Reasons for Disbelief

December 15, 2023

Many apologists will say that the arguments for God’s existence should be seen as a cumulative case rather than any single argument being a reason for belief on its own. This is understandable as the majority of arguments for God are second hand inference, God of the gaps or incredulity based, so as evidence goes none of it should not be convincing on its own.

The cumulative case works in both directions, as there are many reasons to disbelieve in a God’s existence, but any single argument may not be convincing on its own. With that in mind, here are a few of the more common reasons for disbelief and the rabbit hole of questions that these reasons lead to:

The Problem of Instruction

God gave the moral laws as laid out in the OT to a single tribe of Israelites but with an expiry date on the laws given, that being that they were only valid for that time and place. This means that before most of the world even knew such laws existed, they were already out of date and valueless to Christians. He didn't bother to let the giant empires; Roman, Persian, Chinese etc know of these moral codes, instead only letting this tiny group that would never grow into an empire be the sole recipients of that knowledge.

Not only did the OT fail to be spread to the biggest empires in existence, but the NT was similar in that it was only given to a small group of followers, and it would be another 1500 years before a printing press was invented allowing it to be distributed in large numbers. The claim is that God wants everyone to know His word, His laws and the only way to reach salvation, and yet the holy book that He wrote was not available to the majority of the world for millennia.

Was a book really the best way to give His perfect word to the world? Did He not foresee that it would be unclear to future generations and lead to debates, arguments, killing and even wars? There is the claim that He provided the 10 commandments on stone tablets, so they would survive over time, and yet those were quickly lost and to this day remain an ancient mystery. It is claimed He empowered numerous prophets to spread His message, granting them the abilities to do miracles on demand to prove themselves, and yet we’ve seen no such thing in thousands of years.

We have no original copies of the holy books, no confirmed dates or authors, no idea if we even have copies of half the things that were written, no idea if the books we do have accurately match the originals and no way to know which books we find were divinely inspired verse man-made. Is this really the best that an all-powerful God could do to get His message out?

The Problem of Evolution

The majority of Christians believe in evolution, I believe the Catholic church and many others have no problem with accepting the science as simply finding out how God achieved what He did. This is certainly preferable to the Fundamentalist idea that science is wrong or evil, as that stance takes a lot of denial and fighting against our growing knowledge. The acceptance of evolution does raise many tricky questions for Christians, such as when in an evolutionary line does the humanoid creature officially become human? You almost can’t have Adam and Eve as anything other than metaphor, as any point where they were born to an earlier ancestor messes up the Genesis story. Were their parents not human? Did the parents have souls? Were the parents in God’s image? But more than that, if we have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution before we get to modern humans, at what point does inherited sin enter the picture? If there is no true Genesis story then there is no first sin and no need for salvation. If there is a massive, long history of predator/prey relationships, then earth has had a blood-soaked history. This would mean death didn’t start in the garden of Eden but existed from the beginning of early life. This means God setup a system of death and suffering in order that those pressures cause creatures to evolve. It also means God used those natural tools to create millions of species that existed for a time and went extinct, millions of years before the first humans walked. If we are to have this human centric viewpoint, that we are God’s chosen, and yet millions of species have ceased to exist that we have never, and will never see, what was the point?

The Problem of Suffering/Evil

Possibly the most discussed issue with the Christian God is His lack of care for humanity. There are a few different versions of the problem of evil/suffering, we can look at the suffering caused by disease, parasites, natural disasters, accidents, and crime and ask why a God who is claimed to be all-loving would allow such things and a God who is all-powerful takes no steps to even reduce such harm. Commonly apologists will fall back on the freewill defence, saying that God doesn’t want robots, He gives us the ability to choose and sometimes we choose evil. While this might apply to crime, it doesn’t really work when looking at natural disasters or disease. But even in the case of crime, being able to stop someone from committing a horrific act should never be seen as a bad thing. If you knew a serial killer was going to murder someone and it was within your ability to stop them, would you? Could you really step aside and say “No, I don’t want to take away his freewill”? Imagine a world where child rapists were struck impotent, serial killers dropped dead, or suicide bombers went blind. Sure, you wouldn’t have the freewill to choose to rape children, but would anyone think that is a problem?

Many people have visited the refugee camps in Africa and see the children starving to death, the Aids epidemic sweeping the countries and even the horror of Ebola making people die bleeding from the eyes. The horrors of this world are numerous and unending, and to think that God either can’t or won’t help goes against everything being claimed of Him.

This can also be looked at from the other side, in that no religious group stands out as having a longer life expectancy, less disease, cancer, accidents or problems in their lives. Christians have their houses burgled, get mugged, have their loved ones pass away and suffer with the same frequency as the rest of the population. There is no sign that God is protecting His chosen people from harm.

Another way it can be looked at is the suffering of animals. God setup the entire ecosystem based on predator/prey relations. Animals are being constantly mauled to death and killed in horrific ways. For a loving God to design a system where such horror is the norm doesn’t match what we would think of as love. To think that God is the creator of all, means He created the venoms, the plagues, the life cycle of parasites, the flesh-eating bacteria and brain eating amoeba. As Monty Python put it:

All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all

The Problems with the Bible

There is no agreement amongst Christians as to what books should be included in the bible (Catholic bible = 73 books, Protestant bible = 66 books, Orthodox bible = 79 books etc), as to what works are inspired by God or how they should be translated and interpretated. There are even more religious texts which at one time were considered holy by certain sects, but nowadays are not considered so by the numerous churches. These aren’t small differences but over a dozen books that some Christians think are divine works while others believe they are only man-made works. This does highlight that there is no objective measurement as to what a divine work should be, and while there is a core set of books which are agreed upon, even that determination is purely subjective.

Once you pick a bible, then you can start trying to determine which parts should be read as literal historic events and which parts are metaphors or moral stories. Fundamentalists will demand that Genesis be read as a historic event, while the Catholic church and many others see Genesis as a moral story about obeying God and how sin is within all of us. Such disagreements can be on the core tenants of faith, including whether Jesus was God, salvation, hell and God’s plans, so aren’t just sideline ideas but the very basis of the churches.

The bible has many passages which make no sense. Some of these are hand waved away as metaphor or reinterpreted to avoid the strange places a black and white reading will take you. A few examples: amongst the many laws handed down from God to Moses was the line “don’t boil a goat in its mother’s milk”, so while the God given laws couldn’t say to treat women as your equals or don’t own people as property, it at least got the important goat boiling law included. There is the story in Exodus of Jacob putting tree branches up so that the sheep and goats that mated in the shade would have striped or spotted offspring, because that’s how that works. Or the man who was horrified at the thought of his two male house guests being gang raped, so instead gave them his servant to abuse, then when she was dead, he cuts her into pieces and sends those bloody chunks to the tribes of Israel.

Or perhaps we just look at the OT and the numerous horrors found there. Stories like God sending bears to rip children to pieces, God killing all the first born of Egypt for crimes they didn’t commit, God setting the law to stone to death Sabbath breakers and other victimless crimes, God striking dead the guy who tried to save the Ark from falling or the guy who wasn’t willing to impregnate his brother’s widow. The bible tells us that the punishment should fit the crime, and yet in the next breath says to kill people for victimless crimes or children for crimes of their parents. But this just leads to the bigger brutal events like the wiping out of entire cities at God’s command “However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.” Or “Blessed is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” or “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

Christians want to say morals are written on our hearts and that God's morals are unchanging and timeless, and yet such actions as described in the OT are abhorrent to our modern morals.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

For me this is the biggest problem with all religions. The claim is that God loves us, wants us to know Him and wants a personal relationship with us, and yet He doesn’t have it. The all-powerful God has failed to make Himself known to most of the world’s population. To this day there are people who live their whole lives having never heard of God or Jesus. The bible says, “Seek and you shall find”, but as per the thousands of ex-Christians, many have searched and failed to find. This has famously been put that there exists a group of people who are non-resistant non-believers, that is that they wish there was a God and would love to accept Him but can’t find good evidence to convince them. Non-resistant non-believers shouldn’t be possible if God is actively trying to contact, communicate and have a relationship with these people. I’m not even sure that being non-resistant should be a requirement, after all we are talking about the all-powerful creator of the universe, there is nothing a mortal could do to resist the truth if He wanted it known.

He has allowed His book to be corrupted, His church to splinter, His followers to kill each other and not stepped in to correct any of it. The OT tells us that He wasn’t shy about showing Himself back then, with Him saying “I am the Lord your God” over 150 times, appearing many times as a burning bush, column of fire, an old man, or a voice from the sky, as well as on several occasions sending angelic messengers to tell people of His will. We are meant to believe that He was in direct communication numerous times, but nowadays doing exactly the same thing would be bad for some reason. Apologists would say “If He appeared it would take away your freewill to come to Him willingly”, and yet when they talk about Moses or Adam meeting God, they never consider those people lessened by that contact. Apologists will say “He wants people to come to love Him, not be forced to love”, and yet the first step to any relationship would be knowing the person exists, otherwise it is impossible to come to know them.

If you imagine for a minute a world where God made Himself known. Doing so He would instantly convert millions to be faithful followers. We would have a single church, a single holy book and a single message. There would be no debates, arguments or guesswork required. Crime and sin would drop to nigh on zero levels, as the punishments and rewards would be clear and unavoidable. This has been prayed for by the religious for centuries, as it finally justifies all the claims and requirements. Yet with all the obvious positives that could come from removing all doubt, He steadfastly refuses to do so. Apologists will usually fall back on the freewill defence once more, “God doesn’t want to take away your freewill by showing Himself to you”, but that isn’t removing freewill, it is just allowing you to make decisions based on more information. It is knowing the truth and allowing you to choose how you react to it.

The Problems of the Church

In Christian church history, there are a couple of big events that tore the church apart. The schism was where the Orthodox Church separated from the Catholic Church, and then later the Reformation was when the Protestants broke away in turn, both events leading to bloody warfare. Even from the very first records we have there were splintered groups and disagreements from day one. Yet both those early sects right through to today’s thousands of denominations, all claim to be led to their answers by the holy spirit, and yet all come to different conclusions.

The Catholic Church was an immense power throughout Europe’s history, and as the saying goes “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We had numerous Popes who were horrific in their evil, from orgies in the Vatican, to murders and massacres. But regardless of how obviously evil some of the Popes were, the followers had to accept every word they said as though God Himself had spoken them, giving up their own moral standards to blindly accept evil. These same Popes brought about the inquisitions, witch burnings, heretic massacres and while some of the crusades were anti-Islam, some just ended up massacring other Christians.

In more recent years we have the Catholic Church, Baptist Church and others being caught protecting child rapist priests from prosecution, using hide and deny tactics with payouts to families as long as they agree to silence. These people have made it clear that they are more concerned about the Churches image, rather than showing real empathy for the victims and anger at the perpetrators.

Nowadays there are mega-churches that seat tens of thousands, all demanding tithing, and donations. Prosperity preachers who will take a dollar from a starving family, saying God will provide, while heading out to buy a third private jet. You have churches preaching anti-gay messages, you have many involved in politics and wanting a theocracy, you have preachers blaming victims of natural disasters for the devastation, and some taking millions in donations to help people in third world countries, only to have that money sent to fund missionary work instead.

Even just the cost in hours, resources and human effort to build these massive cathedrals. Years of some of the best builders in the world to make these giant edifices, rather than using more simple structures and freeing up the builders to work on hospitals, fresh water supplies or other life changing infrastructure. The wealth that is accumulated is mind boggling, to the point where the Catholic Church is so wealthy that there are not even estimates that can be made due to the size of the Vatican’s collections and vaults of ancient treasures.

Jesus said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you; it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

But who needs to listen to that guy?

December 18, 2023

The Problem of Justice

There is not agreement on salvation or hell within Christianity, but there is the classic and most common view, which is that salvation is via faith in Jesus only and hell is a place of eternal fire, torture and torment. Due to a system that only has one requirement for innocence and one punishment regardless of crime being unjust, some Christians have begun preferring either hell being a separation from God (how do you separate from a God who is everywhere and everything?) or annihilation (removes the torture element but still leaves the punishment). One of the immediate problems this raises is that God is declared as the judge, and it will be Him that you stand before for judgement. Yet if there is only one way to get to Him, then your actions do not matter and there is nothing for Him to judge. He is little more than an usher pointing the way to heaven.

Perhaps the most common objection to the classic view is the idea of eternal punishment for finite crimes. No matter what the crimes, from a victimless crime like lust, to a genocidal dictator, they are all due eternal punishment. There are no degrees, no lesser punishments and no consideration of any good that you may have done. You, for your lack of faith, are to be punished equally to the most horrific mass murderers in history.

Another big problem with faith only salvation is that there is no justice for crimes on Earth. If Hitler returned to his Catholic upbringing, and before he died repented and declared his faith in Jesus, then that would be all it takes for Hitler to reach heaven and spend an eternity in paradise. Meanwhile the 6 million Jews he horrifically killed all get sent to hell for failing to believe in Jesus. Christians will say there is no justice without God, but then extoll a faith only salvation message that removes all justice if there is a God.

One of the most publicised examples of this was Jeffrey Dahmer, the necrophiliac cannibal serial killer, who murdered and ate 7 people before being caught. While in prison Jeffrey converted to Christianity and did what he could to get right with God. Based on a faith only salvation position Christians have to celebrate Jeffrey getting eternal happiness in heaven, while the people he murdered get sent to hell.

There is also the contradiction in the biblical account of what justice should be. Both in saying the children should not suffer the punishment for their parents and the famous eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, verse which commands punishment to be equal with the crime committed. While we would agree that punishing children for their parents' crimes is unjust, we see that very thing happen many times in the bible text, from the capturing of various cities where the population is put to the sword, God killing everyone in Sodom for crimes the children couldn't have done or wiping out the first born of Egypt for the crimes of their parents. The bible sets the moral standard then goes about repeatedly breaking it.

As for punishments being equal to the crime, this standard is also repeatedly ignored in the bible stories. The death penalty for a victimless crime like picking up sticks on the sabbath or striking dead the man who tried to save the Ark from falling.

Why did God need blood sacrifices to forgive sin? How does killing an innocent animal and burning its corpse please God? Why did God not kill Cain for Abel's murder when He clearly states death is the right punishment for that crime? Why does He demand the children of the Caninities be killed when the justification for the attack on them was that they were sacrificing children? Why set bears to maul children for the victimless crime of name calling?

The problems will biblical justice are wide ranging and open up many rabbit holes of questions.

The Problem of the Supernatural

Believing in the Christian God isn't a single belief but comes with a whole range of other fantastical elements that need to go hand in hand. All of these elements have not been proven to exist after several thousand years of believers trying. We cannot show God, angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, souls, miracles or even that Jesus himself existed. It is not just a case of saying God doesn't exist, but saying Christians cannot provide evidence for any facet of their supernatural claims.

What even is a soul? What does it do? Do animals have a soul? If it contains our personality or memories, then how come physical effects like brain damage, alcohol and drugs can affect those things?

A naturalist will point to all of the physical events in our world that have at times been claimed to have a supernatural origin. From celestial bodies, to tides, seasons, disease, pregnancy, mental illness and lightning. Yet for every such claim we've managed to research and learn the actual cause, and every single time there has been a natural explanation. Nowadays the religious will point to the very fringes of our knowledge with questions about where life comes from or the start of the universe. While we do not currently know the answers to these questions, with a track record of 100% natural and 0% supernatural, where should we be looking for answers?

The Problem with Jesus

While the common belief amongst unbelievers is that Jesus most likely did exist but was just one amongst many preachers who grew a small following and was eventually executed, there is a fair argument that can be made for mythicists to say Jesus never existed at all. We have no writings from Jesus, and the writings we have about him are not eyewitness, often being third hand even before the scribes and translators became involved. We have no body, nothing physical that he owned, no confirmed tomb, no mention of his life from age 1-30. We do know there were many people by the name Jesus, and many apocalyptic preachers, so the potential that different people's stories are being blended together exists.

We have several stories which the authors were not present for, from Jesus's birth, his discussions with Satan, even his execution, but while they could not have possibly known what was said and done, they speak as though they were there. This is seen when the Jewish authorities talk to Pilate about Jesus's execution, and this private meeting is reported word for word, when it cannot have been known and dictated. Knowing that the authors are embellishing the stories leaves us unable to know if any single word attributed to Jesus ever left his mouth. Once you bring in the gap of decades before the stories were written and then having those copied by scribes and translated through multiple languages, it is nigh on impossible to know what, if any, facts claimed of Jesus are true.

Even if we grant Jesus was as claimed to get us to his purpose, we are left equally bewildered by the point of his sacrifice. As the famous saying goes "He sacrificed himself to himself so that he would forgive you for the laws he set". Why does an all-powerful God need a sacrifice at all? To be all-powerful means there is nothing He can't do if He wants, so why go through the ritual when He could choose to forgive sin and offer mercy if He so chose? Does Jesus's sacrifice even count as a worthy exchange, when he was fully aware that after a few hours of torment he would regain all his infinite power and live in heaven forever? What does he lose? He is immortal, so He can't die and therefore His sacrifice is a mere annoyance. As some wit put it "He was mildly inconvenienced for your sins".

December 18, 2023

The Problem of Indoctrination

Indoctrination is to be taught what is true, with the belief formed due to the authority of the teacher rather than the truth of the claim. Everybody has this in their lives, as children we are made to believe our parents and elders know more than us, so believing what they tell us is the best way to keep us safe. If our parents teach us about Zeus, Odin, Krishna, or Allah, then our young minds will accept without question that these facts are true. It is only once we get older and understand the world, can we potentially spot errors in our thinking. However, by this point our worldview is well cemented, and effects such as confirmation bias and sunk cost come in to reinforce the ideas while competing ideas are discarded without consideration.

Regardless of which religion, if any, was correct, the majority of the world must be wrong.

This leads to the question, do you believe what you believe for good reasons, or because it was the belief structure you were raised in? Statistically you are likely to be of the religion which is dominant in your region. If you are born in India, you will likely be a Hindu, born in the middle east and you are likely raised a Muslim, while in the western world Christianity holds sway. Can you honestly say that had you been born elsewhere that you wouldn’t have been a true believer of whatever the cultural norm was? Around 90% of people are the religion they were taught at birth, so while not universal, it is by far the biggest indicator of what someone’s likely belief will be.

Some will say they believe due to feeling God’s presence, or from seeing what they perceive as miracles, and yet people from competing, non-compatible religions will say the exact same things. Once you have been taught to believe in a religion, then you will by default attribute any event in your life to that existing structure. The same event seen by three different people could well be seen by each as proof of each of their own Gods.

If tomorrow all teaching of Christianity ceased and the written records removed, then the religion would cease to exist. Unlike science which could be rediscovered due to matching the real world, there is nothing in religion that you can come to without being taught. God is not revealing Himself and very few believe that there are new holy books being written that should be incorporated into the bible. The only modern church attempting to do so is the Mormons. Believing that Joseph Smith received new books of the bible. While this is considered heresy by most Christians, millions have flocked to the Mormon church and the children of those families are in turn raised with that belief from birth. This does go to show how easy it is to convince huge numbers of people of a lie, and how indoctrinating their children continues the growth of that religion regardless of the majority of the world considering those teachings false.

People are absolutely convinced that Allah is the one true God, others are absolutely convinced that Jesus is God, still others that any one of the thousands of Gods that have been recorded throughout history are the real one. We would all agree that 99% of the Gods throughout recorded history were man-made, but the believer needs to say the one they were raised in just happened to be the right one. Out of all the thousands of possibilities you got so lucky, that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

The Problem of Genesis

The first book of the bible is Genesis, and it tells us a creation story. Christians are split in what to make of this, with Fundamentalist types saying it should be taken as literal, historical truth, while non-fundamentalist types will say it’s a metaphor or moral story designed to teach us about God. The fundamentalist view has two major events which conflict with science, first the age of the Earth, which they calculate by counting back the people’s ages in the bible until you get to Adam around 6000 years ago. The second is the claim of a global flood, being survived by a single family in a wooden boat filled with the animals of the world. To believe both things you must outright deny science in almost every field. This in turn can lead to conspiracy minded thinking, as it really would need the entire scientific community to work together to hide this claim.

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) attempt to say the Earth is young and that all life was created in an instant by God. This means they need to deny evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, radiometric dating, and a host of other established facts. For example, when we look at the age of the Earth there are numerous ways to determine what it is, including the 26 different radiometric dating methods, coral growth rates, ice core samples, sediment layering, erosion rates, glacial movement speeds, tectonic plate movement speed, mountain range growth, the volume of biomass in the Earth’s history and the fossil record. This means that YEC proponents don’t just have to deny a single conflicting piece of evidence, but dozens upon dozens of facts that don’t align with this worldview.

The global flood idea falls into a very similar pattern, in that science says a global flood never happened and the story as written is impossible, so the global flood proponent is forced to argue that all science is wrong. How did Noah collect the wood, stop it from rotting for a century, then collect all the animals from different continents, keep them alive in harsh conditions, store enough food and water, then release them all without the carnivores wiping out the herbivores, then have them all return to their original habitats? Where did the water come from and go to considering there is not enough water on Earth to cover the highest mountains? How did species reduced to 2 members survive via inbreeding when we know that would cause sterility within a couple of generations? How did they look after artic and desert animals at the same time? How did a fully wooden boat, prior to metal reinforcing, survive the greatest storm ever? How did the pyramids stay dry or the numerous cave paintings survive?

The list of questions such a story raises are almost unending, with the believers fall back being “God did it with magic”. For many, once you’ve laid a hundred miracles on top of each other, all which are not mentioned in the bible, solely to plug all the gaping holes in the story, then credulity is stretched thin.

Science doesn’t just give the conclusion, but explains how and why that conclusion was reached, allowing others to repeat the tests and build upon the knowledge gained. So, when a YEC says radiometric dating doesn’t work, we can look to the science to explain how it does and why we know it is reliable. One easy test is with trees, where we can clearly see the age via the growth rings. If we use carbon dating and the results match the growth rings, then we can be confident that the result is accurate. Repeat that test a thousand times with accurate results each time and you have a whole body of results proving the conclusion. It is this level of confidence that the YEC must argue against, claiming that while thousands of calibration tests have been done, they are all wrong. This is ideology over facts.

Fundamentalists will say if you can’t read the bible straight as written, then how can you trust anything it says? While this idea is an attempt to push people to follow a literal interpretation, it can in reverse leave people agreeing that the bible is untrustworthy. If it's all metaphor and parables, then can we say anything claimed to have been said by God or Jesus is true? Is salvation a thing they care about or was that just a moral story? Did the resurrection happen or was that just a story to teach us about God’s mind? The failure of Genesis to clearly match the world we see, leaves doubt that any of it is true.

December 24, 2023

The Problem with Apologetics

While Christians will say God is self-evident, or known by His works, this leads to the question why are apologists required at all? Things which are known and proven do not need apologists. There are no gravity apologists for example. The only apologists are those arguing due to being unable to prove their chosen religion. Because these apologists cannot provide evidence, they are forced to try and prove their position by secondhand inference, by God of the Gaps arguments, by Gish Gallop type rhetoric, and with a heaping of incredulity.

Secondhand inference arguments are ones that point to something in the physical world and say because this thing is complex/beautiful/amazing it must have been created by God. Common examples are the complexity of life, our experience with awe inspiring or beautiful things and the fine tuning of our universe. Of course, none of these things directly point to God, but by applying additional attributes and requirements it is possible to demand God be a necessary part of these natural things. By demanding complexity comes from God or that things look designed and therefore God must be a designer, apologists can shoehorn their conclusion into the argument. Having not proven that God exists so that He could be a valid conclusion, or that the requirements being forced on nature are actually necessary, these arguments will usually fall on deaf ears.

God of the Gaps has two common uses; where did life come from? And where did the universe come from? Science currently says we have some ideas supported by the data we do have, but insufficient data to have a complete understanding, so the answer at the moment must be "I don't know". The apologist will demand you prove it is not God that did these things, knowing full well that there is no current answer. This idea of "If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right by default", might win points amongst believers, but should not be compelling to anyone looking for complete answers. Even if you were to grant the conclusion, it doesn't answer the question, other than perhaps with "magic" rather than an actual process. In reverse, if science comes up with a complete answer to how life can be created, the apologist will simply change to "Oh, that is how God chose to do it", claiming success either way and making their position unfalsifiable.

But perhaps the most frustrating arguments to come across are those based purely on incredulity. Hearing "Life is so amazing, I can't believe it didn't come from God" or "I can't imagine any other way for our universe to be like it is". This idea that the speaker has either enough knowledge to rule out all other options, or such a vast imagination that all other possibilities have been considered and rejected, is an incredibly arrogant position to hold. All "I can't imagine" can tell us is a lack of imagination. If you can't imagine something that shouldn't mean you jump to the conclusion that no one else could possibly do so. This thinking that people know enough to come to conclusions, regardless of their lack of data or knowledge, is a version of the Dunning-Kruger effect (The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.) People seem to think they are smart enough to know better, while those who are experts in the relevant fields (bio-chemists looking at abiogenesis or astrophysicists looking at the big bang) are generally able to understand the bounds of our knowledge and speak more humbly about what we currently do not know.

The Problem with Bigotry

There is a long history of the religious teaching bigotry as part of their tenants. Gays have been at best shunned, but often arrested or even killed for their victimless crime of loving the wrong person. Women have been considered second class citizens, not allowed to hold senior positions and sub-servient to men in all things. Women for thousands of years suffered forced marriages, rape and discipline from their fathers or husbands. While the idea of consent is presented in the modern western world as the core of sexual freedom, this idea is sadly very new, and the religious texts have done their best to enforce these ancient bigoted customs.

For gay people, while freedom has been achieved throughout most of the western world, there are still 67 countries that say such activity is a jailable offence, and 10 of which have the death penalty (all Islamic countries). Christians will point to the horrors inflicted by the Muslim majority countries and say, "we aren't that bad", while ignoring the history where they were absolutely the same. Even to this day in Christian countries there are groups constantly pushing for laws to criminalize gay people or ban any literature that speaks on their behalf, fighting against same sex marriage or same sex adoption. These people are taught to hate gay people by their parents, by their preachers and by their holy book. The bible makes it clear that gays are to be harshly punished, which was the norm back in those days, but conflicts with our modern sensibilities.

One of the most famous examples of this religious hatred of gay people was the sad story of the brilliant Alan Turing: "It became clear from an early age that Alan Turing was a maths prodigy, and over the course of his life and career Turing pioneered mathematics and computer science, changing the way we see and understand the world. From altering the course of history by breaking the Enigma code during the Second World War, through to applying his practical war-time experiences to design the principles of which underlie modern computers, Alan Turing’s legacy has shaped the lives of millions of people. However, Alan Turing faced much hardship during his life due to his sexuality. During Turing’s life, homosexuality was a criminal offence and Turing was convicted in 1952 of “Gross Indecency”. Alan Turing was faced with an impossibly cruel choice of imprisonment, or probation on the condition he underwent chemical castration. Turing died from suicide two years later."

We see in cultures where being gay is treated as normal, that people accept it and no one bats an eyelid. The ancient Greeks were famous for supporting this, even suggestions it was encouraged amongst some soldiers. Nowadays the bigotry against being gay is almost entirely due to either the Islamic or Christian holy books.

Women in the bible are treated like property, and what we would now consider horrific was practiced as the norm back in those ancient times. When Deuteronomy 21:11 says "if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife." there was no consideration of whether she wanted this outcome, no option to decline or no consent requested. You have a prisoner and want them, then you say the words and they are yours. Once you have said the words of marriage, then you may have sex with her, consent is not required as she is legally your wife and that is her duty. If you have a slave or indentured servant, then you could sell them into prostitution if you thought that would make you money from them. But even if you had a legal wife, she was still bound by the bible to be secondary to the husband in all things, her testimony worth less and if her husband died then she was passed his brother to own.

The bible says women aren't to be heard, to teach or hold positions over men. The law on slaves specifies that women get less rights "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone".

Nowadays we think of women as equal to men, but this idea is very new historically, with much of the world only giving women the right to vote in the last century and even through the history of getting the vote it has been restricted by race, age, position in society or in some cases later retracted. Same goes for land ownership, where it was not allowed at all for thousands of years and only started being allowed in limited fashion in the 1800's.

Religion set the standard, taught the rules and justified that discrimination because it was in the bible. Now Christians try to say we all have value, as we are all made in the image of God, but Christians for thousands of years have made it clear that some are more God-like than others.

December 25, 2023

The Problem with Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a problem-solving technique where it is suggested that in the majority of cases the solution with the least elements, or basically the simplest solution is more likely to be correct. Whenever we are looking for the simplest explanation for an event, in all cases a mundane cause is more likely than a miraculous one. A miracle by its very definition is a one-off magical event that cannot be repeated, this has to be a more complex answer due to requiring a whole range of additional elements to be included, from other dimensions to supernatural beings, immortals, things outside of space and time, things that's existence is counter to everything we know of the physical universe. In all cases, if a mundane explanation can be given that is plausible, then it by default is more likely than a supernatural cause.

The first problem this raises for the bible is that the simplest answer is that the book is man-made and is largely telling mythical stories. We have thousands of examples of mythical writings, countless stories from around the world that Christians will agree are not historical events, so with that in mind categorizing the bible in the same group is the simplest answer. If we look at ancient writings of historical events, we will generally label mundane events as plausible, while supernatural events and creatures make the writings less plausible. A story of Caesar invading Gaul is quite plausible, but if the story says he did it while flying on the back of a red dragon, instantly the writing is doubted by all historians and scholars. We do not dismiss it out of hand, but the evidence that dragons, trolls, elves and pixies don't exist is not disputed by the majority of the world, so when a book like the bible tells us of giants, fire breathing creatures, Nephilim, demons and angels, we should be equally skeptical of such claims.

Even just the suggestion that the books are false, that some or perhaps all of the authors were either lying or incorrect, has to be considered a mundane answer more likely than they are divinely inspired.

While "God did it" sounds simple, due to the numerous elements that statements brings with it, it must be viewed in its entirety as an incredibly complex answer. In fact, we would have to consider "Alien's did it" as more plausible, due to that answer having less elements to add, with alien's being a distinct possibility due to the size of the universe and as Arthur C Clarks famous saying goes "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Alien's raising Jesus from the dead with technology we can't comprehend, is more likely than an invisible, immortal, all-powerful super being using magic to circumvent the laws of physics.

There are many bible stories for which there are mundane answers suggested for them. For example, it was suggested the town of Sodom was built into a volcanic crater, a freshwater catchment area. The volcano erupted, spewing "fire and brimstone" upon the people, with few survivors. One survivor known as Lot, carved a statue to his wife out of basalt. The people being unaware of why such things occur, put the blame on God's wrath and the story is born.

Another was the walls of Jericho, where the army marched around the city making a lot of noise, covering up the work of the sapper's underground who were undermining the city walls. Once the sappers had completed their work, the general was able to blow his horn as a signal and the temporary wooden supports put in place were all yanked out at the same time, resulting in the collapse and easy storming of the city. The troops, who had no idea of the sapper's work, just see the horn blown and the walls come down and look to attribute that to magic.

Or perhaps Noah's flood was only a local flood that has undergone embellishment, or maybe it is a retelling of earlier myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, reworked to fit with the religious and cultural group telling the story. There were certainly many massive floods throughout human history, from the end of the ice age to the various land bridges collapsing, or even just a 1 in a thousand-year storm or regional flood. Perhaps an earthquake rapidly changed a rivers course or a natural dam burst. There are many possibilities for causes of flood myths and local floods to be written about, and these all overcome the issues of collecting animals, returning them to their habitats, inbreeding for survival and the care of exotic animals and their specific diet and climate requirements that the biblical global flood story introduces. A local flood and an Ark which only had to handle the local domesticated animals is a lot more plausible and is now believed by some Christian churches.

Perhaps Elijah didn't cause a pair of bears to tear 42 children to pieces in a single bloody event, but a pair of bears had begun hunting people within the area, and it was over the course of months or even years that the body count climbed to 42 before the beasts were finally hunted down and the horror ceased. Why were the bears so blood thirsty? Must have been that prophet that came through and cursed the kids for being rude, the killings started at the same time, and hence a legend is born.

The Problems with the Crucifixion

The crucifixion of Jesus is seen by many as the core of Christian beliefs. He died for our sins and rose after 3 days back to heaven having proven himself the Messiah. However, there are competing explanations which make a fair case for more mundane causes for this event. Historically we know that most victims were thrown into mass graves, their lack of dignity in burial being part of the punishment. If Jesus had suffered this common result, then there would be no body, but the Christians of the time would have had the very common grief hallucinations as well as a strong heaping of confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy to make them want to find alternative answers that explain why having the guy they thought was the Messiah died, wasn't actually the failure it appeared. The OT had said that Jesus would ascend to David's throne and yet he had died having never become king on earth. This failure proved to the Jews that Jesus was not the Messiah, but for the Christians who had followed him for years they needed a way to save their sect from the disaster, and hence several follow up stories of meeting Jesus later were made up, thereby proving he was now in heaven awaiting his chosen people.

Another possibility that a couple of small Christian sects believe, is that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Otherwise known as swoon theory, this is the idea that Jesus was taken down early, having only been up on the cross around 6 hours and having never had his legs broken which was the normal way to kill the victims. With a rich supporter given the time and resources to aid the injured Jesus, it took 3 days of medical treatment to get him able to walk, but once up he quickly fled to make sure the authorities didn't have a second try at his execution. There are sects in both India and Japan who have stories of Jesus coming to their lands and living out his life preaching there, and both have graves they claim are where he was finally buried.

There are discrepancies between the different gospels and what they claim occurred. For example, what was written on the cross is different between versions as are what were Jesus's last words. Only one gospel mentions guards, but it was nonsensical for them to be there as no one would expect a resurrection and therefore why pay the cost of guarding a relatively unknown preacher's body? Some gospels mention an earthquake and the graves of Jerusalem opening so the dead could walk the streets, events that would have been stunning for the world and yet not mentioned anywhere else. There's not even mention of what became of these hordes of dead.

To this day we have no confirmed tomb, no body, no contemporary writings about the events, and while Paul wants to tell us there were more than 500 who saw the risen Jesus, he provides no names or the possibility of ever proving his claim. We can't be sure there was a Jesus, if there was, we can't be sure he was crucified, if he was, we can't be sure there was a body given to his followers, if there was, we can't be sure it reached a tomb, if it did, we can't be sure some invested party didn't remove it, if he was raised we can't be sure that wasn't via surviving the ordeal and medical assistance, and even if he was resurrected from the dead we still couldn't show that it was the Christian God that did it rather than Satan taking the form to lead people astray, Aliens using technology to raise him, a glitch in the matrix, or a trickster God like Loki doing it for a laugh. Even though these other ideas sound farfetched, can it really be said they are any more implausible than an invisible all-powerful superbeing raising his son after sacrificing him to himself?

December 26, 2023

The Problem of the Omni's

The Christian God is claimed to have all of the omni traits, that is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good and all-loving. It is only this insistence of omni traits that leads to many of the problems with the claims. There is no problem of evil if God does not care (many other religions have either apathetic or evil Gods) or if God is limited in His ability to achieve what He wants (many other religions put such limitations on their ideas of God, with pantheons of Gods who are given specific portfolios), but to claim He is both all-loving and all-powerful leads to the idea conflicting with the suffering we see in the world.

It also conflicts with Him being all-knowing, as this means He knew that Hitler was going to exterminate 6 million of His followers centuries in advance and yet having all that time to change that outcome, He failed to take any steps to prevent that horror. If you know a crime is going to be committed and it is within your power to stop it at no risk or cost to yourself, then to fail to take the action to save lives makes you complicit. Anyone in their right mind would consider someone failing to act as a moral monster, if not criminally liable for failure to act. Throughout the western world we have laws saying that failure to provide care, food or medical aid for children is a crime, while God fails even this bare minimum level of care on a daily basis.

If God is all-omni, then why create Earth at all? He needs nothing, He is already perfect. Creating Earth leads to horrific suffering for both animals and His beloved humans, while prior to that He already had heaven which was populated by all-good angels. A realm of perfect love and happiness, for which there could be no improvement. So, Earth is a net negative. An experiment that an all-knowing God would already know the result of.

If God is all-powerful then Satan could not challenge Him and God would not need the devil to achieve anything. He has no need of Jesus's sacrifice or any of the thousands of animal sacrifices prior to that, as He needs nothing. If He wishes to grant mercy and redemption, then as He is all-powerful, He could do so without all of the bloodshed.

If God is all-good and all-loving, then why do we get horrific laws like stoning to death people for the victimless crime of working on the sabbath? Why do we see people killed for name calling or for trying to save the falling Ark? Why do we hear passages say, "blessed are they who smash babies on rocks"?

God is all-loving but commands horrific things. He is all-powerful but has failed to get His will known and followed by the world. He is all-knowing but has not taken steps to stop the evil that He knows is coming. Being all-loving He should want it to be better, being all-powerful He has the ability to make the world better, being all-knowing He is well aware of every problem and how best to mitigate those issues, and despite having no cost and taking no effort to fix any of the world's problems, He steadfastly refuses to act.

The Problem of Design

Apologists love to say we see signs of design in nature and design requires a designer, however this is usually done by cherry-picking a couple of examples and ignoring the many terrible or strange designs that we find. One of the most commonly raised examples is the laryngeal nerve which connects from the brain to the voice box but takes a long detour around the heart before coming back up the chest. In human's this means its 3-4 times longer than it needs to be, but the extreme example is the giraffe where the nerve is 5 meters long! The left-hand nerve is 3-4 meters longer than the right, as only the one side loops down in this way. This is precisely the kind of thing we would expect from a natural evolutionary standpoint, but not from an intelligent designer.

Perhaps the apologist will point to Earth being designed for life, while we see the majority of the water in the world is undrinkable, vast swathes are frozen wastes or blazing deserts, all sat atop moving tectonic plates which result in volcanoes, tsunamis and earthquakes in their thousands every year.

Maybe humans are God's greatest creation, after all we are in His image. And yet we have no natural defenses, no natural weapons, no natural armor, aren't particularly strong or fast, can't swim well, climb well or even fend for ourselves for the first decade of our lives. In a natural environment we are way down the food chain, a prey species for any big cat, bear, crocodile, giant bird or predator on the planet. We have many bones found of our ancient ancestors which show signs of death by predator. We have the big brains, but it took tens of thousands of years before those figured out technology to save us from everything else on the planet.

Instead, we can look towards the universe, where the apologist will say it shows signs of being fine-tuned to allow our planet and life to arise. Yet we have no idea if the constants that make up the forces of the universe could be anything other than they are. We have one example of a universe, and the natural forces are therefore set the one and only way we know they can be. So, maybe the universe isn't fine-tuned, but it's still amazing and awe inspiring, which is true, however it is also true that that vast majority of the universe is hostile to life. Anywhere in the void or on the majority of planets, the environments are so harsh that life could not arise. While we have now found thousands of planets that could potentially have liquid water, we have no way to reach them and no way to know how abundant life is on such planets.

We survive on Earth in spite of the asteroid impacts, the radiation from our sun and other sources of cosmic radiation. As the dinosaurs found out, the universe is a very hostile place, and that famous event was only one of half a dozen extinction level events in Earth's history. Life struggles on in spite of these devastating setbacks, none of which suggests it was designed for us to thrive.

December 26, 2023

The Problem of Blood

Blood is an important part of life and seen throughout history as a source of life and power. Medically people have tried leeches and bleeding to remove bad blood, human and animal sacrifice has been used to spill blood to please various Gods and even our language has developed to consider the heart the source of emotions and various phrases like "make your blood boil" or "there's bad blood between them" being common.

This was no different back in ancient days, where blood sacrifices were common and in Christianity's case was topped off by Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice. However, looking back at what was considered normal and described as pleasing to God is quite horrific to our modern morals. Imagine this scene playing out in a modern church service, Exodus 29 "You shall slaughter the bull before the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting. You shall take some of the blood of the bull and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; and you shall pour out all the blood at the base of the altar. You shall take all the fat that covers the entrails and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them and offer them up in smoke on the altar. But the flesh of the bull and its hide and its refuse, you shall burn with fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering. You shall also take the one ram... and you shall slaughter the ram and shall take its blood and sprinkle it around on the altar. Then you shall cut the ram into its pieces, and wash its entrails and its legs, and put them with its pieces and its head. You shall offer up in smoke the whole ram on the altar; it is a burnt offering to the Lord: it is a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the Lord."

Blood-soaked priests carrying freshly butchered entrails to burn for the pleasing aroma, while pools of blood are poured on the base of the altar. This is more akin to a Hollywood's movie example of a Satanic ritual than something an all-loving God should request.

But it wasn't just the innocent animals slaughtered in blood soaked rituals, but the priests themselves were blessed by blood "You shall slaughter the ram and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and on the lobes of his sons’ right ears and on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet, and sprinkle the rest of the blood around on the altar. Then you shall take some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron and on his garments and on his sons and on his sons’ garments with him; so he and his garments shall be consecrated, as well as his sons and his sons’ garments with him". Because nothing says a trustworthy priest like a guy with blood dripping from his ear, thumbs and toes while his clothes are splashed with fresh blood and a further burning of entrails can begin. Perhaps our modern priests just aren't consecrated in the correct way anymore? Would it matter to God if the blood was on the wrong ear or big toe? Does the smearing of blood have to be done in such specific ways to make the magic work?

The very first thing that it is claimed Noah did upon arriving on dry ground was to slaughter an animal and offer it as a burnt sacrifice to God. Considering his lack of animals to start with, this may well have wiped out a species. These kinds of sacrificial rituals are done because the bible says the aroma is pleasing to the Lord "Present as an aroma pleasing to the Lord a food offering consisting of a burnt offering of thirteen young bulls, two rams and fourteen male lambs a year old, all without defect", and yet we have to wonder why the all-powerful God needs or wants such bloodshed and butchery? I'm unsure how a vegan, let alone anyone in the western world, can read such verses and not be horrified?

All this so the sins that you have done could be forgiven by killing an innocent animal. I looked upon a lady with lust, sorry sheep you'll have to die now.

It is also worth mentioning blood in regard to a woman's monthly period. In modern days we look at this as a natural event and understand it is a refreshing in preparation for future pregnancy. Back in ancient days it was often seen in much more negative ways. Leviticus 15 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean." Setting the example that women are impure and anything they touch is as well. In the OT it was said that women on their period could not enter a temple. Another way to force inequality between the sexes, to blame people for things outside of their control and to make women ashamed of their bodies natural processes. This would be bad enough coming from ancient men who didn't know better, but once you try to claim this negativity comes from an all-loving God, it conflicts with human decency.

December 28, 2023

On 12/26/2023 at 1:37 PM, Wertbag said:

The Problem of Blood

Blood is an important part of life and seen throughout history as a source of life and power. Medically people have tried leeches and bleeding to remove bad blood, human and animal sacrifice has been used to spill blood to please various Gods and even our language has developed to consider the heart the source of emotions and various phrases like "make your blood boil" or "there's bad blood between them" being common.

This was no different back in ancient days, where blood sacrifices were common and in Christianity's case was topped off by Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice. However, looking back at what was considered normal and described as pleasing to God is quite horrific to our modern morals. Imagine this scene playing out in a modern church service, Exodus 29 "You shall slaughter the bull before the Lord at the doorway of the tent of meeting. You shall take some of the blood of the bull and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; and you shall pour out all the blood at the base of the altar. You shall take all the fat that covers the entrails and the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys and the fat that is on them and offer them up in smoke on the altar. But the flesh of the bull and its hide and its refuse, you shall burn with fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering. You shall also take the one ram... and you shall slaughter the ram and shall take its blood and sprinkle it around on the altar. Then you shall cut the ram into its pieces, and wash its entrails and its legs, and put them with its pieces and its head. You shall offer up in smoke the whole ram on the altar; it is a burnt offering to the Lord: it is a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the Lord."

Blood-soaked priests carrying freshly butchered entrails to burn for the pleasing aroma, while pools of blood are poured on the base of the altar. This is more akin to a Hollywood's movie example of a Satanic ritual than something an all-loving God should request.

But it wasn't just the innocent animals slaughtered in blood soaked rituals, but the priests themselves were blessed by blood "You shall slaughter the ram and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and on the lobes of his sons’ right ears and on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet, and sprinkle the rest of the blood around on the altar. Then you shall take some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron and on his garments and on his sons and on his sons’ garments with him; so he and his garments shall be consecrated, as well as his sons and his sons’ garments with him". Because nothing says a trustworthy priest like a guy with blood dripping from his ear, thumbs and toes while his clothes are splashed with fresh blood and a further burning of entrails can begin. Perhaps our modern priests just aren't consecrated in the correct way anymore? Would it matter to God if the blood was on the wrong ear or big toe? Does the smearing of blood have to be done in such specific ways to make the magic work?

The very first thing that it is claimed Noah did upon arriving on dry ground was to slaughter an animal and offer it as a burnt sacrifice to God. Considering his lack of animals to start with, this may well have wiped out a species. These kinds of sacrificial rituals are done because the bible says the aroma is pleasing to the Lord "Present as an aroma pleasing to the Lord a food offering consisting of a burnt offering of thirteen young bulls, two rams and fourteen male lambs a year old, all without defect", and yet we have to wonder why the all-powerful God needs or wants such bloodshed and butchery? I'm unsure how a vegan, let alone anyone in the western world, can read such verses and not be horrified?

All this so the sins that you have done could be forgiven by killing an innocent animal. I looked upon a lady with lust, sorry sheep you'll have to die now.

It is also worth mentioning blood in regard to a woman's monthly period. In modern days we look at this as a natural event and understand it is a refreshing in preparation for future pregnancy. Back in ancient days it was often seen in much more negative ways. Leviticus 15 says "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean." Setting the example that women are impure and anything they touch is as well. In the OT it was said that women on their period could not enter a temple. Another way to force inequality between the sexes, to blame people for things outside of their control and to make women ashamed of their bodies natural processes. This would be bad enough coming from ancient men who didn't know better, but once you try to claim this negativity comes from an all-loving God, it conflicts with human decency.

The more I read here, the more I have to ask, is there ANYTHING decent about xtianity? Even the 'good' stuff seems unbalanced when it comes to the overwhelming badness of it.

December 28, 2023

The Problem of Hitler/Stalin

Apologists will often point to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as examples of atheistic societies, showing what will become if atheists take control and apply their terrible morals and lack of God to running a country. This of course is a ridiculous claim, one that many believers will pick up and repeat having never looked into such claims. Firstly, let's look at Hitler, a strong candidate for the worst person to have ever lived, having caused both the holocaust and World War 2, his actions lead to the greatest loss of human life ever. But was he an atheist?

Hitler was raised in a Catholic family and throughout his rise to power repeatedly said Christianity was the basis of the Nazi party "Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit" or "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" or "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian". With statements like that would you really jump to the conclusion that he was an atheist?

It is actually more complex than that, as he did indeed talk negatively of Christianity elsewhere and at other times. He appears to have changed beliefs at various times through his life and was clearly mentally unstable and an adept liar when it could lead to more power. It is possible he flip-flopped between belief and unbelief, it is possible he lied to get different groups on his side and its possible he was psychotic and believed nothing like what he said. At best we can say he openly claimed to be Christian and Germany was a majority Christian country, so the majority of the army and Nazi party were Christians. A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era, indicates that 54% of the population considered itself Protestant, 41% considered itself Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as "believing in God", and 1.5% as "atheist". Hard to point to atheism as the cause of any of the problems with a self-professed Christian leader and 98% of the population being Christian, and yet many of the high-ranking Nazi party members were clear in their hatred of the church and its Jewish based holy book.

In addition, we have the Nazi's playing on long held anti-sematic views that were Christian based. That is why the propaganda used Christian imagery to get the majority Christian population onboard. The Jews were the ones who killed Jesus, they were the ones who rejected Jesus's divinity or that he was the Messiah. They had been cursed by God and demon possessed. It was Satan's plan that they enacted to cause WW1 and the great depression. The political cartoons of the day often used the classic devil image of horns, bat wings and cloven hooves to point out the Jews. Do you know they don't even celebrate Christmas? All this kind of rhetoric used to "other" the out group, dehumanize them and reduce the populations care for that group.

Our second famous fascist dictator, Joseph Stalin, also has a death toll in the tens of millions but large amounts of those losses are from famine and disease, more from harsh environments, harsh laws, mass corruption and terrible governance. At least in this case the Russian Communist government was based on strong anti-church and atheistic claims. "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone. Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.

In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500 (1.7%) due to systematic demolitions of the churches and cathedrals."

A lot of this Communist hatred of the church came from the churches support of the opposition during the revolution. "Many sections of the Russian Orthodox Church supported the anti-Soviet regimes during the civil war. In 1918, the Bishop of Ufa made xenophobic and anti-Bolshevik speeches and rallied the people to the White cause in 1918. The Archbishop of Ekaterinburg organized protest demonstrations when he learned of the Romanov family's execution in July 1918, and he held a victory celebration when Admiral Kolchak took the city in February 1919. In both the Siberian and Ukrainian fronts, "Jesus Christ Regiments", organized by Orthodox hierarchs on the scene, aided White Armies. The church had expressed its support to General Kornilov's counter-revolutionary coup attempt, assisted the rebellions of Kerensky and Krasnov, and had called on believers to fight against the new state, and even to shed blood in fighting against it." These direct actions against the red uprising were used as justification of the attacks against the church.

This was not the only reason that the Orthodox church was hated by some groups in Russia, for one "In the mid-17th century the Russian Orthodox patriarch Nikon came into violent conflict with the Russian tsar Alexis. Nikon, pursuing the ideal of a theocratic state, attempted to establish the primacy of the Orthodox church over the state in Russia." but also from a wealth perspective many Russians saw the church as corrupt and greedy, and when famine hit and the church refused to spend its wealth to feed the population, many were left hating the church. The church had also famously sold indulgences, an idea made famous by the Catholic church throughout Europe, in that a priest could pre-forgive sin for a cost. This idea appears to have been little more than a money-making scheme, with many clergy living extravagant lifestyles from the sales of these indulgences. When you are starving and struggling to survive, while the priests are living in opulent palaces, you can see why there was a strong ground swell of hatred to the church.

So yes, the Russian Communist government was strong in its pushing of atheistic ideas and the destruction of the church. However, these ideas were not because atheism led to those conclusions, but a fascist dictator wanted power and struck out against the institutions that he hated and that had levels of control that he couldn't stand. In every case it is fascist dictators and the violence inherent in their power plays, and not the specific group being targeted.

There are also horrific Christian leaders, something apologists will avoid mentioning or at best label as "not true Christians". One of the most famous ones tainted Russian history from 1533-1584, Ivan the Terrible. "Ivan was a devoted follower of Christian Orthodoxy but in his own specific manner. He placed the most emphasis on defending the divine right of the ruler to unlimited power under God. Some scholars explain the sadistic and brutal deeds of Ivan the Terrible with the religious concepts of the 16th century, which included drowning and roasting people alive or torturing victims with boiling or freezing water, corresponding to the torments of hell. That was consistent with Ivan's view of being God's representative on Earth with a sacred right and duty to punish."

The clear reason that we know governments that are secular, with strong separation of church and state, are the most prosperous and happy, is that is now the norm throughout the western world. Famously the countries with the least religion, Scandinavian countries for example, are constantly rated as the most prosperous. This is also true with the founding of America, where the founding fathers were fleeing from the centuries of religious warfare in Europe, so made sure to enshrine secular laws in the founding documents, with the first amendment being the freedom of religion.

There have been atheistic leaders that did not result in terrible outcomes, usually when they are raised in western society with a democratic government and no hatred of "others" driving their ideals. Absolute power corrupts, and this is true regardless of a person's religion or lack thereof. Apologists wish to reduce this massive complexity to a simple black and white, atheism = evil, which if delved into just goes to show the dishonesty and "othering" of the group they dislike.

December 29, 2023

The Problem of Gullibility

Humans are bad at determining reality. We have limited senses, limited views and imperfect minds. Our memory, even short term, can be horribly wrong, while long term we struggle to remember even important details of events. The Mandela effect is an example of how groups of people can all be convinced that something was different historically to how we can show it to be. Some Mandela effect proponents will even refuse to believe that they are wrong, instead claiming that the universe has changed around them. We see thousands of people being defrauded by scam artists, falling into cults or believing crazy ideas like reptile overlords or a flat earth. It almost doesn't matter what crazy idea is floated; it seems thousands will accept it as true.

We have people like Ron Hubbard starting Scientology, Joseph Smith starting Mormonism or Sai Baba convincing millions that he had supernatural powers. While outsiders can look at these people and the religions they formed and be surprised anyone accepts such clearly made-up stories, we also have to admit that millions of people are absolutely convinced these things are true. Then in reverse fail to apply the same skepticism to our own beliefs.

Some of our inability to apply skepticism to our own worldview are phycological effects such as confirmation bias (that we instinctively think things that agree with us are more likely than those that disagree), sunk cost (if we've invested time, money or resources into an idea, we will fight against anything that may show that it was a waste), cognitive dissonance (holding two contradictory ideas at the same time by never comparing your beliefs to each other) or Dunning-Kruger (the instinct that we are better than we really are and failure to recognize our own limitations).

In the case of religion, proponents will invariably believe that all other religions are wrong. They have to be for the selected religion to be true. But then within that religion they will in turn believe that their particular sect or denomination is the correct one and will rally against the ones who have corrupted their message or been led astray. This has happened in Islam, with Sunni and Shiite Muslims disagreeing, it has happened between the numerous schools of Hinduism, and it has happened between the various groups of Christians. The Christian will point to the Mormon's as heretics, the Mormons will point to the JWs as lost, while the JW's point at the Scientologists and laugh. Everyone is right, and everyone is sure everyone else is wrong.

Now consider that in the light of human gullibility. If we as a species are terrible at telling what is real from what is fantasy, and with imperfect brains and terrible memories, then why should we be looking at any of these man-made stories and putting faith in them? We know charismatic preachers from any cult, religion or any con artist can convince the general population to follow their view. Are we arrogant enough to think we are special and such things will only affect others and never us? Is the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to our own cognition of reality?

The scientific method was designed to take the human out of the conclusion, or at least to highlight the bias so that others can peer review and repeat your tests. The data is tested, the tests are, wherever possible, done blind with controls. The tests are repeated, and the results are shown to be falsifiable. It is this recognition of our own shortcomings that allows us to work to plug those gaps. It is this humble understanding that makes this appeal to so many people.

For those who have left religion, whether that be ex-Muslim, ex-Christian or whatever, there is the humbling experience of realizing your worldview is wrong. It is admitting that you held belief for poor reasons, whether that was how you were raised, confirmation bias to what you were taught or simply no self-reflection on what and why. In many cases you will hear people who have changed worldviews be a lot humbler with their claims, happy to say, "I don't know" or "I can't be sure", as they recognize the errors that being absolutely convinced of something without good evidence can lead to. The deconstruction of religion involves a lot of self-reflection, consideration of what evidence a view has and why the same levels of skepticism aren't being applied equally to all claims.

December 30, 2023

The Problem with Atheists

An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in any Gods. That's all that is required, and the position doesn't require any other beliefs or positions be held. Many apologists seem to have a struggle with this simple concept, either because they wish to shift the burden of proof, because they are genuinely ignorant of what an atheist is, or they are building a strawman version which they can point to as ridiculous and easy to defeat. When you notice such underhand tactics being employed it casts doubt on apologists actually speaking truth or wanting a constructive dialogue.

The burden of proof is a simple rule, in that the person who makes a claim must support the claim they make. Apologists realize there is no good evidence for God, so often try to move the burden to the atheist. One way this is done is to say the atheist is making a claim that no God exists, so support that claim. However, atheists are just unconvinced by the evidence, or lack thereof, that has been presented, that is not a claim. You don't have to have thought deeply about it, or be able to answer any related questions, all of that is aside to the issue which is they find the evidence lacking.

You often see this from apologists who demand alternative answers, saying "If God didn't create life/the universe, then where did it come from?". With a failure to answer these fringes of our possible knowledge being taken as proof that the one option presented must be correct. The problem with this line of thinking is that it both ignores all other possible answers and says the presented idea is right by default without having to be proven in its own right. If tomorrow someone disproved evolution, abiogenesis or the big bang, that does not mean supernatural creation is automatically correct. At best it gets us back to an "I don't know" state, but more likely we will be left with several possibilities, no matter how outlandish they sound, that we would need to work through to prove or disprove as the evidence shows.

A strawman version of atheism is where additional ideas and views are incorporated in order to make atheism sound weak, then by defeating this made-up version the apologist can claim victory over all atheists. Commonly this is done by blending ideas like secularism, materialism, leftist ideology and scientism all under the label of atheist. "So, you are an atheist? That means you believe the universe came from nothing, that life came from a rock, that life is pointless and meaningless, that we have no morals over personal opinion, that abortion is good, that people can marry animals or trees...", absolutely none of which must be true.

It blows apologists minds to hear there are spiritual atheists and religions without a God. Buddhism talks of improving your soul and being one with the universe but gives no worship to a God. The Shinto religion believes in spirits, a heavenly realm, and the ability to entreat ancestors for aid, but again no God. Atheists can believe in souls, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, magic and supernatural powers, or none of these. There is no one atheistic position, so whenever an apologist claims that all atheists are materialists, they are either ignorant of the vast array of possibilities, or intentionally hiding the truth in order to make their own position seem better than it actually is.

An atheist, when talking to Christians, should query what type of Christian (young earth vs old, literal bible vs metaphor, which denomination, which church tradition, which version of the bible, which version of hell, salvation, or heaven is believed in) as the term is only an umbrella label that applies to billions of people with vastly different beliefs, the same goes for atheists who also have vastly different beliefs. A failure to recognize this either shows a lack of understanding or attempts to dishonestly represent the other side, this reflects poorly on the apologist and their position.

December 30, 2023

The Problem with Extreme Christians

Most modern Christians will look at the more extreme examples of believers as following false teachings or being led astray, but with numerous different interpretations and significant differences in what is taught, it is often not hard to see how the teachings and bible can lead to some extreme results without having to drift far away from what is written. A mild version of this are the many convents around the world who preach a fallen world. The nuns in these closed off communities will often pray for death, believing that Earth is a test and heaven in the reward, so once you die your worries are over and you'll be in paradise forever. They see the world as full of sin and temptation, but if you are locked away then you avoid drinking, smoking, drugs, anger, lust, stress, magic and anything that could let a demon enter your life. From an unbeliever's view this is just sad, with the people wasting their lives, achieving nothing and adding nothing to the world. Are they happy? Probably an individual question, but they are certainly fearful and look forward to death, so don't have a positive outlook on the world.

There are more harmful extremes, including groups who want a Christian theocracy. This is an easy one to understand, if you believe that Christianity is true, sin is evil and "the fool has said in his heart there is no God", then putting the righteous in charge makes sense. Some want to keep western democracy, but have only Christians in charge, while others think it should be fully church run. The line of thinking that "others" are bad, and it is their sin that causes the problems in the world, quickly leads to bigotry and the suppression of rights. Whether it be outlawing gay rights, trans rights, women's rights, the rights of other "false" religions or the rights of unbelievers, there will be restrictions imposed on those who are not in the group with the power. The western world is built on the secular ideal of separation of church and state, but of course to a true believer that rule should only apply to everyone else, because they have the truth.

Christians will look at extreme Muslim groups like the Taliban and say how horrific their laws are, while ignoring the history of their own church inflicting the same punishments. While the Taliban will kill gay people today, Christians did this previously and there are undoubtedly those who still would if the legal protections were removed. For centuries we had the inquisition throughout Europe, where devout Christians were given power above the law, and the horrors they unleashed are talked about till this day. Their extreme punishments and brutality were easily supported by biblical verses, things like "you shall not let a witch live" cannot be mis-construed, and we have many examples of God destroying those He doesn't like from setting bears on the children for insulting the prophet, to butchering the followers of Baal for failing Elijah's test, to massacring the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf, to stoning to death sabbath breakers. It is clear God wants such punishments handed out by his devoted followers, so while we see their actions as abhorrent and extreme, it is really not drifting far from what the bible says should be, and has been, done before.

There was the recent story of a mother who drowned her children to death in a bathtub. She handed herself in to police and said that what she did guaranteed her children would now be in heaven. She was unsure if her actions would send her to hell, or if faith only salvation is a thing, then her personal sacrifice and murder out of love would see her reunite with her children once she dies. Either she goes to hell, the ultimate sacrifice of love to save her children, or she goes to heaven because of her faith and love, either way the children are saved. It is hard to argue this logic as that is where faith only salvation should lead. When we have Christians saying Jeffrey Dahmer will have reached heaven due to his faith, it is hard to imagine a woman who was nowhere near as horrific, would be punished if he isn't.

One place of disagreement that has led to very different outcomes is the idea of a new covenant. This idea is that the laws presented in the OT were only meant for the Israelites at that time and are therefore all obsolete and do not apply to modern Christians. This view allows Christians to avoid the laws such as "you shall not allow a witch to live" or that Sabbath breakers should be killed, by saying those are OT laws. This appears to be an effort to cancel the laws that are horrific to our modern sensibilities so that Christians can realign with modern morals. This is at odds with Matthew 5:18 which says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.". This has said to Christians for thousands of years that the laws God put down have not passed away and should be followed to this day. Some sects of both Jews and Christians do, taking great lengths to avoid anything that could be considered work to be done on the Sabbath. Considering laws such as Sabbath breaking was given by God Himself and considered so bad as to be worthy of death, it does seem strange to hand wave away such a thing and say working weekends is now fine.

Of course, this idea that the OT laws still applies has led to groups such as the Soldiers of Christ, who admitted to kidnapping and murder of atheists, bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors. They believe they were justified by the bible and their killings were for the greater good and believe that it is what God would want. Looking at God's commands in the OT, it is hard to say they are wrong.

The common argument put forward by apologists to counter this is the idea of intrinsic value. We are all made in the image of God and He says, "love thy neighbor", so any hatred or violence against other people isn't matching this ideal of love. This of course runs contrary to the OT stories, where being in the image of God was no reason not to be killed or to become a slave, and no reason not to beat your slaves. Love thy neighbor, unless he breaks the Sabbath, then stone him to death, has a very different ring to it.

December 31, 2023

The Problem with Slavery

In the modern western world, most people would have no problem saying slavery in all its forms is evil. This is a non-controversial position to take, but one which runs counter to the laws of the bible. Due to this, apologists have had to find ways to justify slavery and condone the laws laid out in the bible. Really, at the point that your worldview puts you in the position of having to justify slavery, it should make you question that worldview.

The most common way this is done is by trying to claim that the slavery in the bible is purely indentured servitude, that is an employment contract where the person is temporarily put under the ownership of the person owed a debt so that the servant can work off that debt. The apologists will often try to paint this as a happy time of sunshine and rainbows, saying it could well be volunteer and the best thing for the servants. This line of argumentation ignores several glaring problems, firstly the bible outlines multiple types of slavery, including sex slaves, prisoners of war, chattel and indentured servitude. Secondly indentured servitude was often just as harsh as chattel slavery, with the owner having full rights to do whatever they deem necessary to work off that debt. This would often mean men would be sent to work in mines, quarries, row ships or plow fields, while women would usually be forced into prostitution. Indentured servitude was also not usually volunteer, with a failure to pay your debts meaning it could well be a court ordered punishment for your failure to pay. And thirdly, indentured servitude is banned by all western nations and by the UN as a form of slavery, so when we say we believe all forms of slavery is wrong, that includes indentured servitude.

Probably the clearest indication of the bibles support of slavery is the famous Exodus 21:20 "“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.". Clearly stating that a slave owner will receive no punishment for beating a slave as they are legal property. A couple of verses later it does clarify that you cannot permanently disfigure them "An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.", so you may beat them black and blue, give them a good whipping, as long as you don't permanently damage them. It is hard to take Christianity's claims that everyone has intrinsic value as we are all made in the image of God, while the bible gives us laws which are horrific by modern standards.

Sex slavery is more often avoided completely by apologists, or at best will get a "you aren't reading the context". However, a straightforward reading of the bible is clear and matches what was the norm in those ancient times. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

The thing missing from this marriage is consent. Consent is a sadly recent development in human history, with women historically being given or sold to whoever their father's decide for them. They would have no choice in partner, no option to refuse and would be required to have sex with whoever was put in charge of them, saying no was not an option. This common view is highlighted in this bible passage, where the woman is forced to marry the soldier who killed her family, someone who she would never willingly wish to be with. It even clarifies that you cannot sell her as you have dishonored her, meaning taken her virginity and therefore made her undesirable to anyone else.

The bible clearly says to take virgin girls as plunder of war, Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.". Apologists will try to say this is saving the young ones from execution, so is a mercy, but it is clear that age is not the deciding factor as the little boys are to be killed. The verse states that it is their virgin status which saves them. Sex is the deciding factor.

Some apologists will point to the passage Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession" as a sign that God doesn't like people taking slaves. However, the legal term kidnapping was to illegally take someone, especially an Israelite, against the law. It did not apply to legal slaves purchased from the nations around, taken in war or given that status by the courts. It is worth noting that in the American Southern states kidnapping was always illegal while the practice of slavery was ongoing. This is not unusual and not a reason to think that slavery was looked upon negatively.

Apologists will say it was Christians who ended slavery, ignoring the fact it was Christians who traded slaves, owned slaves and were the law makers who made it legal. Christianity ruled the world for a thousand years and never got around to banning slavery, it wasn't until after the enlightenment era that societies morals were changing towards our modern standards that Christianity began claiming those changes were theirs all along.

December 31, 2023

The Problem of Physical Evidence

Firstly, it must be said that Ron Wyatt is a scam artist who lies to make money. Any of his many claims should be considered false until such a time as more reputable sources can double check his work, as every time this has happened Ron has been shown to be wrong or lying. Ron was the one who claimed to have found the remains of Noah's Ark, which when checked by experts was found to be nothing more than an oval rock formation. He claimed to have found chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, but when checked it turned out they were train wheels (the metal train wheels survived the time under the sea, while wooden chariot wheels would have long rotted away). He also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant under the Temple Mount, but mysteriously his camera failed and others checking the same tunnels failed to find any trace of it.

The Ark of the Covenant was said to be the golden casket in which the ten commandments were kept. The bible talks of this relic being carried by the Israelite army and it made them more powerful warriors. However, the Ark quickly vanishes from history, with some thoughts that it may have been either buried for safety or melted down by enemy armies. Either way we have no idea what became of it. Finding such a thing could prove or disprove the supernatural claims made of it, and if it could be opened then the original 10 commandments could be viewed and whether they were hand tooled or magically created could be confirmed. While it is plausible such a box did exist, sadly it seems unlikely we will ever get to see it.

Noah's Ark was the massive boat built to survive the global flood. It came to rest upon a mountain and after that no further mention is made. Some say those early survivors would have stripped the boat of its wood to build housing, others that such a wooden vessel would not survive the centuries (although it is claimed the wood survived 120 years while being built). We have no idea where it was meant to be and no sign of any such thing. There are those who believe it was only a regional flood, in which case the size of the ship is exaggerated, and others who simply say the story is false or metaphor so there never was a ship to begin with.

We have no evidence of a global flood, in fact there is a lot of evidence against such a thing.

There was the Spear of Destiny, the spear which the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the side, and by some beliefs was the actual cause of his death. For the Roman soldier his spear would have just been a weapon, nothing worthy of being elevated above any other tool, but there are some who say the earthquake at the time of Jesus's death had the soldiers throw their weapons down and flee, which could have resulted in the bloody spear been taken with the body. The spear doesn't appear in the bible after that single thrust, and that is where the story may have ended, were it not for a claim by a crusader army who took Jerusalem. The story goes that they were besieged, and their leader needed to rally the troops for a suicide charge. He went to pray in the catacombs, and returned with what he claimed was the spear, saying it had been divinely revealed as what they needed to win. Rallying behind the relic the crusaders charged the surprised Persians, and broke their lines, sending them fleeing. While this sounds like a ploy by the crusader leader to inspire his troops, later claims were that the spear was returned to Europe and locked away for safe keeping. Whether that is true is impossible to know, but if it was locked away a thousand years ago that is where it has stayed, as it has never been seen since.

One relic that has captured the attention of Hollywood is the Holy Grail. Commonly thought to be the cup that Jesus drank from at the last supper (although other theorists claim it may have referred to Jesus's body or perhaps as a cup Joseph used to collect Jesus's blood at the crucifixion). This is another relic that the bible doesn't mention and disappears from history for the thousand years after Jesus's death, starting to appear in plays and poems in the 12th and 13th century and at some point, around this time it was written into the story of King Arthur and his knights questing for the grail. While there were claims of grails being found and some of which were donated to churches, they mostly have modern materials or designs, lack of history and carbon dating have not found any that could be authenticated. It doesn't seem to have been a relic of any note in the bible, so it seems unlikely that anyone at the last supper would have considered it an item worthy of being kept.

Regarding the bible, we have no original copies of any of the works, being mostly on paper these are works which are very hard to keep intact through the centuries. Of the 12 disciples it is believed only 3 (Matthew, John and Peter) wrote books of the bible, with the other 9 potentially being illiterate or if they did put pen to paper those works are lost to time. We have no writings from Jesus himself, and there are references within the bible pointing to other works that we have no copies of. Sadly, we have no idea how many works were created and lost to time. We have the terrible loss of knowledge from the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, in which some ancient writers claimed as many as 200,000 scrolls were kept. Historians are unsure who destroyed the library, but having been burnt to the ground all of those unique works were lost forever. You would hope an all-powerful God would have protected His holy works, but we seem to have many gaps caused by time.

Perhaps the most famous Christian relic is the Shroud of Turin, a burial cloth with an image of a man showing the wounds attributed to Jesus. The shroud has been on display for decades, with several different groups been given access to test it in various ways. Unfortunately, the best that can be said is the results are heavily debated. Originally there were 3 independent tests done to carbon date the cloth. All 3 results came back saying it was a medieval cloth, so that should have been an end to it, but believers claimed the spot selected for testing had been patched from repairs done in the past. The experts disagreed, but with no ability to retest the controversial result could not be replicated. We have had numerous groups attempt to recreate the image with some close and plausible results, however the believers will point to some differences existing and say none have done it perfectly. Considering, if it is a fake then we don't know the pigments used, the processes it underwent and could not replicate 700 years of natural aging, it does feel like some believers are setting the bar incredibly high.

In addition, we have a letter from a 13th century bishop who says it was known to be fake, we have blood experts who say the blood on the image hasn't run as you would expect from a prone man and due to gravity, we have questions as to why there would be blood at all if the body had been properly cleaned and prepared for burial or why a body that was dead for hours would still be bleeding after the heart had stopped. Others have said the bodies proportions are wrong, pointing to the arms being held up against gravity and extended to cover the groin, potentially an artistic choice rather than what we would expect. Even just the history of the cloth is patchy, with no mention of it for a thousand years after Jesus died, then the first we hear is in the 13th century when it is donated to a church.

While we can say it is fascinating, there are a lot of experts falling on both sides of the fence on this one. A lot of people with strong bias one way or the other and a lot of people who will pick the evidence and apply confirmation bias to say it is what they want it to be. It seems unlikely this debate will ever be settled.

At the end of the day, we are left with no confirmed relics, gaps in the writings, considerable evidence against claims such as global floods or a young earth, and mostly stories from a thousand years after Jesus's death talking about things the bible didn't highlight as important. Nothing Jesus wrote or owned, no confirmed tomb, nothing written by 9 out of 12 disciples and scam artists pushing rubbish claims for their own financial benefit. There is nothing physical that can lead us to belief.

January 1

The Problem with Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of existence, human minds, reason, knowledge and experience, a fairly vague umbrella term that incorporates any discussion on why things are or how we think about them. Philosophy doesn't generally reach conclusions, it gives us intellectual questions and hypothetical situations to consider, but due to the assumptions required, the arguments over the definition of words and the opposing viewpoints, it can lead to deep consideration but rarely unanimous agreement on any subject. The debates over the meanings of words can alone derail a discussion, with hours spent going over every term with a fine-tooth comb and disagreements on almost every one. Add to this a level of snobbery which is sadly prevalent, and it is not hard to see why the majority of the population do not take a keen interest in this area.

Philosophy snobbery usually comes from those who are students of the field and who have read many books by famous philosophers. Name dropping is a major part of philosophical discussion, so a failure to have read specific authors or the counter arguments against them, leaves you unable to follow the discussion. People will say "Oh, you haven't read Hume or Kant? Get back to me once you've understood the basics", which leads to this gatekeeping attitude that achieves little more than turning people away from the field.

Religious apologists commonly fall back on philosophical arguments as their core reasons for belief, however it appears people will generally use confirmation bias to adhere to philosophical arguments that align with their already held beliefs and be skeptical of any that don't. This means such arguments are fine for reinforcing pre-held beliefs but do little to change the minds of those who are not already onboard with the same worldview.

Many of the arguments suffer from being a word salad, introducing new terms or using words we commonly understand in ways that we wouldn't recognize. Some of this is done in an effort to define God into existence, or just in an attempt to make the argument less prone to fighting over definitions it ends up being said in such a complex and unintuitive way as to be hard for the majority of the world to understand what is being discussed. This can give it a pseudo-intellectual feel regardless of how good or logical the argument being put forward actually is.

Common philosophical arguments for religion (almost always for a vague notion of a God rather than in favor of any specific religious idea of what He is) including Pascal's Wager; that it is better to believe in God than not, because a believer who is right has benefits while being wrong has no downside. This is a silly argument for several reasons, firstly you can't choose belief, so lying and saying you are a Christian when you are not, will not fool an all-knowing God, and secondly it is a false dichotomy, trying to say that there are only two choices when in fact there are thousands. What if you pick Christianity and it turns out the Hindus were correct? Or the Muslims, Jews or Pagans? Third, it is not possible to say just believing is without cost, both financial, time and what is expected of you.

Another argument is the Ontological argument, which is the idea that if a greatest being can be conceived of, then a trait required of greatest is existence and therefore God must exist. This is less common as it is instinctively illogical, and while it can be reworded in several different ways, they all rely on this idea that our imagination equals reality, which it clearly doesn't.

The Cosmological argument tries to tell us that because everything has a cause, then the universe itself must have a cause, and that must be outside of it and supernatural, therefore only God fits that gap we've made for Him. This is possibly the most common reason put forward by apologists, the idea that unless you can answer where the universe came from then "God did it" is the right answer. Really, we only have one example of a universe and trying to determine what happened billions of years ago, billions of light years away, is an incredibly hard request. Our current "I don't know" is an honest response to a question that is about as hard to know as anything ever could be. The argument also has a lot of assumptions built in; must the universe have a cause? Must that cause be supernatural? Must it be a mind or personal in any way? Could the universe be eternal in some way? The apologist is demanding all of these questions be answered in the specific way they require to arrive at their pre-held conclusion, while scientists simply say we lack adequate data to come to a conclusion at this time.

January 3

The Problem with Morality

Many apologists will quote several bible verses where it says that God wrote His moral code on our hearts. Verses such as Hebrews 8:10 "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." or Romans 2:14-16 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" seem to say this is the case, although there are Christians who read this as metaphor rather than fact.

The problem with this often-repeated idea that we have morals on our hearts, is that the apologist is unable to find a single sin for which there is universal condemnation. Morals change over time and by culture, adapting to societies changing sensibilities rather than being set in stone as these quotes would have you believe. You would think something obvious like killing would be a straightforward choice for a moral code, and yet even this is not universal. There are cannibalistic tribes who are raised to believe that eating people is okay, and it seems that as long as you are taught this from birth you will be willing to accept it and partake. There were ancient colosseums and gladiator games, horrific public executions by wild animal or warrior societies that deemed the weak unworthy of life. In ancient Japan a Samurai could cut down a peasant for any perceived slight to their honour, with no justification required. There were many cases of human sacrifice, especially using enemy soldiers captured in battle, and in some cases the consuming of the enemy's flesh to humiliate or take their strength.

None of these groups perceived their own actions as evil, they justified them in many ways and continued to carry out these actions for centuries which would be abhorrent to modern western morals.

Other crimes like rape and theft only apply if the person being harmed has any rights, and rights are never guaranteed. Women were often given in marriage against their will, no consent required for their new husband to do as he pleased. You also have cultures with a caste system, where one group within the population is deemed lesser or even sub-human and have little to no rights compared to the rest of society. Stealing from such a group, or raping someone who doesn't have human status, is viewed as not a problem. It is only our outside view looking at such things with a western upbringing, that the activities are horrific to us, but if we were brought up in such a culture, taught from birth that such a thing is normal, then it is likely we would view the world in a very different way.

A few centuries ago, reading the wrong bible, or following it in the wrong manner was enough to get you executed by other Christians. Did those Christians not have God's moral law written on their hearts? Or did He approve of such brutality? When Christians massacre Christians are we to think the killers were wrong and the victims had God's law right (but obviously not His protection) or were the killers right and successful because God makes everything happen as He wills? The inquisition is now looked on as a horrific organisation, but in its time was supported by large numbers of Christians. Did all those thousands of people have morals on their hearts that lead them to think the inquisition and burning people alive was moral or were the morals of those days wrong and our modern morals correct because they are ours and therefore correct?

Christians will say God's laws are unchanging and the ultimate good, that is how they can claim they are objective morals. And yet Christians will also say all of the OT laws have passed away and were only laws that were right for that time. So, God's unchanging laws, changed. A crime that was so horrific as to be worthy of the death penalty, like breaking the Sabbath, is now considered of no concern to the majority of Christians. A law that God Himself put in place and set the ultimate punishment for a breach, is now ignored because it conflicts with our modern morals. There was no problem in ancient days seeing the slavery in the bible as normal, as it was practiced in almost all cultures. It is only in modern times, as our morals have changed and we start seeing slavery as evil, that the apologists have to work hard to reinterpret and rework the bible to keep it matching our modern view. Did the hundreds of other cultures with slavery not have God's morals on their hearts? Did the Christians who ran Europe for a thousand years not have God's moral code?

If Christians will say the OT laws have passed away, then where do we find the new set of God's objective laws? There are over 600 laws mentioned in the OT, and no revision in the NT to clarify which are still to be followed. Jesus said, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.", which should say the objective, unchanging morals of the God are the morals as portrayed in the OT, but those are so abhorrent to our modern sensibilities that no Christian can accept what Jesus said.

January 3

The Problem of Experience

Some religious folks will say their belief is due to them feeling the presence or actions of their particular God in their lives. The immediate problem raised by this claim is that it is universal across competing religions. Christians will say Mormon's are following false teachings, and yet Mormon's have experiences that they attribute to God as well. Muslims, Hindus and Jews all have similar experiences, but each religion believes the others are incorrect. Of course, any such experience is something that only the claimant can experience, and as their experience is not repeatable or testable, it is valueless as evidence for their claim.

It can certainly be a powerful motivator of belief, with many people putting personal experiences as the foremost reason they believe. Many, such as William Lane Craig, will say it is more important than any other evidence, and if the bible was shown to be completely wrong, they would still believe based on the witness of the holy spirit alone. This position is unfalsifiable and very close minded, with more plausible explanations such as hallucinations being dismissed in favour of confirmation bias to the already held beliefs.

Everyone wants to believe they experience the world as it truly is, but hallucinations are common and for those experiencing them they can be impossible to differentiate between them and reality. One schizophrenic interviewed said he managed to have a half hour conversation with a person who wasn't there. It wasn't until he attempted to take their photo that he realised they didn't appear on his screen. He could describe them in detail, their clothing and mannerisms, and could write out the entire dialogue that he'd just had with this non-existent person. Such a person with religious ideas may well have labelled that person as a demon or angel, giving them a supernatural cause in order to avoid admitting they were mistaken.

But it doesn't have to be a severe mental illness like that, we can all have visual or audio hallucinations from fairly simple causes. Dehydration, running a fever, drugs, alcohol, parasites, heat stroke, head trauma etc. Even just looking at a magician doing sleight of hand, or a visual illusion, we can be fooled into believing that what we saw was other than what was real. When we consider the natural possibilities, the limitations of our senses and our easily fooled brains, to jump to the conclusion that any experience we have had is from God skips the simpler answers.

How we experience the world is based on how our brains interpret the information our senses are presenting it. This unfortunately leaves us at the mercy of both our limited senses (compared to other animals we have only average sight, hearing or smell) and our often-faulty minds. There are phycological effects such as our natural pattern seeking minds and pareidolia (our ability to see faces in inanimate objects) which leave our claims doubtful from the start. Pareidolia in particular has a long history of people putting forward silly things as holy items. Seeing the face of God in burnt toast, in an oil stain on a window or in baked goods. We often experience this ourselves when we look at cloud formations, saying that one looks like a bunny or a face, but while such things are usually laughed off as just an amusing random occurrence, when it appears to resemble a preconceived idea of a religious figure the same random occurrence is given significance to the person.

If you have a preexisting idea that Jesus is a bearded man in a long white robe (as per the popular image in classic artwork, although the blue-eyed, blonde-haired version is most definitely wrong) and you see an image that matches that idea, then your mind will link the two. Of course, a person who didn't have that image in mind could well think a bearded man is Mohammad, Santa or the singer from ZZ Top. The significance is subjective and taught in advance.

It is often asked "What would convince you?", with some saying "I don't know, but God would" or others saying "nothing". For those in the nothing camp, this is quite justifiable due to the above limitations. If you admit that the most likely cause of seeing a supernatural being is that your mind is faulty in some way, then you should never get to the conclusion that what you saw was real. The only way to be convinced of an experience would therefore be for it to be shared with a group of people. At least when a dozen people experience the same event, they can compare their experiences and see that it was at least occurring in the real world. Depending on the event, it could still be hard to jump to a conclusion about what it means (is a floating glowing person Jesus, an angel, a demon, an alien or something else?), and even if the event includes something spoken to you, you will still need to confirm what is said is true. A being claiming to be God could be a demon in disguise, so even direct visual and audio confirmation that something is there, is no guarantee that it is what it claims.

January 3

The Problem of Defining God

The simplest version of a God is the deist version, that is an unknown force behind the universe. Such a definition doesn't claim certain features, powers or even a mind, just that there is something beyond what we understand. Such a definition could be a force of nature, or a being, but it says that we don't know from our perspective. While this kind of vague definition is the hardest to disprove, due to its lack of any real claims or clarity, it is also possibly the least important, as any such force would be apathetic to us and if it doesn't interact or care, then its existence is irrelevant to us. So, the focus of apologists and counter apologists is on the claims of interactive, intelligent and supernatural beings who it is claimed have revealed themselves and their wishes to their chosen people. Even once we say we are looking at a being and not just a force of nature, the numerous possible claims and features this being can be said to have makes it a hard task just to get a single clear definition to talk about.

Is there one God or many? Does He have all the omni traits or is He limited in some ways? Does He care about us, or are we insignificant bugs to Him? How do we know the answers to any of these, and many similar questions? The usual answer is that there is a holy book, the Quran, Bible or Book of Mormon for example, which tells us about this being. Normally the book that is selected as revealing the truth is the one that you were raised to believe in, with the others hand waved away as false. If those books were destroyed the knowledge of this being would cease to exist. But outside of those books there is next to no way to learn any details about these claimed beings and their characteristics. Even with those books, many will say they are inspired by God but not written by His hand, so the writings are limited humans trying to describe the indescribable, and trying to report on visions or dreams which may not be coherent. With such views and the idea that parts of the holy books are metaphor, moral stories, parables or otherwise not literal fact, then how do we jump to the conclusion that what we are reading is actually a clear image of what God is or wants?

But even looking at the Christian God, there are debates within Christianity as to what He wants and what characteristics He has. Apologists like to speak with confidence that He is a certain way, yet such claims are not universal. There are some who put limits on His power, others say His love is for his followers and chosen people and not equal for all, while there is also disagreement on whether He can see the future with some saying this would be part of being all-knowing, while others say the future is not written, so it would not make sense to know that which doesn't exist. Even the famous phrase "made in God's image" is debated as to what His image even is. A lot of characteristics are shared with animals, such as joy, love, fear, community, communication, justice or rage, so unless you also wish to say dogs were made in His image too, then it has to be something else.

We have the claim made that He is a trinity, the father, son and holy spirit, all being facets of the same single being. This has been a long running debate, both as to why this unusual claim is required (with Unitarians saying God is one and the holy spirit is just His power manifest) and what it even means. Many definitions end up confusing and unclear, with proponents saying it's a core part of His being, while having to fight against all the issues that such a claim brings in, such as the many times Jesus doesn't appear to think of himself as God. When apologists say these 3 are completely separate entities, but fully the same entity, with all of the omni traits but only sometimes in certain forms and having both one will but also a separate will but one that aligns, it all just works to make the definition of what God is even harder to pin down and understand, and it is not even clear if the Bible makes this claim.

Is it even coherent to claim characteristics such as timeless, spaceless, ageless and immaterial? Existence can be defined as something having a location within space and time, so isn't something that doesn't exist within space and time by definition non-existent? Christians will say you can't start a big bang before time, as there is no time for the causing event to happen within, and yet are happy to say God could cause a physical effect outside of time via magic. Or say you can't posit ideas for the start of the universe such as multi-verses, big crunches or quantum waves as they break what we know from physics, while in turn positing God did it with magic. These definitions of God being outside of time and space seem to be used as an attempt to define God into existence. Only a force outside of the physic universe could start the universe, and I'm defining God to fit that space I've made for Him.

Some religious folks will say God is so great and far above our understanding that it would be like an ant trying to consider a human. While this imagery seems apt, if that logic was followed through then we should say we can't know anything about Him at all. God is mysterious or works in mysterious ways, if so, then why talk about Him and His wishes with any confidence at all? Even if a being made claims about itself, how would we know that those claims were true? A claim of being all-powerful or all-knowing would be impossible to test. Perhaps the being is a demon, supernatural and with vast power and knowledge but lying about who it is. Or perhaps it is an advanced alien, who can hover, read minds, heal and raise people from the dead using technology that we can't even comprehend. Is he God by lack of our understanding?

If Allah made Himself known, appearing to the world, you could guarantee that Christians would deny the being as false because he doesn't match the preconceived idea of what God should be, while in reverse the Christian God's appearance may not convince Muslims that He is actually God and not Satan trying to deceive them.

January 4

The Problem of Claiming Jesus is God

Within Christianity there is a split in how Jesus is viewed. By far the most popular position is the Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus was God, while the other, the Unitarians, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the chosen one or the son of God but not God himself. Each group will point to the others as mislead and, in some cases, claim that being misled in this way makes them not a true Christian. The Trinitarians will say failing to believe in Jesus's divinity will mean you don't have faith and in the case of faith only salvation, can lead to failing to reach heaven. While the Unitarians will say God said to have no other God's before me, so elevating Jesus to be God's equal is against God's direct laws.

Some Trinitarian believers will say Jesus had to be God, as that is the only way his sacrifice is worthy of redeeming the world. The sacrifice of just a man, no matter how pure, is not enough to cover the whole worlds sin, while Unitarians will say Jesus made it clear throughout the bible that he didn't consider himself to be God.

Some examples of Jesus saying he wasn't God that Unitarians can point to include: Luke 22:42 "“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” which says they have separate will, Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind." which is repeated in Hosea 11:9 "For I am God, and not a man" says He is not a human, Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good, except God alone." pointing to God being good but not Jesus or John 14:28 "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." stating that God is more powerful.

Jesus is seen at the right hand of God rather than on God's throne, Jesus prays to God while never asking for prayer to himself, Jesus is baptised, yet God would have no need of this, God says over 150 times in the OT that He is God and Jesus never says it even once. Even after Jesus's death you have bible verses saying Peter and the other 11 disciples spoke to the crowd in Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.". So even here the disciples are not labelling Jesus as God.

The Jews believe that Jesus was a preacher, but believe he failed to achieve the prophecies claimed of the Messiah. The main reason seems to be that the Messiah was reported as a figure who would ascend David's throne and rule over the kingdom, that he would destroy God's enemies and be a great political leader. Jesus never gained those heights, being killed while he was only a preacher of a small sect, so the Jews believe he could not have been the Messiah they are waiting for.

The Muslims view Jesus as a prophet of God, a chosen preacher given powers by God. They hold the Unitarian view, that Jesus was not God but still give respect and devotion to him as one blessed by God.

Often Trinitarians will point to the term Son of God, saying that it can be used in a family way to show relationship, while Unitarians will point to the same term being used for others or even everyone such as Galatians 3:26 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith' or Romans 8:14 " For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.". You also have Adam called the Son of God, so unless the claim is that he too was God, then it doesn't follow that the term means that.

Trinitarians will point to the idea that only God can forgive sin, and Jesus forgave sin showing that he was God. But elsewhere we find others able to do the same, such as John 20:23 where he tells the disciples "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”, angels can forgive sins such as Isaiah 6:6-7 "Then one of the seraphim flew to me...and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” and of course there were many mentions of the priests in the OT performing animal sacrifice with the result of sin being forgiven.

Possibly the most pointed to passage used by Trinitarians to put forward the idea that Jesus was God is the famous "I am" line, John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”, which is pointed to God saying "I am" in Exodus 3:14. There are several arguments about this passage. Firstly no one was apparently present at this time to record the words, so to claim Jesus ever spoke them is hard to confirm. The chance they were added as a parable to show Jesus in a certain light, rather than being a historic event seems plausible. It is also pointed out that only the latest Gospel, that of John, recounts this event or the words spoken, so it is possible he is attempting to elevate Jesus to new heights, possibly as a sign of changing views over time. It would be expected that the author of John had a copy of the OT in hand, so writing a story to link to the existing Exodus quote would be a simple task.

We also have scholars who say it was a common idea that preachers or chosen individuals could be blessed by God and given the holy name. This imbuing of power was considered a sign of those blessed as a carrier of the divine name. Jesus saying God is within me, I and the father are one, but also that God could be within everyone, could be seen as an indication that he believed he was a blessed name carrier but not the being the name applies to. Having God in your heart wouldn't make you God, only one with the holy spirit. This can be seen in Exodus 23:20 "“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him."

January 4

58 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

The Problem of Claiming Jesus is God

Within Christianity there is a split in how Jesus is viewed. By far the most popular position is the Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus was God, while the other, the Unitarians, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the chosen one or the son of God but not God himself. Each group will point to the others as mislead and, in some cases, claim that being misled in this way makes them not a true Christian. The Trinitarians will say failing to believe in Jesus's divinity will mean you don't have faith and in the case of faith only salvation, can lead to failing to reach heaven. While the Unitarians will say God said to have no other God's before me, so elevating Jesus to be God's equal is against God's direct laws.

Some Trinitarian believers will say Jesus had to be God, as that is the only way his sacrifice is worthy of redeeming the world. The sacrifice of just a man, no matter how pure, is not enough to cover the whole worlds sin, while Unitarians will say Jesus made it clear throughout the bible that he didn't consider himself to be God.

Some examples of Jesus saying he wasn't God that Unitarians can point to include: Luke 22:42 "“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” which says they have separate will, Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind." which is repeated in Hosea 11:9 "For I am God, and not a man" says He is not a human, Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good, except God alone." pointing to God being good but not Jesus or John 14:28 "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." stating that God is more powerful.

Jesus is seen at the right hand of God rather than on God's throne, Jesus prays to God while never asking for prayer to himself, Jesus is baptised, yet God would have no need of this, God says over 150 times in the OT that He is God and Jesus never says it even once. Even after Jesus's death you have bible verses saying Peter and the other 11 disciples spoke to the crowd in Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.". So even here the disciples are not labelling Jesus as God.

The Jews believe that Jesus was a preacher, but believe he failed to achieve the prophecies claimed of the Messiah. The main reason seems to be that the Messiah was reported as a figure who would ascend David's throne and rule over the kingdom, that he would destroy God's enemies and be a great political leader. Jesus never gained those heights, being killed while he was only a preacher of a small sect, so the Jews believe he could not have been the Messiah they are waiting for.

The Muslims view Jesus as a prophet of God, a chosen preacher given powers by God. They hold the Unitarian view, that Jesus was not God but still give respect and devotion to him as one blessed by God.

Often Trinitarians will point to the term Son of God, saying that it can be used in a family way to show relationship, while Unitarians will point to the same term being used for others or even everyone such as Galatians 3:26 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith' or Romans 8:14 " For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.". You also have Adam called the Son of God, so unless the claim is that he too was God, then it doesn't follow that the term means that.

Trinitarians will point to the idea that only God can forgive sin, and Jesus forgave sin showing that he was God. But elsewhere we find others able to do the same, such as John 20:23 where he tells the disciples "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”, angels can forgive sins such as Isaiah 6:6-7 "Then one of the seraphim flew to me...and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” and of course there were many mentions of the priests in the OT performing animal sacrifice with the result of sin being forgiven.

Possibly the most pointed to passage used by Trinitarians to put forward the idea that Jesus was God is the famous "I am" line, John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”, which is pointed to God saying "I am" in Exodus 3:14. There are several arguments about this passage. Firstly no one was apparently present at this time to record the words, so to claim Jesus ever spoke them is hard to confirm. The chance they were added as a parable to show Jesus in a certain light, rather than being a historic event seems plausible. It is also pointed out that only the latest Gospel, that of John, recounts this event or the words spoken, so it is possible he is attempting to elevate Jesus to new heights, possibly as a sign of changing views over time. It would be expected that the author of John had a copy of the OT in hand, so writing a story to link to the existing Exodus quote would be a simple task.

We also have scholars who say it was a common idea that preachers or chosen individuals could be blessed by God and given the holy name. This imbuing of power was considered a sign of those blessed as a carrier of the divine name. Jesus saying God is within me, I and the father are one, but also that God could be within everyone, could be seen as an indication that he believed he was a blessed name carrier but not the being the name applies to. Having God in your heart wouldn't make you God, only one with the holy spirit. This can be seen in Exodus 23:20 "“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him."

Wow Wertbag, you really turned up the burners for this thread. Instead, decades ago, I lost most of my interest in religion and prefer the simple word stupid to describe the totally of all world religions -- something like the "logic" of Greek Mythology and American Indian creation and morality stories.

January 4

53 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Wow Wertbag, you really turned up the burners for this thread. Instead, decades ago, I lost most of my interest in religion and prefer the simple word stupid to describe the totally of all world religions -- something like the "logic" of Greek Mythology and American Indian creation and morality stories.

Wasn't really a plan to grow it to this, just had a few ideas but as I put those down, they sparked other ideas and list kept growing. Many of these subjects have entire books written about them, so my one-page summary only touches on the many ideas discussed. I only have one more in mind, which puts it at a nice round 30 subjects.

January 4

The Problem of Heaven

Heaven is classically described as a place of pure happiness, where there is nothing negative ever and you live with the angels for eternity. This does sound very much like a carrot and stick situation, where if you accept the claim, you are rewarded, not just with some benefit but with the greatest thing ever, oh but if you don't agree then you'll suffer the worst thing possible. It's the very extremes of the two views, perfect happiness verse unending torment, that points to it being just the greatest thoughts in each direction that the author could come up with.

The problem with trying to propose a place where there is no sadness, is that such emotion is a normal part of being human. We have empathy and care for our fellow humans, but we are expected to believe that we can be in heaven and not care for those cast into hell? Upon arrival in heaven, you find your wife, husband, children, parents or other loved ones didn't make it, so the alternative is they are in torment or, if you are an annihilationist, then they cease to exist, and you'll never see them again. Having just been told you will be happy for eternity but that your loved ones won't be there is quite a contradiction.

Apologists have noticed this hole and there have been some attempts to reconcile it. One way was to say we will not be human anymore. Turned into a being of pure spirit who doesn't have human empathy or possibly even memory. This idea that we lose ourselves upon going to heaven is not widely liked due to the obvious negative outcome such a thing is to most people's minds. It also leaves you wondering what is the point in our time on Earth, as if it is a test for heaven and yet we don't remember or it's not necessary then why bother with the real world at all? God could create the beings in the already existing world of pure happiness, and there is no need for pain and suffering in the real world at all.

If you believe in a faith only salvation message, then some horrible people could potentially be in heaven, from Jeffrey Dahmer to Hitler, to the child rapist priests. Imagine arriving in heaven to be greeted by the guy who raped you, or even the guy who killed you and ate your corpse. But apparently, we will be fine with it, because there is no anger or sadness, so we will have to high five them and say, "Welcome to heaven, prepare for eternity of happiness".

But what about babies? Do they go to heaven in the form they died? Do they get magically converted to adulthood and somehow gain language and education that they never did in life? Will your still born baby be potentially older than its mother in heaven if the best each of them ever was at different ages?

What about someone who suffers a head injury and their personality changes. Do they go to heaven as they were before the accident or as they were when they died? If they go as an early, healthier form, do they lose the memories, friendships and love they had after that point?

January 5

On 1/3/2024 at 6:22 PM, Wertbag said:

Wasn't really a plan to grow it to this, just had a few ideas but as I put those down, they sparked other ideas and list kept growing. Many of these subjects have entire books written about them, so my one-page summary only touches on the many ideas discussed. I only have one more in mind, which puts it at a nice round 30 subjects.

That's the way an author works -- in my case a scientific author.

January 15

The Problem of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance is the fascinating ability of humans to hold two beliefs at the same time which are contradictory to each other. This is commonly done by simply never comparing a person's beliefs to each other, each being looked at as a separate subject on its own. Some such contradictory ideas may be held by special pleading, that is saying certain ideas are exempt from universal beliefs that apply to everything else except the claim. Some examples of this include "It is ridiculous to think the universe came from nothing" and "God made the universe from nothing", or "Life cannot come from non-life" and "Adam was created from dirt". In each of these cases a universal unavoidable standard is held which makes scientific claims impossible, while having the belief that the exact thing declared as impossible was done.

Perhaps the most obvious version of this is the belief that God is all-loving, that all people are equal in His eyes, while believing that the stories of God in the OT are true and therefore the killing of people for victimless crimes (catching the falling Ark or picking up sticks on the Sabbath for example), the massacres of cities in the way of His chosen people, the killing of the first born of Egypt or setting bears to kill children are all things that a "loving" God would do.

Another common belief is that God is active in the world, cares about His followers and will actively help them in times of need, while at the same time Christians are forced to admit that prayer doesn't work, that Christians are as likely to suffer from illness, accidents, crime or disaster. He works but He doesn't.

Good people go to heaven when they die, but also works don't matter and you are saved by faith alone, so a good non-believer won't get to heaven, but a horrific Christian would. Or belief that Satan is active in the world with all of his superpowers, but also God defeated him and cast him down, but also, He'll come back and do it again because He didn't finish him off the first time.

You should "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek", while applying the death penalty for Sabbath breaking, being a witch or being disobedient to your parents. Did God forgive and forget when the guy failed to impregnant his brothers' widow? No, death for such disobedience.

God is all-good and just, but also created hell, a place of infinite torture. God loves all of His creation, but also wants you to butcher and burn animals to Him. The bible is God's word, written by or inspired by God Himself, but reading it is optional, not really that important. God is all-knowing, but failed to see how His creation would turn out so drowned the world. All other religions are false and have no evidence, I have no evidence but believe based on the witness of the holy spirit.

It is amazing what we can be taught and how little we consider our positions in regard to each other. Once we have accepted a claim as true, then confirmation bias will help us keep that idea against evidence showing it to be invalid, even when we hold contradictory positions, we will fight to hold both against logic, justifying such a position by any means and any options presented to us. It is often said that apologetics are not to convince people of the truth of Christianity but are simply there to reinforce the beliefs that you have already been taught.

January 15

The Problem of the True Christian

What is a true Christian? What are you required to believe or practice, and which parts can be skipped while remaining a Christian? The majority of Christians will point to Mormons as being false Christians, and yet they follow the Protestant bible (plus 3 extra books), believe in God, Jesus and the resurrection. Their heresy makes them labelled as false, and yet the core of the religion remains the same. Would God really care that people who are actively looking to have a relationship with Him have been led to believe in extra books? By such logic the Catholic church can declare the Orthodox church heretics, the Protestants can declare the Catholics heretics and the Ethiopian Orthodox church can declare all the other heretics.

There are some Christians who say you must be baptised to be a true Christian, but this is not universal and amongst those who do practice it some believe in a splash of holy water while others say it must be full immersion. Some Christians say that a failure to be baptised means you are false and won't make heaven. This seems to make God very petty, in that being taught things, outside of your control, is enough to damn you to hell.

Perhaps you should evangelise, speak in tongues or handle snakes? Perhaps you should be circumcised, but perhaps that was only for the Jews. Perhaps you should keep the Sabbath holy, whether that be the Saturday or Sunday by your particular beliefs, but does getting the day wrong when you don't know better, really enough to make you not a true Christian?

Several Christians have told me a failure to be "born again" means you are not a true Christian. When you try to find what this means it gets very vague, with many saying it is just a feeling you have. Others have said if you do not take a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth then you aren't a real bible believer and hence aren't a real Christian. This line of reasoning both means that the majority of Christians are not "true" Christians, but also some of the most famous Christians in history such as William Lane Craig, CS Lewis, Origen, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine are not "true" Christians.

Believing that Jesus was the Messiah but not God himself as the Unitarians do, is also apparently enough to make you not a true Christian.

Do you have to pray a certain way or a certain amount? Do you need to attend church or tithe a certain amount? Do you need to read the bible cover to cover and if so, does it matter which of the many versions? Do you need to believe in the bible being literal history, or is there some wiggle room where it is acceptable to believe parts are parables, moral stories or metaphors?

This all works to reinforce this idea of being correct as part of the in-group, while everyone else is "the others". Of course, out of the thousands of religions and thousands of denominations, you happen to be in exactly the right one and everyone else is blind for not seeing your church as the one true way. You are a true Christian and all the others who disagree with whatever the leadership of that church deem core rules, are all false Christians.

Reasons for Disbelief

Recommended Posts

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Wertbag

Wertbag

Wertbag

Posted Images

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

☆ moxieflux66 ☆

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wertbag

Link to comment

Share on other sites

pantheory

Link to comment

Share on other sites