{"id":12005,"date":"2020-11-27T10:04:43","date_gmt":"2020-11-27T15:04:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=12005"},"modified":"2020-12-25T13:51:38","modified_gmt":"2020-12-25T18:51:38","slug":"2751-2800","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=12005","title":{"rendered":"2751-2800"},"content":{"rendered":"

(2751) Symptoms of Christianitis<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is well-known that adherence to a false belief system is hazardous to the afflicted and to those who interact with them. The followings lists some of the symptoms of a belief in Christianity:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/articles.exchristian.net\/2002\/10\/becoming-ex-christian.php<\/a><\/p>\n

1) Jesus fetish<\/u>. Those afflicted with Christianity develop an obsessive fixation on a man known as Jesus Christ, an ancient cult leader who they say ‘loves’ them and whose corpse, after he was executed, they believe climbed out of his tomb and ate some food and then went on a space trip into heaven. This man apparently ‘saved’ them from their ‘sins’ when he came back from the dead.<\/p>\n

2) Intellectual suicide<\/u>. Sufferers completely close down their brain and ignore science, logic and reason. Christians, having abandoned their brains, rely on a book, the “Bible”, for answers to everything – including how to handle their sex lives.<\/p>\n

3) Anti-social behavior<\/u>. Christians often retreat from, or condemn the rest of society which they believe is full of \u2018sinners.\u2019<\/p>\n

4) Paranoia and psychotic delusions<\/u>. Christians believe that a fearsome monster, which they call ‘Satan’, is at large in the world ‘tempting’ them and trying to drag people off and burn them in his den, know as ‘hell’. This monster, ‘Satan’, is alleged to be red with horns and often carries a pitch fork.<\/p>\n

5) Anti-family attitudes<\/u>. Christianity is very anti-family. Anyone who believes in family values should be appalled at this cult. For instance, the mythical leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ, says the following in the Bible: “If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” –\u00a0Luke 14:26<\/a>\u00a0“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” –\u00a0Matthew 10:35-6<\/a>\u00a0It is clear that the radical Christian agenda is to destroy the sacred institution of the family and therefore it must not be tolerated.<\/p>\n

6) Violence<\/u>. Christians have been responsible for some of the most horrific acts of violence, murders and genocide in history. The Crusades, where thousands of Muslims were slaughtered, the genocide of South Americans conducted by the Spanish Conquistadors, the murder of MILLIONS of men and women accused of being ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’ in the 16th and 17th century are only a few examples of countless acts of cold blooded sadism conducted in the name of this cult. While the Christians have cut back on their murders in recent years, they still very successfully drive countless numbers of gay youth to suicide.<\/p>\n

7) Sexual hang-ups<\/u>. Christians often suffer from very severe sexual hang-ups, where perfectly natural and enjoyable human feelings are interpreted as ‘evil’ and therefore dangerously repressed. This can lead to very unhealthy inner turmoil and psychological trauma.<\/p>\n

8) Hatred and bigotry<\/u>. Although not surfacing in all cases, symptoms of pathological hatred and bigotry often surface in Christians. It is no coincidence that hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan are fanatical Christians. Although not all Christians are like this, the point is that many are, so therefore the potential for such dangerous and insidious mentalities is inherent in the cult. It is interesting to note that a religion such as Buddhism, which for its widespread influence is the Eastern equivalent of Christianity, although being extremely widespread and diversified has never harbored any hate groups.<\/p>\n

Others that can be added to this list are:<\/p>\n

9) Invincibility<\/u>. The idea that the believer can take risks unbecoming a non-believer because their god will protect them, often leading to the final act of the faithful.<\/p>\n

10) Superiority<\/u>. The saved Christian cannot see non-Christians as being on their level, leading to a condescending attitude of supercilious pity.<\/p>\n

11) Anti-environmental attitude<\/u>. The belief that the world will soon end eliminates a sense of stewardship for environmental conservation for future generatiions.<\/p>\n

12) Hegemony<\/u>. Because the Christian assumes that he has a direct connection to God, what he believes to be true and correct in his opinion should apply to the rights and freedoms of all non-Christians.<\/p>\n

These 12 symptoms form a constellation of harmful effects related to a belief in Christianity. Beliefs in things that are true do not suffer these <\/a>problems.<\/p>\n

(2752) Personal identity is a mirage<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian theology depends on the reality of the thing we sense as \u2018I,\u2019 a unique identity that, theoretically, can exist in places, realms, or dimensions other than within the current body or brain that it currently resides. Otherwise, it would be impossible for our \u2018I\u2019 to experience a heaven or a hell in the afterlife.<\/p>\n

But what if the thing we sense as \u2018self\u2019 is an illusion that the brain constructs? What if musings such as \u2018I could have been born a hundred years ago,\u2019 or \u2018I could have been instead a woman\/man,\u2019 or \u2018I could have been instead an elephant\u2019 are moot points? What if what we call an \u2018I\u2019 is simply an illusion- meaning that the Christian concept of an afterlife is itself based on this illusion? The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.livescience.com\/55999-is-your-self-just-an-illusion.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Could our internal sense of personal identity \u2014 about which we seem so sure \u2014 be an illusion? I asked former parapsychologist, now skeptic, Susan Blackmore.<\/p>\n

“There’s no reason to suppose that we have real continuity,” Blackmore said. “Because if you look at what a body and a brain are, there’s no room for a thing called a ‘self’ that sort of sits in there and has experiences. So then, the question becomes, why does it feel that way?”<\/p>\n

To Blackmore, we invent that feeling ourselves. “The illusion of continuity is created only when you look for it,” she said. Though all things about us change from moment to moment, when we connect all of our experiential dots, we conjure up our inner sense of self. “So you imagine this kind of continuous\u00a0stream of consciousness<\/a>\u00a0when you’re awake, but actually, it’s not like that at all,” she said. “There are multiple parallel things going on. And every so often, we go, ‘Oh, that’s me,’ and we invent the self-story.<\/p>\n

“This so-called ‘me’ is really just another reconstruction,” she continued. “There was an earlier one 30 minutes ago, and there will be others in the future. But they’re really not the same person; they’re just stuff happening in the universe.”<\/p>\n

“So there’s no self to die,” she concluded, because there is no self prior to death and “there’s certainly no self to continue after death.”<\/p>\n

Sue appears rather cheerful in her inexorable mortality, so I asked if she thinks that “no self” is “good news?”<\/p>\n

“I’m smiling because it’s so beautiful when you get it<\/strong>,” she says. “You can let go and just accept that it’s just the universe doing its stuff. It’s not me against the world because there really isn’t any me at all. Death has no sting, because there never was a ‘you’ to die. Every moment is just a new story.”<\/p>\n

Some might counter this idea by supposing that God will reconstruct your body in heaven just as it was sometime prior to death. But this clone of you will still not be \u2018you.\u2019 See #1375<\/a> to understand why this is true. The theory that the sense of self is an illusion elegantly solves the mysteries of \u2018why was I born a man\/woman, now instead of earlier or later, here rather than there, to these parents instead of those, or why was I born a human instead of another animal, or even perhaps a being on a different planet?\u2019<\/p>\n

The experience of \u2018I\u2019 is tied to the physical body in which it resides and cannot have existed in any other entity, time, or place. It is a static and confined reality. Seeing this is somewhat analogous to \u2018seeing\u2019 the outside of a box that you are currently standing inside of. It is not an easy mental exercise, but once it is perceived, it delivers a delightfully freeing experience as well as a firm conviction that there\u00a0will be no afterlife and that, by default, Christianity is <\/a>false.<\/p>\n

(2753) Wrath of God on tiny humans<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most people consider babies and small children to be blameless and undeserving of punishment as a result of the actions of their adult guardians. But the Bible sees it differently. The following scriptures recount how God ordered innocent fetuses, babies, and small children to be killed:<\/p>\n

1 Samuel 15:3<\/p>\n

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy\u00a0all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.\u2019<\/p>\n

Hosea 9:14<\/p>\n

Give them,\u00a0Lord\u2014what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.<\/p>\n

Hosea 13:16<\/p>\n

\u201cThe people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.\u201d<\/p>\n

Numbers 31:17-18<\/p>\n

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,\u00a0but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.<\/p>\n

2 Kings 15:16<\/p>\n

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.<\/p>\n

Psalm 137:8<\/p>\n

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.<\/p>\n

Numbers 5:11-22<\/p>\n

(In this scripture, God provides a detailed instruction for how to induce a miscarriage of a woman whose husband suspects her of being unfaithful.)<\/p>\n

There can be no defense or contextual arguments to deflect the fact that these Bible verses violate the moral sense of virtually every human alive today. They would result in the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators who would be sent to prison or even given the death penalty. Yet, according to the Bible, they were sanctioned by God. This leaves the following choice for Christians: God is evil or else God does not <\/a>exist.<\/p>\n

(2754) Destroying the Lewis trilemma<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many Christians cite C.S. Lewis\u2019 trilemma (that Jesus was either the Lord, or else he was a liar or a lunatic, and that the latter two are highly improbable) as the most important foundation of their faith. In reality, this argument is spectacularly weak. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/k36cm8\/cs_lewiss_liar_lunatic_lord_argument_aka_the\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Formally stated, it even sounds ridiculous:<\/p>\n

Premise 1: All statements are either true, lies, or madness.<\/p>\n

Premise 2: The statements of Jesus are neither lies nor madness.<\/p>\n

Conclusion (3): Therefore, Jesus’ statements are true.<\/p>\n

I mean, it’s logically valid in the sense of academic philosophy (follows accepted rules of inferences; premises, if true, would imply the conclusion) but I think the premises are just so obviously mistaken.<\/p>\n

Jesus could have been a liar, lunatic, lord, legend, honestly mistaken or just wrong, our account of him could be imperfect in relevant ways (in other words the argument just assumes the reliability of the Bible from the outset), there could have been independent motivations for deifying Jesus (for example, many theological pioneers throughout history and most of the ancient philosophers\u2014Plato, Aristotle\u2014 and conquerors\u2014Alexander the great\u2014 were said to be born of virgins and or deified by their enthusiastic following), it could be (which is very likely) some combination of these in varying degrees, he could have been a victim of childhood indoctrination (would not be the first time a person was misled by their authority figures in early childhood, imbibing a view of the world with a kind of metaphysics and conception of truth-testing that is amenable to supernatural theorizing), he could have been an unusually socially independent person who just decided to innovate the religious thought in his area despite being wrong (as every novel religion ever created has precedented), some parts mentally unhealthy but some parts indoctrinated and some parts acculturated in the context of first century Judaism, etc, etc.<\/p>\n

I also think it\u2019s relevant that one of the more troubling theological complications for the biblical Christian is the fact that Jesus does not even claim to be God or even equivalent to God. Christians have had to squeeze this part out of the Bible with great difficulty based on the extremely weak indications in scripture, which are vague and suspiciously open to interpretation. Many theological ideas have been dismissed for far, far less than that, and yet the most important claim of the Christian Faith rests on exactly that foundation. Take a moment to appreciate the irony. \u201cChristianity\u201d in the sense of following Christ as God, is hardly anywhere to be found in the Bible!<\/p>\n

Another note: The \u201clunatic\u201d part of Lewis\u2019s argument strikes me as especially lazy. He just assumes that if a person were mentally ill they would be incapable of great moral insight or eloquent public speaking, but this is just bad psychology. Mental illness is complicated. This is a bastardization of the findings of clinical psychology, a maturing science of mental disorders with an increasingly firm basis in empirical observations and facts.<\/p>\n

One of the more robust of these findings has been that people of every intelligence level\u2014even respectable, articulate, reading, deep-thinking, follower-accumulating, audience-finding, cerebral people\u2014can suffer from one or more mental disorders to varying degrees (even sub-clinically, meaning it would not rise to the level of a professional diagnostic standard but still may have an influence on their thinking and behavior) in ways have a consequential influence on their lives and world views.<\/p>\n

A poster recently mentioned psychotic disorders as a possibility, a class of disorders that would include schizophrenia and hallucinatory detachment from the normal everyday empirical testing that we take to, but there are other candidates for explaining the kinds of views and personal claims Jesus may have forwarded. Devin Nash was a Nobel Prize winning economist with a soaring IQ and Ivy League education and yet he had severe schizophrenia, which went unnoticed by everyone who knew him excepting his fairly distant parents. It would have astonished his friends to discover such a thing about what they otherwise would have presumed was a normal, intelligent, academically accomplished and healthy man.<\/p>\n

Other examples are available: There is significant evidence that Kant and other political philosophers may have been on the autism spectrum, and that this influenced their thinking substantially in ways that are better appreciated now with the benefit of both hindsight and the tools of clinical psychology and neuroscience.<\/p>\n

The other thing to keep in mind is that we also have, in the record of history, literally dozens of examples of cultural innovators with an appetite for unconventionality and opposing the ethical and religious consensus who either claimed divinity or were later described by their followers as God or an agent of God but were, we now assume, devastatingly wrong. Christianity is not as historically special as many Christians assume, and it was by no means inevitable that it would have become the predominant religion (and indeed, it will not continue to be for long and was not for the overwhelming majority of human history in the first place). It was more by accidents of history that it became a major force in religious belief and, for that matter, that you ended up believing it than by supernatural guidance. Also, given only one religion can predominate at a time, it is decidedly uninteresting that Christianity happens to fulfill that role (more nominally than actually, given church attendance data and public opinion polling on specific theological beliefs like an affirmation of the trinity, which is a minority view in American Christianity ironically enough according to Pew Research center).<\/p>\n

As can be seen, the Jesus story is actually more of a decalemma (a question of 10 plausible explanations). Reducing it to three conveniently chosen elements is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, but you will hear Christians mindlessly reciting them as if they have covered all of the bases. It would be like saying the Bible is either totally true or completely false, eliminating all of the nuances that accompany any expression of <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

(2755) Kettle logic<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the tell-tale signs that Christianity is false is that it is commonly defended by using a series of internally contradictory arguments, a tactic termed ‘kettle logic.’ The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/k3pvv3\/kettle_logic_eg_from_freudian_psychology_kinda\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Kettle logic (la logique du chaudron\u00a0in the original French) is a rhetorical device wherein one uses multiple arguments to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other. Freud relates the story of a man who was accused by his neighbor of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition.<\/p>\n

The man replies –<\/p>\n

– I returned the kettle undamaged!<\/p>\n

– It was already damaged when I borrowed it!<\/p>\n

– I never borrowed it in the first place!<\/p>\n

As it might apply to apologist arguments about the Bible:<\/p>\n

– The Bible is inerrant.<\/p>\n

– Any mistakes in the Bible are translation errors.<\/p>\n

– Errors in the Bible are not really errors because God deliberately placed them there to test peoples\u2019 faith.<\/p>\n

As it might apply to evolution:<\/p>\n

– Dinosaurs never existed, Satan put fake fossils in the ground.<\/p>\n

– Dinosaurs were too big to get on the Ark.<\/p>\n

– There was insufficient food on the Ark for dinosaurs so they died out before the rain stopped.<\/p>\n

As it might apply to prayers:<\/p>\n

– God answers all prayers as it says in the Bible.<\/p>\n

– God replies to prayers with \u2018yes,\u2019 \u2018no,\u2019 or \u2018wait.\u2019<\/p>\n

– God responds to prayers is such a way as to not make it too obvious, so people will still have to exercise faith.<\/p>\n

Wherever kettle logic is being used, it is a good clue that what is being argued for is not true. Christians have been doing this for centuries, and it is actually nothing more sublime than throwing mud against a wall to see what might <\/a>stick.<\/p>\n

(2756) Virgin birth is a minority New Testament opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, it is a minority opinion of the authors of the New Testament.\u00a0 And where it is presented, it is mired in fantasy and contradiction. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2020\/11\/bible-blunders-bad-theology-part-6.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Answering this requires serious Bible study that I included on my wish list. It\u2019s worthy of note especially that the apostle Paul knew nothing of virgin birth, and might have resisted the idea; at least he failed to mention it in any of this voluminous epistles. Paul\u2019s obsession was the resurrection of Jesus as disclosed to him in visions (= hallucinations) of the dead man:\u00a0Believing in the resurrection\u00a0was the key to salvation. He might have considered it irrelevant that Jesus was miraculously conceived, even if he had heard such a tale; just as the teaching and miracles of Jesus were unimportant to him.<\/p>\n

In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus appears out of nowhere to be baptized\u2014John\u2019s baptism for the remission of sins\u2014at which point a voice from heaven declares him to be God\u2019s son. Virgin birth wasn\u2019t on Mark\u2019s radar either, at all.<\/p>\n

\u00a0It was Matthew who pulled this belief into Christian theology, and quite clumsily too. He can be credited with one of biggest goofs in the Bible, trying to convince his readers that Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of Jesus. Israel 7 has nothing whatever to do with a coming messiah\u2014a few hundred years away\u2014and Matthew used the Greek version of Isaiah that mistranslated \u201cyoung woman\u201d in verse 7 as \u201cvirgin.\u201d Matthew excelled at making things up, e.g., the farfetched account of Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to protect the baby Jesus, and his ghoulish story of dead people coming alive at the moment Jesus died, then walking around Jerusalem on Easter morning. Why should we trust Matthew that he got \u201cborn of a virgin\u201d right? There are good reasons that I asked the question\u2014and answered it\u2014in an earlier article,\u00a0\u201cWho the Hell Hired Matthew to Write a Gospel?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Matthew took just two verses to describe Joseph\u2019s dream in which an angel told him that Mary was pregnant by the holy spirit. Luke couldn\u2019t let it go at that; he wanted to nail it: he reports in eleven verses\u2014not a dream, not a vision\u2014but an angel\u2019s visit to Mary, and their conversation. He also imagined that Mary, who would have been an illiterate teenager, recited the ten-verse\u00a0Magnificat.\u00a0Luke devoted two giant chapters to these beginnings of Jesus.<\/p>\n

The author of John\u2019s gospel would have none of this. He is, of course, famous for his line, \u201cThe word became flesh and lived among us\u201d (1:14), so it is striking that he had no use for virgin birth. His Jesus had been present at creation, was indeed one with God, so perhaps he felt that Jesus arriving on earth through a virgin just wasn\u2019t necessary. Whatever his reasons, he skipped it, just as he omitted Jesus being baptized and instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper.<\/p>\n

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke\u2014so thoroughly embedded through art, music, and church pageants in the celebration of Christmas\u2014are seldom analyzed critically by laypeople. The failure of Bible\u00a0study\u00a0is largely to blame. Scholars\u2014well, those outside evangelical circles\u2014know that these birth narratives fail utterly as history; nor can the Matthew and Luke accounts be reconciled. When Matthew and Luke wrote their stories they had no idea that their gospels would one day be bound together, making comparisons easy\u2014and embarrassing.<\/p>\n

So Mark, John, and all of the epistles were unaware of virgin birth\u2014or chose to ignore it; they are the majority opinion.<\/p>\n

An author who leaves out the virgin birth of Jesus is tantamount to a biographer who fails to mention that Shirley Temple was a child star in the movies. It is removing an essential element of the man\u2019s pedigree. The fact that the virgin birth is a minority opinion in what is otherwise a biased work of propaganda lets us know that Jesus, assuming he was a real man, was born in the usual <\/a>way.<\/p>\n

(2757) Deifying Mary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christianity claims to be monotheistic, even though its god is said to be composed of three separate beings. But even if we overlook that duplicity, there is another god that must be reckoned with- Mary, Jesus\u2019 mother. Although it appears that his (step) father died as a mortal man, Jesus\u2019 mother has been posthumously elevated to what can only be considered godhood by the Catholic and some Anglican Churches. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2020\/11\/bible-blunders-bad-theology-part-6.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

And surely this is a blunder for Christian theology, especially when we see how Mary has been exaggerated. While she remained a minor, seldom-mentioned figure in the New Testament, she became a central figure in a cult of purity. In Matthew 1:25 we read that Joseph had no marital relations with her until after the birth of Jesus, and of course the brothers of Jesus are mentioned in the gospels. But the idea caught on, especially in Catholicism, that she always remained a virgin; those brothers, so Catholic apologists argue, were half-brothers from Joseph\u2019s first marriage! Anything to keep her pure, as if God\u2019s invention of the penis was a dirty but necessary mistake. As tokens of her purity, Mary has been depicted wearing blue and white, with halo.<\/p>\n

\u00a0She attained the status of saint, dwelling in the spiritual realm with many other saints\u2014along with the angels and demons mentioned in the New Testament.\u00a0\u00a0In 1854, the Catholic Church announced that her soul was free of original sin\u2014how\u2019s that for purity! Her conception in her mother\u2019s womb had been miraculously cleansed of original sin: it had been an Immaculate Conception. How many Catholics have paused their adoration of Mary long enough to ask: How do theologians know what was happening in the womb of a first century Galilean teenager?<\/p>\n

\u00a0Mary attained status as Queen of Heaven, can be prayed to and puts in appearances around the world. In 1950 the Catholic Church got around to announcing officially that her body had ascended to heaven\u2014just like Jesus did. Mary serves as a female deity, a kindly goddess to balance the wrathful God depicted by Jesus and Paul.<\/p>\n

\u00a0This theology thrives among those who never ask\u2014who have been taught\u00a0not\u00a0to ask\u2014How do you know all this?\u00a0All this is fueled by theological imagination, and a fair amount of craftiness too, that is, digging for texts that can be construed to support flights of fantasy. Why do people take it seriously?<\/p>\n

So Mary was conceived without sin, lived a sinless, virginal life, was taken bodily into heaven, and now hears prayers and makes occasional appearances around the world. If she isn\u2019t a god, what is she? Calling her a saint is simply playing with words. A huge chunk of Christianity is praying to a female god whether they admit it or <\/a>not.<\/p>\n

(2758) Defense of Christianity is unremarkable<\/strong><\/p>\n

If individuals from another planet sat down and listened to apologists for various religions, to see which one stood out as being the most convincing, they would come away thinking that there was no clear distinction- they all seemed to have the same strategy, and no one seemed more plausible than the next. The Christian would seem no more believable than any of the others. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateAChristian\/comments\/k4qfzq\/the_christian_has_the_burden_of_demonstration\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Every claim the Christian will make will comes down to “faith.” They cannot demonstrate their God is the “real” one. They will appeal to ancient texts or texts considered “holy”, feelings, and faith. This is no different than what a Muslim, Jew, Mormon would do.<\/p>\n

The atheist is left feeling confused because these believers of separate faiths have the same demonstration in supporting their deity. Hence why atheist is not convinced.<\/p>\n

The burden is on the Christian to demonstrate that their Christian Deity is the real one. The Christian simply cannot do this without looking like a Muslim, Jew etc. This is why those who leave the faith are unconvinced. It is not philosophical arguments, moral arguments that lead people to leave the flock. It is not that they have fallen away and no longer hear the voice of Christ (John 10:27). It not that Satan has cast a veil over their eyes in which the atheist has no strength to tear it in two.<\/p>\n

When you line up a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Zoroastrian etc, and the atheist is sitting in front of them deciding to listen to the demonstrations, the atheist will be unconvinced of the Muslim’s demonstrations, the Jews, the Mormon etc. The non-believer will sit with his hand on this chin listening to faith, ancient text, testimony, feelings and will be unmoved. Then comes the Christians turn to bring fourth their demonstration. The nonbeliever eagerly awaits because before they lined up the Christian could not stop speaking on the love of Jesus, on the salvation of God. The Christian boasted themselves up to unimaginable heights by claiming that God saved them\u00a0specifically. Then they step forth and all are eagerly waiting for this outstanding demonstration. Then the Christians takes a deep, confident breath and speaks … .. … “faith, ancient texts, testimony, feelings…”\u00a0This\u00a0is why nonbelievers, atheists are unmoved.<\/p>\n

The demonstration is on the Christian to show that their God is the real one. They appeal to same things any other individual of a separate faith would appeal to. Thus making them no different and frankly unconvincing.<\/p>\n

If Christianity was the one true religion, this hypothetical scenario would look very different. The Christian apologist would be able to point to evidence showing his faith to be far better supported. Its texts would be superior from a scientific, archaeological, and historical perspective, its development would be seamless and consistent from inception to current day, its miracles would be far better attested and confirmed, and its prayers would be shown to be vastly more effective. But this is not what we see. Christianity has no better proof than any other religion, and this reveals that it is very unlikely to be <\/a>true.<\/p>\n

(2759) Virgin birth borrowed from pagan tradition<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are two compelling clues that the virgin birth\u00a0belief\u00a0of Christianity is a fable- it didn\u2019t develop until at least 50 years after the death of Jesus, and it was consistent with myths associated with other gods and rulers of its time. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2020\/11\/bible-blunders-bad-theology-part-6.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

Sometimes a borrowed idea is far more trouble than it\u2019s worth. This is especially the case with virgin birth; attaching this bit of mythology to the Jesus story was a major Bible Blunder.<\/p>\n

Christians should be especially curious\u2014and skeptical\u2014about how this happened. Peter Brancazio sums it up pretty well:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most reasonable explanation is that the early Christians adapted this belief from the pagan religions of the time. Stories of virgin births or the impregnation of human females by gods abounded in these religions. The prophet Zoroaster, the Persian god Mithra, the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris were all believed to have been born of virgins. Shortly after his death, the Emperor Augustus was declared to have been the son of a god: the otherwise reliable Roman historian Suetonius, writing in his\u00a0Lives of the Caesars, described how Augustus\u2019 mother was impregnated by the god Apollo. It seems plausible to believe that the tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus developed as a way of elevating Jesus to a status similar to that of the pagan gods\u2026\u201d\u00a0\u00a0(Brancazio,\u00a0The Bible from Cover to Cover: How Modern-Day Scholars Read the Scriptures<\/a>, p. 397)<\/p>\n

The virgin birth of Jesus was first documented in the Gospel of Matthew in approximately CE 80. Before this time, Paul and the author of the Gospel of Mark were evidently unaware of this \u2018fact.\u2019 When an extraordinary, if not impossible, event emerges as conventional wisdom 50 years after the fact, unknown to those before, copies the myths of contemporary deities, and is presented in competing, contradictory accounts (Matthew vs. Luke), it is possible to state without hesitation that it didn\u2019t <\/a>happen.<\/p>\n

(2760) Debunking the local flood theory<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many scientifically-oriented Christians concede, in the wake of overwhelming evidence, that the Noah flood was actually just a local event that didn\u2019t involve the entire world. They are walking a fine line- not wanting to admit it is purely mythical but also not wanting to subvert their knowledge of science. But a review of the Bible does not allow for this interpretation. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/k5eejg\/the_bible_teaches_that_the_flood_was_worldwide\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The Bible literally says it is world-wide, not just local. God says he will destroy all flesh on the earth (Gen 6:17, 7:4), everything not in the Ark died (Gen 7:21-23), Peter says how only Noah and his family survived (1 Peter 3:20), Peter says the world was overflowed with water and perished (2 Peter 3:5-6)<\/p>\n

God has all animals come to Noah so he can put them in the ark (Gen 6:20). If it was local, then there is no reason why they needed to go there. Especially considering many of the animals likely came from somewhere that would be past the so-called local flood area.<\/p>\n

If it was local, God could just tell Noah to move. There is no reason to build a big boat when he had plenty of time to just leave the area.<\/p>\n

“Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”(Gen 7:20). The mountains were fully covered. This is only possible in a world-wide flood. If it started in only a local area, the water would run-off the side of the mountain immediately when it gets above it. To be 15 cubits (about 25 feet), it would have to cover the entire planet.<\/p>\n

He sent out the birds to see if they could find plant life (Gen 8:6-11). If it was just a local flood, there is no reason Noah would even do this.<\/p>\n

All of mankind was united 100 years after the flood to build the Tower of Babel. If it was only local, then there would be civilizations all across the globe that would have lived through it, so they would not all be together.<\/p>\n

All the rest of the Bible also teaches that it was a real story, not just a metaphor or parable.<\/p>\n

Noah is mentioned in genealogies (1 Chronicles 1:4, Luke 3:36). There is no reason that the genealogy would start including fictional characters<\/p>\n

It is referred back to, and wouldn’t make sense if it wasn’t real. Jesus mentions it in Matthew 24:38-39 and Luke 17:27. He also uses the example of Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah, which almost all Christians would say is a real story. He, and many other people before the flood, are mentioned in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith chapter (v. 7). Doesn’t make much sense to see the faith of people that weren’t actually real.<\/p>\n

This matters because the Bible reinforces throughout its pages that the flood was an actual planet-wide event. Portraying it as a local inundation is not consistent with an objective reading of the flood story itself as well as the many subsequent references. This leaves one of two possibilities- the science is wrong and a worldwide flood actually occurred, or the Bible deceptively presents a myth as being a real event. If the latter, as seems more likely, then it brings into question the entirety of its <\/a>narrative.<\/p>\n

(2761) The Bible is losing its moral relevance<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians routinely decry the \u2018moral decay\u2019 of society and insist that we must return to biblical moral values. This, even when the Bible supports slavery, genocide, spanking of children, killing of homosexuals, and more. But one salient point exposing the best evidence that the Bible is losing its relevance to modern moral values is the way it devalues women in deference to men. Consider the following scriptures:<\/p>\n

1 Corinthian\u00ads 11:9 “neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”<\/p>\n

1 Corinthian\u00ads 11:6 “For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”<\/p>\n

1 Timothy 2:11 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission\u00ad.”<\/p>\n

1 Timothy 2:10-12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”<\/p>\n

1 Corinthian\u00ads 14:35 “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgracefu\u00adl for a woman to speak in the church.”<\/p>\n

1 Corinthian\u00ads 11:7 “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.”<\/p>\n

1 Corinthian\u00ads 11:5 “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head\u2014it is the same as having her head shaved.”<\/p>\n

Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”<\/p>\n

Ephesians 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”<\/p>\n

Ephesians 5:24 “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything”<\/p>\n

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”<\/p>\n

Obviously, there are still some sects of Christianity where women are willing to assume subservient roles, but, by and large, the world has moved to an assumption of sexual equality. To say to a young woman that she should consult the Bible to learn how she should behave in a future marriage would be laughable. \u00a0As the Bible remains statically anchored in\u00a0Bronze Age ethics, society evolves with time, slowly but surely rendering the Bible irrelevant to modern <\/a>life.<\/p>\n

(2762) COVID-19 religion test case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The global pandemic of 2020 has provided a real-time test of the world\u2019s religions. It is well understood that many factors affect the death rate from COVID-19, but one that should be relevant is the truth or untruth of religions that are predominantly practiced in various countries, assuming that one religion is true to the exclusion of others, and that the deity (deities) associated with that religion hears and answers prayers directed to him (them). <\/strong>Most Christians assume that both of those assumptions apply exclusively to their faith.<\/p>\n

The following data looks at seven countries that have a very high percentage of Christians followed by seven that have a very low percentage:<\/p>\n

Deaths due to COVID-19 per million residents as of December 2, 2020<\/u><\/strong><\/h2>\n

source\u00a0https:\/\/ourworldindata.org\/coronavirus-data<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Columbia<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

729<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

United States<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

826<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Brazil<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

821<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Italy<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

943<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Spain<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

979<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Argentina<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

866<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Mexico<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

834<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

China<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Afghanistan<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Vietnam<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

South Korea<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Saudi Arabia<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

170<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Japan<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

India<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Although this does not prove that Christianity is false, it bends the arc of probability in that direction. We would expect Christian countries to have done much better, especially when comparing deaths to total population, because prayers for those sickened by the virus would be the ones that would most affect the death rate (as opposed to the case rate which might be skewed by the high viral transmission rate that occurs in church settings or by the variation in compliance rates of mask wearing and social distancing). This data is counter-intuitive to the belief that Christianity is the one true <\/a>religion.<\/p>\n

(2763) A designed world could<\/u> be different<\/strong><\/p>\n

Any biologist will tell you that an unguided process of evolution will inevitably lead to a world where living things devour other living things in a cutthroat game of survival. It\u2019s an unavoidable consequence that results in an unfathomable amount of fear, pain, and suffering that is occurring every second of every day.<\/p>\n

A world designed by a god could<\/u> be different. All animals could subsist solely on plants within the context of a kinder and gentler world. There is no physical reason why a planet populated with only plant-eating animals could not exist. The Bible itself hints at such a benevolent setting in its opening verses describing the Garden of Eden before the Fall, as if such a world would be the best possible one.<\/p>\n

The fact that we find ourselves on a planet filled with carnivorous animals is a hint that supernatural forces were not involved in designing it. Or at least supernatural forces motivated by compassion. Rather, it is evidence that unguided evolution took place. And when we speak of a lack of design, purpose, compassion, and guidance controlling our planet\u2019s history, we are also suggesting that supernatural\u00a0beings were most likely not involved in directing the <\/a>drama.<\/p>\n

(2764) Paul discounts churches and human hands<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Acts, Chapter 17, it is seen that Paul (or, more accurately, Luke, the author) fails to perceive the future of Christianity. He is saying that God does not require shrines (aka churches) to be built in his honor nor has any need for humans to serve him- both have become essential elements of contemporary Christianity. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2020\/12\/more-bad-examples-in-scripture.html<\/a><\/p>\n

The second half of Acts 17 describes Paul\u2019s encounters in Athens. He was in a mood to pick fights:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026he was deeply distressed to see that the city was full of idols.\u00a0So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace\u00a0every day with those who happened to be there.\u201d\u00a0(vv. 16-17)<\/p>\n

He saw an altar to an unknown god, and that was his opening. He was sure about God because\u2014well, of course\u2014he\u2019d had visions and could tell the good people of Athens all they needed to know. But Daleiden called it correctly, \u201c\u2026there has been no shortage of people who declared that they spoke for the gods.\u201d Hence one of the best lines in Acts 17 is verse 18, \u201cSome said, \u2018What does this babbler want to say?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Paul offered a routine formula about God\u2014it\u2019s routine to us because we\u2019ve heard it forever:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands,\u00a0nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things.\u201d (vv. 24-25)<\/p>\n

But isn\u2019t it strange that Christians have felt compelled to build millions of shrines (aka churches), their \u201chouses of God\u201d to visit the deity, and offer him praises he doesn\u2019t need? This is another clue that Paul had no idea that there would be two thousand years of church history\u2014his Jesus was supposed to arrive on the clouds in the near future. Moreover, countless preachers have urged Christians to serve God who \u201cis not served by human hands.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paul jumped to the same conclusion that countless other theologians have: that a creator god must be a personal god, caring about the lives of individual humans:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent,\u00a0because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.\u201d<\/p>\n

The day had been fixed for judgment, which Paul knew for sure because God had raised Jesus from the dead. All of which Paul knew for sure because of his visions. Bad theology piles on in the wake of magical thinking.<\/p>\n

This is a type of reverse anachronism, where assumptions are established that eventually over time become unsustainable unbeknownst to the originator of those assumptions. In this case, Paul, or Luke, had a misunderstanding of what was to come and documented this ignorance for the <\/a>ages.<\/p>\n

(2765) Christians are voluntary slaves<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although virtually every Christian will say that they disapprove of slavery, their scriptures as well as their own behavior is in clear support of the concept. The Bible never makes a vigorous case condemning the ownership of humans by other humans, even endorsing it in many places, but, even more disturbing, it promotes a theology that asks its followers to be slaves to a celestial master. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/k7d9ez\/how_can_christians_condemn_slavery_when_their_own\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The bible nowhere condemns slavery. Far from tolerating it, the bible condones and supports it. In Lev. 25:44-46, god encourages Moses to enslave the surrounding gentiles. According to Mosaic Law, slaves are chattel property, to be disposed of however their masters see fit (with the exception of Hebrew slaves). In Ex. 20:21-22, masters are allowed to physically chastise slaves, provided they don’t kill them. In Num. 30:17-18, masters could have sex with their slaves whenever they wanted.<\/p>\n

In the New Testament, slaves are commanded to obey their masters, regardless of their cruelty (1 Pet. 2:8). In Philemon, Paul forced the runaway slave Onesimus to return to his master. If he had disapproved of slavery, he wouldn’t have sent him back.<\/p>\n

Christians are slaves because they have exchanged their individual autonomy and rational moral agency to become the mere playthings of a capricious god. They are commanded to call this god\u00a0Kyrios, translated Lord or Master. The apostles called themselves and fellow Christians slaves because they acknowledged Jesus as their heavenly Master (i.e. Rom. 1:1, 2 Pet. 1:1, Rev. 1:1 etc., not “servant,”\u00a0slave, the literal meaning of the Greek\u00a0doulos). Like Jesus, Roman and Greek slave masters are also\u00a0kyrioi.<\/p>\n

For the Christian, the only alternative to absolute ownership by god, obedience to god and dependence on god is eternal punishment in a fiery hell. This is no different from slaves in ancient Israel and Roman Palestine, who risked corporal punishment for disobedience.<\/p>\n

To sum up, Christian condemnation of slavery is inconsistent with biblical teaching and Christian religious dogma. Instead of being antislavery, we have Christians simultaneously condemning and endorsing slavery. If Christians wish to escape this logical contradiction, they must (a.) radically reinterpret what they believe in, (b.) embrace slavery as a divinely sanctioned institution or (c.) reject Christianity altogether.<\/p>\n

We think the third option (c.) the best, for the sake of honesty, humanity and rationality.<\/p>\n

We also think that a real god would not ask humans to surrender their self-governance, but rather would promote freedom of conscience. The Bible is an artifact of its time, a reflection of the heavy-handed customs of Bronze-Age Jewish culture. The fact that it continues to influence billions of people is an on-going <\/a>tragedy.<\/p>\n

(2766) Jesus exposure dividing line<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a general consensus among Christians that God would not sentence a person to hell if they didn\u2019t have a reasonable chance to hear and respond to the message of Jesus\u2019 salvific mission to earth. It is commonly thought that such a person would be given a chance after death to accept Jesus\u2019 sacrifice on the cross, which, by any measure of reality, is equivalent to giving them a direct path to heaven. But the problem comes when it is time to divide those who got the message from those who didn\u2019t. Wherever the line is drawn it will be arbitrary and unfair. Consider the following fictional scenario:<\/p>\n

Two widowed women, Karishma and Nabhitha are living together in a small town in northern India. They have been lifelong Hindus. Neither has heard much about Christianity and in fact, they don\u2019t even know any Christians. One day, Karishma is out shopping for food when two Christian missionaries come to their house. Nabhitha invites them in and entertains them with coffee and khakhras. For 30 minutes they explain to her that believing in Jesus is the only pathway to heaven and that their Hindu gods are not real. She politely listens but does not respond to their invitation to say the sinner\u2019s prayer and be saved. They leave. Later, Karishma returns and Nabhitha tells her of the visit, but doesn\u2019t relay the important salvific message. A few years later, both die. Karishma is welcomed into heaven after she is given a chance to accept Jesus. Nabhitha is sentenced to hell because she rejected Jesus.<\/p>\n

Christians will balk at this story and say both women will be OK, but it begs the question: if this doesn\u2019t define the dividing line between those who have from those who haven\u2019t had a reasonable chance to accept Jesus, then where does that line lie? It must exist somewhere, and wherever it lies it will seem arbitrary and unfair.\u00a0 It will be like saying Mr. X got 457 units of exposure to Christian doctrine while Mr. Y only got 456, but this is where we draw the line- Y to heaven, X to hell.<\/p>\n

Now, imagine if Jesus said that if you live a good life you go to heaven, and if you live a bad life you go to hell. This again would create a dividing line problem, but, in the long run, it would\u00a0deliver a much fairer way to adjudicate the lives of every human, and both Karishma and Nabhitha would be on their way to heaven. But it’s a non-starter- such a definition of salvation would\u00a0starve the church of the power it <\/a>craves.<\/p>\n

(2767) Abrahamic faiths are equally false<\/strong><\/p>\n

There exists a single point of failure that destroys the authenticity of all three Abrahamic faiths- the lack of evidence for the foundational traditions of the Old Testament. But Christians have found a way around it- to see the lack of evidence as evidence itself. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/k7brcz\/christianity_judaism_and_islam_are_all_false_as\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The claim by Christians and Christian missionaries that the Bible is the most historically accurate book is entirely false. Israeli Archaeology had to regretfully tell the world that after thirty-five years of digging on the ancient sites of supposed Biblical events that the vast majority of the contents of the Bible are complete mythology. Many of these archaeologists were Jews and Christians who felt deeply connected to the fantasy stories of the Bible itself and had to painfully come to terms with the understanding that there was no evidence to support what was deeply precious beliefs to them. They bravely told the whole world the honest truth of the matter due to their commitments to academic integrity and truth.<\/p>\n

We should applaud these brave researchers for their integrity and strength of character to tell the whole world that there is no evidence to support many of the Bible\u2019s claims. The most important and shocking revelation was that there was no evidence to support the story of Exodus; the Israelites were never slaves to Egypt, there was never a plague that killed the firstborn in Egypt, Egypt has no record of Israelites as slaves, a group of two million Israelites never wandered the desert for forty years and there is not a shred of evidence to support that such an event ever happened, ancient Israelites were polytheists and only gradually became monotheist over the centuries usually due to famine, for a lengthy period of Israelite history the god Yahweh had a Goddess wife named Asherah, and there is no evidence to support that the person known as Prophet Moses ever existed.<\/p>\n

The claims by Christian extremists that Egypt must have destroyed all evidence is both fatuous and an argument that essentially states they believe that Exodus and the Bible are true\u00a0because\u00a0there is no evidence for it; the thinly veiled nonsense is easy to see-through.\u00a0They believe it is true, because they have no evidence for it.<\/strong> They are not ready to face the reality about their sacred beliefs and will probably deny it with either lies or try to suggest some Christian apologist Youtuber who has no academic credibility compared to actual archaeologists who spent 35 years researching and excavating the sites of the ancient Israelites.<\/p>\n

If Moses didn’t exist, Judaism is false. If the Mosiac Law is false, then Jesus neither fulfilled nor broke the Mosiac Law. If Moses has no evidence of existing and was never a prophet of the Abrahamic God, then Mohammad cannot be a Seal of the Prophets. Therefore, all Abrahamic faiths are equally false.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s impossible to build a tall building without a sturdy foundation, and it\u2019s equally impossible to take the claims of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam seriously when their seminal traditions are found to be untrue.\u00a0 And\u00a0in the wake of this problem,\u00a0if your sacred beliefs are being buttressed by a conspiracy theory that a massive cover-up of evidence was conducted by nefarious opponents, it might be time to re-evaluate your sense of <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

(2768) Evaluating God\u2019s existence\/characteristics<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we assume that the existence of a singular, universal god is a binary reality, then we can deduce that one and only one of the following four possibilities\u00a0is true:<\/p>\n

1) God does not exist.<\/p>\n

2) God exists, but is unaware of life on our planet.<\/p>\n

3) God exists, and is aware of life on our planet, but only observes what is happening and does not intervene.<\/p>\n

4) God exists, is aware of life on our planet, and chooses to intervene in human affairs.<\/p>\n

(There is a fifth possibility but it was relegated from this list so as not to scandalize conventional Christian dogma that God exists outside of time and space. Otherwise, a god might exist but it is located far away, so even if it had extraordinary vision, due to space-time limitations, it could only see what had happened in the past, making it impossible to affect humanity in real time.)<\/p>\n

Given a lack of evidence of the supernatural, #1 is the most probable, but we will discount that for this discussion.<\/p>\n

#2 goes hand in glove with the potential fifth option- that god is limited by space-time from seeing the entire universe in real time, raising the possibility that it has not yet detected life on this planet. But we will discount this option as well.<\/p>\n

That leaves #3 and #4. God is either just an observer, or an intervenor- the former usually termed a deist god, the latter, a god of the type Christians worship (Yahweh).<\/p>\n

There are reasons why the #3 observer god is the most likely to exist:<\/p>\n