists.
3. The Real Trick: Redefining My Terms Without Asking
Here’s the dirty trick I mentioned. When a theist says “God is outside reality”, what they are actually doing is this:
-
- They listen to my definition:
Reality.
= {everything} - They silently replace it in their head with their own definition:
Reality.
= {everything_created_by_God} - They then triumphantly declare “God is not in that set!”
- They listen to my definition:
Well, of course He isn’t. You’ve just defined the set specifically to exclude Him.
4. The Only Logically Consistent Conclusion: God = Reality
So, if we stick to our strict definition of reality as “the set of all that exists”, there are only three possibilities for a “God” figure:
-
- A) God is outside Reality. This is a logical contradiction. It means God is outside the set of all that exists, which is just a fancy way of saying God does not exist.
- B) God is a part of Reality, but not the whole thing. This would mean there are things that exist which are not God. This makes God a limited being, subject to the larger framework of Reality itself. He is no longer supreme, just a very powerful object within the system. Not very godlike.
- C) God is Reality. This is the only logically coherent option. It preserves God’s supremacy (nothing is greater than Everything), uniqueness (there is only one Everything), and omnipotence (all power that exists is contained within Everything).
5. The Ultimate Escape Hatch: “You Can’t Put God in a Logical Box!
Now, the final move in this debate is often an appeal to mysticism: “You’re trying to use human logic and set theory to define God. God transcends logic itself!”
It’s a button that self-destructs your own position.
If you declare that God is “beyond logic”, you have just forfeited your right to use any logical arguments to support His existence.
-
- You can no longer use the Cosmological Argument because that argument is built entirely on a logical chain of cause and effect.
- You can no longer use the Teleological Argument because that relies on the logic of inference and probability.
- You can no longer use the Ontological Argument, which is literally an attempt to prove God’s existence from logic alone.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can’t build a logical ladder to reach your conclusion and then tell me that the place we’ve arrived at is beyond the concept of ladders.
TL;DR: Arguing that God is “outside Reality” is a semantic game that only works if you dishonestly redefine “reality” as “the created universe”. If we define reality honestly as “everything that exists”, then the only way for God to exist and be supreme is for God to be Reality itself.
I can already hear the keyboards clacking: “But your stipulative definition is arbitrary! I can just define my ‘reality’ differently!”
And you’re absolutely right. You can. But if you do that, we’re no longer debating the concept; we’re just bickering over the label.
So, if the word “reality” is the hill you’ve chosen to die on, fine. Go back and re-read this entire post, but mentally replace every instance of the word “reality” with the phrase “the set of all that exists”.
The argument remains identical. The labels change; the logic doesn’t. Don’t get lost in the dictionary when we’re talking about the cosmos.
For God to be real, he must occupy some portion of reality. To say he is outside of time and space or that he is the universe itself is the same as admitting that he doesn’t exist.
(5307) The Bible is not evidence
When confronted with accusations that Christianity lacks evidence, Christians will hold up the Bible as meeting that challenge. But the Bible is not evidence from any logical perspective. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1ngh68l/the_bible_is_not_evidence/
Most atheists follow evidence. One of the biggest contention points is religious texts like the Bible. If it was agreed that the Bible was a straightforward historical archive, then atheists such as myself would believe. But the reality is, across history, archaeology, and science, that’s not how these texts are regarded.
Why the Bible Isn’t Treated Like a History Book:
– Written long after the events: The stories weren’t recorded by eyewitnesses at the time, but compiled and edited by multiple authors over centuries. No originals exist, only later copies of copies. Historians place the highest value on contemporary records. Inscriptions, letters, chronicles, or artifacts created during or shortly after the events. For example, we trust Roman records about emperors because they were kept by officials at the time, not centuries later.
– Full of myth, legend, and theology: The Bible mixes poetry, law, and legend with some history. Its purpose was faith and identity, not documenting facts like a modern historian. Genuine archives (like court records, tax lists, royal decrees, or treaties) are primarily practical and factual. They exist to record legal, political, or economic realities, not to inspire belief or teach morals.
– Lack of external confirmation: Major stories like the Exodus, Noah’s Flood, or Jericho’s walls falling simply don’t have archaeological or scientific evidence. Where archaeology does overlap (like King Hezekiah or Pontius Pilate), it only confirms broad historical settings, not miracles or theological claims. Proper archives usually cross-confirm each other. If an empire fought a war, we find multiple independent mentions, in inscriptions, other nations’ records, battlefield archaeology, or coins. If events leave no trace outside one text, historians remain skeptical.
– Conflicts with science: The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old, there’s no global flood layer, and life evolved over billions of years. Modern geology, biology, and astronomy flatly contradict a literal reading. Reliable records are consistent with the broader evidence of the natural world. Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Roman records align with stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, and material culture. They don’t require rewriting physics, geology, or biology to fit.
Historians, archaeologists, and scientists are almost unanimous: the Bible is a religious document, not an evidence-based historical archive. It preserves some memories of real people and places, but it’s full of legend and theology. Without independent evidence, you can’t use it as proof.
I don’t mind if people believe in a god, but when people say they have evidence for it, it really bothers me so I hope this explains from an evidence based perspective, why texts such as the bible are not considered evidence to atheists.
It would seem certain that if a god decided to interact with humans and to send his ‘son’ to deliver a holy message- that the recording of these events for future humans would be lock-tight in its veracity, with consistent first-person witness testimonies. This is not what we see in the Bible. If the Bible is the literary product inspired by a real god, then that god is incompetent.
(5308) Thirteen proofs religion was made by humans
The following is a transcript of a youtube video that lays out thirteen arguments supporting the concept that religion is strictly a human invention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXFLUydBdOY
Imagine a world thousands of years ago, long before science, before satellites, before medicine, before electricity. Humans looked at the sky and wondered why the sun rises and sets. They saw lightning and thunder and thought some invisible power must be angry. They experienced death and could not accept that a loved one was simply gone forever. They wanted explanations for things they did not understand. And out of this desire, religion was born. The evidence that religion is a human invention is everywhere once you take a closer look. Let us explore 13 powerful proofs that religion did not come from a divine source but from human imagination, human fear and human needs.
The first proof is the diversity of religions themselves. If a god or gods had really revealed a universal truth to humanity, why do we see thousands of religions with different beliefs, rituals, and gods? Ancient Egyptians worshiped Rah, the sun god. The Greeks worshiped Zeus and Athena. Hindus have a pantheon of deities like Vishnu and Shiva. Christians believe in the trinity while Muslims believe in strict monotheism. Buddhists do not focus on a creator god at all. The sheer variety proves that religions are shaped by culture, geography, and history rather than being objective truths. If one true god existed and wanted to be known, the message would not be so fragmented, contradictory, and region specific.
The second proof is how gods resemble humans. In most religions, gods act and feel like people. They love, hate, get jealous, reward, and punish. The Greek gods were basically immortal humans with superpowers. The god of the Bible gets angry, feels jealous, and even regrets decisions. These human-like emotions show that gods were modeled after the people who invented them. Instead of being perfect beings beyond human flaws, they mirror our own limitations. If you were inventing a god in ancient times, of course, you would give it familiar traits that people could understand.
The third proof is the changing of religious beliefs over time. What people once swore was eternal truth is now seen as myth. The Norse once believed in Odin and Thor with total certainty. The Aztecs performed human sacrifices to please their gods. Today those religions are considered mythology, but at one time they were as serious and sacred as Christianity or Islam is today. This shows us that religions rise and fall just like political systems or cultures. If they truly came from a divine source, they would not be replaced or abandoned so easily.
The fourth proof is the reliance on fear. Religions often use fear of punishment to control behavior. Fear of hell, fear of bad karma, fear of curses. If religion were really about truth and enlightenment, it would not need to scare people into obedience. Humans created these threats as a way to enforce morality before formal laws and governments existed. When a child is told that if they do not obey their parents, a monster will punish them, it is a psychological tool, not reality. Religion works the same way, creating invisible threats to keep people in line.
The fifth proof is the promises of rewards. Just as religions use fear, they also use reward to motivate people. Heaven, paradise, eternal life, reincarnation into a better form. These promises are designed to comfort humans who fear death. They are wishful thinking, not evidence. Every religion offers its followers some kind of prize for loyalty, which is exactly what a human storyteller would invent to make people commit to the system. When you look at it logically, it resembles marketing. Obey the rules, pay loyalty, and receive a big reward later.
The sixth proof is contradictions within holy texts. For example, in the Bible, God is described as merciful and loving, but also commands the slaughter of entire populations. In the Quran, God is said to be compassionate, but also prescribes eternal torture for unbelievers. These contradictions reveal that the texts were written by different human authors with different agendas. A perfect God would not produce imperfect, conflicting, and confusing scriptures. Humans, however, always produce messy documents full of inconsistency.
The seventh proof is morality existing outside of religion. People often claim that morality comes from God, but history proves otherwise. Long before the Ten Commandments, civilizations like the Samaritans, Babylonians, and Egyptians had laws against theft, murder, and lying. Even today, atheists and secular societies show high levels of morality without religion. For example, countries like Sweden and Denmark, which are highly secular, have low crime rates and high social trust. Morality comes from human empathy, reason, and social contracts, not from divine command.
The eighth proof is the human- centered universe described by religions. Ancient scriptures often present Earth as the center of creation with the sun, moon, and stars revolving around it. This made sense when humans thought they were the most important beings in the universe. But science later proved Earth is just a small planet orbiting one star among billions in one galaxy among trillions. Religion’s outdated view of the cosmos reflects ancient ignorance, not divine knowledge. If scriptures had revealed accurate astronomy thousands of years ago, that would be impressive evidence of divine origin. Instead, they show human limitations.
The ninth proof is the selective nature of revelation. Why do gods reveal themselves only to specific individuals at specific times? Moses on Mount Si. Muhammad in a cave. Joseph Smith in New York. If a God truly wanted humanity to know the truth, the revelation would be universal and undeniable, not whispered privately to a few people who then demand trust. The secrecy of revelation is exactly how a human would create authority. by claiming special access to knowledge no one else can verify.
The tenth proof is the business of religion. Temples, churches, mosques, and shrines have always been centers of wealth and power. In medieval Europe, the Catholic Church collected massive wealth through indulgences and tithes. In India, temples accumulated treasures beyond imagination. Today, televangelists in America live in mansions and fly private jets. If religion were truly divine, why would it so consistently enrich leaders at the expense of followers? It looks exactly like a man-made institution designed to gather money and power.
The eleventh proof is failed prophecies. Many religions contain predictions about the end of the world, the return of messiahs, or divine intervention that never comes true. For example, early Christians believe Jesus would return within their lifetime. Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted the end of the world multiple times in the 20th century. Each time the prophecy failed, yet the religion adapted. A true divine message would not contain false predictions, but human guesses often fail.
The twelfth proof is the borrowing of myths. Many religious stories are recycled from older traditions. The story of a great flood exists in Mesopotamian mythology long before the Bible. The idea of virgin births and dying and rising gods appears in cultures before Christianity. This shows that religions borrow and reshape existing myths rather than delivering brand new divine truths. It is just like how writers reuse old plots to tell new stories.
The thirteenth proof is the geographical distribution of faith. If you are born in Saudi Arabia, you are likely to be Muslim. If you are born in Italy, you are likely to be Catholic. If in India, Hindu. This proves that religion is not about objective truth but about where and how you are raised. People inherit their religion like language or culture. Not because it is true but because it is taught. If a god’s truth were real, it would not depend on the accident of birth.
These 13 proofs together paint a clear picture. Religion is a human creation born out of fear, imagination, control, and cultural storytelling. It is not the product of divine wisdom but of human needs and limitations. What makes this obvious is not one single argument but the collection of all these signs. Diversity, contradictions, fear, rewards, failed prophecies, human-like gods, borrowed myths, and the power structures behind religion all confirm that it was made by us, not by any higher power.
But this is not the end of the story. To understand fully, we need to dive deeper into examples, history, and real life cases that show how religion evolves, adapts, and survives exactly like human inventions always do. That is what we will explore further.
Think about how each major religion reflects the society and culture where it was born. Ancient Greeks lived in a land of mountains, seas, and constant city-state wars. Their gods were warriors, lovers, tricksters, and rulers who lived on Mount Olympus, a mountain they could actually see. The Norse lived in harsh, cold climates. So, their gods reflected courage, death, and battle.
Hindus in India developed their religion around the cycles of life and rebirth, reflecting agricultural and seasonal rhythms. This cultural mirroring shows that gods are not universal beings, but products of the human environment. If one true god had revealed itself, you would expect the message to be the same everywhere. But instead, religion adapts to local culture just like food, clothing, or music. Another angle to consider is how religions deal with suffering and natural disasters. When ancient people saw plagues or earthquakes, they thought they were punishments from the gods. This made sense for people without science. But even today, religious leaders blame earthquakes or diseases on human sin.
After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, some preachers claimed it was punishment from God. After the COVID pandemic, religious figures around the world said it was divine anger. This recycling of the same explanation shows it is not divine knowledge, but human superstition repeating itself.
We can also look at how religions adjust to survive new knowledge. When Galileo showed that the earth orbits the sun, the church opposed him because scripture said otherwise. When evolution was discovered, many religious groups resisted it because it conflicted with Genesis. Over time, some religions reluctantly adjusted their teachings.
But truth does not need adjustment. Science self-corrects when evidence appears, while religion bends slowly to fit facts it cannot deny. This behavior is another proof that religion is human-made. If it were divine truth, it would not need correction when new knowledge arises.
Think also about how religions divide people. If they were divine, they should unite humanity under one truth. Instead, they have caused wars, crusades, jihads, and persecutions. The 30 years war in Europe was fought between Catholics and Protestants, both claiming the same Bible. The partition of India was marked by religious violence between Hindus and Muslims. The Middle East conflict today still has deep religious roots. This division shows that religions are more like competing political parties than channels of divine truth. They are human tribes with different stories fighting for dominance.
Let us revisit the point of fear and reward with a real life observation. When you speak to a religious person about why they believe, often they mention fear of hell or hope for heaven. Rarely do they present evidence. This reliance on psychological pressure is identical to how rulers and parents motivate obedience. Kings used to say they ruled by divine right, scaring people into loyalty. Parents might tell children scary stories about monsters to make them behave. Religion operates on the same psychological mechanism. That is why it lasts so long, not because it is true, but because fear and reward are powerful motivators.
We should also think about the human need for meaning. Humans are storytelling creatures. We cannot stand randomness. When lightning strikes, we want a reason. When someone dies suddenly, we need an explanation. Religion provides ready-made stories to fill that void. A god willed it, a spirit caused it, or it was destiny. These stories comfort the mind, but comfort is not the same as truth. The fact that religion so neatly fills human psychological needs is evidence it was designed by humans because it fits our mental patterns too perfectly.
Let us take the example of holy texts again. Consider the Bible which was written by many authors over centuries, translated and re-translated and compiled by councils of men deciding which books to include or exclude. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and many others were left out. This editing process was clearly human. The Quran too was compiled after Muhammad’s death by human leaders who decided how to standardize it.
Hindu scriptures like the Vedas and the epics were composed and expanded over long periods by different poets and sages. All of this shows a process of human writing, editing and political decision-making. If a perfect god had written a perfect book, it would not look like this messy patchwork.
We can also see human invention in rituals. Religions require people to pray in certain ways, eat certain foods, wear certain clothes, and perform ceremonies. These practices are almost always tied to cultural habits rather than universal truths. For example, Jews and Muslims avoid pork because in ancient desert climates, pork spoiled easily and caused disease. What began as a practical rule turned into divine law.
Hindus consider cows sacred partly because cows were so important for farming and milk. What began as cultural respect became religious ritual. These rules are human customs frozen into sacred commands.
Another important observation is the way religious leaders benefit from belief. From the pharaohs of Egypt who were worshiped as gods to modern televangelists collecting millions, religion has consistently placed leaders in positions of power. They gain obedience, wealth, and influence. The pattern is clear. Religion works as a social tool to elevate some humans above others. A true god would not need middlemen to collect money or enforce rules, but humans who invent religion certainly do.
Let us not forget the failed prophecies. This is one of the strongest signs of human invention. The Bible says Jesus would return soon within that generation. Yet 2,000 years have passed. Many end of world dates have come and gone. Harold Camping predicted the end in 2011. Jehovah’s Witnesses set dates multiple times. Each time it failed, the followers adjusted the story. This is exactly how human predictions work. A divine being would not keep making mistakes, but humans do. And religions cover those mistakes with excuses. Borrowed myths are also undeniable. The flood story in the Bible is almost identical to the epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. The idea of a savior born from a virgin existed in Egyptian stories of Horus. The theme of God’s dying and resurrecting appears in Greek and Roman myths. Christianity did not invent these ideas but adopted and repackaged them. This shows religions evolve by borrowing popular myths just like movies today recycle familiar plots. It is a human creative process, not a divine one.
Geography may be the most obvious proof of all. If you are born in Japan, you are likely to be Shinto or Buddhist. If born in Saudi Arabia, almost certainly Muslim. If born in Utah, possibly Mormon. People inherit their religion from parents and society just like they inherit language and culture.
Imagine if truth worked that way. Gravity is the same everywhere regardless of where you are born. But religion changes completely depending on your birthplace. That is because it is cultural not universal. Now let us think of a real life example. Suppose a child is raised in a Christian family and believes Jesus is the only way to salvation. Another child in the Middle East grows up Muslim and believes Muhammad is the last prophet. Both are equally convinced. If religion came from one true God, why would children inherit such different contradictory beliefs?
The only logical answer is that religion comes from humans, not gods. Another layer is the evolution of gods themselves. In ancient times, people believed in many gods, each controlling different forces. Over time, some religions moved toward one supreme god. This shift reflects human social structures. As small tribes combined into kingdoms and empires, it made sense to have one god above all others, just like one king above all. Religion mirrored politics. That is why monotheism rose alongside centralized empires. If gods were real, they would not evolve to match human politics. But human invention explains it perfectly.
Consider also the silence of the divine. Believers claim God answers prayers, yet millions of prayers go unanswered. People pray for healing, yet diseases kill them. People pray for peace, yet wars continue. If a god were real and cared, the results would be different. But what we see is exactly what you would expect if humans invented religion. Prayers are said, sometimes events turn out well, sometimes badly, and believers credit God either way. It is a human coping mechanism, not a divine response.
Finally, think about how religions always reflect the knowledge of their time. Ancient scriptures describe the world as flat, the sky as a dome, and diseases as caused by spirits. They never mention germs, DNA, or galaxies. Why? Because humans at that time did not know these things. If a god truly wrote the scriptures, they would contain advanced knowledge. Instead, they contain outdated human ideas. This proves once again that humans, not gods, authored them. When you put all of this together, the picture becomes clear. Religion is a patchwork of human imagination, fear, cultural habits, borrowed myths, failed guesses, and political control. It is not a revelation from above, but a mirror of human society below.
The diversity of beliefs, the contradictions, the fear and reward system, the failed prophecies, the cultural roots, and the obvious benefits to leaders all prove the same point from different angles. Religion was created by humans, not gods.
This does not mean humans are foolish for inventing religion. It served a purpose. It gave comfort, order, and explanation when none existed. But today we have science, philosophy and humanism to understand the world without myths.
Recognizing that religion is a human creation is not about mocking the past but about moving forward with truth. We can appreciate religion as a chapter in human history while realizing it is not divine revelation. The evidence is overwhelming. Religion bears the signature of its creators, human beings.
Once a person can separate from cultural indoctrination, it becomes clear that religions are products of, and only of, human minds. A divine religion would have a very different pedigree from any of the religions current or past.
(5309) Why can’t God rewrite his book?
The Bible is a work that was congruent with the times in which it was written 2000+ years ago. It has long since become outdated, as day by day it becomes less relevant to modern times. This creates a quandary- why would an omnipotent god go to such expense to create the Bible only to let it become obsolete? The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1nikmkh/why_cant_god_just_rewrite_his_books/
If God is supposed to be all-knowing, then surely he would have foreseen that the scriptures written thousands of years ago would not age well. These texts reflect the worldview of ancient societies , limited science, tribal morality, and patriarchal social systems… not eternal wisdom. They prescribe rules about slavery, gender roles, polygamy, and barbaric punishments that clash with modern morality. and they offer creation myths as well as primitive explanations of the natural world that contradict what we know today about cosmology, evolution, and biology…
If God cared about guiding humanity, why leave us stuck with texts frozen in time, forcing people to twist and reinterpret verses to make them “fit” with today’s knowledge? An omnipotent being could simply revise his book, update it, and make it clear beyond doubt. Instead, religions rely on endless apologetics, reinterpretations.
If God exists, he either doesn’t care enough to clarify his message, or he’s not as powerful and wise as claimed. But if the texts are human inventions, it makes sense why they reflect outdated ideas rather than timeless truth.
The Bible is seriously in need of revision to address the needs of the present era. An omnipotent god would recognize this problem and be able to do something about it. He could do it in a number of ways. But, if not, the usefulness of this ancient work will continue to erode century by century until it is completely irrelevant.
(5310) The implausibility of eternal life
Christianity’s biggest selling point is that it promises eternal life to its followers. Without that, it would likely have died out long ago, as better philosophical ethics have developed since. But eternal life is not what it is made out to be. Most people think of it superficially, not really considering what it would ultimately mean. The following was taken from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fHQ6szm-OQ
When people imagine eternal life, it often sounds like a dream. Never dying, never losing your loved ones, never worrying about sickness or the shortness of time. On the surface, it feels like a perfect solution to the greatest fear humans have, which is death. But if we stop and think carefully, the idea of eternal life, whether promised in religion or imagined in fantasies, is not a blessing. It is actually absurd, unrealistic, and deeply troubling once you unpack it.
First, let’s look at why eternal life is even desirable in the first place. Human beings are afraid of death because it means the end of our experiences, our thoughts, and our identity. Religion steps in and tries to solve this fear by offering immortality. You can live forever in heaven if you believe and obey, or you can be punished forever in hell if you don’t. But here is the problem. Living forever sounds nice only when you compare it to dying. Once you actually imagine what eternity would mean, it becomes impossible to make sense of.
Think about time. Our lives feel meaningful because they are limited. We value moments because we know they will not last forever. A meal with friends, a walk in the park, a child’s laughter. These things matter because they are fleeting. If you stretch time endlessly, the meaning collapses. Imagine listening to your favorite song. Part of the beauty is that it begins and ends. If it played on repeat forever, it would stop being music and turn into noise. Eternal life is like forcing every song to play without end. What was once joyful becomes unbearable.
Religions often describe heaven as a place of eternal happiness. But happiness itself depends on contrast. You cannot feel joy unless you have experienced sadness. You cannot appreciate comfort unless you know discomfort. If life is one endless line of bliss, then the very concept of happiness loses all sense. It becomes an endless flatline with no peaks or valleys. That is not paradise. That is monotony stretched across infinity.
Philosophers have explored this idea for centuries. One of the clearest examples is the thought experiment by Bernard Williams in his essay, the macropulus case. He argued that immortality would eventually become unbearable because every possible experience would eventually be exhausted. Imagine trying every hobby, meeting every person, traveling to every corner of existence. Eventually, there would be nothing new left. Eternal life would trap you in an endless loop of boredom with no escape.
Death in a strange way is what gives life its urgency and beauty. Religions rarely address this problem directly. They give vague descriptions like gardens of delight, mansions, rivers of milk and honey, or eternal union with a divine being. These are poetic images, but they avoid the reality that eternity is endless repetition. Even if heaven had unlimited pleasures, humans would eventually become numb to them. Psychologists call this hedonic adaptation. When you repeat a pleasurable experience enough times, your brain adjusts and it no longer excites you. It becomes the new normal.
If you ate your favorite dessert every day for eternity, it would eventually lose all flavor. Heaven under this logic collapses into boredom.
Now consider the flip side. Eternal punishment. The idea that someone could be tortured forever for finite actions on earth is one of the most disturbing concepts religion has ever created. Even in human justice systems, punishment is proportional. A thief might spend years in prison. A murderer might face life sentences. But no one argues for infinite punishment for finite crimes. Yet religions insist that a few decades of disbelief or moral mistakes deserve endless suffering. This is not just absurd. It is morally bankrupt. If eternal bliss makes no sense because happiness loses meaning, then eternal torture is even worse because it represents cruelty without end.
Let’s bring this down to real life. Imagine you are given a weekend holiday at the most luxurious resort in the world. Every comfort, every food, every view is perfect. For a few days, it feels magical. But now imagine you cannot leave that resort ever again. No matter how beautiful it is, no matter how much you enjoy it at first, eventually you will feel trapped. Humans need change, contrast, and even challenges to feel alive. Without them, even paradise turns into a prison. Now extend that not for a lifetime, not for a thousand years, but for eternity. That is the promise of heaven when taken literally.
Another absurdity comes from the question of identity. If you live forever, do you remain the same person? If you change endlessly over infinite time, are you still you or do you eventually become something unrecognizable? Personal identity depends on memory and continuity. But in an infinite span of time, your memory could never hold everything. Either you forget most of it, which means you are no longer the same person, or you carry everything, which would be overwhelming. Eternal life threatens the very idea of personal identity because the you who began the journey would disappear in the flood of infinite experience.
Let us also think about relationships. Part of what makes love special is the fear of losing it. The bond between parent and child, friends or partners, is intensified by the awareness that time is short. Now imagine eternal life where nobody ever leaves. Does that bond remain meaningful? Or does it flatten out because there is no urgency, no risk, no possibility of loss? Would you really feel the same about someone if you knew you would have trillions of years together with no end? The preciousness of love is tied to its fragility.
Take fragility away and love becomes just another endless routine.
We also have to consider how eternal life clashes with what we know from science. Biology is built on cycles. Birth, growth, decay, and death are natural processes that keep ecosystems balanced. If nothing died, there would be no renewal. Forests would choke, populations would explode, and life would stagnate.
Death is not a flaw in the system. It is part of what makes the system thrive. So when religions present eternal life as perfection, they actually propose a state that contradicts the natural order entirely. It would not be life anymore. It would be something unnatural, frozen, and ultimately absurd. There is also the issue of fairness. Religions often say eternal life is a reward for belief. But belief is not something people can always control. People are shaped by culture, upbringing, education, and experiences.
A child born into one religion is told that their way is the truth. While another child born across the world hears a completely different story. To say that eternal life or eternal punishment depends on which set of stories you happen to believe is absurdly unfair. It reduces eternity to a lottery of birthplace.
Furthermore, the human brain struggles to even imagine eternity. Try counting to a billion. You cannot try to picture infinity. It has no end, no boundary, no measure. Yet religions ask us to accept this concept as if it were natural. Our finite minds can barely handle decades, let alone eternity. This mismatch between our limited capacities and the concept of eternal existence shows how unrealistic it truly is. And then there is the paradox of desire. Many people think they want eternal life because they fear death. But if eternal life were offered right now, most of us would eventually regret it.
Studies in psychology show that when people imagine extreme longevity, not even eternity, just thousands of years, they expect it would lead to exhaustion, detachment, and loss of meaning. Death, while frightening, gives life structure. Knowing there is an end encourages us to make choices, to prioritize, to love deeply. Without that end, choices lose urgency. Everything can be postponed indefinitely. And in that endless postponement, nothing feels important anymore.
Religious texts try to paint eternity as desirable by using human pleasures as metaphors, gardens, food, companionship, and rest. But these are all human desires tied to human bodies. In eternity, what would a body even mean? Would you eat without hunger? Would you drink without thirst? Would you rest without fatigue? Once those needs are removed, the pleasures attached to them vanish. Eating endlessly without hunger is not a pleasure. It is absurd.
Some believers argue that heaven is not about material pleasures, but about being in the presence of God forever. Yet even here, the absurdity remains. The human mind is wired for variety, change, and novelty. Worship without end, praise without break, adoration without variety. This is not joy. This is monotony disguised as devotion. Even the most devout people on earth take breaks from prayer. They eat, sleep, talk, and do ordinary things. A heaven of endless worship would be unlivable.
If eternal life is absurd as bliss and horrifying as punishment, then why do religions cling to it? The answer is simple. Eternal life solves a psychological problem, not a logical one. People are terrified of death, and eternal life promises comfort. It does not matter if it makes sense. It only matters that it soothes.
But comfort built on an absurd idea does not make it true. It is like promising a thirsty man that he will get water from a mirage. It may calm him temporarily, but the water never arrives. Eternal life once examined closely collapses under its own weight. It fails to provide meaning. It contradicts human psychology. It undermines identity. It erases love. It ignores the natural order. And it insults fairness.
Death may feel harsh. But it is death that gives life shape and meaning. If we lived forever, nothing would matter because it ends. Everything matters. One of the strongest illusions around eternal life is that people imagine themselves remaining as they are now, healthy, young, full of energy. But this is already impossible.
If eternal life meant carrying your current body forever, then you would eventually suffer from decay, aging, or disease. That would not be heaven but eternal hospital visits. If on the other hand you are given a new indestructible body then it is no longer you in the same sense. Your current body is part of your identity. Replacing it with something completely different is like replacing a ship plank by plank until nothing original is left. At what point do you stop being yourself? The promise of eternal life undermines the very self it is supposed to preserve.
Memory is another problem. Imagine living for a million years. How many birthdays would you remember? How many conversations? How many books, meals or faces would stay with you? Your memory cannot stretch infinitely. If eternal life requires you to keep forgetting old experiences just to make room for new ones, then your identity is constantly dissolving. You are not the same person who started the journey. And if by some miracle you did retain all memories, the weight of carrying trillions of experiences would crush your sense of self. life would become an unbearable flood of recollection.
There is also a hidden cruelty in the religious version of eternal life. If heaven and hell exist, then people are permanently separated. Families are divided forever. A mother in heaven must accept that her son is in hell. A husband must accept that his wife is burning without end. What kind of paradise is that? The idea that you can enjoy eternal happiness while knowing others suffer eternal torture makes no sense psychologically. Either you stop caring about those you once loved, which makes you less human, or your happiness is permanently poisoned by guilt. Neither option looks like heaven.
Consider also the question of motivation. Right now we study, work, create, and explore because time is limited. Deadlines push us. Opportunities slip away if we hesitate. But in eternal life, there is no urgency. You can always do it tomorrow or in a thousand years or in a trillion years. Without deadlines, without scarcity, motivation collapses. Why paint a picture now if you can paint it later? Why learn an instrument today if you can learn it across the span of infinity? Eventually, every choice becomes meaningless because every option is endlessly available. Eternal life paralyzes rather than freeze.
Let’s take a simple real world example. Think about television shows. The ones we love most are the ones that have an ending. They tell a story, reach a conclusion, and leave us with closure. Shows that drag on for too many seasons often lose their charm. Characters repeat themselves. Plots stretch thin, and viewers lose interest. Life is not so different. It is compelling because it has a story with a beginning, middle, and end. stretch it into endless episodes with no conclusion and the beauty fades into absurd repetition.
Now let us imagine boredom on an eternal scale. If you live forever, eventually you will try everything, travel every world, taste every food, learn every language. After millions of years, nothing will surprise you. Novelty would die. The brain is wired for stimulation through change, but eternity guarantees the end of novelty. You would find yourself longing for an end, a final act, some closure. And here lies the ultimate paradox. Eternal life promised as a cure for death ends up making death itself desirable.
Some people try to escape this problem by imagining that heaven constantly renews interest. They say God will always create something new so we will never be bored. But think about that. You are admitting that human psychology requires limits, contrast, and change in order to function. Without those, eternal life collapses. If you constantly need artificial novelty to stay engaged, then heaven is not truly eternal bliss. It is an eternal distraction machine, constantly feeding you diversions to prevent you from noticing how empty the idea actually is.
Another issue lies in morality. Eternal life cheapens moral choices. If you have forever to make things right, what urgency do you have to act now? If eternity is waiting, then mistakes can always be fixed later. Real morality requires stakes. It requires the possibility that your actions matter here and now. Eternity dilutes responsibility by stretching it across infinite time.
Even the concept of eternal reward itself feels childish when you compare it with real human values. Imagine giving a student endless candy because they passed one test or punishing them with endless beatings because they failed. This would not be justice. It would be absurd excess. Yet, religions tell us that eternal life works in exactly this way. Limitless reward or limitless punishment for finite behavior. Such a system would be laughed out of any human court. But when placed in a divine context, people accept it without question.
Think also about the sheer impossibility of eternity fitting into human desires. Right now we cherish weekends and vacations because they are short. A holiday that never ends would stop being a holiday. The same food, the same view, the same beach would eventually feel dull. Eternal life promises exactly this. A holiday without end, which is no longer a holiday at all.
Philosophically, the absurdity runs deeper. If time stretches without end, then no moment in eternity is ever special. Any given event is swallowed up by an infinite number of others. In an infinite span, your happiest memory is just one dot lost among countless others. Even your worst suffering in hell becomes insignificant against eternity. Yet, paradoxically, it never ends. Infinity makes every individual moment meaningless because no moment stands out.
Some might argue that heaven is beyond human comprehension, that it cannot be compared to earthly experiences. But this is a convenient escape. If eternal life cannot be understood in human terms, then why describe it in human terms at all? Why use gardens, food, thrones, or music? Religions do this because they must appeal to our imagination. But once you dig into the logic, it falls apart. If eternal life cannot be described without contradiction, then it is not an idea worth taking seriously.
And here is another strange contradiction. Religious people often criticize materialism, saying that worldly pleasures are shallow. Yet their vision of eternity is often nothing more than exaggerated materialism, richer mansions, endless feasts, permanent youth, unending comfort. If material pleasures are shallow on earth, why would they suddenly become meaningful when stretched into infinity? The inconsistency is striking.
On the other hand, if eternal life is purely spiritual, then what do you even do? Floating as a soul forever, detached from hunger, thirst, and need sounds less like joy and more like emptiness. Without desires to fulfill, existence becomes a blank stare across endless time. Eternal life as a spirit is not paradise either. It is eternal nothingness dressed up in religious poetry.
This brings us back to the heart of the issue. Human life is precious not because it is infinite but because it is finite. Death is not a flaw but a frame. Like the frame around a painting, it gives life boundaries that allow us to appreciate what is inside. Without the frame, the painting stretches endlessly until it loses shape. Eternal life is like removing the frame. It destroys the very picture it is supposed to preserve.
There is also the question of desire itself. Desires exist because we lack something. Hunger makes food valuable. Thirst makes water precious. Loneliness makes companionship sweet. In eternal life, where all desires are endlessly fulfilled. Desire itself disappears. Without desire, there is no joy, no striving, no meaning. Eternal life cancels out the very conditions that make life worth living.
This is why many thinkers, both ancient and modern, have argued that death is not the enemy we think it is. Epicurus, the Greek philosopher, said it simply, death is nothing to us because when we exist, death is not present. And when death is present, we no longer exist. He understood that fearing death pushes us toward absurd solutions like eternal life. But once you accept death as natural, you can focus on living fully in the time you have.
Modern psychology agrees. Studies show that people who accept mortality often live with more purpose. They cherish relationships more. They make bolder choices. And they find greater satisfaction in small joys. People who chase immortality often feel anxious, restless, or disconnected. Death, ironically, is what makes us truly alive.
So when religions promise eternal life as a solution, they are selling an illusion. It is a story meant to calm fear, not a logical or desirable reality. It may comfort those who cannot face the thought of an ending, but comfort is not the same as truth. And if you examine it honestly, eternal life is not comfort at all. It is absurdity stretched across infinite time.
In the end, what makes our lives meaningful is not that they never end, but that they do. The laughter of a child, the warmth of friendship, the excitement of learning, the beauty of art. All of these shine brighter because they are temporary. Knowing they will fade makes us treasure them now. Eternal life would strip that treasure away, leaving behind only monotony.
Life is precious because it is short. And that is not a tragedy. That is the very thing that makes it beautiful.
The main selling point that Christianity dangles in front of people is actually a vacuous reward. It seems wonderful only on the surface. Just don’t think about it too deeply.
(5311) The fireman analogy
The framing of God in Christianity is that of a villain, who, by any other measure of character would be categorized as a monster. The following analogy is taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1nl0wjc/my_favorite_analogy/
Say there was a large burning building with one exit. It is full of people who are clambering to escape. A fireman is at the door of the building with his ax and is physically preventing people from escaping. Is he a good person or bad person?
If the fireman said ”I will let you escape, but first you have to pledge your life to me and only me forever. You must love me genuinely and I will know if you are not sincere. Just do that, and I will let you escape!” Would that fireman be a better or worse person?
Now what if the Fireman not only built the building, designed it with one exit, put the people inside it, and lit the fire, and made his very existence so ambiguous that many of the trapped people didn’t even hear or believe in his escape offer- would he be the hero of the story, or the villain?
I have just described the Christian God.
He made the earth (building), the heavens (outside), and hell (fire), put us on earth knowing that our only choice would be to love and worship him forever, or be tortured eternally for refusing to. He, by his own admission, intentionally made it difficult to escape (follow him) knowing that it would result in billions and billions of people, his children, suffering for eternity. (Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”)
“But all they had to do was love the fireman.”
The Christian god does not exist. He is fictional. And it is good that this is so, for, as Richard Dawkins once wrote- he’s ‘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.’ Yes, we should celebrate the non-existence of this god.
(5312) Fallacy of demanding belief without evidence
Much of Christian theology extols the virtue of faith- believing in something without the existence of convincing evidence. But this leads to a problem, because it tends to place Christianity in the same category as all of the other religions that, similarly, have insufficient supporting evidence. It would seem that a god would understand this situation and provide a special degree of evidence for his ‘true’ religion and therefore help to distinguish it from all of the false religions. The Christian god failed to do this. The following was taken from:
If a God demanded faith without evidence, you would expect It to be aware that a hundred false idols could pop up.
It would then be a vicious trap to say “but believe in mine, without evidence, even though others may sound more credible.”
My thesis is that there may be a God, but if its reasoning is “faith alone”, it’s a very shortsighted approach having given humanity imagination, skepticism, storytelling, and a few thousand years to let that play out.
By any interpretation you can say 999/1000 are false, and without any discerning evidence, 1000/1000 is not unreasonable either.
A false religion without a real god would out of pure necessity demand belief in their deity. It would highly discourage doubt, identifying it as negative, and prioritize belief over evidence. Such a religion might even claim that their god values faith without evidence above all else and that you can’t please their God without it.
If the god of theism truly existed, the knowledge of this God would be as universal, consistent and indisputable as our awareness of the sun and moon. No one would go around and attempt to encourage you believe there is a sun, and everyone pretty much agrees on the qualities of sun beyond culture and time.
There’s no valid reason why credulity should be required to believe in the god of theism, but it makes complete sense for a religion to demand belief if its god didn’t exist.
This belief request serves as a simple decoder to identify false religions and misleading memes attempting to hijack your mind.
The following was taken from:
A false religion without a real god would out of pure necessity demand belief in their deity. It would highly discourage doubt, identifying it as negative, and prioritize belief over evidence. Such a religion might even claim that their god values faith without evidence above all else and that you can’t please their God without it.
If the God of theism truly existed, the knowledge of this God would be as universal, consistent and indisputable as our awareness of the sun and moon. No one would go around and attempt to encourage you believe there is a sun, and everyone pretty much agrees on the qualities of sun beyond culture and time.
There’s no valid reason why credulity should be required to believe in the god of theism, but it makes complete sense for a religion to demand belief if its god didn’t exist.
This belief request serves as a simple decoder to identify false religions and misleading memes attempting to hijack your mind.
A real god would not allow such uncertainty about the existence of the ‘true’ religion. It would understand the quandary that people would encounter when trying to ascertain what to believe. And it would not require faith as the primary path guiding people to the proper theology. A competent god would provide sufficient evidence to allow for an informed decision. Christianity does not provide sufficient evidence of its truth. Nor does any other religion.
(5313) Witness accounts of the resurrection are abysmal
It would seem that if God wanted us to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, he would have provided some first-class witness accounts for us to examine. Instead, all we get are a bunch of inconsistent hearsay writings a couple of generations later and conflicting accounts from the only person who is identified as an eyewitness (Paul, who allegedly saw Jesus only after the resurrection and ascension into heaven and only as an apparition) This is not the work of an omnipotent god. The following was taken from:
All the time Christians are talking about how strong the testimonial evidence for the resurrection is. I have to wonder if these Christians have actually ever read the Gospels.
The Gospels includes ONE, just one, singular, unitary first hand named witness. His name is Paul.
Any other account of witness is anonymous, more often than not claimed to be true by an anonymous author. Any other account of witness to the resurrection is hear-say at best. Only one person, in all of history, was willing to write down their testimony and put their name on it. One.
So let’s consider this one account.
Firstly, Paul never knew Jesus. He didn’t know what he looked like. He didn’t know what he sounded like. He didn’t know how he talked. Anything Paul knew about Jesus was second-hand. He knew nothing about Jesus personally. This should make any open minded individual question Paul’s ability to recognize Jesus at all.
But it gets worse. We never actually get a first hand telling of Paul’s road to Damascus experience from Paul. We only get a second hand account from Acts, which was written decades later by an anonymous author. Paul’s own letters only describe some revelatory experience, but not a dramatic experience involving light and voice.
Acts contradicts the story, giving three different tellings of what is supposed to be the same event. In one Paul’s companions hear a voice but see no one. In another they see light but do not hear a voice, and in a third only Paul is said to fall to the ground.
Even when Paul himself is defending his new apostleship he never mentions Damascus, a light, or falling from his horse. If this even happened, why does Paul never write about it? Making things even further questionable, Paul wouldn’t have reasonably had jurisdiction to pursue Jews outside of Judea.
So what we have is one first hand testimony which ultimately boils down to Paul claiming to have seen Christ himself, but never giving us the first hand telling of that supposed experience. The Damascus experience is never corroborated. All other testimonies to the resurrected Christ are second hand, lack corroboration, and don’t even include names.
If this was the same kind of evidence for Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion, Christians would reject it. And they should. But they should also reject this as a case for Christ. It is as much a case for Christ as any other religious text’s claims about their own prophets and divine beings.
The resurrection story is an embarrassment for Christianity- providing so little substance as to wonder if it is something of a joke. How on earth Roman or Jewish historians at that time and place could have failed to ‘real time’ document an event of such spectacular significance is hard to explain. If God wanted to make the resurrection difficult to believe in, he did a damn good job.
(5314) Hell is God’s problem
Christians attempt to present hell as the just consequence of a personal failure- failing to worship their concept of God. But seen from a more objective viewpoint, hell actually is a problem for God and his disastrous and poorly designed system for judging humans. The following was taken from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1_vRRoaBkM
When people talk about hell, the first thing you notice is how the responsibility is always pushed onto the individual. You didn’t believe enough. You didn’t obey enough. You didn’t repent enough. And so supposedly the punishment is eternal. But if you stop for a moment and think carefully, the whole concept has nothing to do with personal shortcomings. It exposes a much bigger problem in the idea of God itself.
If God is supposed to be all-knowing, then he knew exactly how human beings would behave long before creating them. He knew who would struggle, who would doubt, who would reject, and who would end up in hell. If that’s the case, then hell isn’t a result of human choice. It’s a direct outcome of divine planning, which means the responsibility doesn’t rest on you or me. It rests entirely on the one who designed the system in the first place.
Think about it. When engineers build a bridge that collapses, we don’t blame the cars that drove across it. We hold the builders accountable. If a parent locks a child in a room full of traps and the child gets hurt, we don’t say, “Well, the child chose poorly, we recognize the cruelty of the parent. Yet somehow when it comes to God, people are quick to excuse him while blaming humanity for simply being human.”
What’s even more striking is the scale of the punishment. The idea that finite mistakes made within a short human life deserve infinite suffering across endless time. That’s not justice. That’s sadism dressed up as holiness. And if the architect of the universe endorses it, then the problem is not with the human heart. The problem is with the architect.
Religious teachings often portray hell as necessary for moral order. Without it, they say, people would do whatever they want. But if the only thing keeping someone from committing atrocities is the fear of eternal fire that raises an uncomfortable question. What does that say about the moral system itself?
Should goodness really depend on the threat of torture? In everyday life, we respect people who act ethically out of empathy, fairness, or reason, not because they’re terrified of a punishment they can’t even see. Now, let’s be honest. Most of the people who claim to believe in hell don’t actually live as if it’s real. If they truly believed every non-believer, every family member who doesn’t follow the right faith was destined for endless torment. Their entire lives would revolve around saving them. They would never rest, never sleep, never stop trying. But they don’t live like that because on some level they sense how absurd, how unjust, how impossible the whole idea really is.
And this opens up another layer of the problem. If hell exists, it makes God look indifferent to suffering at best and deliberately cruel at worst. If hell doesn’t exist, then God has been allowing billions of people to live under. Fear and manipulation for centuries. Either way, the fault doesn’t rest on ordinary people who simply think critically, ask questions, or refuse to accept contradictory claims. The fault lies with the supposed creator who set up such a system in the first place.
Think about the logic that’s usually offered in defense of hell. People say, “God gave us free will, and so if we end up in eternal fire, that’s simply the result of our own choices. But free will doesn’t erase responsibility from the one who set up the rules.” If a game designer creates a video game where every wrong move sends you into permanent torture chambers, we wouldn’t call that freedom. We’d call it a badly designed game, or worse, a deliberately cruel one. And let’s not forget, most people don’t even freely choose their beliefs.
A child born in Saudi Arabia is far more likely to grow up Muslim. A child born in India is more likely to be Hindu. A child born in a Catholic household will probably grow up Catholic. Belief is shaped by culture, family, geography, and education. It’s not the result of a completely neutral independent decision. So when religion says your eternal fate depends on what you believe, it’s essentially saying geography decides whether you suffer forever or not. That’s not free will. That’s cosmic lottery.
And if God designed that system, then it’s not the human being who’s at fault. It’s God who has the problem. Because what kind of intelligence sets up the universe in such a way that birth location becomes the biggest factor in salvation?
There’s also the psychological toll of hell. Studies in psychology and sociology show that belief in eternal punishment has lasting effects on mental health. Children raised with vivid images of hell often carry anxiety, guilt, and trauma into adulthood. Some even develop lifelong fears of death or eternal suffering long after they’ve stopped believing.
When a system damages the minds of children, the blame doesn’t lie with the child. It lies with the system and with the one who supposedly created it. And think about this. If a human dictator ruled through threats of torture chambers, we’d call it tyranny.
If a partner in a relationship said, “Love me or I’ll hurt you forever,” we’d call it abuse. But when religion says, “Love God or burn in hell,” people call it divine justice. The standard completely flips depending on who holds the power. That should tell us something important. It’s not morality driving the idea of hell. It’s control. And this control shows itself throughout history.
Hell has been one of the most effective tools for keeping people obedient. Medieval churches used it to extract money, loyalty, and silence. Preachers thundered about fire and brimstone to scare entire populations into compliance. Even today, pastors and televangelists invoke hell to keep their congregations giving money, staying submissive, and avoiding critical thought.
This isn’t about truth or justice. It’s about fear as a form of power. When we see it this way, hell doesn’t look like a human problem at all. It looks like a divine design problem. Or more accurately, a human invention used to cover for divine silence. Because if an all powerful, all loving being truly existed, hell wouldn’t even be necessary.
An intelligent, compassionate God could inspire goodness through understanding, growth, and empathy, not through eternal threats. The fact that hell is even part of the story reveals not human failure, but the failure of the system that invented it. When we trace the idea of hell back through history, it doesn’t even appear as a consistent teaching.
In early Jewish thought, the afterlife was vague and shadowy. A place called Sholol, where everyone went, good or bad. It wasn’t torture. It wasn’t fire. It was just the silence of death. The idea of eternal flames actually came later, influenced by surrounding cultures. Ancient Persians had concepts of final judgment. The Greeks spoke of Hades and Tartarus. These myths blended into religious thought and evolved over time. By the time Christianity took shape, hell had become a patchwork of these influences. And yet, even within the Bible, there’s no single clear picture.
Sometimes hell is a lake of fire. Sometimes it’s outer darkness. Sometimes it’s a garbage dump outside Jerusalem called Gehenna. These aren’t consistent descriptions. They’re metaphors layered on top of one another. And yet, people today talk about hell as if it’s a single fixed location designed by God himself.
If the creator of the universe wanted people to understand something so serious, wouldn’t he make it absolutely clear? Instead, we get a contradictory mess of images which strongly suggests that hell wasn’t revealed by a divine mind, but cobbled together by human imagination.
And if that’s the case, then again, it’s not our problem. It’s God’s problem. Or more precisely, a problem with the people who spoke in his name.
We’ve said this many times and in many different ways- the invention of hell by First Century Christian authors, although serving as a great recruitment tool, was a fatal mistake that will ultimately take down this faith and leave it in the dustpan of history. Hell has no place in anything that involves decent human or divine values.
(5315) The Bible stifles curiosity
The very human desire to ask questions and to seek explanations for why things are the way they are is seen as a (sometimes fatal) fault in the Bible. Instead, God commands people to believe without hesitation and in the absence of evidence- in other words, to just accept what they are being told and to then go about their daily business. The following was taken from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiEWj_HHLVs
When you open the Bible, you find a pattern that repeats over and over again. People ask questions, people doubt, people want clarity, and instead of answers, they often get punishment, right? We sometimes get brutal punishment. It’s strange when you think about it. If a system is built on truth, then questions should only strengthen it.
A God who is all knowing should welcome challenges because every challenge would just prove him right. But what you see instead is a long list of moments where curiosity wasn’t rewarded. It was crushed.
One of the clearest examples is in the book of Job. Job is a man who suffers tremendously not because of something he did wrong but because God allowed Satan to test him and his wealth, his family, his health all stripped away. Job asked questions. He wants to know why, what purpose this pain serves. He doesn’t curse God. He doesn’t reject him. He just wants an explanation. But instead of compassion or answers, God responds with a kind of verbal intimidation. He doesn’t explain the suffering, he just overwhelms Job with speeches about his own power.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? In other words, who are you to question me? And Job, broken and humiliated, apologizes for daring to ask. That’s not an answer. It’s a way of shutting down inquiry.
Then there’s the story of Moses, a man chosen to lead an entire people out of slavery. He spends years doing exactly what God asks. But one moment of doubt, one time where he questions how God will provide water for the Israelites, ends with God telling him he will never enter the promised land. Think about that. Decades of loyalty and service undone by a single question. If that’s how a supposed loving deity treats his most devoted servant, what chance would an ordinary person have?
In number 16, the story of Kora and his followers shows something even harsher. These were people who questioned Moses’ leadership. They asked why Moses and Aaron held special authority. Why couldn’t others also serve? On the surface, it’s a perfectly fair question. If God is just, why concentrate power in one family? But the response wasn’t debate. It wasn’t a clear explanation. Instead, the earth literally opens up and swallows them alive. Their entire households gone. All for asking why one group held privilege over everyone else. That’s not guidance. That’s terror.
And of course, there’s the story of Lot’s wife. She’s told not to look back at her home as it’s destroyed, but curiosity overcomes her. She turns to see, and instantly she’s turned into a pillar of salt. What was her crime? A glance, a natural human impulse to know what was happening behind her, punished with death for a simple, very human question of sight.
What’s striking in these stories is how the punishment is always meant to silence. Whether it’s Job being overwhelmed, Kora being buried alive, or Lot’s wife being turned to salt, the underlying message is the same. Don’t ask. Don’t wonder. Don’t question. Just obey.
This mindset doesn’t just stay in ancient texts. It carries into how religion functions today. In many communities, children are discouraged from asking too many questions about their faith. A kid who asks why Noah’s ark doesn’t match basic biology or why God lets people suffer um is often told that doubt is sinful, that asking shows weakness. That pattern isn’t new, that it’s baked into the stories themselves.
Psychologists have long noted that discouraging questions is a way of controlling people. When you remove the ability to challenge authority, you make obedience the only option. Fear replaces curiosity. And over time, people start to police themselves. They stop asking questions, even inside their own minds. That’s powerful control. But it’s the opposite of truth seeking.
The irony is that every advancement we’ve ever made as humans comes from asking questions. Why do the stars move? Why do diseases spread? Why does lightning strike? These questions once were answered with because God wills it. But curiosity kept pushing. And eventually science gave us real answers. Answers that actually work. Answers that can be tested, repeated, proven.
If questions had been suppressed, humanity would still be stuck blaming every thunderstorm on divine anger. So when you read these stories of punishment, they reveal something deeper. Not just about the character of the god being described, but about the system that grew up around him. A system that depends on silence and questions to keep itself standing.
Because if people felt free to question openly, the cracks would show and the whole structure might collapse. When you think about how unusual that is, it stands out. In nearly every area of life, the healthiest systems are the ones that welcome questions. Good teachers encourage their students to ask. Good scientists rely on constant questioning to test and refine their work.
Even good governments, at least in theory, are meant to allow citizens to question leaders without fear. It’s how progress happens. But in these religious stories, questions aren’t just discouraged. They’re treated as rebellion. And rebellion is met with punishment.
Take the story of Zachcharias in the Gospel of Luke. He’s told by an angel that his elderly wife will give birth to John the Baptist. His response is a very human one. He asks how that’s possible given their age. A reasonable question, but the reaction isn’t reassurance or explanation. The angel strikes him mute until the child is born. Think about that. A man loses his ability to speak because he dared to ask how. That’s not guidance. And that’s an attempt to crush doubt through fear.
Or look at Thomas, one of the disciples. After Jesus is said to have risen, Thomas doesn’t immediately believe the claim. He he he wants to see and touch the wounds for himself. Again, that’s a perfectly natural reaction. Isn’t mocking. He isn’t hostile. He just wants evidence. And what happens? He gets scolded. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
That line has been repeated for centuries as a way to glorify blind faith over inquiry. It’s a warning. Don’t be like Thomas. Don’t ask to see, just accept. There’s also the scene in Acts where Ananias and Sapphira sell land and donate money to the apostles, but they hold back part of it. When questioned, they fall dead instantly. The story is often framed as punishment for dishonesty, but underneath it’s about control. They question the authority of the group by not surrendering everything, and the response is lethal. Another reminder that there is no space for hesitation or questioning motives. What ties all these stories together is a consistent hostility toward human curiosity.
And it raises an important question in itself. If an all powerful being existed, why would he be so fragile? Why would he fear questions from his own creations? A real God, one who truly had infinite wisdom, would have nothing to fear from questions. He could answer them clearly, patiently, even compassionately. He could show without anger why things are the way they are. Instead, what we see is insecurity, fragile authority that collapses the moment it’s challenged.
Sociologists have pointed out that this pattern mirrors how authoritarian systems work. Dictators, for example, rarely welcome questions. They frame them as threats, as disloyalty, not because the questions are harmful, but because answering them honestly would expose weakness.
Religion often operates the same way. The stories condition people to see questioning as dangerous, even deadly, and the effects ripple out into real lives. Think about children in strict religious households. A child who asks, “If God loves everyone, why does he send people to hell?” is often met with scolding, sometimes even punished. That child learns quickly not to raise doubts. Over time, they internalize the idea that questions themselves are wrong. That’s not healthy curiosity being shaped. It’s curiosity being suffocated. And adults who grew up in that environment often describe how long it took to break free from the fear of even thinking the wrong thoughts.
There’s also a psychological dimension here. Studies show that when people are told not to question, it creates cognitive dissonance. The human brain naturally seeks patterns, clarity, answers. When those are blocked, people feel anxiety and guilt. But instead of resolving the tension with better information, religion often doubles down on suppressing the urge. The guilt becomes a mechanism of control. You’re not just punished by stories of divine wrath. You punish yourself internally for even wondering. What’s remarkable is how effective this is.
For centuries, entire populations accepted explanations that made little sense because they were taught that questioning was sinful. Disease was punishment from God, not germs. Natural disasters were judgment, not tectonic plates or weather systems. Wars were the will of heaven, not the result of politics and greed. Every question that could have led to understanding was cut off at the root. The irony is that the very act of asking questions is what makes us human.
Our species has thrived not because we blindly obeyed, but because we challenged assumptions, which we tested ideas, we asked what if and why not. Suppressing that isn’t just anti-truth, it’s antihuman. And when you really sit with these biblical stories, the moral that emerges is unsettling. It isn’t seek the truth, it’s don’t ask or you’ll regret it. That’s the opposite of enlightenment. It’s the opposite of growth. And it reveals that the God presented in these texts isn’t a loving teacher, but a ruler who demands submission above all else.
Stifling curiosity and questioning has been a constant theme for the entire twenty-century history of the Christian religion. This is a marker of a false faith. A true faith would encourage curiosity and would be ready, willing, and able to satisfy any question whatsoever.
(5316) Jesus’ teachings were trash
Christians would like you to believe that the values taught by Jesus, as documented in the gospels, represent the very pinnacle of godly brilliance. But it takes only a modest amount of inspection to reveal that a lot of what he taught is downright trash. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1nltnxh/jesuss_teachings_were_complete_trash/
There is a common assumption, even outside religious circles, that Jesus of Nazareth was a great moral teacher. Many people believe that regardless of whether you accept him as divine, his teachings represent a high point in ethical wisdom. But when you take a close and critical look at what Jesus actually taught, you begin to see that this reputation is not entirely deserved. In fact, some of his teachings are morally troubling and even harmful when taken seriously.
One of the most problematic is his stance on divorce and remarriage. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. In Mark and Luke, the teaching is even stricter, with no exceptions given at all. This is not poetic language or metaphor. It is a direct moral command.
This teaching ignores the real complexities of relationships. It offers no compassion for people trapped in abusive marriages or those who suffer emotional neglect or severe incompatibility. It suggests that divorce is only justified by sexual infidelity, and even then, remarriage is considered adultery. That effectively punishes people for trying to rebuild their lives and find happiness after a failed or harmful relationship. Worse, it has encouraged religious communities to shame divorcees and pressure people to stay in toxic or abusive marriages for the sake of “obedience.”
Another teaching often celebrated but deeply flawed is the instruction not to resist an evil person. In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. This idea has been praised as the height of moral virtue, but it becomes dangerous when interpreted literally. It suggests that enduring abuse or injustice without resistance is a moral good.
While nonviolence can be powerful in certain political or social contexts, telling individuals to accept violence or wrongdoing passively is not moral. It denies people the right to self-defense and erases the responsibility to confront injustice. The principle may sound noble, but in practice, it has been used to silence victims and uphold power structures that thrive on submission.
Perhaps the most disturbing teaching is the concept of eternal punishment. In multiple passages, Jesus speaks of a place where the wicked are cast into unquenchable fire, a place of outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. In Matthew 25:46, he says that some will go away to eternal punishment while the righteous will go to eternal life. This is not symbolic language about regret or spiritual separation. It is the clear message that moral or theological failure in this life can lead to infinite suffering.
That idea is fundamentally unjust. No finite action, belief, or sin deserves infinite punishment. The notion of eternal torment undermines any idea of a loving or just moral order. It promotes fear rather than ethical reflection and has caused immeasurable psychological harm, especially to children raised with vivid images of hell.
There is also Luke 14:26, where Jesus says that anyone who wants to follow him must hate their father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even their own life. Apologists often argue that this is exaggerated language meant to emphasize commitment. But even if it is metaphorical, the message is clear. Total loyalty to Jesus must come before love for one’s family. This kind of demand mirrors the control tactics of cults, not the teachings of a healthy moral philosophy.
Even Jesus’s most famous moral rule, the golden rule, is not as ethically advanced as people often assume. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” assumes that others want to be treated the same way you do. But moral maturity involves recognizing that people have different needs, boundaries, and experiences. A more thoughtful version would be “Treat others as they want to be treated.” That reflects empathy and awareness, not just projection of one’s own preferences.
These ethical blunders of Jesus would have been avoided if he was omnipotent. He would have seen the problems that would develop when his teachings would eventually be scrutinized in the more ethically-centered future of humankind. Instead, what he is documented to have said barely passes muster in the benighted times of twenty centuries ago.
(5317) Charlie Kirk and Jesus
It is not too big of a stretch to compare the murder of Charlie Kirk (conservative American influencer, (1993 – 2025) to the crucifixion of Jesus. Both involved the unexpected death of a famous person who had a devoted following. And in both cases, the person became larger and more important in death than he was in life. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1npiif6/this_charlie_kirk_worship_has_made_me_realize_how/
This Charlie Kirk worship has made me realize how quickly someone’s memory can be altered by a sudden (perceived anyway) tragedy and how we may never know what the real Jesus was like.
Charlie Kirk was first and foremost a political podcaster who made his fame getting into arguments with college students.
But now that he’s been killed, people are acting like he was first and foremost a Christian preacher, and possibly the holiest man who ever lived today. The only person today who had a wife and child. A missionary on par with the martyrs of the Bible. He was killed “just for having a different opinion.”
People who probably never knew him are being “inspired” by this version of him they’ve been told about. I’ve seen people say “we need to follow Charlie’s example and be like him.”
Now this all happened in a span of just TEN DAYS. He has become THE symbol of Christianity.
Now, consider the earliest letters of Paul were written about 20-30 years after Jesus’ death and the earliest gospel in about 30-40 years after his death, and the latest possibly even 50 (Edit. And not written by the supposed appostles either). How much did people’s memory of this man changed after all the events that happened?
For all we know, he was just a minor crazy teacher who hanged out in questionable parties, then after getting executed, right then and there people started painting him as this pure guy and immediately quote farmed the scriptures to make him greater than he was. Maybe he was useful to someone powerful and that someone started plastering this version of Jesus to everyone.
Maybe he was a Jim Jones, a revolutionary with good ideas, but a massive ego and narcissism. But his followers went like “Nuh uh! You just killed him because he told the truth!”
Maybe this is my way of coping and detach myself from the creepy fascism, but it’s definitely worth for people to cross reference our crazy times to the crazy times of the Bible. Fascinating stuff.
Jesus and Kirk worship share many similarities and the spark seems to be a death that was not anticipated. Similarly, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King belong in this same category. What we should glean from modern history is that the unexpected death of Jesus in much more primitive times likely led similarly to the aggrandizement of his life and feats to an extent well beyond reality.
(5318) Bible overlooks male sexual victims
One of the ways to see that the Bible was written by men and not by God is the way it portrays sexual victimhood. A god would realize that both sexes are affected by sexual assault and oppression. But, in the Bible, only women are assumed to suffer this injustice. The following was taken from:
Resolution: Because the Bible omits the category of men and boys as victims of sexual assault, this demonstrates that the being behind it is not omniscient, and therefore not truly a god nor worthy of worship. Five supporting points follow.
-
-
- Omniscience requires full knowledge of human reality
-
A god who is truly omniscient would know that both men and women, boys and girls, can be victims of sexual assault.
Historical evidence, including from ancient societies, shows that male victims have always existed (e.g., slavery, war captivity, temple practices).
The complete absence of recognition of male victims in the Bible suggests either ignorance or intentional silence, both inconsistent with omniscience and divine justice.
2. Moral perfection requires equal recognition of suffering
A morally perfect god would recognize and condemn all harm, regardless of the victim’s gender.
By omitting men and boys, the Bible’s moral framework reinforces gender hierarchy rather than universal justice.
If the Bible reflects divine morality, its silence demonstrates a partial and flawed morality — not the morality of a perfect being.
3. The omission contradicts claims of universality
The Bible is presented as universal guidance for all humanity.
Yet its moral laws on sexual assault consistently assume only women as victims (e.g., Deuteronomy 22, Leviticus 18–20).
This narrow framing undermines its claim to universality: it cannot be “the word of God” if it fails to apply to half of humanity’s experiences.
4. The text reflects human limitation, not divine authorship
The omission is easily explained if the Bible is a product of ancient patriarchal societies that prioritized female “sexual purity” as property value, not human dignity.
Human limitation explains the silence; divine perfection does not.
Therefore, the Bible’s selective moral concern is better evidence of human authorship than of an omniscient being.
5. Worship is contingent on moral worthiness
If the being behind the Bible fails the tests of omniscience, universality, and moral perfection, then it cannot be what it claims: the one true God.
A being that omits whole categories of human suffering is not worthy of reverence or worship.
Thus, the resolution holds: the omission itself is evidence against the divinity of the Bible’s god.
This oversight is especially salient because of the massive amount of sexual abuse that altar boys suffered in the Catholic Church as well in many Protestant churches. Evidently it was convenient for the clergy to not be burdened with scriptural injunctions against what they were doing.
(5319) The impotence of Christian apologists
Those people whose business it is to prop up the believability of Christianity are facing severe headwinds, operating with such limited evidence that it is actually quite pathetic. The following was taken from:
Those attempting to bring evidence for God fail before they start.
Take, for example, people who try to provide evidence for God. I’m talking about those who write books like “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” or “The Case for Christ” or run websites like “Reasonable Faith.” I’m sure similar resources exist for other religions.
They seem to overlook that their God is supposedly all-powerful and limitless. If this God wanted to, He could perform countless miracles, reoccurring or divine acts to authenticate God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt on a scale that is truly divine and universal. For example, three hours of darkness that no one notices is the stuff of legends, 3 hours of darkness that happen every year at the same time without any scientific explanation would be divine.
But their god remains silent, leaving apologists to fill the gap. They compile weak and contrived arguments to make up for where their god is silent. Christians in particular attempt to treat their god as though he was just a mere historical figure. They themselves demote their alleged god. They attempt to compare the “evidence” to that of Caesar and or some other human in history.
The logical conclusion is that they are essentially going against their god’s wishes. They attempt to provide evidence when their god has chosen not to – for whatever reason. Instead, they present incredibly weak arguments like “Oh, women were used as the first witnesses, and they would never do that,” or “Some apostles wouldn’t die for a lie” (despite the lack of substantial historical evidence for this and overlooking all the people who have martyred themselves for far less).
If Christianity was true, there would be no need for apologists- its truth would speak for itself. Alternatively, if the Christian god does exist, then why would he want apologists to ‘demonstrate’ his existence when he himself has chosen not to do so himself?
(5320) God and starvation
If God is as Christians claim, omniscient and omnipotent, and lots of people starve to death, then it seems obvious that God wanted them to starve to death, or at least he saw no moral imperative to prevent it. The following was taken from:
Anyone who has ever starved to death is someone who God wanted to starve to death.
As seen in scripture, God is perfectly capable of solving any and all food crises and inequalities. He can multiply fish and bread, bless crops, and make “mana” rain from the heavens. Whenever someone is going to starve to death, God could make sure they have enough food. Since a non-zero number of people have starved to death, God clearly preferred that they starve to death over the alternative, which is that they did not starve to death.
We can take it a step further and also hold God morally culpable for these deaths by starvation if we’re also willing to hold governments responsible in similar instances. For example, Mao and Stalin weren’t necessarily actively killing all the people who died in the famines that occurred in their countries while they were in power, but most people who aren’t ardent tankies are OK with holding them morally (or intellectually) culpable for their failure in food policy that led to these deaths. But, at the end of the day, world leaders and governments are still fallible, non-omnipotent people.
An omnipotent being has no logistical, technological, or material concerns or limitations when it comes to saving someone from starvation. They can simply teleport the nutrients into someone’s bloodstream if they so choose. Even if we don’t want to go that far, God is in possession of a food delivery system that completely ignores supply chain problems or failing economic models: Mana rain. Hopefully, there’s a gluten-free option.
Now, if someone claims that, sure, God could solve the problem, but he wants us to do it instead: Please realize you are in fact agreeing with my post.
If you claim it’s not God’s responsibility to solve the problem, (which would be odd, since he seems to make a point of solving it sometimes. Maybe he’s just not a very reliable worker) then again, I’d point out that you’re agreeing with my post. God prefers not to shoulder the responsibility of saving people from starvation. He could always just choose to do it, but prefers not to.
If you really want to take it back a step, and you should, because it’s God and he can do anything: God could have just created us without the need for food at all. It’s not like angels need to eat food. If we wanted to eat so that we could go to Flavor Town or something, we could, but God could have simply made us without the requirement.
It’s almost like mankind’s struggle with sustenance is exactly what you’d expect in a universe where a God didn’t exist.
Starvation of humans or other animals is consistent only with the existence of a god who is either not all-powerful or else who is indifferent to suffering. The existence of a benevolent, loving, caring and all-powerful deity is out of the question.
(5321) The problem of the hidden god
The following is an argument for the unlikelihood that the all-powerful, omnipresent god claimed by Christianity would remain so furtive such that his very existence is in serious doubt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El115EYtpTQ
If there is a God who supposedly created us, who loves us, and who wants us to know him, then why is he hidden? Why does he remain invisible, silent, and absent from our daily lives? Why does he not just make his existence obvious to everyone in a clear and undeniable way?
Let’s begin with a very ordinary example. Imagine a father who says he loves his children more than anything in the world. He tells them that he wants them to grow up to know him, to trust him, to follow his guidance. But then this father hides in the attic and never shows his face. He never comes down to eat with his kids, never speaks to them directly, and only slips mysterious notes under the door every now and then. If the kids ask questions, other people come and tell them what the father wants, but the father himself never shows up. Would that make any sense? Could anyone say that such a father truly loves his children? Yet, this is exactly the picture we are given of God.
Throughout history, religions have made the claim that God loves humanity and desires a relationship with each of us. At the same time, they admit that this God does not openly reveal himself.
Believers say, “You must have faith. You must trust without evidence. You must seek him even when he is silent. But step back for a moment and ask yourself, is this not absurd? If God really wants us to believe in him, why would he make his existence so doubtful and uncertain? Why would he give us minds that demand evidence and then hide all convincing evidence from us?
The philosopher JL Shelonberg presented this as a formal argument, often called the argument from divine hiddenness. He points out that if there is a loving God who wants a relationship with people, then we would expect that anyone who is sincerely open to believing in God would be given clear awareness of him.
But that is not what we see. Millions of people have searched for God with sincere hearts and never found him. They end up doubting or disbelieving simply because God never reveals himself. If such people exist, then either God is not loving or he does not exist.
Now, some might say, “But God has revealed himself.” He revealed himself through scriptures, prophets, miracles in the past. But look closer. The o-called revelations are ancient books written thousands of years ago in times when literacy was rare and science was unknown. If God really wanted to make himself known, why limit the evidence to disputed writings in old languages? Why not make himself known equally to all people in all times?
We have billions of people today who are not convinced by these old texts. Some grew up in cultures with different religions. Others studied the holy books carefully and found contradictions, errors, or morally troubling teachings. The fact that disagreement is so widespread shows that the so-called revelations are not clear evidence. They are only convincing if you already believe.
Think of how different things would be if God actually wanted to make his existence obvious. For example, imagine if every newborn baby came with a clear mark on its body saying made by God. Imagine if prayers were answered consistently in measurable ways, not just in coincidences.
Imagine if moral teachings from God were universally clear instead of differing between hundreds of religions. In such a world, belief in God would be natural and universal. There would be no doubt, just as there is no doubt that the sun exists. But instead, we see the opposite. We see confusion, disagreement, silence, and absence.
Another way to look at this is through comparison. When humans want to be known, they make themselves known. If a government wants citizens to follow laws, they publish them clearly, display them in public, and inform people directly. If a company makes a product, they put their brand name on it.
Yet, God, who supposedly made the entire universe, leaves no signature. Stars and galaxies show no divine stamp. Human DNA shows no inscription from a creator. Nature looks exactly as if it came about without a guiding hand.
Let us take a real life example. Think about children born into remote tribes who never encounter missionaries or scriptures. They live and die without ever hearing of the Christian God or the Islamic God or any other major religious deity. Are we to believe that God loves them yet intentionally leaves them in the dark?
If belief in God is necessary for salvation or a relationship with him, then hiding from such people is cruel. It would be like a teacher giving an exam but refusing to give the students the textbook or the lectures.
Even for those who are exposed to religion, the situation is no better. Consider a young person in a devout Christian family who prays sincerely every night asking God to show himself. They get silence. struggle with doubt. They cry. They beg. But still nothing. Eventually they conclude that God either does not exist or does not care.
How could a loving God allow such sincere seekers to remain in doubt? If human parents behave that way, we would call it neglect. Some believers argue that God hides himself because he wants us to have free will. They say that if God made himself too obvious, people would be forced to believe.
But this reasoning collapses when we examine it carefully. First, knowledge does not destroy free will. I know my parents exist, yet I still have the freedom to love them or to rebel against them. I know the government exists, but I can still choose whether to obey the law. In fact, having knowledge allows for more meaningful choices. If God truly values our love and obedience, he should want those choices to be informed, not based on confusion or blind faith.
Others say that God hides himself to test our faith. But why would an all-knowing being need to test anyone? A teacher gives a test because they do not know what the student has learned. But if God is omniscient, he already knows our hearts and minds. The idea of testing us through hiddenness makes no sense. It would be like a doctor pretending not to know a patient’s condition even though he has already seen the X-rays.
Another excuse we often hear is that God reveals himself in subtle ways through nature, beauty, or personal experiences. People say, “When I see a sunset, I feel God.” But this is just subjective interpretation. A sunset can be explained by the rotation of the earth and scattering of light. The same sunset makes an atheist think about physics and an artist think about colors. It is not evidence of God, only evidence that humans can project their feelings onto natural events.
If God truly wanted to be known, he could appear directly to every person in a way that leaves no doubt. The fact that he does not, while still demanding belief, is absurd. It is like a teacher who refuses to show up for class but then punishes students for not learning.
What makes this even more striking is how differently God is said to have acted in the past. Religious texts describe God speaking directly to prophets, showing miracles, sending angels, parting seas, and writing on stone tablets. But all of that supposedly happened thousands of years ago when there were no cameras or smartphones.
Today, in the age when evidence could be recorded and shared worldwide, God has gone completely silent. Isn’t it strange that God was loud in the days of myth and superstition but mute in the age of science and reason?
If anyone imagines that they are an omnipotent god and that they intend to interact with and judge a species of intelligent beings on some planet, it is pretty certain that they would do things differently than Yahweh. Their imagined god would be much more upfront about his existence and much more clear about his expectations.
(5322) Using rape and child death as punishment
Anyone who worships Yahweh, the Christian god, must own up to the fact that they are bestowing honor on a deity who punished people by having wives raped and their children killed. This, or else they need to remove the Book of 2 Samuel from their bibles. The following was taken from:
Using rape and child death as a punishment is evil
My thesis is in the title, lets start with a syllogism
P1. Rape is evil
P2. Killing a child is evil
P3. God causes a David’s child to die as punishment for David’s evil (2 Samuel 12:14-15)
P4. God causes David’s wives to be publicly raped as punishment for David’s evil (2 Samuel 12:11-13 & 2 Samuel 16:22)
C. God causes evil
For context for P3 and P4, in 2 Samuel chapter 11, David sees a woman he finds attractive and has her husband killed so that he can take her as one of his MANY wives. She becomes pregnant and has a son.
In 2 Samuel chapter 12, Nathan comes to Daniel and tells him he has done evil, and gives him this message from God:
This is what the Lord says: ‘Behold, I am going to raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed, you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and in open daylight.’” Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has allowed your sin to pass; you shall not die. However, since by this deed you have shown utter disrespect for the Lord, the child himself who is born to you shall certainly die.” – 2 Samuel 12:11-14
In this message God is telling David that God will cause his wives to be raped in public, in addition he will cause his child to die.
Verse 15 is where this curse begins to be carried out
Later the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
David begs God not to kill him, and after 7 days, the child dies. The book is clear that “the Lord” is the one causing this illness.
Over the next few chapters, there is drama between David and his sons, specifically centered around Absalom. David fears he will be overthrown, so flees the city, leaving behind 10 of his concubines to take care of his house. Absalom takes Jerusalem and David’s home, and proceeds to rape them in public, as was declared by God to be what he would cause.
So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom had relations with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. – 2 Samuel 16:22
Adding insult to injury, David then imprisons these women until their death. This would have been known to God as the result of them being raped, so we’ll add this to God’s crimes against these women as well.
So they were locked up until the day of their death, living as widows.
This portion of the Bible is NEVER read in any Christian church. It is a blatant embarrassment to anyone who retains any semblance of allegiance to the Judeo-Christian god. So they just present the feel-good verses and pretend that there is no problem. And the hypocrisy is thick enough to cut.
(5323) Argument from religious pluralism
There exists a theory that there would not be a large number of competing religions if one of them was true and the others false. This is because the one true religion would be expected to easily out-compete the others because it, and only it, would enjoy the advantage of a supernatural source of power. The following was a response to this prompt from Gemini 2.5 pro:
Create an argument that all religions are wrong because if there was a true one, it would be so much more successful that it would be the only one left standing.
https://gemini.google.com/app/0bc189f960698358?pli=1
The Argument from Religious Pluralism or the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations, suggests that the sheer number and diversity of competing religions cast doubt on the exclusive truth claims of any single one.
The Argument
-
- The Premise of a “True” Religion: If one religion were objectively and demonstrably true, its truth would confer a significant and undeniable advantage over all other belief systems. This advantage wouldn’t be subtle; it would be a powerful, self-evident force.
- The Expected Outcome: This “truth advantage” would manifest in tangible ways. For instance, the followers of the true religion might experience consistently answered prayers, unerringly accurate prophecies, or a uniquely profound and verifiable understanding of the universe. Its doctrines would be so logically sound and its explanatory power so great that it would be intellectually irresistible to any rational person who examined it.
- The “Marketplace” of Beliefs: In a world with competing beliefs, the one with such a clear advantage would inevitably triumph. Much like a superior technology eventually replaces all inferior alternatives, the “true” religion would naturally and inexorably attract followers from all other faiths. False religions, unable to produce similar results or provide such coherent answers, would gradually lose their adherents and fade into obscurity. The end result, over a long enough timeline, would be a world with one dominant, universally recognized religion.
- The Observed Reality: What we actually see in the world is the complete opposite of this expected outcome.
- Persistent Pluralism: Thousands of religions coexist, many with hundreds of millions or even billions of followers.
- Geographic and Cultural Correlation: A person’s religion is overwhelmingly predicted by their place of birth and culture, not by a global, rational evaluation of competing truth claims.
- Lack of Demonstrable Advantage: No single religion can provide objective, repeatable proof of its supernatural claims that would convince an impartial outsider. The “success” of any religion seems tied more to historical events, proselytization, cultural inertia, and birth rates than to any inherent, verifiable truth.
- Conclusion: Since the observable reality (the persistence of thousands of competing, geographically-bound religions) directly contradicts the expected outcome of a single true religion (the eventual global dominance of that one faith), it is logical to conclude that no religion possesses the kind of objective, demonstrable truth it claims. Instead, they are all likely human-created systems of belief, shaped by culture, history, and psychology. If one were true, the world would look very different.
If Christianity was true, that would mean that Islam, Judaism, Hindu, and others should be withering and nearing extinction by now. Because that is not happening, it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is false, and by extension, that all other religions are false as well.
(5324) Reasons to conclude Jesus never existed
Although it’s not essential for atheists to believe that Jesus was a fictional character, there exist some compelling arguments to suggest that he was. A fictional Jesus would be a game-ender for Christianity. The following is a very detailed examination of the evidence supporting this hypothesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKgquybydnA
There are billions of people who believe in Jesus, not just as a historical figure, but as someone divine, someone who walked the earth, performed miracles, and died for sins.
But what if he never existed? What if this central figure of one of the world’s largest religions was entirely invented, not just misunderstood or exaggerated, fully imagined? This might sound shocking at first, but when you remove the fear, strip away tradition, and just look at the evidence, or more accurately, the lack of it, a very different picture begins to form. Not a blurred photo, a blank canvas.
Start with the most basic question. Where’s the historical record? Not church writings, not religious texts, independent sources, neutral records. You won’t find them. There are no Roman records that confirm Jesus ever lived, though Rome kept detailed notes on events far less significant than someone claiming to be the son of a god.
A man causing political unrest in Judea would have left a footprint, not a vague rumor centuries later. A proper arrest, trial, execution. These things would be recorded. Crucifixion wasn’t rare. It was a public event. Yet, not one Roman document from that era mentions this man. None. That silence is telling.
People bring up Josephus, a Jewish historian. But if you look closely, the passage that mentions Jesus is widely considered a forgery. Even Christian scholars quietly admit that section was tampered with. Some parts are so obviously written in a Christian voice that it’s hard to believe it fooled anyone for this long. A Jew like Josephus would not have called Jesus the Christ. That’s not a historical note. That’s a profession of faith.
Then there’s Tacitus, another Roman historian, but his mention comes nearly a century after Jesus supposedly died. And even that short line could have been based on hearsay, not direct evidence. It’s like saying Elvis existed because someone wrote about him in 2060. Not compelling. Now, think about this.
Not a single text from the time Jesus supposedly lived talks about him. No letters, no scrolls, no graffiti, nothing. The gospels were written decades after his alleged death. And the earliest one, Mark, doesn’t even mention the virgin birth or the resurrection at the end. Those were added later.
Even Paul, who wrote before the gospels, never describes a living, breathing Jesus. He never quotes him. He never says he met him. He talks about visions, spiritual encounters, revelations, not conversations or meals, not cities they traveled to together, just dreams and voices.
If someone told you they met a person in a vision, would you believe that person existed in real life? When you remove the lens of faith and treat the Jesus story like any other historical claim, the foundation crumbles fast. The story follows a pattern almost too perfectly. Born of a virgin, wise as a child, performs miracles, dies young, comes back. That script was already in circulation long before Christianity. Horus, Mithris, Dionis, same core plot, different names.
It’s not just that the Jesus story fits a mythological mold. It’s that it fits too well. The traits assigned to him are not just suspiciously convenient. They’re recycled. Virgin births, star in the sky, followers, betrayal, death, resurrection. It’s like someone copied an old myth and changed the names. If it were fiction, it would be called derivative.
Now look at where Jesus supposedly performed miracles. Small towns, unrecorded places, in front of poor, uneducated followers, never in a stadium, never in front of Roman officials, never on record. And somehow these massive supernatural events left no physical trace, not even one contemporary eyewitness report.
Walk through Jerusalem today and you’ll find more evidence of Roman plumbing than of Jesus. Think about that. Pipes and drains survived. But the greatest man in history left no sandals, no robe, no written word, not even a tomb we can verify. Every so-called relic has been debunked. The shroud of Turin, the pieces of the cross, the crown of thorns. They’re all late editions marketed like souvenirs. That’s not history. That’s merchandise.
Religions often grow from the lives of real people, but sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they’re built from stories, visions, legends. That’s what we see here. A story that starts vague and grows with time. Gets cleaner, more magical, more useful. The Jesus of the earliest texts is minimal. The Jesus of later texts is divine. That’s not biography. That’s myth in motion.
What makes this even more clear is the timeline of belief. The early Christians didn’t all agree on who or what Jesus was. Some groups believed he was just a spirit. Others thought he never had a physical body at all. If he had truly lived, there wouldn’t be such confusion.
They’d point to memories, not argue over theories. You’re told there were 12 disciples. But these men, supposedly close friends of Jesus, left no personal writings, not one letter, not one diary entry. You’d think someone who walked with the son of God, would write a few lines about it, but they didn’t. We hear about them only from others decades later. That’s not direct evidence. That’s folklore.
Even the crucifixion scene reads more like a performance than a record. Darkness falling over the land, earthquakes, dead rising from graves. Yet, no one outside the Bible mentions this. No Roman official wrote about it. No Jewish historian. A mass resurrection and it went unnoticed. That defies logic.
Christianity didn’t spread because people saw miracles. It spread because of fear, control, and politics. Once Rome adopted it, it became law. Belief wasn’t chosen, it was enforced. Once you attach religion to power, questioning it becomes dangerous. That’s how myths survive. Through silence, not truth.
When you ask why there’s no evidence, the answer is simple. There was no event, no man, no life to record. The gaps aren’t accidental. They’re expected when the subject is fictional. This isn’t about disproving a few details. It’s about pointing out the total absence of a man who should have been everywhere.
You don’t have to prove he didn’t exist. The burden is on those who claim he did. And that burden has never been met. You can’t build history on belief. You need facts. You need records. You need names, dates, places, not gospels written by anonymous authors decades after the fact.
The Jesus story is full of moral messages. No doubt. But a story with morals isn’t the same as a story that’s true. You can admire a tale without confusing it with reality. What matters is understanding how myths are born, how they spread, and why they last.
If Jesus existed, we’d know it by more than tradition, more than stained glass and sermons. There would be evidence that stands up to scrutiny. But there isn’t. Not in history, not in archaeology, not in contemporary writings, not anywhere. And the more you study this silence, the louder it becomes.
There’s another problem that people overlook. The language of the texts. The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic, which Jesus and his followers supposedly spoke. These were not eyewitness accounts. They were written by educated Greek speakers living outside of Judea. People writing decades later in a different language about a land and culture they didn’t belong to. That’s not how history is recorded. That’s how legends are built.
We don’t know who wrote the Gospels. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later. The writers never identify themselves, and their accounts don’t even agree with one another. Different genealogies, different birth stories, different timelines, different final words on the cross. If the gospels can’t agree on the details of their own main character, how are they reliable? No one who lived during the time Jesus supposedly lived wrote anything about him.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who lived in the right place at the right time. He wrote volumes about Judaism, about messianic figures, about strange teachers and miracle workers, but not a word about Jesus. Not one mention. That’s not a small oversight. That’s a major hole.
Think about this, too. Bethlehem, the birth story, was created to fulfill a prophecy. But Nazareth, the town where Jesus supposedly grew up, didn’t even exist at the time. Archaeologists have found no evidence of a settlement there in the first century. You can’t grow up in a town that hasn’t been built yet. The more you dig, the less you find. A real person leaves real marks. Birth records, mentions in letters, official documents, stories from enemies, critics, tax records.
But in the case of Jesus, all we have is hearsay, anonymous gospels, and religious writings that were edited over time to fit a growing theology. That’s not a historical trail. That’s a marketing campaign. And it worked. The Jesus story was a perfect product for an empire looking to unify its people. It gave the poor hope, the powerful control, and the clergy endless authority.
Once belief was linked with salvation, questioning it became dangerous. Heresy was punished. Doubt was buried. Libraries were burned. That’s not how truth behaves. That’s how propaganda spreads. The early Christian church didn’t grow because everyone was convinced by evidence. It grew because it absorbed local customs, wiped out rivals, and became politically useful. Over time, the stories grew bigger, the miracles grander, the theology more rigid.
The Jesus of history disappeared, replaced by the Jesus of doctrine. Religious institutions have a long history of reshaping stories to serve their needs. The Council of Nika in 325 CE decided what Christians should believe about Jesus. That’s when doctrines like the Trinity became official. Not because of evidence, but because of votes. Belief won by majority, not merit. That’s not scholarship. That’s politics.
The oldest Christian writings don’t even place Jesus on earth. The earliest layer of belief treated Jesus as a heavenly figure revealed through scripture and visions. His story becomes more human over time, not less. A God who slowly becomes a man in the text rather than the other way around. That’s the opposite of what you’d expect if he had really lived.
And the resurrection, that’s the heart of the story. But there’s no consistent version of it. Some gospels say the tomb was guarded. Others say it wasn’t. Some say one woman went, others say two. Some say Jesus appeared to crowds. Others say only a few people saw him. These are not minor differences. They are fundamental contradictions.
If someone came back from the dead, the world would notice. But the only reports we have are from deeply religious sources decades after the event written in a time when visions and divine appearances were common storytelling tools. No court records, no Roman accounts, no independent verification, just belief passed down.
When people say Jesus changed the world, they’re right. But that’s not proof he existed. Big myths can shape history. They don’t need to be real to be powerful. The Trojan War inspired generations of culture. That doesn’t mean Achilles was a real person. Stories shape societies whether they’re true or not.
Even in modern times, people create imaginary figures with real consequences. Think of cult leaders inventing prophecies or founders writing holy books they claim were revealed. If those movements survived long enough, their origin stories become sacred history. Even if they started with a lie.
The argument that Jesus must have existed because Christianity spread quickly doesn’t hold up either. Islam grew just as fast. So did Mormonism. Speed of growth doesn’t mean truth. It means the story was appealing. It resonated. It gave people something to follow. That’s sociology, not archaeology.
Some people try to point to artwork or relics. But the earliest Christian art doesn’t even depict Jesus as a person. He’s shown as a symbol, a lamb, a shepherd, a fish. It took hundreds of years before a standardized image of Jesus even appeared. That’s a clue. It means the visual idea of Jesus was shaped long after the belief was.
And still to this day, no one can show you a contemporary image. not one drawing, statue, or carving from the time he supposedly lived. And this is a man who’s said to have attracted thousands. He supposedly overturned temple tables, healed the sick, raised the dead. Yet, nothing was recorded at the time. That absence matters.
In fact, many of the sayings attributed to Jesus weren’t unique. They were common among Jewish rabbis, Greek philosophers, and earlier religious movements. The golden rule, for example, predates Jesus by centuries. The sermon on the mount contains phrases already found in previous texts. The teachings weren’t revolutionary. They were recycled.
Religious defenders say absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. But when something should leave evidence and doesn’t, that absence becomes meaningful. If someone claimed there was a famous doctor who cured thousands in New York in 1995, but no one remembers him, no hospitals have records, and no patients can be found, would you believe the story?
Now, multiply that by 2,000 years. Add the layers of theological editing. Add centuries of war, suppression, and rewriting. The result is a legend that looks deep, but rests on air. A story that survives not because it’s true, but because it’s been told so many times that people stopped questioning it.
Jesus might be the most believed in person who never existed. And that’s not by accident. It’s the result of centuries of careful mythbuilding, suppression of critics and emotional conditioning. Once belief is tied to identity, logic becomes the enemy. And once doubt is labeled sin, asking questions becomes dangerous.
But questions matter. Evidence matters. If you ask for proof and all you’re given is scripture, that’s not a historical answer. That’s a circular argument. That’s faith trying to pass as fact. The truth is, there are more reasons to doubt the existence of Jesus than to accept it and not fringe reasons, not conspiracy theories, just simple historical logical observation.
No birth certificate, no writings, no eyewitness accounts, no Roman documentation, no physical evidence, no consistency in the stories, no agreement among early believers, no independent confirmation, no record outside the faith.
The silence isn’t small, it’s overwhelming. Think about how many ordinary people from ancient history we still know about. Merchants, soldiers, farmers, people who weren’t followed by crowds, who didn’t perform miracles, who didn’t spark global religions. And yet, their names survive. Their homes, coins, letters, even shopping lists have been uncovered. They were not divine. They were not worshiped, but they left a trace.
Jesus, on the other hand, left nothing. A figure this important should be easy to confirm. But the more you search, the more you realize the story doesn’t hold. Every angle leads to silence, contradiction, or fabrication. The trail starts cold and never heats up. That’s not what you expect from a real person. That’s what you expect from a myth slowly formed by people who needed a savior and were willing to create one.
Even the timing of the story raises questions. Jesus supposedly lived during a time of growing tension in Judea, a time of messianic expectations, a time when many men claimed divine authority. His story fits neatly into that era, but also competes with others who were far better documented.
There were other messiahs, and we know about them. We know where they lived, what they said, and how they died. But not Jesus. The Jesus of history is a ghost. The Jesus of belief is a construct, a theological puzzle pieced together from older myths, stitched into a political tool, and polished by centuries of tradition. The result is convincing, but only if you don’t ask questions.
If you study other mythologies, you’ll notice the same pattern. Start with a vague figure. Add miracles. Give them a divine origin. Surround them with loyal followers. End with a dramatic death. Promise a return.
It’s a formula, not a biography. The early church understood this. That’s why they needed councils to decide which texts were official and which weren’t. They had to choose which stories to keep, which to cut, which to brand as heresy. And all of it happened long after Jesus supposedly lived. The version people follow today is not even the original one. It’s the approved one shaped by power. There are gospel texts that were left out, dozens of them.
Some show a very different Jesus, a teacher, not a god. A man who speaks in riddles, not one who promises salvation. Those texts were buried, burned, or labeled dangerous. The early church didn’t want a debate. It wanted control.
If Jesus had truly existed, there would be no need for all this filtering. No need to decide which version to accept. History doesn’t need an editor, but mythology does.
And what about the miracles? Walking on water, feeding thousands with a few loaves, raising the dead. These are the kinds of claims that cry out for attention. If even one of them were witnessed by an educated observer and recorded independently, it would change everything. But that never happened. Not once.
These stories appear only in texts written decades later in a religious context by unknown authors with no external support. The same kinds of stories are found in countless other traditions. Miracles are not proof of truth. They’re a common feature of mythmaking.
The resurrection is the final stroke. A man comes back to life, appears to his followers, then ascends into the sky. It reads like the climax of a well-written drama. But even the gospels don’t agree on what happened. Different people, different places, different times, a miracle that changed the world. And yet, no two stories can get it straight.
And even more puzzling, no one else noticed. No Roman report, no temple record, no citizen testimony. A man defeats death and the city carries on like nothing happened. That kind of silence says more than words ever could.
People will say, “But faith doesn’t need proof.” That’s true, but history does. If you claim that someone walked the earth, taught, healed, died, and rose again, you are making a historical claim. And historical claims require evidence. Stories written long after the fact don’t count, especially when they are the only source.
In any other field, this standard would be laughed out. Archaeologists wouldn’t accept a rumor as evidence of a buried city. Historians wouldn’t accept a single anonymous letter as proof of a war. Scientists wouldn’t accept an old book as evidence of a phenomenon.
But with Jesus, the rules change. Faith replaces facts. Stories replace sources. And when you step back and look at the full picture, the conclusion becomes clear. The Jesus figure as described in the New Testament never existed. There may have been a preacher, a rebel, a wandering teacher who inspired stories. But the man who turned water into wine, who calmed storms, who rose from the dead, that man never walked the earth. That man is a literary invention.
The proof isn’t found in one argument. It’s found in the total absence of reliable data, in the contradictions, in the political motivations, in the mythological patterns, in the deliberate shaping of a narrative to fit theological goals.
The belief in Jesus didn’t begin with history. It began with hope, with vision, with theology. And then it was passed down, refined, reinforced, and protected. Not because it was true, but because it was useful.
Religion often survives not because of what it proves, but because of what it promises. It promises life after death, forgiveness, purpose, and people are willing to believe almost anything to get those promises. But that doesn’t make the story real. You don’t need faith to ask questions. You just need honesty.
And when you look honestly at the evidence for Jesus, you don’t find a man. You find a myth carefully built, slowly expanded, and fiercely defended. The truth doesn’t fear investigation. It welcomes it. But the Jesus story falls apart the moment it’s examined. Not because of malice, not because of bias, but because the facts were never there to begin with. And in the end, the silence around Jesus speaks louder than any sermon.
If Yahweh meant for people to believe in his son, Jesus, he could have done a much better job of documenting his earthly mission, such that skeptics could have been deeply challenged in their non-belief. Instead he left the situation so fluid and ambiguous that mythicists have solid arguments supporting their position. Yahweh, if real, must have deliberately set up this trap, just to ensure that a lot of wonderful people with well-functioning analytical minds will go to hell.
(5325) Gospel authors were not historians
The people who wrote the gospels were not concerned with maintaining any semblance of historical accuracy, and, in fact, they didn’t possess the means for doing so. They used tradition and their own thoughts (and agenda) in composing their works. This means that there is no way to firmly determine what Jesus said or did. The following is an excerpt from Interpreting Jesus, Allison, Dale (2025).
My judgment is that the differences between the infancy stories and genealogies in Matthew and Luke; between the parable of the marriage feast in Matt 22:1–14 and the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:16–24; between the parable of the talents in Matt 25:14–30 and the parable of the pounds in Luke 19:11–27;128 between the story of the centurion in Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10 and its variant in John 4:46–54; between the differing accounts of the Lord’s Supper in Matthew (26:26–29), Mark (14:22–25), Luke (22:15–20), and Paul (1 Cor 11:23–26); between the narrative of Jesus’s disturbance in the temple in Mark 11 and its counterpart in John 2; between the conflicting versions of what happened on the first Easter Sunday and immediately thereafter; and between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel as a whole-all these establish that Jesus’s followers not only did not undertake word-for-word memorization but did not fret, at least consistently, about synchronizing differing memories or traditions.
In theory they could have done so. In fact they did not. Although there was a tradition, it was not deliberately memorized word for word. The Lord’s Prayer and the accounts of the Last Supper settle the issue. The tradition was malleable, and further not immune to apocryphal extensions. Memories appear to have been acquired largely through passive means; that is, they were the upshot of hearing something enough to make the main elements familiar. The canonical Gospels do not, as Jens Schröter has written, “support the idea of a verbatim preservation of Jesus’s teaching in its original contexts”; they instead support “the impression of new interpretation, adaptations to new situations, and free shaping of their verbal presentation.”
It is left to believing Christians to explain why we don’t have access to accurate information concerning Jesus or his disciples. It would seem that an omnipotent God could easily have provided dependable, fully-verified accounts of what Jesus said and did.
(5326) Jerusalem appearances of Jesus were later additions
By virtue of reading the gospels in the order that they were written, it becomes obvious that the earlier tradition is that Jesus first appeared after his resurrection in Galilee, but then a later tradition developed keeping him firmly in Jerusalem (and not even going to Galilee). The following was taken from:
The “Doubt” in Matthew 28:17 shows the Jerusalem appearances were later additions.
When analyzing the New Testament resurrection narratives, a critical tension emerges that challenges the harmonized, chronological sequence often presented in orthodox Christianity. This tension revolves around a single, pivotal detail in the Gospel of Matthew: the doubt of some of the Eleven disciples upon seeing the risen Jesus in Galilee.
This doubt becomes historically and psychologically implausible when we force Matthew’s account into a sequence that includes the detailed Jerusalem appearance narratives from Luke and John. A close reading suggests that the Galilean appearance was originally the first appearance to the group, and the Jerusalem stories are later, secondary developments.
1. The Unambiguous Jerusalem Appearances in Luke and John
First, we must establish what the disciples experience in Jerusalem before they ever travel to Galilee, according to a harmonized chronology.
Luke 24:36-49: Jesus appears to the disciples (including the Eleven) on the evening of his resurrection. To quell their “startled and frightened” state and their thoughts that “they saw a spirit,” he offers physical proof: He shows them his hands and feet.
-
-
- He invites them to “Touch me, and see.”
- He eats a piece of broiled fish in front of them.
- Most crucially, “Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (v. 45), explicitly about his death and resurrection.
- John 20:19-29: This narrative spans two consecutive Sunday evenings in Jerusalem.
- First Appearance (20:19-23): Jesus appears to the disciples (minus Thomas), shows them his hands and side, and they are “overjoyed.”
- The Thomas Episode (20:24-29): A week later, Jesus appears again. He specifically addresses doubt by instructing Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas responds with the ultimate confession, “My Lord and my God!”
-
According to this harmonized timeline, before the disciples even depart for Galilee due to the command to stay in Jerusalem being given on Easter Sunday, the Eleven (as a group) have:
-
-
- Seen the risen Jesus multiple times.
- Heard his voice and received teaching.
- Witnessed him eating food, proving his physicality.
- Been personally invited to touch his wounds.
- Had their minds supernaturally opened to understand the prophecy of the resurrection.
- Had the specific doubt of Thomas addressed and definitively resolved.
-
2. The Inexplicable Doubt in Matthew’s Galilee
Now, let’s examine the scene in Galilee as described in Matthew 28. The angel at the tomb, and then Jesus himself, explicitly instruct the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see him (Matthew 28:7, 10). The disciples obey.
Matthew 28:16-17 (ESV): “Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.“
The Greek word translated as “doubted” is ἐδίστασαν (edistasan), from the verb distazō (διστάζω). In its only other use in the New Testament, it describes Peter sinking on the water due to his lack of faith (Matthew 14:31). Lexical authorities like BDAG Greek-English Lexicon define it as “to be uncertain, to have doubts, to doubt, to hesitate.” This is not the doubt of a modern skeptic, but a state of internal wavering, hesitation, and uncertainty in the face of a reality that should inspire faith.
Here is the core of the problem:
After the cumulative, overwhelming, and physically verified experiences in Jerusalem – including literally touching the risen Lord’s wounds and having their minds opened by him – how is it conceivable that any of the Eleven could be described as “doubting” or “hesitating” when they see him again in Galilee?
The entire narrative function of the Jerusalem appearances in Luke and John is to eliminate doubt. Luke 24:38-40 and John 20:27 are explicitly framed as doubt-quelling actions. For Matthew to then depict doubt re-emerging at a later appearance makes no psychological or narrative sense. It would represent a bizarre and profound regression in their understanding and faith.
3. The Harmonization Creates a Nonsensical Sequence
If we insist on a harmonized chronology, we are forced to believe the following sequence of events:
-
- Sunday Evening (Jerusalem): Disciples see Jesus, are overjoyed. He shows his wounds, invites touch, eats, and opens their minds. Doubt is resolved.
- One Week Later (Jerusalem): Jesus appears again to resolve Thomas’s specific doubt, leading to the ultimate confession of faith.
- Sometime Later (Galilee): The disciples travel to Galilee, see Jesus as instructed, and… some of them who had previously touched him and had their minds opened are now “hesitant” and “uncertain” again.
This is not merely unlikely; it is a narrative implosion. The doubt in Matthew 28:17 is thematically coherent only if this is the disciples’ first encounter with the risen Jesus. In that context, a mix of worship and hesitation is a believable human response. When placed after the Jerusalem appearances, it becomes an incoherent and inexplicable anomaly.
4. The Simpler, More Historically Plausible Explanation
The evidence points strongly toward a literary and theological development in the resurrection tradition:
-
- The Earlier Tradition (Mark/Matthew): The earliest gospel, Mark, points only to a future appearance in Galilee (Mark 16:7). Matthew follows this tradition and provides the fulfillment: the first appearance to the Eleven occurs in Galilee, where a natural human response of worship mixed with doubt is recorded.
- The Later Development (Luke/John): Later gospels, for theological reasons (e.g., anchoring the central Christian event in the holy city of Jerusalem, emphasizing the physicality of the resurrection), relocated the initial appearances to Jerusalem. These stories were crafted to be definitive, doubt-eliminating encounters.
The “doubt” in Matthew 28:17 is a “narrative fossil.” It is a detail that only makes sense in the earlier version of the story but becomes a glaring contradiction once the Jerusalem appearances are inserted into the timeline before it.
Any objective person analyzing this situation would come to the conclusion that the gospel authors were just making it up, changing previous writings to make a more compelling story. An omnipotent god would have prevented this from happening, because it greatly damages the historicity of the gospels.
(5327) Jesus never meant to minister to the Gentiles
Although some scriptures point to Jesus preaching a universal message of salvation, a more disciplined analysis of scripture indicates the high likelihood that Jesus was focused only on the Jewish nation. The following presents a defense of this position:
Debate Point: Jesus never intended his message for the Gentiles; his mission was directed exclusively toward the Jewish people. The subsequent crisis over Gentile inclusion in the early church demonstrates that the extension of the Jesus movement beyond Judaism was a Pauline innovation, not part of Jesus’ original teaching.
Supporting Evidence:
1. Jesus’ own words: In Matthew 15:24, Jesus states: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Similarly, in Matthew 10:5–6, he explicitly instructs his disciples not to go among the Gentiles but only to the people of Israel. This shows a conscious limitation of his ministry to Jews.
2. The post-crucifixion community was entirely Jewish: After Jesus’ death, his immediate followers (the Jerusalem church led by James, Peter, and John) continued to operate as a sect within Judaism. They observed Temple rituals (Acts 2:46; Acts 21:20–26) and adhered to Jewish purity laws. There was no precedent for including Gentiles.
3. The crisis of Gentile inclusion proves Jesus did not address the issue: When Paul began converting Gentiles in Antioch and beyond, it created a theological emergency in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15, the “Council of Jerusalem”). The debates centered on whether Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses—questions that had never been answered in Jesus’ lifetime. If Jesus had intended a Gentile mission, there would have been established guidance.
4. Circumcision and dietary purity were unresolved flashpoints: The fiercest controversy was circumcision, a non-negotiable sign of covenant identity for Jews. That this was even debated shows Gentile inclusion was alien to the original Jesus movement. Likewise, disputes about kosher food and table fellowship (Galatians 2:11–14) reveal that the early church had no model from Jesus for integrating non-Jews.
5. Paul as innovator: Paul himself admits he received his gospel “not from any man” but by revelation (Galatians 1:11–12). He articulates a theology of faith apart from the Law (Romans, Galatians) that departs sharply from Jewish covenantal markers. This indicates Paul constructed a new framework to accommodate Gentiles—something absent in Jesus’ original, intra-Jewish mission.
Conclusion: The fact that, within two decades of Jesus’ death, the church was torn apart over Gentile inclusion shows that Jesus never intended nor provided for such a mission. His teachings were rooted firmly in Judaism; universalism came only with Paul.
Some apologists will insist that even if Jesus kept his message restricted to the Jews during his earthly mission, that he ‘came back’ to appear to Paul and instructed him to take it to the Gentiles. This two-step revelatory process seems a bit unlikely and unnecessarily inefficient, almost as if it was an oversight on the part of Jesus that then needed a post-resurrection ‘correction.’
(5328) Jesus, the narrative narcotic
The Jesus character in the Bible is commonly extolled as being the pinnacle of human righteousness, but Dr. Richard C. Miller, biblical critic and scholar of New Testament traditions, has a different point of view. He sees the gospel depictions of Jesus as a textual narcotic that was designed to resonate with the average person searching for meaning:
𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰
The Jesus of the canonical Gospels is frequently presumed to be compelling on account of his moral brilliance, personal magnetism, or spiritual profundity. Yet a closer literary inspection suggests otherwise. As a character, Jesus is comparatively flat, often aloof, abrasive, enigmatic, or emotionally inaccessible. He offers little in the way of conventional charm or psychological depth. What, then, accounts for his extraordinary appeal across millennia?
The answer lies not in his personality, but in his function. The Gospel writers systematically construct Jesus not as a relatable human being but as a symbolic solvent — a mythic figure designed to dissolve every category of human pain. In his presence, political oppression is overturned, disease evaporates, demons flee, guilt is lifted, storms are calmed, hunger is fed, grief is comforted, and even death itself is reversed. Jesus is not depicted as understanding suffering so much as annihilating it. He is the narrative embodiment of promised resolution.
This is why readers experience an uncanny intimacy with him. They do not know Jesus because they know him; they know him because they know their pain, and he is written as the voice that answers it. The text engineers a sense of existential companionship — not by revealing the character, but by reflecting the reader’s wounds back at them with mythological solutions.
Thus, Jesus is best understood not as a historical memory nor as a psychologically coherent protagonist, but as a literary analgesic. He is, in effect, scripture’s narcotic: administered not for realism, but for relief. His charm is not in who he is, but in what he promises. And in that role — palliative, totalizing, and mythically efficient — he becomes irresistible, not by authenticity, but by design, while offering false solutions that merely play on our deepest human frailties.
There is much evidence to conclude that the Jesus of scripture is nothing like the Jesus of history, assuming that such a person actually existed. If God intended to send his son to the Earth for a massively critical mission (setting up an ultimate criterion for determining the eternal fate of all human souls), doesn’t it seem likely that this activity would have been dependably recorded consistent with the standard confidence level endemic to human minds?
(5329) DSM-5 and narcissistic personality disorder
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), is the 2013 update to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that lists nine behaviors of narcissistic personality disorder. Yahweh meets eight of them. The following was taken from:
The character of God in the bible passes the DSM-5 checklist for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The bible describes God as having various human emotions ranging from joy and love, to jealousy, to anger and wrath. Very human-like God if you ask me.
Here are the criteria I got from the DSM-5 which says a narcissist would meet 5 or more of the following:
-
- Grandiose sense of self-importance
- Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
- Believes that they are special
- Requires excessive admiration
- Sense of entitlement
- Takes advantage of others
- Lacks empathy
- Envious of others or believes others envious of them
- Arrogant behavior
1. Grandiose sense of self-importance.
-
- “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” (Isaiah 45:5)
- “Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?” (Romans 9:20–21)
3. Believes that they are special.
-
- “I am God, and there is none like me.” (Isaiah 46:9)
- “Who among the gods is like you, Lord? Who is like you – majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?” (Exodus 15:11)
- “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3)
- “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8)
4. Requires excessive admiration.
-
- “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord.” (Psalm 150:6)
- “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise – the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)
- “Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” (Revelation 4:8)
- “All the angels were standing around the throne… They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!” (Revelation 7:11–12)
5. Sense of entitlement.
-
- Refuses to share glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8)
- Claims ownership of everything (Psalm 24:1)
- Insists on receiving proper offerings (Malachi 1:6–8)
6. Takes advantage of others.
-
- Uses Judas as an instrument to betray Jesus (John 13:27; Acts 1:16)
- Uses Cyrus to free Israel from Babylon (Isaiah 45:1)
7. Lacks empathy.
-
- Wipes out humanity in the flood (Genesis)
- Commands total destruction and genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16–17)
- Orders the killing of men, women, children, and animals (1 Samuel 15:3)
- Strikes a man dead instantly for trying to help (2 Samuel 6:7)
- Allows Job to suffer tremendously to win a contest with Satan (Job 1:12)
8. Envious of others or believes others envious of them.
-
- “Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
9. Arrogant behavior.
-
- “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” (Job 38:4)
- “The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” (1 Corinthians 1:25)
- “Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?” (Romans 9:20–21)
Recall the diagnosis requires 5 or more. It seems to me that God meets 8 out of 9 criteria and would probably be diagnosed as a narcissist. p.7 is probably the worst, it depicts God as a psychopathic monster.
The people who invented Yahweh likely took much of their material from the kings and other luminaries in their midst, and used their narcissistic tendencies as a model for their god. Yahweh thus became inflicted with this disorder.
(5330) Porphyry’s critique of Christianity
Porphyry of Tyre (234-305) was a Semitic Neoplatonic philosopher who lived in Tyre during the time it was under Roman rule. He was a critic of Christianity. One of his attacks on the faith was the failure of Jesus to reveal himself more publicly after allegedly defeating death on the cross, given that such a display could have accelerated the growth of Christianity and would have resulted in more people being saved. The following was taken from:
So, the pagan neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry once wrote a critique of Christianity, and one of the strongest (In my opinion) arguments is about the appearance of Jesus post-resurrection.
Porphyry mentions how Jesus only appeared to his apostles for a few days, which although naturally makes sense, also brings problems. Jesus’ apostles were not really “reliable” to most people, they were poor fishermen who most people would thought were crazy. According to Porphyry, Jesus could have taken his time to reveal himself to other people, namely, Pilate, the Sanhedrin or even to appear publicly at a large city.
Porphyry makes the claim this would have been better from a Christian perspective. Had Jesus appeared before more “reliable” witnesses (Such as Pilate, Caiaphas or in front of a lot of people), more people would have believed in his resurrection, therefore, more people would have been “saved” and gone to heaven. Perhaps even with that Rome would have become Christian earlier, and all those Christian saints who suffered terrible deaths would have lived better lives.
So, in synthesis, Porphyry claims that had Jesus chose to appear in front of Pilate, the Sanhedrin or a large multitude, more people would have become Christian, and therefore more people would been saved. This would fit greatly with Yahweh’s merciful nature, yet it’s not what happened.
One possible reason for the paucity of Jesus post-resurrection appearances in the gospels is that Jesus, in fact, did not resurrect, and to make broader claims of such would have been fatal to the faith because it would have invited strong rebuttals from people who were there and should otherwise have witnessed the miracle.
(5331) Christian theodicies are inconsistent
The following essay makes the argument that Christian theologians are being inconsistent when they toggle between a hands-on god and a hands-off god whenever it becomes convenient to do so. What they have constructed is a logical inconsistency. The following was taken from:
Inconsistency of Theodicies in Christianity
Christians who use “free will” to explain why God doesn’t stop evil, but then use “miracles” to prove He exists, aka switching between a Hands-Off God and a Hands-On God. When you force them to be consistent, their entire defense against the problem of evil collapses. The “Paul vs. Hitler” thought experiment proves it.
The Two Gods in the Pulpit
If you’ve ever debated a religious apologist, you’ve likely encountered two completely different versions of God. They are mutually exclusive, but apologists switch between them in the same conversation. Let’s call this the Divine Toggle.
· GOD A: The Hands-Off God (Used to Explain Evil) This is the God of the “Free Will Defense” (the philosophical brainchild of Alvin Plantinga). This God is a strict constitutionalist. He has laid down sacred, inviolable laws: Libertarian Free Will and Natural Law. He will never violate these, because doing so would destroy the possibility of genuine moral choice and turn us into robots. This is why He doesn’t stop child cancer, natural disasters, or Hitler. He can’t, without destroying a greater good. When you ask “Why does God allow suffering?” the apologist toggles to God A.
· GOD B: The Hands-On God (Used to Prove God’s Power) This is the God of the Bible and modern testimony. This God is a micromanager. He parts seas, rises from the dead, strikes people blind, and miraculously heals diseases, and for the persona, Christian, he helps them actively. He overrides natural law and human free will all the time. When you ask “How do you know God is real and good?” the apologist toggles to God B.
The core of the problem is this: The existence of God B proves that God A is a lie.
If God can and does perform literal miracles with witnesses (Like the Fatima sun dance), then “respect for free will/natural law” is not an inviolable principle. It’s a contingent policy. And if it’s just a policy, then God’s refusal to enact it to stop the Holocaust is not a necessary evil, but a conscious, active choice.
2. Paul vs Hitler · The Case of Paul (then Saul): A persecutor of the early church. According to Acts 9, God intervenes. Not with a gentle nudge, but with a blinding light, physical incapacitation, and an audible voice. Saul is coerced, his free will utterly overridden. He is converted instantly. This event is celebrated by apologists as the ultimate proof of God’s grace and power. This is God B. · The Case of Adolf Hitler: A persecutor on an industrial scale. He orchestrated the murder of six million Jews and plunged the world into war. God’s intervention? Silence. The standard explanation is that God was respecting Hitler’s free will and the natural course of events. This is God A.
Now, let’s apply the apologist’s own logic.
The Soteriological (Soul-Saving) Justification Backfires Spectacularly Apologists often say God’s main goal is saving souls. Okay. Let’s run the numbers:
· Souls saved by converting Paul: Paul’s own, plus those he converted. · Souls saved by converting Hitler: Hitler’s own, plus millions of his victims who would not have been murdered, thus preserving their chance at salvation. The evangelistic impact of a converted Hitler would have been the most powerful in human history.
If coercive intervention is morally and theologically permissible to save the soul of one persecutor (Paul), then it is infinitely more justified to save the soul of the greatest persecutor (Hitler) and the millions he would destroy.
The fact that God acted in the lesser case but not the greater proves that “soul-saving” is not the consistent operating principle. The pattern is arbitrary.
The “But Hitler’s Heart Was Harder!” Defense Fails Some try to claim Hitler was too hardened for an intervention to work. This is destroyed by the Bible itself.
Paul was hardened. He was “breathing threats and murder” (Acts 9:1). He wasn’t seeking God; he was persecuting Him.
God actively hardens hearts. In Exodus, God repeatedly “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” to prevent him from making the free choice to let the Israelites go.
So, the biblical God is willing to actively harden a heart to allow evil (Pharaoh) and coercively overpower a heart to force good (Paul). The state of a human heart is no barrier to Him. The “hardened heart” defense is meaningless. God’s non-intervention with Hitler is a choice, not a constraint.
3.Apologist Defenses and Their Rebuttals
Defense: “Paul’s conversion was a unique, foundational event for the Church.” · Rebuttal: This is special pleading. It admits that God prioritizes church-building over genocide-prevention. This is a theologically monstrous position.
Defense: “The miracle was persuasive, not coercive! Paul still had a choice.” · Rebuttal: This redefines words into meaninglessness. Being struck blind and hearing a voice from heaven is not “persuasion”; it’s coercion. If this is the standard for “non-coercive,” then God could “persuade” anyone out of evil without violating free will, making the FWD pointless.
Defense: “God’s ways are mysterious. We can’t understand His reasons.” · Rebuttal: I’m not judging God; I’m judging the consistency of your model. You built a theodicy based on a principle (free will). I’m showing that your own evidence (miracles) violates that principle.
Defense: “You’re judging an infinite God with finite human reason!” · Rebuttal: Again, I’m not judging God; I’m judging the consistency of your model. You built a theodicy based on a principle (free will). I’m showing that your own evidence (miracles) violates that principle.
Defense: “Modern miracles are just subjective feelings.” · Rebuttal: To protect the theodicy, you must deny the literal evidence for God’s activity. This saves logic but kills the living, experiential faith that Christianity is built on.
The Trilemma
This forces a choice between three options, all of which are problematic to mainstream, interventionist Christianity.
You cannot have all three of these. You must choose two, and the third dies.
· A. God is Consistent (His actions follow a morally intelligible principle). · B. God is Interventionist (He performs literal miracles). · C. The Free Will Defense is True (Free will is a supreme good that justifies non-intervention).
The Combinations:
· Choose A & B: God is consistent and intervenes. Therefore, the FWD is false. God’s non-intervention in evil is an active, immoral choice. · Choose A & C: God is consistent and the FWD is true. Therefore, God is non-interventionist. Miracles are metaphors. This is Deism. · Choose B & C: God performs miracles and the FWD is true. Therefore, God is inconsistent. His “goodness” is unintelligible, because he now prefers the healing of fellow Christians in their testimonies (if its even true to begin with), but not stop a genocide or a plague.
The apologist wants A, B, and C. The Divine Toggle proves this is logically impossible.
5. Conclusion:
The question is no longer “Why does God allow evil?” The question is now: “What is the consistent principle behind God’s pattern of action and inaction?”
And the answer, from the apologist‘s own scripture and testimony, is that there is none. There is only the Toggle
This leaves only one coherent, defensible concept of God: the Deistic Watchmaker, aka a God who created the laws of the universe and then never intervenes. This God is logically consistent but is not the God of the Bible, the God of prayer, or the God of miracles.
The Divine Toggle doesn’t just win a debate. It forces a choice between a God who is logically consistent but irrelevant, and a God who is religiously significant but logically and morally incoherent.
The middle ground, a God who is both rational and interventionist, is a philosophical mirage.
The Christian god as preached by clergy is a logical impossibility. Something needs to give or else theologians should retreat to a deistic god or else full-throated atheism.
(5332) The necessity of belief
Christian theology is damaged by the primacy applied to one’s beliefs for determining their eternal fate. The following essay discusses this problem:
The NECESSITY OF BELIEF, by ROBERT G. INGERSOLL (1833-1899):
How is it when a jury is sworn to try a case, hearing all the evidence, hearing both sides, hearing the charge of the judge, hearing the law, are upon their oaths equally divided? Six for the plaintiff and six for the defendant? Evidence does not have the same effect upon all people. Why?
Our brains are not alike. They are not the same shape. We have not the same intelligence, or the same experience, the same sense. And yet I am held accountable for my belief. I must believe in the Trinity–three times one is one, once one is three, and my soul is to be eternally damned for failing to guess an arithmetical conundrum. That is the poison part of Christianity–that salvation depends upon belief.
That is the accursed part, and until that dogma is discarded Christianity will be nothing but superstition.
No man can control his belief. If I hear certain evidence I will believe a certain thing. If I fail to hear it I may never believe it. If it is adapted to my mind I may accept it; if it is not, I reject it. And what am I to go by?
My brain. That is the only light I have from Nature, and if there be a God it is the only torch that this God has given me to find my way through the darkness and night called life. I do not depend upon hearsay for that. I do not have to take the word of any other man nor get upon my knees before a book.
Here in the temple of the mind I consult the God, that is to say my reason, and the oracle speaks to me and I obey the oracle. What should I obey? Another man’s oracle? Shall I take another man’s word–not what he thinks, but what he says some God has said to him?
I would not know a god if I should see one. I have said before, and I say again, the brain thinks in spite of me, and I am not responsible for my thoughts. I cannot control the beating of my heart. I cannot stop the blood that flows through the rivers of my veins. And yet I am held responsible for my belief.
Then why does not God give me the evidence? They say he has. In what? In an inspired book. But I do not understand it as they do. Must I be false to my understanding?
They say: “When you come to die you will be sorry if you do not.” Will I be sorry when I come to die that I did not live a hypocrite? Will I be sorry that I did not say I was a Christian when I was not? Will the fact that I was honest put a thorn in the pillow of death?
Cannot God forgive me for being honest? They say that when he was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing from him on the subject of the Trinity.
They say that God says to me, “Forgive your enemies.” I say, “I do;” but he says. “I will damn mine.” God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him.
He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be. And I want no God to forgive me unless I am willing to forgive others, and unless I do forgive others. All I ask, if that be true, is that this God should act according to his own doctrine. If I am to forgive my enemies, I ask him to forgive his.
I do not believe in the religion of faith, but of kindness.
Belief is beyond the conscious control of human beings, and the idea that a god would eternally damn an otherwise good person because he harbors beliefs contrary to that god’s preference is a travesty of logic, fairness, and justice. This core kernel of Christian theology stinks to high heaven.
(53pp) The absurdity of original sin
The Christian concept of original sin belongs in the dustbin of human imagination- a theology so odious that it would be violently rejected by virtually everybody if not for its association with a major religion. The following was taken from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANRUXARCCc
Imagine being born already guilty of something you never did. You open your eyes for the first time, take your first breath, and before you can even move your tiny fingers, you’re already considered stained, corrupted, and in need of forgiveness. That is the foundational claim of one of the most influential religious doctrines in history, the concept of original sin.
It says that all human beings are born sinners because of an act committed by the first humans, Adam and Eve, thousands of years ago. It doesn’t matter who you are, what you’ve done, or even if you believe in any god, you are supposedly guilty by association.
But if we stop and actually think about this idea, even for a moment, it begins to crumble under the weight of its own absurdity. Because at its core, the doctrine of original sin tells us that moral guilt can be inherited. That a newborn baby who hasn’t even had the chance to make a single choice somehow carries the weight of disobedience from two mythical ancestors in a garden that no one can prove ever existed.
Now, think about this logically. In our everyday lives, we know that responsibility doesn’t work that way. If your great-grandfather stole a cow, you don’t go to prison for it. If your ancestor broke a law, you don’t pay the fine.
Justice, at least any sane version of it, demands that guilt be individual, not collective. Yet, according to religious teaching, humanity’s suffering, disease, death, pain, moral weakness, all stem from the supposed disobedience of Adam and Eve eating a fruit they were told not to eat.
Let’s pause on that for a second. The entire human condition, according to the Bible, is based on a piece of fruit. It wasn’t murder, theft, or genocide that unleashed sin into the world. It was eating. And not just eating, but eating something that gave knowledge. So, in a way, humanity’s punishment came from wanting to understand more, from wanting knowledge. Think about how that flips morality upside down. Curiosity, which is the foundation of all human progress, is presented as the ultimate act of disobedience.
If we take this story literally, it raises even more contradictions. God, who supposedly knows everything, created Adam and Eve with free will, but already knew they would disobey. He placed the tree in the center of the garden, knowing they’d eat from it. He allowed the serpent to deceive them, even though he could have prevented it. This is like setting a trap for your own children, waiting for them to fall into it, and then blaming their descendants forever.
If any human parent did that, we’d call it cruel. Yet, in theology, it’s called divine justice. Many religious apologists argue that this was necessary because Adam and Eve represented all of humanity. But that explanation only pushes the problem further.
How can two individuals represent moral responsibility for billions who didn’t exist? Representation might make sense in politics or sports. A captain can represent a team. A leader can represent a nation. But no one can represent another person’s moral choices.
Morality is personal. You can’t inherit someone else’s virtue or vice. Even more puzzling is how this supposed sin passes from one generation to another. Theologians say it’s transmitted through human nature, that everyone born from Adam and Eve inherits their fallen state. But what does that even mean? Is sin genetic? Is it spiritual DNA? If it’s spiritual, how does it interact with biology? If it’s biological, why hasn’t any scientist found a sin gene?
The whole concept collapses the moment we examine it logically. Religious defenders will say it’s symbolic, that original sin isn’t about a literal fruit or literal inheritance, but about the human tendency to do wrong. But even then, the story fails to make moral sense because it still begins with the idea that human beings were created imperfect by a supposedly perfect God.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, then he must have intentionally designed humans with the capacity to fall. And if he designed the system that way, then who really caused the sin? The humans or the designer who knew exactly what would happen? If a car manufacturer builds a car knowing the brakes will fail, who’s responsible for the accident? The driver or the maker? Any rational person would say the maker?
But in the religious version, the blame is reversed. God designs humans with flaws, puts temptation in front of them, lets them fail, and then punishes them and all their children for being exactly what he made them to be.
Now, let’s consider the real world consequences of this idea. The doctrine of original sin has shaped how billions of people view themselves. It’s the foundation for guilt, repentance, and the supposed need for salvation.
Christianity teaches that humans are fallen and can only be redeemed through Jesus Christ. Without the idea of inherited sin, the entire concept of salvation loses meaning. Because if you were never guilty in the first place, what exactly are you being saved from? This is why the church insists on baptism. Even for infants, the baby, only a few days old, is believed to carry sin. And unless that baby is baptized, its soul is supposedly tainted.
For centuries, the church even taught that unbaptized infants would go to limbo. a kind of eternal waiting room. Not quite heaven, but not hell either. Imagine the cruelty of that belief. Parents grieving a stillborn child were told that their baby couldn’t enter paradise because of something Adam and Eve did. Just and merciful God.
If God truly loves humanity, why would he condemn an innocent child for a mistake made before the child even existed? We would never accept such injustice from a human judge. Yet, religion expects us to call it holy when it comes from God.
No religion created by an actual god would resort to the concept that humans bear responsibility for the deeds of persons who lived before they were born, or, for that matter, deeds performed by any people other than themselves. Christians should ask themselves how Yahweh could have let this ridiculous idea contaminate the Bible and Christianity.
(5334) God hiding does not enable free will
Most Christians will admit that God does not do all he could do to convince us of his existence, but claim that he withdraws to preserve our free will to either believe in or reject him. This concept is easily refuted, as in the following essay:
God hiding himself is not the same as giving us free will.
God’s existence is not obvious despite what many Christians think. Some may think it is, that creation is obvious evidence of him, but not everyone looks up at a sunset or trees and automatically thinks “wow, God did that.” Not unless they’ve already been taught to interpret it that way. It doesn’t make it any less breathtaking or awe-inspiring to not believe that a god made it. And the evidence for the validity and historicity of the Bible is very weak. Christian apologetics I’ve noticed also tends to give very fallacious arguments and skewed numbers that misrepresent the real evidence.
So if god is real, why make it so confusing? Why let the evidence be so weak? He would have known that billions of people would have no actual good reason to believe he exists, and they wouldn’t be a Christian – not because they want to rebel against him or hate him, but because they literally just don’t believe he even exists. But they would get sent to hell over that? If our salvation is not based on works/being a good person, and just belief/faith, then why is it really hard to believe in god when looking at all the evidence? Many sincere unbelievers who genuinely don’t think that god exists might be an amazing person their whole life but still go to hell.
I’ve heard many Christians say that if God had actually made his existence undeniable and obvious, then we wouldn’t have any choice but to follow him, which wouldn’t be free will. We’d be forced to follow him. But I think that argument is just really bad. Because the same can be said for if God doesn’t make his existence obvious. If he doesn’t make his existence easy to prove, then many of us don’t have a choice but to not believe in him because of the weak evidence. I think it actually takes away our free will much much more to leave us uninformed and believing misinformation.
It wouldn’t be overriding free will to know undeniably that he exists. It would actually be giving us choice. We can’t chose to follow him if we don’t even think he exists. We would be able to make an informed decision of whether or not to follow god. Free will requires the presence of choice. Both/all options need to be available, otherwise if there’s only one, it eliminates our say in the matter. By hiding himself, god isn’t respecting our free will. He’s violating it.
Many people dedicate their whole lives to investigating God’s existence and come to very different conclusions. You’re going to tell me that all of them who came to the conclusion that God isn’t real are just prideful or rebellious or something? God would let them be led astray even when doing genuine and sincere investigation? Then let them go to hell for not believing in him because of really poor evidence?
If God simply rewarded/punished people based on how they conducted their lives, then his being hidden would not be an issue. But that is not consistent with standard Christian theology which places a critical premium on the basis of ones’ belief in Jesus/God. Because belief is so important, it would seem that a compassionate god would provide sufficient evidence of his existence so that everyone would have a fair chance at obtaining this belief. Yahweh has failed to do this- so he’s either not compassionate or he doesn’t exist.
(5335) Believing takes less energy than doubt
In the United States, a phenomenon has taken place where a large percentage of the population has taken as fact multiple falsehoods foisted by the current president. The essay below discusses how our brains are susceptible to accepting whatever information it receives as being factual even if it isn’t because it takes more energy to exercise doubt.
This is analogous to people who are inculcated with religious dogma- it is easier to accept it as being true instead of exerting additional energy to challenge its veracity. In other words, the default setting of the human brain is to believe what it is told. The following was taken from:
President Donald Trump lies so often that it is no longer shocking when it happens. Many psychologists have pointed out that he is constantly gaslighting his base—a term that refers to a strategic attempt to get others to question their direct experience of reality.
Most of his fervent supporters are convinced that Trump is the harbinger of truth when it comes to important issues like climate change—which he has said is a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government.” This has contributed to fake news and propaganda.
Given its negative impact on society, it is important to understand why certain groups of people are more vulnerable to believing unsupported lies than others. The fields of psychology and neuroscience can offer insight.
One reason Trump supporters believe him comes from a basic fact about the brain: it takes more mental effort to reject an idea as false than to accept it as true. In other words, it’s easier to believe than to not.
This fact is based on a landmark study published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2009, which asked the simple question, how is the brain activated differently during a state of belief compared to a state of disbelief? To test this, participants were asked whether or not they believed in a series of statements while their brain activity was being imaged by an fMRI scanner. Some sentences were simple and fact-based (California is larger than Rhode Island), while others were more abstract and subjective (God probably does not exist). The results showed the activation of distinct but often overlapping brain areas in the belief and disbelief conditions.
While these imaging results are complicated to interpret, the electrical patterns also showed something that was fairly straightforward. Overall, there was greater brain activation that persisted for longer during states of disbelief. Greater brain activation requires more cognitive resources, of which there is a limited supply. What these findings show is that the mental process of believing is simply less work for the brain, and therefore often favored. The default state of the human brain is to accept what we are told, because doubt takes effort. Belief, on the other hand, comes easily.
This troubling finding makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If children questioned every single fact they were being taught, learning would occur at a rate so slow that it would be a hindrance. But this fact could be just as easily applied to both the political left and right.
For Christian fundamentalists, being taught to suppress critical thinking begins at a very early age. It is the combination of the brain’s vulnerability to believing unsupported facts and aggressive indoctrination that create the perfect storm for gullibility. Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity, or ability to be sculpted by lived experiences, evangelicals literally become hardwired to believe far-fetched statements.
This wiring begins when they are first taught to accept Biblical stories not as metaphors for living life practically and purposefully, but as objective truth. Mystical explanations for natural events train young minds to not demand evidence for beliefs. As a result, the neural pathways that promote healthy skepticism and rational thought are not properly developed. This inevitably leads to a greater susceptibility to lying and gaslighting by manipulative politicians, and greater suggestibility in general.
If we want to combat the brain’s habit of taking the path of least resistance, which has destructive downstream consequences for critical thinking, as a society we must place more value on empirical evidence, and this must be reflected in how we educate our youth. Additionally, we must create an awareness of the fact that for the human mind, believing is more of a reflex than a careful and methodical action.
This research provides an explanation for why some people embrace Christianity so rigidly- they simply haven’t taken the effort to exert enough mental activity to expose its logical flaws. It takes less energy to just lazily accept it at face value, with no compelling incentive to dig deeper into the evidence both pro and con.
(5336) Christianity has 1,2,3,4, or innumerable gods
Although standard Christian theology claims that the faith is monotheistic, when you look more closely at the scriptures as well as subsequent theological traditions, it becomes clear that a case can be made for the existence of any number of gods. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1o5m9pb/christianity_has_one_two_three_four_and/
I am not trying to make an affirmation of what Christians believe, just trying to have some fun showing how we can arrive in different answers depending on interpretation, some of these interpretations also apply to Islam and Judaism.
Christianity has one god: This is the most basic and popular interpretation, Christianity is monotheistic, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” — Mark 12:29. There is only one God, the trinity are just 3 different rolls for the some being.
Christianity has two gods. One could easily argue that Christianity is dualistic, there’s good and evil, the God and the Devil, Yahweh and Lucifer. That’s how Zoroastrian is interpreted by the abrahamic faiths even tho their own faith parallels Zoroastrianism. One could claim that the Devil isn’t as Powerful as God, but other religions like Greek pantheon and Hinduism has hundreds of Gods with vastly different powers.
Christianity has three gods: This is a popular critique of Christianity by Unitarians, Jews and Muslims. If God is the father, the son and the Holy Ghost, then there are three Gods not one. They can all be part of the same but that would make Christianity a pantheistic religion not a monotheistic.
Christianity has 4 gods: This is a combination of the previous two interpretations, Gods is there gods and the devil a fourth.
Christianity has innumerable gods. In polytheistic religions we normally see hierarchy of divine beings. Like Zeus -> the Olympian -> minor gods -> demigods. So why can’t we apply the same interpretation to angels and demons? They are still beings above the mortal world. And often are way more powerful than even the Greek Olympians, Gabriel would absolutely clap Dionysus in a fight. There’s even a hierarchy of God -> Archangels -> Angels -> and even saints for some Christians.
So which is the right answer? Well for me it doesn’t really matter, I can’t tell someone else what they believe.
Murky theology is a sign of multiple humans muddying up the message based on personal interpretations. Christianity is a confusing mess, allowing for multiple interpretations of what should be clearly and positively defined.
(5337) How did I ever believe Christianity?
There is an apologetic line of defense that claims that the large number of lifelong Christian believers is evidence that Christianity is true. This holds water only before one considers the many factors that protect one’s faith, and then realize that these things don’t provide any actual evidence of its truth. The following was taken from:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/10/how-did-i-ever-believe-christianity-was.html
Lately, I’ve been asking myself a question that feels both embarrassing and profound: How could I have possibly believed that the claims of Christianity were anything more than absurd?
It’s not an accusation against my past self so much as a genuine inquiry. Looking back, I can see there were many powerful and very human reasons why I believed — and why it all felt so convincing at the time.
I grew up inside it.
Christianity wasn’t presented to me as an idea to be evaluated; it was simply reality. “Jesus is Lord” wasn’t a proposition — it was a background truth, like “the sky is blue.” I didn’t choose it. I inherited it.
It met deep emotional needs.
The faith promised meaning, belonging, and eternal security. When you’re searching for purpose or fearing death, that’s an intoxicating combination. Wanting reassurance isn’t irrational — it’s profoundly human.
I trusted the people who taught it.
Parents, pastors, teachers — the people I loved and respected — all affirmed it as true. When every authority around you agrees on something, you absorb it long before you ever analyze it.
The story was powerful.
Christianity tells a story that hits every mythic chord: good versus evil, sacrifice, redemption, love conquering death. It’s a masterpiece of emotional narrative design, and I was completely taken by it.
I felt things.
I experienced what I believed was the “presence of God.” Those feelings — peace, awe, transcendence — were real experiences, even if I now understand they came from the brain’s own ability to generate powerful emotional states under the right conditions.
Fear was part of the package.
Hell. Judgment. Eternal punishment. Doubt came with the threat of cosmic consequences. When disbelief feels dangerous, the easiest path is to double down on faith.
The community kept it alive.
Belief is social. Singing the songs, repeating the creeds, doing the rituals — all of that binds you emotionally to the group. You start to believe as much for the belonging as for the theology.
So how could I have believed it? Because I was human — social, emotional, meaning-seeking, and wired to trust my tribe.
When I reframe the question from “How could I have believed?” to “What was I trying to find or protect by believing?”, I find more compassion for that earlier version of myself. I wasn’t gullible; I was searching — for truth, for comfort, for something to hold onto in an absurdly bewildering world.
And maybe that’s the most honest thing any of us can say about our past faith: it wasn’t stupidity or weakness. It was just the most human thing in the world — wanting something beautiful to be true.
The question “How did I ever believe Christianity” is well-answered for most Christians by the reasons provided above. For the most part, they have never undergone an objective analysis of their beliefs. It’s like a computer chip has been hard-wired inside their brains.
(5338) Case for a sadistic god
The following is a good summary of why it can be safely concluded that the god of the Bible is a sadist:
For thousands of years, believers have insisted that God is love. Yet Scripture itself is laced with famine, flood, plague, and wrath, stories in which pain is not merely permitted but commanded. If one reads these texts without presuming goodness at the outset, a darker coherence appears. The God of the Bible could be seen not as the shepherd of souls but as the grand experimenter of suffering, a being who fashions agony into revelation.
-
- Creation Woven With Cruelty
In Genesis, God looks upon His creation and calls it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). But the perfection He blesses includes predation, decay, and the eventual curse of death. Before the first human disobeys, serpents already crawl and lions already kill. When Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the punishment is pain, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow” (Genesis 3:16). If omniscient, God knew this would occur, yet set the trap anyway: a forbidden fruit within reach, curiosity ensured, consequences catastrophic. That is not mere allowance; it is design.
2. The Divine Pleasure in Testing
The book of Job lays bare a troubling scene. God wagers with Satan over a man’s faith, permitting the loss of Job’s children, health, and livelihood simply to prove loyalty (Job 1–2). Job’s torment is not accidental, it is spectacle. He cries, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him” (Job 13:15), and heaven watches in silence. A loving creator could have refuted Satan by protecting Job; instead, He chooses the demonstration of pain. The moral of Job is often preached as perseverance, but viewed plainly it reads like divine experimentation.
3. Wrath as Signature
From the Flood that drowns all but one family (Genesis 7), to the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7–12), to the slaughter in Jericho (Joshua 6), divine anger manifests through mass suffering. When the Israelites doubt Him, “the Lord sent fiery serpents” (Numbers 21:6). When David takes a census, God offers three punishments, famine, flight, or plague, and kills seventy thousand men (2 Samuel 24). These are not random storms; they are precise instruments of pain. The biblical God does not merely permit violence; He commands it, rejoices in obedience to it, and calls it justice.
4. The Theater of Sacrifice
Central to Christianity is the crucifixion: the Father demanding the torture and death of His own Son as atonement for humanity. Isaiah 53 calls it “the will of the Lord to crush Him.” The cross, often portrayed as ultimate love, can also be read as ultimate dominance, a deity satisfied only when innocent blood redeems the guilty. If omnipotent, God could forgive without execution, yet He insists on agony as the price of grace. Suffering becomes not error but currency.
5. Eternal Torment and Predestination
The New Testament introduces Hell, a realm where the damned “shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). An omniscient Creator brings each soul into being knowing whether it will end in paradise or perpetual fire. To create with foreknowledge of damnation is to create for suffering. Theologians frame this as justice; logically, it is sadism sanctified. Even mercy becomes suspect: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), a line that implies deliberate exclusion, the pleasure of selection and rejection.
6. The Demand for Worship
Throughout scripture God demands fear as much as love. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). When angels appear, they cry “Holy, holy, holy,” never ceasing (Isaiah 6:3). The human role is submission; rebellion invites punishment. To command adoration under threat is not affection, it is control. A sadist does not merely harm; He makes the victim thank Him for the pain.
7. Pain as Divine Aesthetic
Yet the cruelty is not without pattern. Just as an artist uses shadow to define light, God uses suffering to give texture to joy. Paul writes that “suffering produces endurance” (Romans 5:3). In this logic, torment is refinement, souls tempered through fire. If God values creation as art, then anguish is His brushstroke, the element that grants meaning. The world’s beauty and horror become inseparable, both reflections of the same authorial will.
8. The Inescapable Conclusion
To hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and creator of all is to concede that every scream and every starburst exists by intention. If He can prevent pain but does not, He either cannot care or chooses not to. If He designs a system where innocence suffers and calls it good, the most honest descriptor is not benevolent, it is sadistic. The Bible, read without comforting filters, supports this possibility more plainly than it refutes it.
Conclusion: The Mirror of Divinity
Perhaps the unsettling truth is that the divine mirrors the creation. We are capable of tenderness and brutality, of worship and war, because our maker, if He exists, contains both. The scriptures, stripped of sermon, tell the story of a God who finds beauty in pain and glory in obedience. He is the architect of empathy and of agony, the artist of both crucifix and sunrise.
To call such a being “sadist” may not be blasphemy but accuracy. And if that is the face of God, then to understand Him fully is to admit that heaven and hell were never opposites, they are the same flame, burning at different intensities.
Very few Christians address these issues in an impartial manner. They limit themselves to the feel-good verses of the Bible and construct in their minds a model of the god that they would like to worship. That doesn’t change that fact that the god depicted in the Bible, Yahweh, is a sadist.
(5339) The iron grip of belief
The human mind is vulnerable to holding a belief so tight that once accepted as truth it will automatically exclude all information or arguments that would contradict it. This is the state of mind of most Christians. There exists no way to penetrate the mental shield that protects these beliefs- they are inviolable and not open for discussion. The following was taken from:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/10/true-believers-and-iron-grip-of-belief.html
It never ceases to amaze me how completely a human mind can be taken over by belief. Once someone decides they have the truth, there’s no reaching them with reason, no appealing to evidence, no possibility of honest dialogue. Their belief isn’t a conclusion they’ve come to — it’s the ground they stand on. To question it feels like questioning existence itself.
I see it in my own family. Some of my relatives, though their lives are in varying degrees of disarray, remain absolutely certain that their particular brand of Christianity is the only true faith — and that I, for having rejected it, am destined for hell. Nothing I say, no matter how calm or rational, makes a dent. Their conviction is immune to contradiction; it explains everything and defends itself from all challenges. To them, their faith is reality itself.
One relative in particular has merged religion with politics — a heady mix of MAGA-fpp)lavored Christian Nationalism. He quotes Jesus while echoing doctrines that have nothing remotely Christlike about them. He’s blind to the hypocrisy, deaf to the dissonance. When he gets worked up, his eyes blaze with righteous certainty, and his voice takes on the cadence of a man possessed. It’s hard not to notice how closely his fervor resembles the Islamic extremists he claims to despise. Different holy book, same psychology.
But this kind of mental capture doesn’t begin with politics. It begins much earlier — in childhood — and in my family, the roots are deep.
Some of the older generation were raised by an evangelical missionary who today would likely be described as narcissistic, or perhaps manically bipolar. He was a self-anointed prophet, utterly convinced that he alone spoke for God. His children have told stories of being shut in a small room for hours while he ranted, voice booming, eyes wild, demanding absolute obedience to his “God-given authority.” His tirades were framed as spiritual lessons. Any hint of dissent was rebellion against the Almighty.
One of his children eventually broke free. She saw that the “faith” she’d been force-fed was not divine truth but psychological abuse, and she walked away from Christianity altogether. The rest — four of them — remain faithful to this day. They still defend the system that warped them, recasting their father’s mania as “misplaced zeal for the Lord” and the fear he instilled as “maybe abuse but also the fear of God.” It’s heartbreaking to watch intelligent adults, decades later, still defending and living inside the mental architecture of their childhood indoctrination.
The magical thinking continues too: faith healing, “name-it-and-claim-it” theology, invisible “warfare in the heavenlies,” and the belief that prayer can literally move armies of angels and demons. How a reasonably intelligent person in this day and age can spend a lifetime defending such fantasies — and call it supernatural truth — is beyond comprehension. Yet that’s the power of belief. It anesthetizes reason. It rewires perception so that delusion becomes devotion, and irrationality feels holy.
And this isn’t limited to religion. The same mechanism fuels political cults, conspiracy movements, and even secular ideologies. Once belief fuses with identity, the mind closes like a fist. Evidence no longer matters; belonging does. The need to be right, to be chosen, to be safe — those are the true gods that are being served.
The more I observe, the more convinced I become that “true believers” — whether their faith is in a deity, a political figure, or an ideology — share the same blindness. They think they’ve discovered eternal truth when in fact they’ve inherited it. They didn’t find it through reason; they were formed by it through repetition, fear, and accident of birth. But because it feels sacred — because it’s entwined with emotion and community — they’ll defend it with a ferocity that logic can’t touch.
Sometimes I think real freedom isn’t political or economic at all — it’s psychological. It’s the ability to look at one’s own convictions and whisper, “I could be wrong.” That’s a kind of liberation most people never experience, because certainty is so comforting. Doubt, by comparison, feels like standing naked in the wind.
When I look at my relatives now, I don’t feel the degree of anger I once did. Mostly, I feel sadness — and a kind of grim empathy. They’re still serving the ghosts of their childhood, mistaking inherited trauma for divine revelation. They call it faith. I call it captivity.
And though they’re convinced I’ve lost my way, I’ve come to believe that the only path worth walking is the one that leads out of the prison of certainty — into the open, uncertain air of truth, which no one can ever fully possess.
If humans possessed purely objective mental processes, everybody would be either agnostic or atheistic. There would be no rigid followers of any faith because none of them are supported by evidence sufficient to merit any measure of confidence of their truth.
(5340) Six challenges to Christian truth
The truth of Christianity is not as certain as Christians are led to believe. The following lists six challenges to its veracity, none of which have been successfully defended:
Problem of evil (evidential & moral):
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, why is there massive, apparently pointless suffering e.g. children dying slow, painful deaths from disease for wild animals, natural disasters that kill thousands, genocides etc.? Either God can prevent it but won’t (not good), or wants to prevent it but can’t (not omnipotent), or allows it for a reason. If the last, what plausible, specific reasons are there such that an omnipotent, loving God couldn’t achieve the same goods without the horrific evils? Broad answers like “greater good” or “soul-making” are too vague. Give me concrete mechanisms & why they’re necessary and proportionate.
Divine hiddenness / lack of clear evidence:
If God wants a relationship with people and eternal souls are at stake, why is the evidence so indirect and ambiguous? Religious experiences and scripture are often culturally conditioned, contradictory across religions, and explainable by psychology/history. What specific piece of empirical evidence would you offer to someone who isn’t already a believer that would justifiably move their credence to theism & why wouldn’t God present that evidence unambiguously if the stakes are eternal?
Moral & textual problems in scripture:
There are many passages in the Bible that seem morally problematic (e.g., commands to annihilate peoples in Joshua, harsh punishments in Levitical law, endorsements of slavery, etc.). How do you reconcile a perfectly good God commanding or endorsing those acts? Are these passages mistranslated/misunderstood, culturally relative & not normative now, or genuinely commanded by God? If (a) or (b), explain clearly & show why those interpretations should be preferred to the plain reading.
Competing religious claims:
Many religions make mutually exclusive truth claims (Jesus rose from the dead vs. Krishna’s miracles vs. Muhammad’s revelations, etc.). Why should Christianity be preferred epistemically over other (major) world religions that also have long histories, millions of sincere adherents & sacred texts? What non-circular criteria do you use to prefer Christianity’s truth-claims?
The resurrection and historical evidence:
The resurrection claim is central. The usual evidence cited (empty tomb, testimony of disciples, conversion of Paul, etc.) has natural explanations that need to be ruled out (mistaken identity, visions, legendary development, political/social motives). Explain clearly why the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical data, and why naturalistic explanations are less probable.
Burden of proof & rational charity:
If you assert “Christianity is true” (which is a claim about reality), the burden of proof lies with the claimant. What positive, non-trivial reasons do you have (historical, philosophical, or empirical) that raise Christianity’s probability significantly above alternatives? Please don’t just shift the burden back to me to “disprove God.”
Here is what would exist if Christianity was true: (1) The amount of evil in the world would be vanishingly small, (2) God’s existence would be demonstrable such that any sincere searcher would attain positive assurance no matter what faith they were raised in, (3) Scriptures would be free from moral problems, exemplifying ethics that stand the test of time, (4) Christianity, being the only true religion, would so out compete man-made religions that it would be the only religion left standing, (5) God would have assured that there would be lock-tight historical evidence for the resurrection, and (6) prayers would show statistical effectiveness, along with the verified occurrence of miracles.
Since none of these six things are true, it is safe to dismiss Christianity as a false religion.
(5341) Never were true believers
The following essay explores the disingenuous way that Christians dismiss former Christians, not acknowledging that they found solid logical reasons to abandon the faith, but rather that they were never true Christians to begin with:
https://new.exchristian.net/2025/10/they-were-never-true-believers.html
When I first started questioning my faith, I noticed something odd. People didn’t really want to hear why I had doubts. They wanted to classify me. The moment someone steps away from belief, the label comes out: “They were never true believers.”
The go-to verse for that is 1 John 2:19 —
“They went out from us, but they were not of us.”
That line has done a lot of heavy lifting over the centuries. It provides a neat theological escape hatch: if someone leaves, it’s not because something might be wrong with the faith. It’s because something was wrong with them.
Of course, there are supporting texts — Hebrews 6, Matthew 7, 2 Peter 2 — each offering its own spin on the idea that you can get close to the truth without ever really possessing it. For the faithful, it’s a reassuring narrative. It means their worldview is insulated. No need to wrestle with messy questions about why sincere people lose belief — the Bible already explained it.
Looking back, I can see how useful that is. It keeps the system airtight. If someone deconstructs or walks away, they become an example, a warning, or a statistic — but never a voice worth listening to. The message to the faithful is clear: don’t follow, don’t question, and certainly don’t empathize.
In that sense, those verses do double duty. They’re not just theological cautions about falling away — they’re also subtle psychological safeguards. They help believers dismiss anyone who leaves as irrelevant, deceived, or defective. It’s a way of protecting the group from uncomfortable conversations. If the doubters are “false converts,” then their doubts don’t have to mean anything.
It took me a while to see how deeply that mindset runs. When I left, people didn’t say, “He’s wrestling with big questions.” They said, “He was never one of us.” That’s the religious version of a door slamming shut. Years of belief, prayer, and service — wiped clean, rewritten as an illusion.
I don’t think most people who quote those verses are being purposefully cruel. They’re protecting something precious to them — their confident sense of certainty. Maybe they genuinely need to believe that faith never fails, that the truth never cracks. My sister-in-law said to me that if her beliefs were wrong, then she had wasted her life. She was basically afraid and insecure. But it is still annoying to be erased by someone else’s need for security.
In the end, I realized those verses weren’t describing me — they were describing a system that can’t admit it might be wrong. It’s not about truth; it’s about control. Once you see that, you stop needing their approval to validate your experience.
And as the years go by, that realization becomes oddly freeing. The older I get, the less I need to prove anything — to them or to myself. I can look back and see how belief systems, like people, protect themselves when they feel threatened. And I can let that go. What once felt like rejection now feels like release — the quiet satisfaction of knowing I finally stepped outside the walls and learned to breathe on my own.
The “you were never a true Christian” accusation is a defense mechanism protecting the belief of insecure Christians masquerading as if they possess pristine certainty. In reality, they are greatly bothered by people leaving the faith, but cannot openly admit that to themselves or others.
(5342) Dismissing the 500 witnesses resurrection claim
Christians often use a verse written by Paul as ‘proof’ of the resurrection. This verse asserts that 500 people witnessed Jesus alive after his crucifixion. However, there are sound reasons to conclude that it provides no credible evidence of the resurrection. The following was taken from:
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul is laying down a creed that he himself has received about the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 KJV
[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [5] and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: [6] after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
NOTE: The part in dispute here is the 500 and not Cephas or the twelve which themselves are controversial so take note.
I see this as the vaguest of claims. We are not given any name, the place where this supposed appearance happened, in what manner they saw Jesus, what he says to them or what he does. Added onto the fact that Paul himself is reciting a creed he himself receives and not from an eyewitness or someone involved in said appearance. An analogy used to describe the situation as laid forth by Paul is this.
About 15 years ago over 500 people saw aliens:
-
- I will not tell you any of the names of the people who saw the aliens
- I will not tell you where they saw these aliens just know that it was in the area of Texas
- I will not tell you the manner in which the aliens appear to the people (is it a vision, a bodily appearance, a light in the sky, a deed to infer god’s presence or what? In what manner goes jesus appear to these people?)
- I will not tell you what the aliens do or say. But if you do not believe me go ask them most of who are still alive.
This is obviously an outrageous claim made with absolutely no grounding other than a received creed and a claim that if you want to confirm it,..most of those people are still alive.
Some rebuttals and their problems:
-
- The 500 are part of a very early creed- this just shows the early development of these creeds and not to the authenticity of the said creed. While the creed is from a pre-pauline tradition, it has no evidence or anything to collaborate it. It’s early-yes. Does this show the authenticity of the claim- absolutely no.
- Paul says “most of whom are still alive” showing the falsifiability of this claim and this shows the confidence and sincerity of Paul in his claim- this has a couple of problems. We have no reason to assume that anyone would want to actually undertake this task and verify this claim. Also Paul gives no names of people who witnesses this and so no way to verify it. If I was to tell you to verify some information about 500 people witnesses and give you no names, your only other way to verify this information would be to go around asking if they know about this, and even if you got no collaborative evidence for said claim and came back to me, I could just say that you did not meet any of those who know about the claim I’m making. It’s an unfalsifiable claim on the basis that you cannot exhaust everyone to say that you’re sure no one collaborates this evidence.
The lack of evidence or collaboration if this claim makes it very unlikely as a real occurrence or at least gives us no reason to believe it happened making it’s use as evidence ungrounded.
Removing the ‘evidence’ of the 500 witnesses leaves the resurrection in a state of having much less credible support. It also raises the question as to why God failed to provide more reliable documentation of the faith’s seminal event.
(5343) Nineteen reasons God doesn’t exist
The following essay lists nineteen reasons to conclude that the god of Christianity, Yahweh, or any other god of a similar pedigree, does not exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pmraVXkwXY
For thousands of years, religion has shaped the rise and fall of civilizations. It has given people hope in despair, order in chaos, and meaning in the face of suffering. But at the center of all religions lies one towering claim, the existence of a god.
This claim is not a small one. It is not a personal preference like choosing a favorite book or a piece of music. It is the boldest claim in history. that there is an all powerful, all- knowing, invisible being who rules the universe.
If such a claim is true, it should leave behind clear evidence, strong logic, and undeniable signs. But if such evidence is missing, then what we are left with is not truth, but belief built upon fragile ground. Below are nineteen reasons to conclude that God doesn’t exist:
Reason one, unanswered prayers.
Across centuries, billions of people have prayed in temples, churches, and mosques, asking for help in times of need. They prayed for healing, for safety, for guidance. And yet, the world remains filled with unanswered cries. The sick die despite desperate prayers. The innocent suffer while the guilty thrive. If a god hears, why is silence the only reply?
Some argue that prayers are answered in mysterious ways. But when every outcome can be redefined as God’s plan, the word answer loses all meaning. What we see instead is a universe that moves on, indifferent to the whispers of human beings.
Reason two, contradictory scriptures.
If there is one God, why does humanity have thousands of religions, each claiming divine truth? Sacred books contradict one another on creation, morality, and the very nature of the divine. Two texts can’t both be the infallible word of God if they disagree on fundamental claims. What we see is not one voice of truth, but countless human voices, each shaped by culture, history, and imagination.
Reason three, the hiddenness of God.
If a God truly existed and wanted to be known, would the evidence not be plain for all to see? Instead, God is hidden, silent, and invisible. Believers are told to have faith, but faith is demanded precisely because evidence is missing. The most extraordinary claim in history rests not on proof, but on the absence of it. Why would a being who supposedly created the universe choose to play the role of a ghost, always beyond reach, always beyond verification?
Reason four, the problem of suffering.
Everywhere we look in nature, suffering is built into the system. Predators rip prey apart. Diseases ravage children. Natural disasters wipe out entire communities. If a god is all powerful and all loving, why is cruelty stitched into the fabric of existence itself? The answer that suffering is a test collapses when we realize that billions of innocent animals suffered long before humans even existed. Pain is not an accident in this world. It is a feature. What kind of designer builds a universe like this?
Reason five, the vastness of the universe.
The known universe contains trillions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. Yet religious texts written on a tiny planet thousands of years ago claim that the creator made all of this for humans alone. The scale of the cosmos makes such a belief not only arrogant but absurd. We are a speck on a speck orbiting an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy. To think the universe was designed with us at its center is to misunderstand the vastness we live in.
Reason six, the silence of history.
If a god truly guided humanity, history would reveal a clear divine fingerprint. But what we see instead is confusion, division, and endless conflict over who speaks for God. Wars fought in his name, blood spilled over interpretations, reformations, schisms, and cults, all claiming divine authority. This is not the story of a god leading humanity. This is the story of humans inventing gods to lead themselves.
Reason seven, evolution, not creation.
For centuries, religion claimed humans were created suddenly and specially. Then science uncovered a deeper truth. We are the product of evolution, shaped by natural selection over billions of years. Our DNA carries the fingerprints not of a perfect creator, but of blind processes filled with trial and error. We share genes with apes, with fish, with plants. The creation stories of old collapse in the face of this overwhelming evidence.
Reason eight, the shifting morality of religion.
Religious morality changes with time. What was once declared sinful is later seen as normal. What was once justified by scripture, slavery, inequality, cruelty, is now condemned. If God’s morality were eternal, why does it evolve with culture? The truth is that morality comes from humans, shaped by empathy, reason, and social progress, not from divine command.
Reason nine, the multiplicity of gods.
If belief in God were natural and self-evident, humanity would have discovered the same God everywhere. Yet history shows thousands of gods from Zeus to Odin, from Rah to Vishnu. Each generation dismisses the old gods as myths while clinging to its own. Atheism in truth is simply going one god further, refusing to believe in any.
Reason 10, the lottery of birth.
If God were real and salvation depended on knowing him, then where you are born should not decide your eternal fate. Yet history shows that most people believe whatever religion dominates their birthplace. A child born in India is likely Hindu. A child born in Saudi Arabia is likely Muslim. A child born in Italy is likely Christian. Billions inherit belief the way they inherit language or clothing. If God truly wanted humanity to know one truth, why would it be scattered in such a way that geography decides belief more than evidence?
Reason 11, the silence in tragedy.
When disaster strikes, earthquakes, wars, famine, believers cry out for divine help. And yet time and again, the hands that save the suffering are human hands. doctors, volunteers, neighbors, strangers. If God intervenes, why does he not appear where he is needed most? If divine love is real, why is the world rebuilt not by miracles, but by human effort alone?
Reason 12, the imperfection of the human body.
If humans were the special creation of a perfect God, why are our bodies filled with flaws? Our spines are prone to breaking, our eyes to blindness, our teeth to decay. We choke because food and air share the same passage. We are vulnerable to countless diseases, mutations, and weaknesses. These are not the hallmarks of perfect design. They are the marks of evolution’s clumsy trial and error.
Reason 13, the ever shrinking God.
Throughout history, God has been used to explain the unknown. When thunder roared, it was God’s anger. When disease struck, it was God’s punishment. But as science grew, the gaps closed. We discovered electricity, germs, and natural laws. With every discovery, God retreated further into the shrinking gaps of ignorance. The god of the gaps keeps getting smaller and one day disappears.
Reason 14, divine justice that never arrives.
Religions promise justice beyond the grave. The wicked will be punished. The good rewarded. But in this life, justice is rare, uneven, often absent. Evil men die peacefully in their beds. Innocent people perish in agony. If God’s justice is real, why is it always postponed to a realm beyond evidence? Is it justice or simply a story told to ease our fear?
Reason 15, the contradictions of omnipotence.
Philosophers have wrestled with this for centuries. Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it? Can he make a square circle? If he cannot, he is not all powerful. If he can, logic itself collapses. Omnipotence, when examined closely, is not a coherent idea. It is a word that sounds impressive but breaks apart under reason.
Reason 16, the problem of free will and foreknowledge.
Believers say God gave us free will, but they also say God knows everything, past and future. If God already knows every choice we will make, then free will is an illusion. We are characters reading a script already written. Either God does not know the future or we do not have freedom. Both cannot be true.
Reason 17, the silence of the stars.
For decades, humans have scanned the skies, listening for signals of intelligent life. We have mapped galaxies, probed the edges of space, and uncovered cosmic truths. And yet, nowhere do we find evidence of a divine presence watching over us. The heavens remain vast, empty, silent. What we discover is a universe governed by physics, not by the hand of a hidden god.
Reason 18, the human origins of religion.
At its core, every religion carries the fingerprints of the culture that created it. Desert religions imagine deserts in heaven and hell. Agricultural religions celebrate harvests and fertility. Warrior tribes imagine gods of conquest and blood. These are not universal truths. They are human stories born of time, place, and imagination.
Reason 19, the burden of proof.
Finally, we must face the most important point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a God who created the universe, watches over every life, hears every thought, and plans every destiny is the most extraordinary claim ever made. And yet, the evidence for it is no greater than the evidence for Zeus, Thor, or Rah. The burden of proof lies not on the doubter but on the believer. And in the absence of proof, belief collapses.
These reasons do not come from anger nor from mockery. They come from the simple act of looking at the world honestly, from unanswered prayers to contradictory scriptures, from unnecessary cruelty to the silence of the stars. The evidence points not toward a divine hand, but toward human imagination and natural law.
Religion gave us stories. It gave us rituals, symbols, and myths that carried our ancestors through dark times. But the claim of God, the claim that there is a being who rules reality, cannot survive when weighed against logic, science, and evidence.
What remains then is the courage to step beyond belief, to face a universe without a divine ruler, and to find meaning not in stories told to us, but in the truth we discover for ourselves. We are small, yes, fragile, yes, but in our search for truth, we are also powerful. For truth does not require faith. It requires only honesty. And perhaps in the end, honesty is greater than belief.
If there was to be a twentieth reason to this list, it might be this- If an interventionist, prayer-answering, judgment-oriented god was overseeing our planet, the evidence for such a divine presence would be overwhelming, leaving no credible avenue for atheism. The very existence of atheists strongly suggests that if there is a god in our universe, it is not omnipotent and probably is not interested in interacting with us, assuming that it even knows we exist.
(5344) Christian denounces Paul (and Christianity)
In the following essay a Christian denounces Paul as being a legitimate prophet or spokesperson for Christianity. This can be easily justified by examination of the scriptures and comparing the gospels to Paul’s epistles. However, what the author overlooks is that if Paul was indeed a false prophet, then why did God allow him to usurp Christianity? The following was taken from:
Paul was a false prophet who repeatedly lied and led believers astray.
Let me preface this debate by saying that I have spent considerable time poring over Scripture. For decades, I was a Pauline Christian, but I always had a nagging feeling that something was off with Paul every time I read/studied his letters and what he taught. I noticed that many of his teachings did not align with what Jesus (nor His disciples) taught, which is when I began to really study Scripture in a deeper way I hadn’t up to that point. I think most Christians simply follow what they were brought up to believe without much thought, as I was. I stopped attending church and following organized religion a long time ago and my spiritual life has never been more full, more alive, more full of Jesus and more full of a desire to want to go out and do as much good in the world as I can.
I also want to say that while I’m open to debate, I stand firmly on my convictions regarding Paul; I’m simply interested in what others have to say and whether or not you have been on the same path and had the same convictions/questions.
Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture is from the NKJV of the Bible.
First and foremost:
Jesus taught a works-based Gospel and message of salvation. James (the brother of Jesus and the first leader of the church of Jerusalem) said in James 2:17 “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (NKJV) Now, I know a lot of Pauline Christians will rebut this by saying that good works come from faith…but that isn’t what Jesus or His brother or His disciples taught. Jesus emphasized following the law, repenting, living by His teachings and the fruit of His kingdom…the complete anthesis of what Paul taught.
Paul completely did away with the law and taught a faith-only Christianity. However, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus Himself says “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will be no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” This makes it abundantly clear that Paul’s message of faith-only is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught. Christians will argue over the exact wording to make it align with Paul’s message, but the words themselves are clear. Jesus also says He did not come to abolish (which means do away with) the law, but to fulfill it (correctly interpret and live it.)
Paul’s so-called “conversion.” Where should I begin? There are four different stories of his so-called conversion. In Acts 9:3-8, it says that Paul’s companions were still. In Acts 22:6-11, it says they fell to the ground alongside Paul. In Acts 26:13-19, it says they also fell to the ground. Paul himself tells this story in Galatians 1:17-19, he says that he didn’t consult with anyone at all, but went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. Three years after that, he went to visit with Peter. In Acts 9: 19-29, it says he spent some days with the Disciples at Damascus and then after a few days, he went to Jerusalem to try to join the Disciples, who rejected him out of fear.
In all of his letters, Paul, only a couple of times, quotes Jesus directly. He teaches his followers to follow HIM, rather than Jesus. We can see this in 1 Corinthians 4:16 where Paul tells his followers “Therefore I urge you, imitate me.”
In Romans 5:12, we see Paul invent the idea of “original sin”; a concept that was completely foreign to Judaism. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Jesus NEVER taught or preached the idea of original sin and that we are all born sinners. Jesus taught that we are all personally responsible for our own sin and it is only through His teachings and following His commands that we can overcome it…unlike Paul’s attractive “Hey, don’t worry about whatever you’ve done. It’s cool. As long as you’re saved, you’re solid” schtick.
If you’re familiar with Greek mythology at all, you’ll see that Paul’s teaching about one sin contaminating humanity eerily mimics stories like Pandora’s Box. For those who aren’t familiar with it, Pandora was given a jar with all of humanity’s evil. Despite being told to not open it, she did…and released all kinds of trouble on the world. Sound familiar? Adam and Eve, anyone?
Jesus was Jewish and was Torah-observant. He taught His followers to do the same. He followed the law perfectly and said that we should be holy, as He is holy. We are to be perfect, as He is perfect. Why would Jesus have said this if it wasn’t possible? To set us up for what He knew would be an epic failure? Of course not. He said it because by following The Way, it IS possible. 1 Peter 1:15-16 “But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, Be holy, for I am holy.” This was a command given to all of His followers, not just the Jewish people.
Perhaps most disturbing is that Paul borrowed from the Greco-Roman world and elevated Jesus to a mythical, pre-existent creature whereas Jesus Himself taught as a human-being prophet and the Messiah. We must remember that Paul was a Roman and was raised with mythology and paganism, which he then integrated into almost all of his teachings.
In Revelations 2:2, it is said “I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say that are apostles and are not, and have found them liars.” I am 100% convinced that this line relates directly to Paul. The first line of his book, Ephesians, he calls himself an apostle despite no one giving him that title. Paul never met Jesus, never walked with Him, never lived with Him, and was never taught by him. He was so arrogant that he elevated his teachings over those of the true Apostles. Paul even admonished Peter…Peter, who was the closest friend and confidant of Jesus for three years…Peter, the first one who said that Christ was the Messiah and Son of the Living God…the same Peter that Jesus said He would build His church on the truth that Peter had stated (I’m not Catholic, so no, I don’t believe any of that Peter being the first pope nonsense) yet Paul believed he had the authority to admonish him. If you care to research, it’s known as the “Incident at Antioch.”
Jesus never taught that we must be “saved” nor did He teach any kind of sola scriptura nonsense. Jesus taught that salvation comes through good works, repentance, and following His teachings, Many times, Jesus warns us that false prophets will arise and will lead even the elect astray. This is why we must be on guard against false teachings like Paul. Matthew 24:24 “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”
Paul even referred to himself as a pharisee…after his so-called “conversion.” He repeatedly lied throughout his letters…and admits to doing so.
I follow the Old Testament, along with the Gospel in the New Testament. These days, I don’t go near Paul’s letters. They’re nothing but rotting poison from a Roman pharisee who, I believe, had the goal in mind of destroying the followers of Jesus by distorting the teachings of Jesus and deceiving many. He has been successful in this endeavor, sadly.
Paul did not expand the message of Jesus, he came up with an entire new theology of his own…one that has nothing to do with what Jesus taught, lived….and died for.
If Paul was indeed a false prophet, and if God is omnipotent and had incentive to establish the ‘true’ religion on our planet, then how does it make sense that he allowed Paul to overpower Jesus’ disciples in establishing the documented fundamentals of the Christian faith? In short, it doesn’t.
(5345) Evolution of the virgin birth
The following essay explores the emergence of the virgin birth narrative in Christian theology. The most important aspect to note is that it was missing for the first several decades, which tells us that it is a product of myth-making:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1odho1n/the_virginbirth_narrative_of_christs_nativity/
The Virgin-Birth Narrative of Christ’s Nativity
The story of Jesus’ birth from Mary the Virgin occupies a central place in traditional Christian doctrine, yet it has long invited critical questions about its historicity and textual pedigree. What am I arguing in this piece? That the virgin-birth accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are not independent historical reports so much as later theological—or symbolic—framings imposed on earlier Christian messianic material. This essay will show how the earliest Christian documents (Mark and John) say nothing of the tale, and how the authors of Matthew and Luke produced two different, parallel narratives that lend the emerging Christology a mythical and miraculous coloring. We will compare the two accounts in terms of genealogy, birth circumstances, and theological intent; analyze the translation-history of Isaiah 7:14 (ʿalmah “young woman” vs. parthenos “virgin”) and how that rendering was later used to justify doctrine; trace how the Church Fathers in the early centuries worked to secure the doctrine of virginity and rebut Jewish and pagan criticism; and finally, summarize several contemporary critical scholars’ opinions about the origin of these narratives.
Chapter I — The Absence of the Birth Narrative from the Earliest Gospels
First, note that the earliest New Testament gospel, Mark (c. 66–70 CE), opens with John the Baptist announcing the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, without any reference to his birth or childhood. That silence implicitly suggests that the virgin-birth tradition was not in circulation at that time. Moreover, Mark’s impressions point in a different direction: he briefly mentions Jesus’ family (“his mother” and his brothers”), which implies no awareness of a miraculous birth. The absence of the story in Mark thus likely reflects its absence among many early Christians.
Similarly, the Gospel of John (late first century) is theologically focused—beginning with “In the beginning was the Word”—yet it also contains no account of a miraculous physical birth. Bart Ehrman notes that John shows no familiarity with the [virgin-birth] belief that later readers take for granted. This indicates that the idea of the virgin birth was not widely known even to prominent Christian authors by the end of the first century; it is simply missing from their latest gospel.
In the same vein, Paul’s letters and the Acts of the Apostles concentrate on Christ’s death and resurrection and related theology; they contain no explicit reference to a virgin birth. For example, Paul’s remark in Corinthians that Christ was “born of a woman” provides no hint of virginity. Could there have been a better opportunity to mention such an extraordinary miracle? Some scholars argue that “the absence of the virginity tradition in Paul’s letters, the speeches in Acts, and even in Mark indicates that this tradition is a later development.” In other words, the early Church emphasized the crucifixion and resurrection without any mention of a prior great miracle for about thirty years after Jesus’ ministry began.
To summarize the argument so far:
Gospel of Mark: opens the New Testament with John the Baptist and does not address Jesus’ birth.
Gospel of John: although written later and theologically sophisticated, presents Jesus as the eternal “Word” and likewise omits any reference to virginity.
The earliest Pauline letters: make no mention of virginity; Paul never invokes this tradition.
Taken together, these points suggest that the miraculous birth stories emerged later within the written tradition. Put differently, the gap between Mark and the infancy prologues of the other gospels supports the idea that they were invented in a context subsequent to Mark.
Chapter II — A Critical Comparison of the Matthew and Luke Narratives
Matthew and Luke each present relatively detailed narratives of Jesus’ birth. If the previous chapter has established why the story might have been ignored earlier, we now face those who decided to record it—so let us examine how each author tells the tale. We will see that the two accounts diverge markedly in detail and theological emphasis, raising serious doubts about their historical authenticity—doubts that are apparent from a first reading.
First, the similarities: both narratives include divine/messianic announcements. In each, an angel heralds Jesus’ birth; both link the newborn to names and titles—“Jesus,” “Christ,” and “King of the Jews”—and both situate his origin in Bethlehem with later association to Nazareth.
But the differences are stark and fundamental:
Genealogies: Matthew (1:1–17) traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph back to King David across a specific generational schema; Luke (3:23–38) presents a very different genealogy with a different sequence of names and generations. These contradictions over lineage have long been a major point of contention.
Birth events: The two gospels tell wholly different birth stories. Matthew includes the visit of the Magi from the East, the gifts, and the flight to Egypt to escape Herod—an itinerary governed by revelation. Luke, by contrast, describes the shepherds in the fields who are addressed by angels and attributes Jesus’ birth to a Roman “census” enrollment (a problematic historical claim); Luke knows nothing of a star or of the flight to Egypt. The divergence suggests that each author shaped the infancy narrative to different theological ends.
Chronology and history: Serious chronological conflicts arise. Herod’s reign ended around 4 BCE, whereas Luke appears to date Jesus’ birth to the reign of Caesar Augustus in connection with a census placed around 6 CE—an impossible overlap that cannot be reconciled easily.
In short, internal contradictions are evident: Matthew and Luke offer two different accounts of essentially the same event, with clear conflict in sequence and participants. These two narratives cannot be described as identical eyewitness attestations.
All this indicates that the authors of Matthew and Luke composed two distinct stories to achieve different Christological aims. Many scholars take this as reason to distance these texts from literal historical reporting and to read them as post-Easter theological narratives intended to vindicate the identity of “Christ the Savior,” adding symbolic accretions to the messianic tradition.
Chapter III — A Linguistic Analysis of Isaiah 7:14 and the Shift from ʿalmah to parthenos
The previous chapter concentrated on narrative differences, but the crucial question remains: whence came the element of “virginity” in these stories? Matthew 1:23 explicitly cites Isaiah’s prophecy—“Behold, the ʿalmah will conceive and bear a son…”—and that verse underpins one of the doctrinal pillars of the narrative. Thus we must analyze the linguistics and reception history of ʿalmah (עַלְמָה) and its Greek translation as parthenos (παρθένος) in the Septuagint (LXX), and how that shift shaped Christian doctrine.
Many linguists observe that the Hebrew word ʿalmah originally refers simply to “a young woman of marriageable age,” without an inherent specification of virginity. For example, HALOT (the standard Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon) renders ʿalmah in biblical contexts as “girl” or “young woman,” not explicitly “virgin.” The precise Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah (בתולה), which appears frequently in the Old Testament (roughly fifty occurrences) and is used where the author intends to denote virginity clearly. From this linguistic perspective, some scholars regard the most natural literal translation of Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” rather than “virgin,” without any metaphysical implication.
So where does the doctrinal opening arise? It comes from the theological import of the LXX’s third-century BCE translation of Isaiah, where ʿalmah is rendered by the Greek term parthenos—“virgin.” That lexical change altered the force of the text for early Christians. Matthew quotes the Isaiah text virtually verbatim but uses the LXX phrasing with parthenos, and thereby presents Isaiah as prophesying a miraculous virgin birth. As Hallvard Hagelia (and others) point out, Matthew’s citation depends on the Septuagint: “For this reason Matthew in his gospel quotes Isaiah 7 literally from the Septuagint…; thus we have the biblical foundation for the doctrine of the virgin birth.”
This semantic transfer created a theological clash: as modern commentaries note, replacing “young woman” with “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 changes the prophecy’s meaning in a decisive way.
In sum, the traditional Jewish reading did not see ʿalmah as entailing a metaphysical virgin birth, whereas early Christians interpreted the Greek parthenos as clear proof of a miraculous nativity.
Chapter IV — The Church Fathers’ Role in Fixing the Virgin-Birth Doctrine and Answering Critics
Once the virgin-birth notion took shape within the infancy stories, the early Church Fathers set about defending and consolidating it against Jewish and pagan critiques. Over time the doctrine became one of the keystones of early Christian thought, regarded as a proof of Christ’s divine identity.
-
- Justin Martyr and his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr (c. 165 CE) was among the earliest to construct a formal theological defense of the virgin birth. In his Dialogue with Trypho (chs. 43–67), Justin appeals to Isaiah 7:14 as speaking clearly of the Messiah’s being born of a virgin. Trypho objects that the Hebrew ʿalmāh means “young woman,” not “virgin.” Justin’s reply is telling: “You deny the saying ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear,’ and wish to translate it as ‘a young woman’; but a sign given by God is not a sign if it is given to a married woman—only if it is given when a virgin bears is it a true token from God.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 43.) Justin regarded the prophecy as pointing not to a local event in Ahaz’s day but to an extraordinary future sign of divine intervention. He thus transformed virginity from a narrative detail into a theological criterion for Christ’s divinity.
- Origen’s Response to Celsus Origen (c. 254 CE) addressed pagan criticisms most directly in Contra Celsum. Celsus charged that the nativity story was borrowed from pagan myths of divine births and even accused Mary of immorality with a Roman soldier. Origen answered by again appealing to Isaiah 7:14 as quoted in Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” Origen argued, “If the woman in question were merely a young woman and not a virgin, then that would not be a sign given by God to his people. Rather, the verse means that a virgin was to conceive, since God chose her to bear without a man.” (Contra Celsum, I.35–37.) For Origen, the “sign” must be supernatural, and virginity is the mark of divine agency, not a metaphor.
- Post-Nicean Fathers and Formalization of the Doctrine By the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine had become formally embedded in Christian belief. Fathers such as Athanasius, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa emphasized that Christ’s birth from a virgin guaranteed the purity of his divine nature and its union with humanity without corruption. At the Council of Ephesus (431 CE), the Church affirmed Mary as Theotokos, “God-bearer,” a title that functioned as a definitive affirmation of the theological significance attached to Mary’s role and, by extension, the doctrine of the virgin birth.
- The Evolution of the Defensive Argument The Fathers did not rely on scripture alone; they also advanced logical defenses. For example: if Christ had been born through ordinary human relations, one might expect relatives to claim and thus discredit his divine status—but that is not recorded. The Fathers also invoked Old Testament typology—Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth—to show that God often acts through extraordinary births. Over time the Fathers thus offered both scriptural and rational arguments for regarding the virgin birth as a non-negotiable tenet.
Bart Ehrman summarizes the process: the Fathers actively assisted in consolidating the doctrine of the virgin birth, appealing to Isaiah 7:14 and infancy texts, and offering their own theological-rational cases that aligned with the conception of Christ as the sinless “Son of God.” In doing so, the Church ensured the doctrine’s transition from a messianic tradition to a formally declared belief in the post-Nicene era.
Chapter V — Contemporary Critical Scholars on the Origin of the Birth Narratives
Many New Testament scholars and modern theologians consider Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives to function primarily as theological constructions rather than literal historical reportage. Raymond E. Brown—a leading twentieth-century Catholic biblical scholar—argued that Matthew and Luke were theologians before they were historians. Writing decades after the Resurrection, they recast Jesus’ origin in light of faith in his resurrection and kingship, presenting him from the outset as a sacred, elect figure. Brown characterizes their accounts as: “a theological birth rather than a biological birth.” (The Birth of the Messiah, Doubleday, 1993, p. 34.)
Brown’s method aligns in part with Rudolf Bultmann’s distinction between the historical and the mythical: Brown concludes that the infancy narratives are not documentary-historical in the modern sense but expressive theological statements shaped by post-Easter convictions.
Bart D. Ehrman, a textual critic of the New Testament, notes that many contemporary believers do not insist on a literal virgin birth to sustain faith; they understand the story as a powerful spiritual symbol. Ehrman describes the infancy narratives as “meaningful fiction” and stresses that such accounts were absent in the earliest stages of Christianity: Paul—who knew James, called the Lord’s brother—never mentions a virgin birth. According to Ehrman, this absence indicates that the idea emerged after Paul and after Mark, at a stage when Christian theology developed a “high Christology” that elevated Jesus to divine status. (I concur with Ehrman’s assessment in this respect.)
Similarly, John P. Meier—of the historical-Jesus school—considers the Bethlehem birth story to have a stronger theological than historical impetus. Meier, in A Marginal Jew, contends that the gospels combine historical and theological elements, and that the infancy scenes aim to link Jesus to Davidic lineage in order to fulfill messianic expectations rather than to record a verifiable event.
A broad consensus among many critical scholars holds that the birth narratives were reworked in a theological environment to support doctrinal aims: establishing Davidic descent, asserting Jesus’ divine nature, and foregrounding prophetic fulfillment from the outset. In short, the majority of critical academics see the infancy stories as theological mythopoesis rather than straightforward historical chronicle.
Brown emphasizes that the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts—whether in genealogy, locale, or participants—reveal that each author projected a distinct theological orientation within the early Church, not two independent testimonies to a single event. Consequently, the infancy narratives are best understood as products of developing Christian doctrine, not as literal documentation of a supernatural birth.
Chapter VI — Cultural Roots of the Miraculous-Birth Idea in Jewish and Pagan Literature
The miraculous-birth motif is not originally Christian; it draws on older regional traditions and on foreign models, such as Greek mythology. The Hebrew Bible contains no story of a literal “virgin birth” in the technical sense, but it does include examples of miraculous or divinely enabled births—Sarah bearing Isaac after long barrenness (Gen. 21), Hannah the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. 1), and Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5–25). These narratives involve a divine element but are commonly linked to human factors like prayer or an angelic announcement.
In later Jewish literature ideas closer to “supernatural birth” appear—for example, certain Second-Temple or pseudepigraphal texts that recount extraordinary nativity tales, such as an account associated with Melchizedek or other legendary figures who emerge in miraculous ways. These texts are not part of normative biblical tradition but show that the imagination of later Jewish circles was receptive to extraordinary birth motifs before the Gospels.
In the pagan and Hellenistic world, divine-birth stories were ubiquitous. Greek mythology tells how Zeus impregnates Danaë (sometimes depicted as a shower of gold) who bears Perseus without sexual union (Pindar, 5th century BCE). Athena’s birth from Zeus’s head is another striking example of divine nativity. Hellenistic and Roman rulers frequently adopted such narratives to sacralize and legitimize rulers—Alexander the Great as son of Ammon/Zeus, Augustus’s mother Atia said to have conceived after an encounter with a sacred serpent in Apollo’s temple. These stories function to deify rulers and to supply sacred origins for dynasties.
The upshot is that miraculous-birth motifs were widespread throughout the ancient Mediterranean. Jewish literature provided precedents for extraordinary births, and pagan literature offered abundant models of divine-human intersection at conception. Christianity reworked these motifs, however, shaping them to serve a particular incarnation theology: the idea of God becoming flesh. Many scholars maintain that similarities among stories do not necessarily indicate direct borrowing; rather, they reflect a shared cultural vocabulary that the early Christians adapted to articulate their own theological claims.
Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, we can say that the virgin-birth story of Matthew and Luke is not an independent chronicle of historically attested events but rather the result of a later theological reframing that emerged as early Christian doctrine developed. The absence of the tradition from the earliest gospels and apostolic letters suggests it was not original to the earliest Christian communities but became progressively entrenched by selective appeal to scriptural passages—most notably Isaiah 7:14 as rendered in the Septuagint—so as to give Jesus’ birth an unmistakable miraculous cast that suited his status as “Son of God and coming King.” The major divergence between Matthew and Luke in essential details further indicates that each composed an infancy account to serve particular theological aims rather than to report a single, unified historical occurrence. Early Church Fathers exerted great effort to defend and fix the doctrine by appealing to prophecy and rational apologetics; and the cultural background of Jewish and pagan miracle-birth motifs shows that Christianity both inherited and transformed a wider set of ancient ideas. Finally, modern critical scholarship largely converges on the view that the infancy narratives are theological and mythic in character—designed to communicate contemporary confessional claims rather than to function as literal historiography.
The mythology surrounding Christian theology is hard to miss. The legend of the virgin birth is a good case study in how humans tend to embellish their sacred stories. One thing is certain- if Jesus was a real person, he was born in the usual fashion.
(5346) Why I became an atheist
The following is an exit testimony from a former Christian who references the problem of evil, Bertrand Russell, the Bible, history, science, conflicting religions, morality, faith, hell, other religions, finding meaning, comfort, and psychology as reasons to abandon his faith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdst6MC-UYM
Today I’m sharing something deeply personal, a journey that shaped who I am and how I see the world. This video is called How I Became an Atheist.
I grew up in a religious home, church every Sunday, prayers before meals, Bible stories as a kid. It was the bedrock of my world back then. I didn’t question it. God was real. Heaven was waiting. And hell was a place to avoid. It was comforting. The world made sense. There was a plan, a purpose, someone watching over us.
But as I grew, doubts started creeping in. I remember sitting in church listening to a sermon about God’s love for everyone and thinking, if God loves us, why do bad things happen to good people. That question was the first crack in my faith.
The Problem of Evil
That question led me to what’s known as the problem of evil. If God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, why is there so much suffering? Kids get sick with diseases like leukemia, earthquakes, and tsunamis destroy entire communities. Wars rip families apart. How does that add up? If God can stop suffering but chooses not to, is he really loving? If he can’t stop it, is he truly all powerful?
I asked my pastor and he said, “God’s ways are mysterious.” That answer felt like a cop out. Why would a loving God let a hurricane kill thousands and call it a mystery? I needed answers that made sense. So, I started digging deeper.
I began reading everything I could. Philosophy, history, science, not just religious texts. One book that really shook me was Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. Russell, a philosopher and mathematician, argued, “There’s no solid evidence for God’s existence.
Think about it. If I told you there’s an invisible dragon in my garage, you’d ask for proof. If I said you just have to believe, you’d probably laugh. Why is God any different? Russell’s point was that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I started looking at the Bible not as divine truth, but as a book written by people in a specific time and place with no more proof of divine inspiration than any other ancient text.
Let’s talk about the Bible for a moment. I was taught it was God’s perfect word. But when I read it closely, I found problems. Genesis has two different creation stories. One says animals were created before humans. The other says the opposite. The gospels in the New Testament don’t agree on key details like who was at Jesus’s tomb after his resurrection. If this was God’s flawless word, why the inconsistencies?
Then there’s the moral side. The Old Testament shows God commanding things like genocide and slavery. In 1st Samuel 15, God orders the complete destruction of the Amalachites, men, women, children, even livestock. That didn’t feel like a loving God. It felt like ancient people justifying their wars with divine authority. The more I read, the more the Bible seemed like a human creation, not a divine one.
History also played a huge role in my journey. I learned how religions developed over time. Christianity didn’t just appear. It evolved from Jewish traditions mixed with Greek philosophy and Roman politics. The Council of Nika in 325 CE decided which books made it into the Bible and which didn’t. That’s not God’s hand. That’s humans voting on what’s holy. Other religions follow similar patterns. Ancient Egyptians worshiped Raw. Greeks had Zeus. Norse had Odin. Each culture created gods to explain their world. Storms, harvests, life, and death. Why was my god the right one? They all seemed like products of their time and place, not universal truths.
Science was another big piece of the puzzle. Learning about evolution, the Big Bang, and how the universe works showed me we don’t need a god to explain reality. Take the origin of life. Centuries ago, people thought only a god could create something as complex as a human. But now, we know about DNA, natural selection, and how life evolved from simple organisms over billions of years.
Fossils, genetic studies, and lab experiments provide evidence we can test. Compare that to religious creation stories, which rely on faith without proof. Science doesn’t disprove God, but it shows we don’t need a deity to explain the natural world. The more I understood science, the less room there was for God in my world view.
Then there’s the issue of conflicting religions. If God exists and wants us to know him, why do so many different faiths exist? Christians believe Jesus is the only way to salvation. Muslims follow Allah and the Quran. Hindus worship their gods and follow their traditions. Each claims to have the truth, but they can’t all be right. If God wanted us to believe in him, wouldn’t he make it clearer? Instead, we have thousands of conflicting beliefs, each tied to where people are born. If I’d been born in Saudi Arabia, I’d likely be Muslim. In India, maybe Hindu. That randomness doesn’t point to a divine plan. It suggests religions are human inventions shaped by culture and geography.
Meeting people from different backgrounds also shifted my perspective. Look at secular countries like Denmark or Sweden. They have some of the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living. If religion was the source of morality, shouldn’t religious societies be the most ethical? Yet, history is full of religious violence from the Crusades to modern terrorism justified by faith. Morality, I realized, comes from human empathy, reason, and social cooperation, not divine commands.
Logic became a cornerstone of my doubts. Faith is often praised as believing without evidence. But why is that a virtue? If I believe something without proof, how do I know it’s true? And why would a God who gave us reason expect us to ignore it? Then there’s the argument from divine hiddenness. If God exists and wants a relationship with us, why is he so hard to find? There’s no clear evidence, no undeniable miracle, just ancient texts and personal feelings. If I wanted someone to know me, I wouldn’t hide and expect them to believe I’m real based on a 2,000-year-old book. Why would God?
The idea of hell troubled me deeply. The Bible says God loves us, but if we don’t believe the right thing, we face eternal torture. That’s not love. It’s coercion. Imagine a parent saying, “Love me or I’ll lock you in the basement forever.” That’s not a choice. It’s a threat. And what about people who’ve never heard of Jesus? Billions have lived and died without encountering Christianity. Are they doomed because of where they were born? That didn’t seem fair or loving. It seemed like a system designed to scare people into belief, not inspire genuine faith.
For a while, I called myself agnostic, unsure if God existed, but open to the idea. I explored other religious texts, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist sutras. They were beautiful in their own way, but they felt humanmade, full of contradictions and cultural marks like the Bible. I also read atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. They articulated what I was already feeling. That belief in God often relies on ignoring evidence and logic. Their arguments weren’t perfect, but they gave me a framework to organize my thoughts.
One of the final pieces was realizing I didn’t need God to find meaning. Religion often says life is empty without faith. But I found the opposite. Letting go of belief freed me to see the world as it is. Beautiful, messy, and real. I found purpose in relationships, learning, helping others, and exploring the universe. Studies show humans are wired to create meaning through art, science, and community, not because a god hands it to us.
Look at the images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Galaxies billions of light years away sparkling in the void. That’s all inspiring without needing a deity. Or think about the human genome project, mapping the code of life itself. That’s meaning we’ve created through reason and discovery.
I also thought about the practical side of religion. Many people cling to faith for comfort, community, or tradition. I get that it’s human to want those things, but you can have community without dogma. Secular groups, charities, and friendships provide connection without requiring belief in the supernatural. As for comfort, facing reality head on, accepting that life is finite, that we’re part of a vast universe can be liberating. It makes every moment precious. I don’t need an afterlife to value this one.
I also considered the psychological reasons people believe. Humans are pattern seekers. We see faces in clouds, purpose in random events. Ancient people saw lightning and invented gods to explain it. Today, we know it’s just electricity in the atmosphere. Religion often fills the gaps in our understanding or comforts us in the face of death. But just because something feels good doesn’t make it true. I wanted beliefs grounded in reality, not wishful thinking.
So, here I am, an atheist. I don’t believe in God because the evidence doesn’t hold up. The problem of evil, the lack of proof, contradictions in scripture, the randomness of religious belief, and the power of science and reason all outweigh arguments for faith. My journey wasn’t about rebelling or being angry at God. It was about asking questions and following where the answers led. If you’re on a similar path, keep questioning. Read widely, think critically, talk to people with different views. Truth doesn’t need faith to stand. It holds up under scrutiny.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that Yahweh is a fictional god and further that all gods that humans have ever worshiped do not exist. A god could inhabit the universe without detection, but a god who is focused on humans and who intimately interacts with them would be rather obvious to perceive. So that leaves only the possibility of a dispassionate god, one who leaves everything alone, or else a universe that is devoid of any gods.
(5347) Threat of eternal punishment is psychological torture
Even if it can be argued that Christianity doesn’t promote eternal torture in hell, it cannot be stated that the Bible does not at least suggest the existence of this possibility. Nor can it be denied that Christian priests and pastors over the centuries have promoted this threat to their congregations. Whether or not hell is a literal torture chamber, Christianity is guilty of promoting psychological warfare- something (you would think) a real deity would be loathe to be associated with. The following was taken from:
Belief in eternal punishment is psychological torture disguised as faith.
Believing in eternal punishment creates deep emotional and physiological stress. It means believing that infinite suffering awaits those who displease a deity, including your loved ones. Even if they’re kind, moral people, they could still face eternal torment simply for following a different denomination or non-repentance.
That thought alone breeds helpless anxiety you can love someone deeply and yet believe they might suffer forever.
Even you could face the same fate yourself if you chose the wrong god or misunderstood the true doctrine.
Some of your dead loved ones could potentially already be destined to go to eternal punishment and you can’t do anything about it.
That fear triggers chronic stress responses and tension, because your brain treats eternal danger as ever present. Belief in eternal punishment punishes the mind.
This could have been avoided very easily. Simply document Jesus saying the following:
“Those who are saved and serve my Father will be rewarded and welcomed into my Father’s house. Those who are not saved will die and go nowhere- they will cease to exist.”
This verse would have provided much mental relief to those with deceased friends and loved ones who avoided the faith. At least they could have envisioned them resting in peace rather than burning in agony.
(5348) Boil thy water
One of the reasons to conclude that the Bible lacks inspiration from a supernatural source is the absence of anything that suggests knowledge beyond what humans had already learned at the time. The post below brings up the simple command that God could have given humanity that would have saved innumerable lives as well as alleviating massive amounts of horrific suffering:
This verse is missing from all scriptures: “Boil thy water before you drink it.”
I have not read all the scriptures (that claim divine knowledge) of all the religious, but I am pretty sure that none of the scriptures, especially from Abrahamic religions contains such a verse: “Boil your water before drinking it.
Boiling water could have been such a simple command. It requires no scientific knowledge as such, since it could have been given as a simple command given to people to obey. Yet, it would have eliminated millions of preventable deaths due to cholera and typhoid.
The conclusions from this is: a) Ancient people never had access to knowledge that was beyond the scientific level of that time. b) God knew all that and chose to cause illness and death to millions, even billions irrespective of the sins that they had committed.
If the Bible had contained the verse in question, it would have been a good reason to at least suggest that a deity might have been involved in inspiring it. It wouldn’t have been proof of anything, but at least it would have opened the door to such speculation. But the lack of this verse and others of a similar nature strongly suggests the absence of any god’s participation in the creation of the Bible.
(5349) Jesus finally inflicts pain
Jesus is seen in the first three gospels as a paragon of passivity, using words only to castigate those who he opposes. But something strange happens in the last gospel to be written, John, where he takes up a whip to beat the vendors and money changers in the Temple courtyard. Neither Mark, Matthew, or Luke refers to this level of violence:
John 2:14-15
In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
Mark 11:15
On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
Matthew 21:12
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
Luke 19:45
When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling.
The concept of God, in the form of Jesus, using a whip to presumably injure people and inflict pain is an image that runs counter to the conventional wisdom about Jesus. It is interesting to see that it appears only in the Gospel of John, the last gospel written, by at least three decades after the first (Mark).
One possible explanation is that by the end of the First Century, Jesus was starting to be seen more as a powerful revolutionary against the Roman occupation rather than a passive peacemaking Ghandi-like figure. This change is also reflected in the Book of Revelation where Jesus is seen as a taskmaster meting out violence. Thus it became convenient for the author of John to up the ante on the Temple scene to make Jesus seem more in control and more commanding.
(5350) Biblical anti-factual issues
There are many avenues one can go down to criticize the Bible, a work that would supposedly be perfect if it really was inspired by a supernatural deity. In the following, a good list of factual issues is presented- enough to convince any unbiased person to conclude that the Bible is not a reliable record of history, nor a gateway to exposing the mind of God:
Criticism of the Bible can fall into different categories. This section deals with factual issues. While this information contradicts the view that the Bible is infallible, it may mean less to those who already accept the Bible as a blend of human and divine. Whether this detracts from the message of salvation in any way is a separate question.
The Bible stories listed below are contradicted by historical studies, anthropology, archeology, and many other fields. I don’t expect anyone to simply take my word for the claims here. Read scholarly articles and books yourself. Hear from the scientists, researchers, and historians. If you disregard the consensus among scholars because it contradicts what you want to be true, then you’ve chosen to embrace confirmation bias.
The Ancient Israelites – The Bible’s version of Israelite history does not match up with what historians and archeologists have found. According to the Bible, the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt before a massive exodus. They wandered the Sinai peninsula for forty years and eventually conquered the promised land (Canaan) after many battles involving tens of thousands of people.
The facts show this to be a fabricated origin story. Hebrew culture and Judaism emerged out of the Canaanite culture. The Israelites didn’t conquer Canaan, they evolved out of it. It appears they crafted an epic story with powerful heroes to describe their origin and their tribe’s relationship with the “one true God” who chose them. Many of the mythological events from the Torah are similar to other myths from that time or earlier. The Nephilim who came down to Earth took human women, the global flood, and the demon who beguiled humanity are all examples of common ancient myths.
The Hebrew people were never enslaved in Egypt. Archeologists have analyzed the ruins, pottery, tools, paintings, living areas, and temples to reconstruct thousands of years of Egyptian history, but the evidence discredits the Bible’s account. Historians can say which Pharaohs ruled at what time, what their reigns were like, and what the class hierarchy and social norms were. They’ve even uncovered scandals that the Egyptians wanted to erase from history. This discounts the theory that the Egyptians wiped out every shred of evidence for the Hebrews living there. Erasing a person, family, or small tribe from history? It’s possible, but an early civilization could not have hidden every piece of evidence caused by hundreds of thousands of Hebrews living there for over 400 years.
It almost goes without saying, but there’s also no evidence that thousands of Egyptian first-borns suddenly died or for any other plague. Even if the Pharaohs ordered no record to be kept, the death of multiple thousands of children, adults, and animals would have created stories and evidence other than the Torah which was written many years later in a different land.
There is no evidence that the Hebrews wandered the Sinai peninsula. Nomadic tribes typically leave pieces of broken tools and other signs of life. Archeologists using tiny fragments and special equipment can create timelines for ancient tribes all over the world, often thousands of years ago. With the Sinai peninsula, the evidence is simply not there.
According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes eventually conquered the promised land, wiping out dozens of cities, often killing “everything that breathes.” When we look at the evidence that is there, we see the Hebrew culture starting to emerge after the first Canaanite cultures. Most of the cities mentioned in the Torah did exist, but they weren’t destroyed by Moses or Joshua, they were destroyed or abandoned many years prior to the Israelite tribe forming.
Modern researches, archaeologists, and historians, including many believers had every reason to give supporting evidence of the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament but they have not. Those who honestly searched, found evidence, and provided conclusions that much of the Old Testament was an embellished origin story did so because they cared more about seeking truth than proving a per-determined narrative.
The Tower of Babel – Those who have studied ancient geography, linguistics, and anthropology, can tell us exactly how the different languages of ancient peoples evolved. It was most certainly not in a single moment five thousand years ago.
Kingdom of Israel – The evidence for the Biblical version of the Kingdom of Israel is severely lacking. While there was definitely a tribe in Canaan that believed in monotheism, archeology shows no evidence for King Saul, King David, and King Solomon being anything other than fictional legends. Perhaps men with these names existed, and maybe they were tribal leaders. However, the scale of this Kingdom, including the hundreds of thousands involved with the battles and other stories as the Bible describes does not match up with history.
Genesis says God punished an entire species: snakes will go “on their belly” because the snake deceived Eve. Scientific studies show how the snake’s anatomy evolved the way it did. If this and other Genesis stories are parables, meant to get us thinking about sin and humanity, why does one gospel genealogy trace Jesus’ descent from Adam & Noah? Why does Paul refer to Adam and Eve as people?
The six day creation story is not compatible with science. The Hebrew language’s use of patterns, motifs or poetic styles in Genesis does not mean the creation story is meant to be interpreted as pure symbolism. Jesus and Paul certainly didn’t say so, and neither have the billions of spirit-filled Christians who have taught 6-day creation as historical fact. Thousands of apologists and christian school teachers have made it their life’s work to disprove evolution. Why is the Holy Spirit not revealing Truth to these people when they pray for it? Or if 6-day creation is true, why has God made evolution *appear* to be true in so many thousands of ways? If some stars are millions of light years away, and we can see that light from Earth, then he placed very long light beams throughout the universe just to make it look like Earth is millions of years old. Why give whales vestigial leg bones to make them look like they evolved from land animals? Why all the deception?
Studies of DNA & other evidence contradicts the claim that humanity descended from Adam or Noah, or that all present day animal life descended from the Ark’s animals, or that a great flood covered the entire earth. Many modern Christian scholars admit Noah’s flood isn’t historically correct while seeing it as a divinely inspired story. Some say it was only a local flood, though Genesis is clear that God regretted creating humanity and wanted to wipe out all flesh. Yet we know humans existed in Australia, Asia, and the Americas at that time. But if the story is just a legend, why did the gospel writers list Noah as an ancestor of Jesus?
The Gospel & other New Testament Issues – Many are content to simply ignore the Old Testament while embracing the stories of Jesus, but the Old is a foundation for the New and it has problems of its own. The beginning of Luke states, “many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us… …it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you” The writer never claims that it is scripture from God. The gospels are a collection of legends passed down that changed over decades. Luke’s intro is literally saying this.
Scholars that study the four gospels now understand how they came about one after the other over several decades and why the theme and primary focus of each is different. This is not the writing style of 4 eye witnesses: some passages copy each other, word for word while others drastically change the story. The final gospel of John, written about 50 to 70 years after the crucifixion, completely changed the character of Jesus. Would the supposed eye witnesses for Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell stories and write as much as they could about Jesus but leave out the parts where he claimed to be God himself?
(For more info on how the Gospel story evolved over the century after Jesus’ death, see the books and lectures by Dr. Bart Ehrman.)
The Christmas Story – Many of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus are incompatible with historical fact. The most obvious one is the reference to a census that required people to travel to the country of their birth. This was never part of any census. Roman history is documented fairly well for an early civilization and yet there is no mention of a law, mandate, or tradition that required people to travel to their place of origin during a census.
We do know the census took place in the year 6, but it didn’t require travel and it occurred after the life of Herod, who died around 10 years earlier. It seems the authors of Matthew and Luke both tried to make references to historical events close to the time they thought Jesus was born to give more credibility to the story. However, by making very specific claims about the time period, they’ve allowed inconsistencies to discredit them. There is also zero evidence for Herod having any male babies killed.
It’s more likely the gospel writers wanted to relate the Messiah’s story to Moses: an iconic Jewish hero who also escaped being killed by the ruler’s order to kill all male toddlers and babies. This is just one of many examples where the gospel writers linked Jesus to Old Testament stories in order to bolster the Messiah claim.
The Two Genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke contradict each other in numerous ways. There are several theories that attempt to reconcile them, but each explanation is problematic. Before we explore that, one genealogy says Jesus is descended from Noah. If all humanity was wiped out with Noah’s family being the only survivors, why does evidence show humans living in Australia, Asia, and North America at the time of Noah? If Noah’s story is just a “parable” why did the gospel writers include him as a direct ancestor of Jesus?
The answer is, they knew the messiah had to be descended from the line of David (according to prophecies) so they invented a genealogy that showed this. Another good question to ask is why these genealogies even exist. Genealogies during this time were a way to show the lineage of only those with a very high status. There wouldn’t have been existing records showing the ancestors of either Joseph or Mary. Why would a simple carpenter have a genealogy dating back to King David and another contradictory one dating back to Adam himself? It makes much more sense that these were both invented in the decade or two after Jesus’ death.
Prophecies & Signs of the Messiah – There are multiple signs or prophecies that are supposed to prove Jesus was the Messiah, but many of these appear to be contrived and even misused by the gospel writers. One example is Judas’ betrayal for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27 says “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” This verse is not a prophecy for a Messiah, nor does it claim to be. It’s an Old Testament story that mentions 30 pieces of silver and a field. It seems like the writer of Matthew simply used this reference to bolster their claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah because it was familiar.
Other examples include the virgin birth, the genealogies mentioning King David, Abraham, & Noah, the traveling from Egypt, evil rulers killing male babies, etc.
And lastly, it was the prophet Zechariah, not Jeremiah, as Matthew claims. He didn’t say, “In the book of Jeremiah”, he said, “spoken by the prophet Jeremiah”. He then actually quotes Zechariah. Even though it’s clear why this happened (older method of organizing the books of the Bible), it’s definitely a mistake.
Virgin Birth – The Hebrew word ‘Almah’ used in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7) did not mean “virgin”, it just meant a young woman. When this was eventually translated into Greek, the word ‘parthenos’ was used, which actually does mean “virgin”. The gospel writers used this to then retroactively turn the Isiah 7 prophecy about a military threat into one about the messiah himself.
What happened to Judas? Matthew and Acts give differing accounts. Matthew says Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver at the priests and then hangs himself in a field. The priests then use the money to buy the field which is named “field of blood” because it was purchased with blood money. Acts says Judas bought the field himself where he fell head first, bursting open with his guts falling out, earning the field’s name: “field of blood.” Did the priests buy the field or did Judas? Did he hang himself or did he fall headfirst and die? Is it called “field of blood” because his guts spilled out or because it was purchased with blood money?
This is clearly a story that was told so many times, the details changed over decades. It’s not crucial to the salvation message, but it doesn’t look divinely inspired. Many try to rationalize the contradiction with creative interpretations. Ask yourself which is more likely: the details of the account evolved throughout a time when record keeping was less precise, or two people both being guided by God to write scripture decided to word the story in these two seemingly contradictory ways. If you choose the later, ask why God would make readers do this time and time again throughout the Bible. If the text is perfect, why has an entire branch of study (apologetics) become so necessary to maintain faith?
The later Gospels, Luke and John, are completely different from the earlier written gospel accounts. This goes beyond an author’s character and style. They sometimes drastically change events while at other times copy large portions word-for-word. One example is that Matthew and Mark claim the robbers on the cross both reviled Jesus while Luke describes one of them defending Jesus. Look at the trial and crucifixion differences, Jesus’ statements, his character, statements on divinity, and especially the progression of Pontius Pilate from decisive judge to hesitant official.
Also, would people record everything they could about Jesus and his character but leave out the part where he claimed to be God? The earliest manuscripts describe Jesus as merely the Jewish Messiah. Later, he’s written about as the Son of God. Then in the final version of the gospel (John) he is God himself.
We are unable to say for sure whether Mark 16:9-20 was supposed to be in the Bible or not. The oldest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain them. They describe Jesus’ instructions for what his disciples should be doing on Earth, the miracles they will do, as well as his ascension into Heaven. This is no obscure passage, it’s instructions for Christ’s followers but we don’t know if these are the actual words of Christ. Most Bibles have a note admitting this fact. Why would God make us guess?
Other Errors – While there are several other errors in the Old and New Testaments, I don’t believe it’s constructive to list every single one of them here. Since I believe the Bible to be a purely human document, it’s reasonable that the original authors would mix up the names of towns, regions and dates during a period with limited technology and record keeping. I’m excluding these examples for brevity’s sake, but accepting this fact may help someone move from “divine and infallible” to “somewhat inspired.”
It is incumbent on Christians to explain why the Bible has so many problems. Wouldn’t an omnipotent deity do a better job of composing his written message to humanity? Apparently not, or else, the alternate explanation should be employed- the Bible is the work of humans, and humans alone.
Follow this link to #5351