An Atheist's Case Against Christianity

[Guest LibertarianDefender]

An Atheist's Objections To Christianity/Theism--Scientific, Historical, Logical and Moral

 

I. Scientific Objections to The Bible:

 

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?

2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?

3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language? How was this physiologically possible?

 

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km².

1. Stipulating that, how did Moses and the Israelites pass through it? After all, it was substantial enough to deluge Pharaoh's army.

2. If the sea was parted, how precisely was that done?

 

C. Jesus' resurrection.

1. How did Jesus rise from the dead, and walk around good as new, when after dozens of hours of being dead, he would be brain dead, with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells?

 

It should be noted that brain death is irreversible in every instance. It cannot be turned back. It is permanent.

 

For a forensic refresher, upon death, this happens:

 

Although brain cells may survive for no more than 5 minutes after somatic death, those of the heart can survive for about 15 minutes and those of the kidney for about 30 minutes.

 

The Degree of Rigidity of the Body (Rigor Mortis)

 

4-6 hr - onset of rigor mortis in the neck and jaw.

12 hr - rigor mortis is well established.

18-24 hrs - rigor mortis is partially resolved due to muscle decomposition.

30 hr - rigor mortis has resolved.

 

*Note: Jesus still has several more hours of decomposition to endure before his corpse reanimates and walks around*

 

The Degree of Decomposition of the Body.

 

18-24 hr - greenish red skin, rigor is resolving.

30 hrs - rigor is resolved, body is flaccid.

3 days - body swells as gas forms. Blisters form on the skin.

 

*Note: Did the disciple witnesses mention Jesus was very swollen or had blisters all over his skin?*

 

D. Noah's Ark.

1. How is it possible to hold all the world’s species in an ark with the dimensions specified? There are possibly up to 100 million animal species alone.

2. How is it possible to feed these millions of animals?

3. How did specific species and classes of animals become trapped on different continents? For example, most marsupials are only found in Australia. If the Noah’s Ark story were true, then we should expect a more homogeneous converge of species.

4. Why didn't many aquatic ecosystems die off from the massive change in salinity?

5. Why didn't many modern plants die out, as they should have?

 

E. Genesis Timeline.

Supposedly "infallible" Genesis has the timeline totally wrong. Information courtesy of www.talkorigins.org.

 

The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man.

 

The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants.

 

 

II. Scientific Objections to Theism:

 

A. Pervasive atheism among eminent scientists. Information is from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/...94313a0_fs.html

 

In a survey of National Academy of Science scientists, 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. It should be noted that the NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States.

 

"Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

 

From these figures, we can conclude: 93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Science are in fact agnostic or atheists. Indeed, looking at a chart that includes figures from earlier in the 20th century, one can only come to the conclusion that top scientists are more atheistic than ever before.

 

Expanded numbers (among "greater" scientists):

 

Belief in personal God 1914/ 1933/ 1998

Personal belief 27.7/ 15/ 7.0

Personal disbelief 52.7/ 68/ 72.2

Doubt or agnosticism 20.9/ 17/ 20.8

 

B. Illogic of Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent Designer.

This is courtesy of Steven Pinker, Psychology professor at Harvard University, and was printed in Time Magazine:

 

"Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.

The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows."

 

C. Lack of Scientific Support for Creationism.

This is courtesy of www.talkorigins.org:

 

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one-tenth of 1%.

 

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic. A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief that they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates."

 

 

III. Historical Objections:

 

A. Lack of Evidence For Moses/Israelite Enslavement/Egypt.

 

"The school of skeptics called Biblical minimalism, whose views are commonplace among academics, suggest Moses never actually existed as a historical figure, and the events of Exodus, uncorroborated, are the products of pure myth. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses existed as a historical person."

 

"Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BC) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Assyria, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BC. Such claims are detailed in "Who Were the Early Israelites?" by William G Dever, William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book by Neil A Silberman and colleagues is "The Bible Unearthed", Simon and Schuster, New York (2001)."

 

"It is important to note that to date there is no historical mention of the enslavement of Jews by Egypt or of their rescue in any capacity by any person outside of The Bible. There is no archeological evidence that any group of people, much less one of about 600,000 people, wandered a desert for 40 years. Biblical purists chalk this up to the fact that Egypt eliminated any type of failures from their history and did not make records of such events, and surely the loss of a group of slaves would have been viewed as a failure."

Source-- www.Wikipedia.com

 

 

IV. Logical Objections:

 

A. There is no point in believing in a God, even if one does exist, when one knows nothing about this deity's nature or expectations. For example, God could be benevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be benevolent and not care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and not care about one's actions. Saying "I follow the Christian faith just in case God exists" is utterly nonsensical. That would be like somebody saying, "I follow the Satanist faith just in case a malevolent God exists." With limitless plausible possibilities, there is no way one can "be on the safe side" in terms of not offending God. And thus, Pascal's Wager is a loser.

 

 

V. Moral Objections:

 

A. God's apparent bloodlust.

I'll quote the Scripture:

 

Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." (The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people.)

So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

Exodus 11 (1-6)

 

Rather than doing something to the Pharaoh for refusing to let the Israelites go free, God chose to murder every firstborn son in Egypt. This was after turning the seawater to blood, thereby killing the fish, as well as afflicting the livestock with pestilence.

 

What did the poor slave girl do to warrant her firstborn son being murdered? Did the slave girl set the Pharaoh's policies? Did the slave girl's firstborn son set the Pharaoh's policies? Here, God is shifting the blame from its rightful shoulders (those of the Pharaoh) to a mass of innocent people. It's staggeringly vicious and cruel, especially in light of the fact that God supposedly has completely unlimited options. Any God that finds mass slaughter to be the best option, in an unlimited pool of potential choices, deserves scorn rather than worship.

 

I heartily welcome your feedback!

[spamandham]

Here's a simplified objection.

 

Christianity rests on faith. Faith is not a valid form of obtaining knowledge. q.e.d.

[Vigile]

Here's a simplified objection. 

 

Christianity rests on faith.  Faith is not a valid form of obtaining knowledge.  q.e.d.

 

Right. And here's a head scratcher even when your simplified model is considered. Why did god first create dirt and then create Adam from said dirt? This seems highly inefficient. Why didn't he just create Adam from nothing the way he created dirt from nothing?

[Thurisaz]

Shows that this god™ isn't very fond of logical thinking I guess...

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think the best objections are:

1. contradictions in the Bible

2. mutual contradictions among propositions about God (e.g. omnipotence and loving given presence of suffering)

3. psychological basis for faith in our emotional needs (but it does a bad job of fulfilling those)

4. antecedent improbability of God's revealing himself in the way christianity supposes

5. evidence for origin of species in change over time from previous species

6. archeological and historical evidence against biblical claims

 

I think #6 is the trickiest because christians are taught to believe in biblical archeology, so you have to present very well-supported data. #5 is next trickiest for similar reason. #1 and 2 are strongest, in my view.

 

e.g. stronger to point out to a christian the contradictions among gospel accounts of the resurrection than to try to say it flies in the face of medical science

[Guest LibertarianDefender]

That whole thing word for word is very familiar.  Shouldn't you have a copyright of some sort or at least a name?  I agree with everything, 100% and am glad you posted this, however, unless you are the author the writer should get credit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Rather than "author," I prefer to say that I "compiled" the document. As you can see by the extensive quoting, from Talk Origins and Wikipedia and Nature and Time Magazine, most of the actual writing is not my own. However, I am the original compiler. Nobody else has ever taken these bits of information and put them all together into a single essay.

 

You've probably seen this before, in an earlier incarnation, since I've posted it on many message boards. This is Version 2.0, expanded and revised--and I certainly hope--improved as well.

 

Thanks for your comments, everybody.