If You Can't Beat
'Em, Join 'Em Many theists are so afraid (if only
subconsciously) of being wrong about their beliefs that they
purposefully try not to critically analyze them for fear of
where self-interrogation may lead. (Remember that the
next time someone tells you that were not supposed to question
god's reasons for doing something or for allowing something to
happen.) It was out of this fear of looking foolish or
intellectually challenged that Christian apologetics was
borne.
Apologetics is that field of religious
study that seeks to answer the challenges of cults, evolution,
philosophy, false doctrines, and whatever else threatens what
is perceived to be biblical truth. Note that apologetics
is not specific to any particular religion, but I will focus
on the Christian aspect for this discussion.
Apologists are clever, persuasive, and
well-educated "rationalizers" who pretend to embrace science
and skepticism, but force the results of their research
to arrive at the only conclusion that allows them to maintain
their faith and their intellect.
Some apologists are outright intentionally deceptive, like
convicted felon Kent Hovind -- the handsom fellow on the
right. (Just a serving suggestion, pardon the
pun.) These morally reprehensible jackasses rationalize
their lies to win souls over for Christ.
Other apologists are externally honest but internally
self-deceiving whereby the results of their research and
self-interrogation are driven by the subconscious fear of
standing alone in their faith (or some other psychological
need).
But driven by
either motive, the common thread between all Christian
Apologists is that they are panicky, faithless people who need to prove what they want so desperately
to be true.
While this flies in the face of
faith, sometimes believing isn't good enough.
By
the way, Hovind is now in Federal
prison serving a 10 (of a potential 288) year sentence
for 58 counts of tax fraud and related crimes, and
that's the way the good lord wants it. It's
all part of his divine master plan and it's not to be
questioned. Remember, GOD IS IN CONTROL!
Kent
failed to pay $845,000 in employee taxes at his
Christian-themed dinosaur park claiming that it's a church and
not subject to taxes. Now he prays for his sins at
the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution in South
Carolina. Jo (his wife) was convicted on 45 counts of
evading bank-reporting requirements. Her slap on the
wrist was limited to a prison sentence of one year and
one day, plus $8,000 in fines. Kent misses Jo terribly,
but my guess is that he found himself a new wife (named Joe,
ironically) shortly after his first prison yard
ass-kicking.
Hovind was convicted on
November 5, 2006. His release date can be tracked here.
Enjoy your time,
Kent.
Begging the
Question Christians love to ask "How is
possible that..." while pointing to certain complexities
of nature that cannot be easily or concretely explained and
attribute their ultimate cause, by default, to their
god. Oh, I see. I can't explain it, therefore
their god must exist, he must be the one true god, and
therefore must be the ultimate cause of that thing I couldn't
explain. How brilliant! And even if I were able to
explain it, I would never be able to do so to their ultimate
satisfaction. Gee, I wonder why?
Please, let's at least try to be
innovative. The loaded questions that Christian
apologists ask have been answered time and time again --
despite the same tired old logic they offer up for their
counter-arguments. And I won't waste my time addressing
any of them. Why? Because I can't. You see,
I'm not a scientist. Asking me, personally, to answer
complex scientific questions is like asking a tax accountant
to diagram the chemical composition of propylene glycol, or
asking a geologist to explain the tax penalty provisions for
Internal Revenue Codes §§ 6694 and 6695. I'll leave
those tasks to chemists and tax accountants
respectively.
My expertise ends beyond
dissecting the deluded brain and revealing the cowardice,
weakness, and fear-filled motives for believing pure
bunk. My science and technology experts will handle all
the scientific stuff to which I've always maintained
to know less about than women.
The Godless
Bastard Learning
Annex Presents THE
CHRISTIAN
APOLOGETIC
ARGUMENT
TEMPLATE
Mr.
Apologists points to a picture of {something
seemingly impossible to create}.
Example: the Grand
Canyon
Mr. Apologist
demonstrates, in a wholly accurate scientific manner,
all of the physical, logistical, monetary, and time
elements required to create {something seemingly impossible to
create} thus reasonably precluding human
causation.
Being the
consummate "skeptic" [long pause for comic effect], Mr.
Apologist asks me specific scientifically-based
questions to explain how man could have possibly created
{something seemingly impossible to
create}.
Due to my
inability to answer any of his questions to that end,
Mr. Apologist will have proven the absolute
impossibility that man created {something seemingly
impossible to create}. And he'd be
right.
Mr. Apologist
points to a piece of paper that states that his god
created the universe and everything in it -- one of
which, quite obviously, is {something seemingly impossible to
create}.
Mr. Apologist
declares, therefore, that his god exists, he is the one
true god, and that he must have created {something seemingly
impossible to create}.
Mr. Apologist tells me that
I'll go to hell for ETERNITY to pray for my
sins unless I accept Christ, the guy whose father
created {something seemingly impossible to
create}.
First, neither the
bible nor faith is proof in any way, shape, or form
that god exists or that he created anything. The bible
is nothing more than words on a page, written by mortal men
like you and me, and it proves just about as much as
these words:
The Godless
Bastard is 6'2, stunningly handsome, eternally youthful, has
wavy blonde hair, and his IQ is 130. All women desire
him, and all men envy him.
How I wish the statement above
was true (you have no idea), but like a wise man once said,
religion is to rationality as bullshit is to
horsepower.
Creationist Hall of
Shame K E N T H O V I
N D
This picture was taken at a 2003
Christian Apologetics conference in Paduka,
Kentucky. It shows Kent (center) teaching a couple
of up-and-coming apologists how to lie like a sack of
shit about evolution and all other branches of
science.
Tilting at
Windmills Some people believe that the great
pyramids of Egypt (and elsewhere on the planet) were
built by extraterrestrials who visited
Earth thousands of years ago. Personally, I think
it's all a bunch of nonsense. So why don't I attempt to
debunk that theory? Well, aside from the fact that I
have no expertise in any of the disciplines that one would
need to take on such a task, I have no desire to debunk the
theory to begin with.
But even more to the point, I
couldn't care less. Who built the pyramids and
how they were built are of no great concern to
me.
I'm fairly certain that all
pyramids are the long-term handiwork of ancient humans who
used simple yet clever systems of pulleys and counterweights
to move those enormous stones. But neither I nor
anyone else can know for sure as there's no concrete proof to
back up that theory. And no one I know and trust was
there to witness their creation.
Not that it wouldn't
be nice to have that proof and know with absolute
certainty how they came into existence, if only as a
mere curiosity -- but I have no vested interest one way or
another.
Most importantly, I'm
neither validated or encouraged by the potential
truth, nor threatened by the potential failure, of the
theory that I support. If I'm correct in my belief, big
fucking deal. My intellect isn't bolstered and my life
hasn't changed for the better. And if I'm wrong, again,
big fucking deal. My intellect isn't compromised and my
life hasn't changed for the worse. Not even a little
bit. It's all a zero-sum game to me. And so is the
game of life.
Attack of the Killer
Dumbatoes We
attack disease because we fear suffering and death. We
attack crime because we fear mayhem. We attack fire because
we fear destruction. We even attack harmless bugs
because, well, they just annoy us.
Christians attack
any generally accepted fact or theory if its potential truth
threatens what they believe to be true and therefore their
intellect.
If you're a Christian you
might be thinking, "Well, you're attacking Christianity right
now, aren't you? You're attempting to debunk many
Christian beliefs right on this website. Are you afraid
of the truth?"
Okay, first, I'm not attacking
Christianity. I'm attacking ALL religious beliefs. Please get
it right. Admittedly I
focus on Christianity because I believe its followers are by
far the worst offenders of proselytization, but I do
believe that all religions are based on pure bunk
and perpetuated by delusion and fear.
Secondly, yes, I absolutely do
attempt to debunk specific beliefs that I see as bordering on
sheer lunacy. However, my goal is
NOT to convert anyone. If you believe in (and
fear) a god, I want you exactly as you are -- although do I
wish your reading comprehension was a little better. Go
back and re-read about why this website exists.
Cheap Table Tricks Even if only on a subconscious level,
evangelical Christians are scared senseless of the mere
possibility that evolution, for example, might irrefutably
explain how we came to be. The truth of evolution would
be devastating to creationists on so many
levels.
Let's pretend that I formulated a
viable theory proving that Mickey Mouse single-handedly built
the Great Wall of China. Would you waste even a minute
of your time trying to disprove it? Of course not.
Now ask yourself why.
Evangelical Christians will amass
a myriad of "reasons" why they must disprove evolution, but
know this: it's only out of
fear. Their true motivation has absolutely
nothing to do with winning souls over for Christ or any other
smoke-and-mirrors rationalization.
If Christians had an ounce of
pure faith in what they claim to believe is true (i.e. god's
act of creation), then they'd ignore evolution as just another
stupid, baseless theory -- just like my theory about Mickey
Mouse and The Great Wall of China. If they're right
about evolution, then the two theories are on a par, carry the
same weight, and they're are equally harmless and a total
non-threat to their theology. Period.
But humor
me. Ask any evangelical Christian what they think about
Mickey and the Wall. Seriously. Watch them roll
their eyes and walk away without a word of rebuttal. I
find it interesting how they don't respond consistently to
theories they claim are without merit.
Oh, they
might argue that it's their duty to defend the
faith...blah, blah, blah. But that's pure
bullshit. I don't think the all-powerful and all-knowing
Wizard of Odd really needs these fallible humans to make his
case for him. Remember, Christians claim (in the same
breath no less) that the proof of god's existence is
patently obvious (even to a child) from the amazing design and
order of the universe alone. But all that proof suddenly
falls victim to their deep insecurities of looking foolish
(should they be wrong) when someone like me questions their
sanity.
Just a little consistency,
please. That's all I ask.
In The Event of a Tie My God
Wins Disclaimer: In
the spirit of fairness, you'll find that I use the phrase
"scientific theory" instead of "scientific fact" in the
following section. The Godless Bastard knows very little
about science. He accepts evolution as fact but takes it
completely on faith. If nothing else, the Godless
Bastard is fair!
One cannot prove the existence of
any god by disproving (or discrediting) scientific theories
that explain any part of the world around us. Christian
apologists seem to be blind to this rather obvious
truth.
And even if one could absolutely,
irrefutably disprove a scientific theory, it does not provide
a foundation, by default, for any divine explanation.
That is to say, one has absolutely nothing to do with the
other.
Just for clarification, when I
use the phrase "by default" in this context, I mean "to claim
proof of the existence of any god by disproving or
discrediting other explanations." It's as silly an
argument (and holds about as much water) as saying, "It is proven concretely that Mr. X must have
killed Mr. Y because there's no concrete proof that anyone
else committed the crime."
In other words, even if Christian
apologists could absolutely and irrefutably disprove
evolution, it would give absolutely no weight to the theory
that we were created by a supreme being. Even if every
other possible purely scientific, non-divine explanation could
be disproved, it still would not give credence to a god-caused
"catch-all" explanation by default. In this case, all it
would mean is that we just haven't found the correct
explanation yet.
And there's another metaphysical
problem that apologists face in their attempt to disprove
evolution. If we were to accept the lack of scientific
evidence (as they claim) as proof of a god's existence, then
we must certainly regard each and every subsequent relevant
scientific discovery as an argument against the existence of
god, such as each new Precambrian fossil that we
find.
But let's face it. For
theists and atheists alike with an expert knowledge of
science, debating evolution versus creationism is like a game
of Tic-Tac-Toe; anyone with half a brain can't lose the
game...or win it either. In all fairness, each argument
(on either side) has a technically plausible foundation if you're willing to accept the necessary
premise. Of course
this applies to many things in life. For example, E.T. is a
wonderful movie and is not viewed as silly or ridiculous if
you can suspend disbelief for two hours and accept its
premise.
Technically, anything is
possible.
Technically, there could be a god
who created the universe in a mere six days. And,
technically, pigs might be able to fly. Maybe they only
do it when we're not watching, or maybe they just haven't
figured out how to do it yet. Anyway, the questions
apologists ask (and the answers they provide) to disprove
anything that threatens the existence of their god are of
little interest to me. What I'm far
more amused by and interested in is their motivation.
And clearly it's insecurity and lack of true
faith.
How To Argue
Like a Christian Apologist CENSOR THE OFFENSIVE ARGUMENT
Lying sack of
shit Christian apologist, hypocrite, and convicted felon
Kent Hovind boasts that NONE of his published materials
are copyrighted (so that they may be copied and
distributed without restriction, limitation, or
cost). After video clips of Kent getting his ass
kicked by an evolution graduate student during an
internet radio call-in debate surfaced, Hovind's
Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) Ministries claimed
copyright violation and had the video clips
removed. Watch the story here.
Searching for the
video BEFORE Kent's cowards
cried like a big bunch of babies...
And searching AFTER
the pathetic little hypocritical little
cowards got their way...
Standard fare from the
lunatic fringe creationism debate arsenal:
I
think that the only reason anybody would say this
happened by chance and there was no designer is because
they don't want to find that designer. The atheist
can't find god for the same reason a thief can't find a
policeman. - Kent Hovind
Nice try, but I'm
afraid you've got that all wrong, Mr.
Hovind.
I think that the only reason anybody
would say this couldn't happen by chance and there must
be a designer is because they're so weak that they can't
get through life without the crutch that the alleged
designer brings. A Christian can't find truth in
atheism for the same reason an idiot just can't seem to
find his SAT scorecard. - Godless
Bastard
You see, when someone's become so
heavily invested in a life-long delusion they just can't
afford to be
wrong.
Designer
Label Gods Faithless panicky Christians have been
repackaging their reasons to believe for centuries.
After one argument has been thoroughly trashed and discredited
another panicky apologist steps up to the plate to put
his own unique spin on it in the franic hopes of keeping
it alive.
Eventually a new name gets
slapped on an old argument, but know this: it's the same tired old
argument that neither shines new light nor proves a god damn
thing. First Cause or Intelligent
Design, it's fundamentally the same nonsense
stemming from the same weak and desperate intellect-saving
motive. There's nothing new except perhaps some shiny
new foil wrapping to create the allusion of "new and
improved" apologetics.
First (Lost)
Cause If everything must have a cause, then
there can be no uncaused thing. So, who or what caused
god? And if you argue that god always existed, then I'll
argue that the universe has always existed (in one transient
form or another).
If everything with a design
requires a designer, then who or what designed the
designer?
The first cause and
design/designer arguments simply don't hold up to their own
scrutiny. They both require one and only one exception
to explain how god is above the logic of the argument.
How convenient.
But for the sake of the argument,
let's go along with it for awhile.
There are many different brands
of acoustic guitars as well as many different makers of
acoustic guitars. The two numbers are not equal because
some makers manufacture more than one brand. Many of
these makers are well-known, and others aren't. (There
are plenty of private "mom and pop" type guitar shops around
the world that even the most savvy guitar enthusiast has never
heard of.) Regardless, there are many different acoustic
guitar makers. Therefore, if you see
an acoustic guitar, somewhere out there is (or was) its
maker. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you
haven't.
Let's say you come across and
unmarked acoustic guitar made from lignum vitae, a rare
tropical hardwood. The guitar has no label or other
identifying brand marker. Just because you can prove
positively that Gibson has never made an acoustic guitar out
of lignum vitae (they haven't) doesn't mean that the guitar
must have been built by Ovation, for example, just because
someone told you (or you read) that Ovation does (or did) make
guitars out of lignum vitae. Disproving one doesn't
prove another, just by default.
And even if you verified that
every known guitar maker on the planet has never manufactured
an acoustic guitar out of lignum vitae, you could neither
logically nor fairly conclude that god created this unmarked
guitar. The only fair and reasonable conclusion is that
you just haven't found its maker yet.
Similarly, even if Christians
could successfully disprove evolution, creationism would not
stand as the true and correct explanation for how we got here
just because it "makes sense" to some and certainly not
because "it says so" in the bible. Furthermore, if you
buy into the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent being
(through which anything and everything is possible), the Hindu
creation story makes sense, too. Technically,
any creation story "makes sense" if you accept the
premise of the bible that proclaims it.
But here's the thing, and there's
no getting around it. Neither you nor I (like the
unknown guitar in the previous example) have any label or
marker that absolutely, positively identifies who the maker
is. Cars have Vehicle Identification Numbers; we
don't. You and I are just like a guitar made by some guy
in his basement in Dearborn, Michigan who never branded his
creations with a label. And any silly rationalization
that one might conjure up to prove that we are in fact
"labeled" could easily be applied to any god, like
the Hindu creator god, Brahma. Hey, perhaps we were all
created in his image.
The Gita (Hindu bible) has a creation
story, just like that of the Judeo-Christian god. If we
were indeed created by a god, either creation story could be
the correct one. Maybe they're both false accounts and
perhaps the Buddhist creation story is the correct one.
There are many religions with many gods, and each has its own
creation story. Disproving one or
more of them DOES NOT prove another just by
default.
If you truly believe that we were
created by a supreme being (rather than evolved through and by
a process), in the absence of absolute, irrefutable, concrete
proof as to how we got here, the only fair and reasonable
conclusion is that you just haven't found our "maker"
yet.
Fact: Christians
have NOT ONE SHRED OF CONCRETE
PROOF of the existence of their
god.
All Christians have is the intangible word of their bible.
That's all. It's hearsay in a
court of law and it carries little weight or
probative value. And while it claims to explain how we
got here, well, guess what? Other bibles of other gods
have their own explanations too.
Again it's time for some
intellectual honesty. If the written word of the Gita
isn't proof of the existence of the Hindu deities (as
every Christian on the planet will declare) then the
written word of the Old Testament isn't proof of the
Judeo-Christian god's existence either.
But despite this obvious fact,
Christians love to proclaim their god's existence by
default. See this mentality for exactly what it
is. It is borne out of insecurity, lack of true faith,
and pure cowardice, and is the fundamental reason why the
field of Christian Apologetics exists. These faithless
people fear anything that threatens their intellect and all
that they perceive as biblical truth, so they live and fight
to prove that which can't be proven.
Got faith anyone?
Apparently not.
Abject Lesson
#4938 WHY YOU CAN'T WIN WHEN DEALING WITH
THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST
MENTALITY
First, for
the record, I don't believe in "near death experiences"
(NDEs). When you're dead, you're dead. The
only thing that happens to what's left of you is
decomposition. Medical science has explained away
all of those "bright light" encounters. But
Christians do believe in life after death, so they have
to deal with the phenomena for non-Christians who claim
to have experienced it.
So, is it
possible that pleasant NDE's experienced by
non-Christians discredit Christian doctrine by
disproving eternal hellfire for the unsaved? Click
here to
read the lamest quick and dirty panicky attempt to shut
down this very valid question.
This moron
writes, "Who would boast about being sent to
a place of shame and torment?" This
has got to be the most logically incoherent statement
ever uttered. I think that anyone who truly
believed that they journeyed to hell and back would
SCREAM from the mountain top that they now KNOW that
hell is real and then turn to Christ real god damn
fast.
I've met
several non-Christians (atheist, agnostic, and Jewish)
over the years who claimed to have had NDE's,
and all of them remained steadfast in their
beliefs. None of them turned to Christ. Not
a one. And this intellectually dishonest wacko
wants us to believe that someone wouldn't sidestep
eternal damnation by subsequently accepting Christ
because of earthly pride? Um, I don't think
so.
Of course,
the most pathetic catch-all explanation this guy
provides is that for those who were resuscitated and
remembered nothing is that "...it was so
horrific that his mind had suppressed
it." Yeah, I think someone's
supressing something
alright.
Manufacturing
Allies Christian apologists are so profoundly
insecure when it comes to their earthy intellect (i.e., that
it doesn't jive with what their religion requires them to
accept) that they resort to intentionally deceptive misquoting
tactics to create the illusion that universally-acknowledged
brilliant people share their beliefs.
When we think of
universally-acknowledged brilliant people we think of Albert
Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking, just to name a
few. It's well documented that Einstein and Sagan were
atheists, and that Hawking is an agnostic.
Einstein once commented that "God
does not play dice [with the universe]." Christians
abuse this quote to create the illusion that Albert (who was a
Jew by birth) believed in their god. However, (mis)used
in this manner it's WAY out of context. It refers to
Einstein's refusal to accept the uncertainties indicated by
quantum theory. It gives no more credence to Einstein's
belief in a personal god than it does to my belief in the
divinity of feces when I say "holy shit." It's an
expression, jackass.
The compelling factor, however,
is that Christians cling to this quote regardless of
Einstein's beliefs. Faith in what they believe to be a
universal truth does NOT need Einstein for validation, yet
they manufacture that validation anyway. That is NOT
faith. It's insecurity.
Christians resort to
this pathetic Einstein tactic because of their
latent/subconscious fear of looking stupid by believing in
something that is so seemingly nonsensical. Obviously
having numbers on your side helps to quell those fears, but
having ol' Ein-y on your side makes for a warm, cozy
intellectually-safe blanket under which to sleep with all the
other sheep.
Anyway, here (below) is your
proof that Einstein did NOT believe in a personal god.
Even though he's long dead, panicky Christians abused his
words during his lifetime. He addressed the issue back
then.
From "Science, Philosophy, and
Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic
Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
Einstein said:
"The more
a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all
events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is
no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for
causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule
of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the
doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural
events could never be refuted [emphasis his], in the
real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always
take refuge in those domains in which scientific
knowledge has not yet been able to set
foot.
But I am
convinced that such behavior on the part of
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy
but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain
itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of
necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable
harm to human progress. In their struggle for the
ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature
to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give
up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed
such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors
they will have to avail themselves of those forces which
are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the
Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a
more difficult but an incomparably more worthy
task..."
And here's the clincher.
The following is from a letter Einstein wrote in English,
dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein:
The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and
published by Princeton University Press.
"I do not
believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no
superhuman authority behind it."
"It was,
of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically
repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have
never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If
something is in me which can be called religious then it
is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal
it."
Conversation closed.
A universal truth (and the faith
that one has in that truth) doesn't need numbers, or Einstein,
for validation. I have faith that my parents love me,
and I couldn't care less who does or doesn't believe me...even
if those who didn't had Einstein's IQ. The thing is, if
I'm wrong and my parent never really loved me, my intellect is
still secure. That is to say, my (mis)belief of my
parent's love doesn't make me intellectually inferior or a
fool. My parent's never loved me? Big deal.
When's dinner? However, if I spent my entire life
praising a god that never really existed, forking over 10% of
my income, building houses of worship and wasting hours every
day to sing the praises of and pray to, kill in the name of,
etc., then I'd appropriately labeled a fool of epic
proportions.
On a final note, remember
that Albert was raised in the Jewish faith and never would
have accepted Christ even if he did believe in
god. Looks to me like Einstein rejected
Christ.
Man, he really was
brilliant!
Deep Down Inside: How to Tender a Compelling
Argument If you're an atheist you've most
certainly had the "deep down inside" tactic thrown your
way. While it's occasionally a last-ditch argument
when all else fails, most commonly it's the only weapon in the
arsenal of an ill-equipped (or lazy) evangelizing
Christian.
Having no meat on its bone, this
stunning example of ineffectual and transparent Christian
logic falls into the same category as that classic third
grade schoolyard comeback, "I know what you are, but what
am I?"
This is how it works. Your existence
as an atheist comes with the assumption that god
doesn't exist and the implication that having such silly
beliefs borders on clinical delusion.
Being so
religiously insecure and incapable of walking away basking in
their own perceived truth yet having no ability or
fortitude to wage any kind of meaningful, lucid, or
logically coherent defense of their belief, they respond
with the most flaccid of retorts:
"I think that deep down inside you know
that god exists but..."
Choose one (or
more) of the following:
you don't want to be held
accountable to him.
you're afraid of what you don't
understand.
you're afraid of looking
silly.
Wow. I mean, with logic like this how could they
possibly be wrong?
Okay, so it's clear that this is
just a textbook knee-jerk response to the implication (if not
expressly stated position) that they're delusional. Yes,
I know what you are but what am I?
But just to
get a reaction and enjoy a few minutes of gleeful,
childish antagonism, my turn-table response is as
follows:
"I think that deep
down inside you know that god doesn't exists
but..."
Choose all of the
following:
you don't want to be held
personally accountable for your mistakes and
inadequacies.
you're afraid of what you don't
understand.
you're afraid of looking silly
before your god-believing friends and family.
And furthermore:
you're too much of a coward to
live your life with unanswered
questions.
you're too much of a coward
to accept that there's no "master plan" or purpose
to life.
you're too much of a coward to
accept the finality of life.
you're too much of a coward to
live your life knowing that when they die you will NEVER see
your loved ones again -- not in this life or the
next.
Anytime you hear the "deep down inside" response know that
the only enlightenment revealed is the religious
insecurity that lives [...wait for it...] "deep down
inside."
Saving Face: In Search of
the Historical Jesus Similar to their grasping-at-straws
"Einstein" ploy, Christian apologists also cling to the
"historical Jesus" method of bolstering their proof
of god. (I'll call him "HJ" for brevity from this
point forward.)
Under the disingenuous facade of
detached fairness, Christians will sometimes step out of their
holy cloth and pretend to engage in the secular endeavor of
finding the HJ. (They seem to think that this
establishes their credibility as fair, open-minded
skeptics.)
Simply stated, if Christians can prove
that Jesus (the man) existed through secular historical
record, then the biblical account of his existence (as
the savior) is somehow magically validated. (Admittedly
it would be bolstered, but certainly not
validated.)
Note that you'll often see this
particular method of proselytizing
directed at Jews because they generally accept that Jesus
did live during that time in human history. Most
Jews won't deny the historical existence of theman
called Jesus. You know the rap. He was a good man,
a Jew, a rabbi, a prophet, blah, blah, blah. To your
average bible-punching Christian, this is a HUGE base lead (or
so they think) in their attempt to win one over for
Christ. It gets them one foot in the door before
they've even uttered a single word of New Testament
lore.
Know that my intent here is not
to get into all the various historical proofs that
refute the existence of the HJ as there are
countless sources of related myth-busting information on the
internet. I'll leave that endeavor to the scholars and
expert historians who have more than satisfactorily made that
case. Although, I have included a few points here
and there to get you started. Unlike your average
Christian apologist who fears that you just might stumble upon
something to the contrary, I encourage your own independent
research on the subject.
Mindless
Rationalizations I've always maintained
that what a person says, does, and believes isn't
nearly as important as why. To me, motive is
everything. In the case of the HJ, I think that the case
for him is driven by the need to bolster personal theology and
protect intellectual integrity -- not to validate
history. I mean, doesn't anyone remember this
little thing called faith? People who try
to prove that which is supposed to be founded
in faith do so out of sheer insecurity. Any other
reason given is just a bullshit
rationalization.
I'm fascinated by the confirmation bias. It's a huge
part of my summation of theology (for any religion). The
bias has you seeing what you want (i.e. need) to see:
that you're a good parent, that Judy Bigjugs loves you, that
Burger King openly mocks Allah, or that your
silly imaginary god exists.
And yes, the
bias even applies to atheists.
Could there be an
atheistic bias to see that no god exists? You bet.
But there's a HUGE difference and there's no getting
around it. Let me show you.
Scholars who lay down the case
against the HJ are obviously non-Christian, and
most certainly most of them are atheists. Why
is this so important to point out? Because they have absolutely nothing at stake
theologically regardless of the outcome.
Maybe
the historical Jesus really did exist, maybe he didn't.
Either way, the historical revelation doesn't conflict with
the atheistic position that god doesn't exist and, therefore,
that Jesus wasn't his son. Okay, so the HJ
existed. Big deal. So did the HO (Historical
Oprah).
But it's not the same on the flip
side of the coin, and that's the whopper of a
difference.
If the person laying claim that
HJ existed is a Christian, then the ENTIRE FOUNDATION of their belief
system is at stake. The confirmation bias won't allow
them to be wrong. A historical Jesus that never
existed is NOT an option, and so they see what they need
to see, they find what they need to find. End of
discussion.
Many love to argue that even
Jewish theologians claim evidence for the HJ.
So what? I'm neither impressed nor swayed.
Why? Because even Jews have a vested interest
in the historical existence of Jesus -- but not for what
his existence provides, but rather for what the problem of his
non-existence presents.
To Jews, if the
HJ did exist, the New
Testament would be a valid historical
account with obvious embellishments for miracles that
could not have happened. But most importantly, the
historic validity of the New Testament would pose
absolutely no threat to Judaic doctrine. It would be a
historically correct book about a guy who
claimed to be the son of god but really wasn't,
and that would give historical
credence to very old face-saving documents of
religious doctrine.
To fundamentalist Jews, if the HJ
never existed, then those 2000 year old tales would be
complete works of fiction.
Problem is, that wouldn't bode well for the validity of the
Pentateuch, which contains accounts that date back 5700
years to the creation.
Make no mistake about it.
While it certainly wouldn't destroy the pillars of
Judaism, a fictitious Jesus would lay the foundation for
plausible Old Testament mythology giving us a
fictitious Abraham, Isaac, Ruth, Ester, and an
imaginary jawbone of an ass. And fundamentalist Jews
cannot allow for the possibility of that.
Christianity comes directly from Judaism, and both
religions rely (not heavily but completely) on the validity of
very old, directly related documents. So what happens
here is nothing more than a little professional courtesy,
theologically-speaking. The
mutual historic validity of the Old
and New Testaments is like two women misrepresenting their
true age. You vouch for me, I'll vouch for
you. [elbow poke] Everybody wins,
capice?
By the way, this kind of cross-doctrine validation is
even seen in Christian apologetics when it appears to support
their argument. Some apologists
actually declare validity to parts of the Hindu bible
(The Gita) and claim that it makes mention of the historical
Jesus.
The
Jesus Myth We all know
that the Bible was written by a bunch of power
hungry men who wanted to control the masses and scare
obedience into them. Every word of it a work of fiction,
from start to finish. But since we're exposing the
Christ fantasy for what it is, let's focus on that silly
collection of fairy tales that we call the New
Testament. It and it alone proves that Jesus never
existed.
If you study your religious mythology
(even poorly) you'll find MANY
savior gods whose life story matches that of Jesus very
closely if not identically.
And here's the clincher.
All of them pre-date the historical Jesus,
some by as many as THREE THOUSAND years. Not one of them folks. ALL
of them. Every single one.
Bethlehem, we have a problem...
But relax folks. It can all be explained with some
simple analysis and a little common sense.
In
his book, "The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth and
Drama" (1956), Lord Raglan
developed a 22-point common trait profile of mythic hero
archetypes.
This list of traits represents the sum total of all
significant life events and attributes of every mythical
literary hero that Raglan could identify:
Mother is a virgin
Father is a king
Often a near relative of his mother, but...
Circumstances of his conception are unusual
Reputed to be the son of a god
At birth an attempt is made (often by his father) to
kill him
Is spirited away
Reared by foster parents in a far country
We are told nothing of his childhood
Upon reaching manhood he returns or goes to his
future kingdom
After a victory over the king and/or giant, dragon, or
wild beast...
He marries a princess, often the daughter of his
predecessor
Becomes a king
Reigns uneventfully for a time
Prescribes laws, but...
Loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects
Is driven from the throne and city
Meets with a mysterious death...
At the top of a hill
His children, if any, do not succeed him
Body is buried, but nevertheless...
Has one or more holy sepulchers
Out of 22 possible points, Jesus tied King Arthur with a
score of 19. (Woo-hoo!) But they were both
bested by Oedipus and Krishna who slam-dunked a nearly
perfect score of 21, and by Theseus who finished with an
impressive 20. Romulus and Hercules trailed behind
with 17. (By the way, you can buy Raglan's book here on
Amazon.com for about $12.)
The Greatest Story Ever
Re-Told Remember all that crap they
crammed down your throat in Sunday school? Well, let's
have a little review. Any of this sound familiar?
Born of a virgin on December 25
Stars appeared at his birth
Visited by Magi from the East
Turned water into wine
Healed the sick
Cast out demons
Performed miracles
Transfigured before followers
Rode a donkey into the city
Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
Celebrated a communal meal with bread and wine to
represent flesh and blood
Killed on a cross (or a tree)
Descended into hell
Resurrected on the third day
Ascended into heaven to forever sit beside father god
and become divine judge
Yeah, well guess what. What you just
read is a list of some of the attributes of other
historically documented savior gods, all of which pre-date
Jesus.
"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced
without sexual union, was crucified and died and rose
again, and ascended to heaven, we propound from what you
believe regarding those whom you call the sons of
Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, church
father
Here are just a few (of many) historically documented
mythological gods to get you started:
Mithra
Attis (1200 BC)
Osiris
Dionysus (500 BC)
Horus (3000 BC)
Bacchus
Adonis
Admittedly, not all of the aforementioned attributes
apply to each of the gods listed above. The point here
is to recognize the quantity of god myths and how closely the
attributes align. Given the age of these ancient
stories one would not expect them to be absolutely
identical in nature. The compelling factors
are their amazing similarities and the fact that they
pre-date the savior god called Jesus.
Check it out
for yourself. Google their names and read whatever you
find even if it was written by a Christian apologist.
(This is critical as even they won't deny the
existence and stark similarity of these myths.) The
stories will bear a freakish resemblance to what you learned
in Sunday school, but all by a different name and prior time
in history.
The names, locales, and other minor points may vary, but
what matters most is the fact that...
There are
many of them
They are
all historically documented
They all
pre-date the historical Jesus
Remember, you won't find even one other
savior god myth that followed that of the alleged Jesus of
Nazareth. His was the most recent incarnation of the
fairytale -- and it stuck.
Given all this, it's the official fundamentalist Christian
apologist response to this logistical nightmare that proves to
me that Jesus of Nazareth (not just the Jesus of the
bible, but also the historical Jesus) was a complete and
total myth. Read on.
Getting
Defensive Even the most rabid
fundamentalist Christian won't deny that these mythologies
exist, that they're dead-on accurate in far too many ways to
dismiss them all as sheer coincidence, and that they all
pre-date the historical Jesus. To argue any of the
aforementioned would destroy their credibility and lose their
audience. And as we all know, those who preach
are all about the audience.
But they can't let this one slide by else the ENTIRE
foundation of their belief system would be destroyed. No
historical Jesus, no Christianity. Game over.
So where do they go from here? They need a defense
and all they have are two options.
Option 1: SATAN!
Yes folks, the Devil did it. The official position of
the church is that Satan created these myths long before Jesus
was born and brought them to mankind.
Apparently, Satan
planted this unholy seed in Trojan Horse style to weave these
mythologies into the fabric of the modern culture of the
time. This brilliant maneuver would make dumb schmucks
like me and you debate the topic ad nauseum thousands
of years later.
Your knee-jerk reaction is probably to reject this option
as there's no way any intelligent person would believe (let
alone argue) this position. But if you think about it,
it's perfectly in keeping with Christian doctrine. These
wackos believe that Satan is real. And he lies.
The evil little fucker's job is to draw man away from god, and
this nefarious ruse is just one of the many ways in which he
pulls that off.
Option 2: Distort &
Delude
You
might want to take a few hits of acid
before continuing. You'll have to lose touch with
all reality in order to accept the mind-numbingly stupid
rationalization they're expecting you to buy.
While the first
option is completely valid to even the most intelligent,
articulate, and well-educated Christian apologist, they know
that militant skeptics would just laugh at them the instant it
rolls off their tongue. And so a more (seemingly)
academic tactic is preferred. This second option
requires a profound distortion of Old Testament lore.
What these panicky apologists do is attempt to turn
the tables. They actually argue that it was the authors
of the older pagan doctrines who stole the story of
Jesus! But wait a second. How is that
possible? After all, we all know that pagan
mythologies were authored long before Christ was even
born.
Brace yourself kids. Apologists actually
have the temerity to claim that these pagan religions stole
the story of Jesus from the OLD Testament! (No
lie.)
But how can they claim such a thing you
ask? Like I said before, distort and delude.
For example, apologists claim that Psalm 22:1-18
speaks of the crucifixion. Click here to read it
and decide for yourself. They also claim proof in Zechariah 12:10. Read it twice folks,
pay attention and take notes because you won't find one word
of it. Not a one. But we're not done yet,
kids. This is where the delusion part comes into
play.
What you need to do now is reach down deep inside your
heart and convince yourself that the following verse was used
by several independent pagan religions to derive
the CRUCIFIXION of a savior god who was to be
born 1300 years later:
"And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of
grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom
they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one
mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his
firstborn."
Okay, let me get this straight.
"Whom they have pierced?"
"His only
son?"
That's it? Are you
a complete idiot? Listen up, Lenny. This
is the foundation of an incredibly wild stretch
of a drug-altered imagination. At best.
This is supposed to be the perfect, inerrant word of an
all-powerful, all-knowing god. I think the skill
set of such a well-equipped deity
would include the ability to be a little
clearer on the matter. After all, he certainly was
in his New Testament account. Sorry, but you're
drawing a dead hand if you think such vague and unqualified
generalities are going to stand as proof.
And all this notwithstanding, even if I were to buy
such a weak interpretation of Zechariah 12:10, death by
crucifixion is only one tiny part of all of the aforementioned
dead-on accurate life events you'd have to account
for.
But, okay. Fine. I might be swayed to
concede a few minor points as sheer crazy coincidence, but to
argue all of them as Christian apologists do would
be the most offensive, shameful, and egregious act of special pleading
in the history of mankind.
Of all the prior savior gods, Mithra is clearly the most
threatening to the historical Jesus because of its dead-on
accuracy. Click here to study and
research all of CARM's "evidences" to support their sin of
distortion and delusion. I strongly encourage you to
examine each of their Old and New Testament cross-references
and decide for yourself who stole what from whom.
Let
their words be the strongest case against them.
Defensive Silence: The Final Nail in the
Coffin The fact that these ancient pagan myths are
NEVER taught in Sunday school is one of the most
compelling reasons to reject all apologetic refutations.
I mean, who sells a used car and volunteers that it was nearly
demolished in an accident or that the transmission is three
starts away from hitting asphalt?
Like a textbook
defense attorney tactic, damning evidences are addressed only
when those with something to hide are forced to defend against
them.
Case in point (and this is just one of many), I
present to you the disingenuous coward J.P. Holding.
Click here to read his lovely article that
attempts to "shatter" [his word] the Jesus
Myth. Take note that there is not one single mention of
the aforementioned savior gods. Not a one. This is
decidedly convenient for the man as well as his
delusion. The first sentence of his lecture begins with,
"It is a sure sign of desperation..." Yes Mr. Holding,
it soitenly is. Nyuk, Nyuk!
For those of you who are on the fence, I would encourage
you to watch the documentary The God Who Wasn't
There (Brian Flemming, 2005). It covers in
great detail all that we've discussed here. Buy it here on
Amazon.com for $17.
"What I got in Sunday school was simply a firm
conviction that the Christian faith was full of palpable
absurdities, and the Christian God preposterous...The act of
worship, as carried on by Christians, seems to me to be
debasing rather than ennobling. It involves groveling
before a being who, if he really exists, deserves to be
denounced rather than respected." - H. L.
Mencken
100% ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT MAN AND APE HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR
Evolution: Who
Cares? I'll probably catch some grief from my
fellow atheists who enjoy the study of (and debate on)
evolution, but I must air a big pet peeve of mine. (Like
I never do that, right?)
I gotta be honest here. I
really don't give a rat's ass about evolution as it has
absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my beliefs. I'm not
an atheist because of evolution, and I wouldn't become a
believer if it was disproved concretely and
absolutely. I'm also not a scientist. I have zero
qualifications to lecture or debate the subject.
(I never liked science anyway. I barely passed
chemistry and I only enjoyed
the part of biology class where we discussed
vaginas.)
Likewise, I
wish my fellow atheists would stop focusing so much
on the topic and using it to bolster the case
against god because there's really no need for it. In
fact, making it an arguing point (and defending it) works
against us –- not because evolutionary theory is weak (in my
opinion it's not), but because it gives credence to their
assertion that evolution is the sacred cornerstone of our
disbelief. And if that's true, then falsifying evolution
would give credence to their assertion that their god exists
and that he created human life in its existing
form.
Sure, we all know how it went down...
BEFORE
AFTER
But really. Who gives a
shit? There's no need to defend evolution to
anyone let alone some panicky bible-thumper.
Let them wallow in their delusion...but let them do so in
silence.
Want to shut down evangelizing
Christians when they start in with all the anti-evolution
talk? It's easy. Give them NOTHING to talk about. Trust me, it
works like a charm.
What follows is my standard
lecture in my words. Feel free to steal it as is or find
a presentation using the words and manner of your own
style. As long as you stick to the general idea it gives
them nowhere to go with it.
Talking the Wind Out of
Their Sails To quote
Christian apologist and convicted felon Kent Hovind, "Beer
is sold at football games. Beer has NOTHING to do with football."
(Hey, sometimes delusional criminals are
correct. What can I tell ya?)
Similarly, evolution is a theory
held by most (and virtually all) atheists. But
evolution has NOTHING to do with
atheism.
In my opinion, the only people
who really care (and need to care) about evolution are
Christians.
Atheism is intrinsically linked to RELIGION. Evolution (be it valid or
invalid) is intrinsically linked to SCIENCE. But fundamentalist Christians love to
mingle the two BECAUSE THEY HAVE
TO.
If all atheists were suddenly
stranded on a remote island and all they had to eat were
apples (everything else on the island would make
them violently ill), would you fairly and reasonably conclude
that the only thing atheists eat are apples? Of
course not. All you could conclude is that apples were
the only viable option for human consumption at the moment,
irrespective of belief. Even in a stretch, this is where
the link between atheism and apples starts and ends.
Period.
Now listen up, Lenny. Atheists reject all
notions of god, and if that's true then all possible creation
accounts (remember, every religion has one) are pure
fiction. Every other explanation makes them
violently ill. This leaves only ONE viable option on the
table, and that's EVOLUTION. Got it? That's where
the link between atheism and evolution starts and ends.
The two are joined incidentally by the absence of other
viable options, per their worldview.
When another
plausible explanation surfaces, atheists will then be put
to a decision between evolution and something else.
REVEALING THE TRUE CHRISTIAN
APOLOGETIC MOTIVE
If
evolution is true then the Genesis creation account is
false. If the creation account is false then the
bible is errant. If the bible is errant...GAME OVER! Simple as that,
and there's no getting around
it.
Fundamentalist
Christians cannot allow evolution to be valid, so any lie to
discredit it is permitted and even encouraged to further
that end. I acknowledge that in their hearts they
believe that evolution is false. But an intellectually
honest Christian (when you find one) will confess to
their intentional deceptions (plural) or their LACK OF
AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE in the discrediting of evolution under
the hypocritical rationalization that they're
trying to save souls. (So much for Exodus
20:16.)
You'll find just one of many stunning Christian
acknowledgments here:
"While there
are ministries and individuals that purposefully suppress the
truth and present fallacious information, this kind of
behavior is extremely evil and antithetical to biblical
Christianity."
I acknowledge
that there are many Christians (and other theists) who
do accept evolution as fact and take the position that
the earth is much older than 6,000 years. They have
resolved in their hearts and minds that god guided
evolutionary processes to give us all forms of life as we
know them.
But because I'm a realistic guy and look for
a win wherever I can find one, I'm content with their position
as it trashes the Genesis account and thus invalidates the
bible. I'm a happy guy any time I can get a Christian
(or Jew) to admit that the bible is errant, or that perhaps it
contains stories that were authored to explain the world
around us (or to teach a higher concept) based on the
knowledge of the times.
The Coup de
Grace Evolution could be true or false and it
would have absolutely ZERO IMPACT on my belief
system. There is no god regardless of the
validity of evolutionary theory. Why? Again,
because evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with atheism. Errancy
in evolution would just make it just another one
of man's many faulty theories. Big deal.
So to Christians I say, if it
will make you feel better and more secure about what you
believe, then I'll stipulate it for you...[clearing
throat]...
EVOLUTION IS FALSE IN EVERY SINGLE
WAY AND IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR HOW HUMANS CAME TO
BE.
Okay, buttercup. Feel
better now? Good.
Um, psssst.
There's still no god. Next
topic please.
One Last Thing to
Ponder Seems to me that
Christians are the most insecure of all theists. They
can't walk from Point A to Point B without trying to convince
someone that their beliefs are true. And they're forever
playing the part of the perennial
victim.
Christians represent the VAST majority of the
theological makeup of the United States, yet they claim to be
the persecuted ones. What the fuck?
Check the
statistics here. Apparently, the majority (76% of our nearly 308
million citizens) are on the run from the bottom 8% who don't
believe. Quick, someone call the War Crimes
Commission! The scant few of us are about to march all
224.5 million of them into the ovens. We just killed
their all-powerful god!
Now get a whiff of this stunning example of "Christian
persecution." Can't you just feel their
pain?
Yeah, persecuted my
ass.
Consider this sobering fact: the fucking
Hare Krishnas don't
even proselytize anymore. I mean, really. They
wrote the god damn book on shoving religious shit in
everyone's face. When's the last time you saw one
handing out pamphlets at the airport? 1978?
Maybe.
There are approximately NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION practicing
Hindus on the planet. This accounts
for nearly ONE SEVENTH OF
HUMANITY. (Note that the number might be as high
as 1.4 billion.) But either way, or even if it were only
one tenth of humanity, this staggering number of people
believe that that Brahma created the universe, and their
creation story is in complete conflict with the
Judeo-Christian account. And know that every Christian
on the planet thinks these people are delusional, 100% wacko,
thoroughly misguided.
How often do you see or hear
Hindus trying to prove that their creation story is
true? And when was the last time you heard or saw a
Hindu proselytize? To both of these questions, the
answer is probably never. It's clear to me that Hindus,
by and large, are far more secure in their beliefs and
unabashedly more faithful than Christians.
If you're a Christian,
enjoy. If you're sane, also enjoy. There's
something in it for everyone. Over the years I've
enjoyed countless hours of entertainment (and hysterical
laughter) at their expense, so I'll happily plug their website
and direct a few sinners to their internet
doorstep.
While the first
option is completely valid to even the most intelligent,
articulate, and well-educated Christian apologist, they know
that militant skeptics would just laugh at them the instant it
rolls off their tongue. And so a more (seemingly)
academic tactic is preferred. This second option
requires a profound distortion of Old Testament lore.
