Dec 31, 2007
In order for Christianity to be true, why are so many other religions in existence? That doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind, right? Clearly, such an action committed by the Son of God himself should put everything into a straightforward perspective.
The problem for Christianity is that it is no different than any other religion. It has its own various sects, denominations, factions, and rituals, just like any other belief system. Also, anyone raised according to their culturally religious background are likely to adhere to their belief system from upbringing. If Christianity were true and Jesus came to die for ALL of the sins of mankind, then clearly everyone brought up in those environments would come to the truth as offered by Christianity. And before Christians object that what I am saying is nothing more than mindless, dribbling, irrelevant, and illogical nonsense, perhaps they should also be reminding themselves of Romans 1:20, where this is attested too quite plainly:
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Yet despite what the Bible is clearly saying, this isn't the reality of the issues at hand. Someone brought up in a Muslim home is bound to be Muslim, a person brought up Hindu is more than likely to embrace Hinduism. There is no possible way for ALL religions to be correct, and this is just another nail in the coffin for Christianity and all other religions that claim to be the one and only truth. Case closed.
One day recently I was banging my head against my desk as I often do, when it caused my mouse to click on to J. P. “Holding’s” arguments about the Trilemma. I’m not surprised Holding is convinced by this very stupid argument while brilliant, intelligent, smart people like me and Brian Holtz think it is so stupid. In fact, Holding is so stupid that he still believes in it ever after Holtz wrote an obviously unassailable rebuttal.
What’s that? You say Holding answered Holtz? In detail?
Well, never mind that! I’m gonna write my own rebuttal right now!
Let’s see. I’ll start by ignoring ¾ of the essay Holding wrote. That’s a good way to make it easier….uh….hey, did you know Holding is a massive egotist who thinks God calls him for advice on Biblical studies? He sure does! I have phone records to prove it! But hey, when I get done rebutting the other ¼ of this article, you dumb Christians are gonna feel so dumb that you’ll come and beg me to make you smarter! Ha ha! Here we go…
Uh…..okay….Holding indicates you have to first defend that Jesus said the things he is recorded as saying. I agree with that. Now don’t you people feel stupid?
You don’t? Oh….uh….
Okay, now I found something to make you people feel really dumb! Ready? It’s simple! You can refute the Trilemma by adding another option! Ha ha!
Hey, why aren’t you deconverting right now?
What the hell do you mean I have to actually propose an alternative? Kiss off! I don’t have to do anything! As long as some other alternative is logically possible, whatever it is, the Trilemma is dead, you stupid moron!
Okay, fine! My alternative is “legend”! Suppose that the stories of the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension are all legends. Is it possible that they are? If it’s logically possible, then the trilemma is refuted! Ha ha! Ha haaaa haaa ha haaaa! Ha!
Oh, for pity's sake, what is it now????
What do you mean Holding addressed that already? WHERE???
What the hell -- !
Aw, hell! Shut up and leave me alone, you stupid Holding fanatics! I’ll be back someday to make you feel brighter and more enlightened, you ignorant fools! Kiss off! Rot in hell! John Loftus is GOD!
Dec 29, 2007
As convincing as that is, what really converted me was this argument that came after:
See that? As everybody knows, capitalization increases the truthiness of an argument, but this guy not only capitalized his second argument, he also emboldened and italicised his argument! And see all those exclamation points? Who can argue with something as convincing as that?!
And so, I saw the err of my ways, and converted to rationality.
Dec 27, 2007
There was once a slimy, snotty Christian apologist who made the argument that the banana is an “atheist’s worst nightmare” because it has so many great design features. I used to love that argument when I was a stupid, blind fundy, and now as an intellectually fulfilled atheist I think it is really stupid! In fact, I want to argue now that if anything, the banana proves that God does not exist, or that if he does, he is evil, malevolent, and really snotty! Here’s why:
The banana has a slippery peel which can be thrown on the ground, causing innocent people to slip and fall. The banana has been used for endless, cruel practical jokes (especially on me, and I have the bruises on my butt to prove it!) and this would only be a feature designed by a malevolent creator, or else it would have evolved in a godless, uncaring universe. If there was a God, he would have created trash cans everywhere with targeting vacuum suctions to keep people from using banana peels for practical jokes.
The banana comes in bunches, making it an especially vulnerable target for shoplifters. With many fruits, you can only steal one at a time, but bananas have been an unusual burden on the merchants of the world because they can be grabbed in large bunches. (I know that grapes and cherries, for example, are even worse; but these are yet more proof of either a malevolent creator or a godless universe.)
The banana has an unusual shape which makes it a special target for filthy double entendres. To put it bluntly, the banana is a pornographic fruit! Only a god who was a disgusting pervert could design a piece of fruit this way. The banana also encourages violence because you can hide it under your coat and pretend it is a handgun; or in Australia, you can use it as a boomerang. The banana is a fruit for perverts and criminals.
Bananas have an ugly yellow color and turn an even uglier brown or black when they spoil. What’s worse, they smell terrible when they go bad, and get all squishy and disgusting! That they turn brown or black when they go bad has also undoubtedly contributed to the problem of racism in this country.
“Banana” is spelled real stupid. You can’t keep track of how many “nas” to add, and it’s a real pain in the butt! A loving god would make sure there’d be no confusion, or wasted ink and paper, as a result of adding to many “nas.”
So as you can see, if anything, the banana is prime evidence that if any God exists, he is a mean, nasty, disgusting, stupid, and pathetic moron! And if you don’t agree, you’re a snotty idiot and I don’t want to hear it!
Dec 26, 2007
So I just got back from the latest film featuring Will Smith titled "I AM LEGEND". Overall this movie was actually very well done. What really got me in a giddy exciting mood was the scene where Will Smith conversates with the women whom just saved his life telling her about all of the deaths from the so-called "infection", to which he states:
"There is no God! DO YOU HEAR ME!? THERE IS NO GOD!"
That was probably the best part of the movie. And even before that, when Will Smith remarks that "hearing the voice of God" is "crazy talk." The movie was at its high peak during those scenes. Then, of course, lame-ass Hollywood has to go and ruin it: one of the things Will Smith says at the end of the movie is that he starts "listening" to the voice of God when stuck in a very bad situation.
Pfft! How sappy and pathetic can filmmakers get these days? To portray a very resourceful and rationally deductive scientist as a sucker for God? Absolutely pittiful. You can gurantee this knocked the film down a couple knotches as far as my rating is concerned. Overall, however, the film makes you literally wet yourself (especially me, I could hardily contain all of the soda I was drinking via nail biting and screaming) with the scary scenes of nighttime and of course those vampire-like people. If only I had been the director of the film, perhaps I would have steered it into a much more successful direction.
This film gets a half n' a two n'half out of five star rating in my book.
I am a trained psychotherapist, with the "therapist" part debatable, just like John W. Locust. He specializes in tracing the root insecurities in Christians' need for a sky-daddy, while I specialize on helping troubled people. I am always ready to extend a helping hand to parents of disabled or missing children, owners of recently lost pets, and sick people in their throes of death, and give them the wonderful gift of atheism, telling them that there is no God who cares for them, that they are nothing but evolved slime and that as the universe approaches the heat death, nothing they do in this life ultimately matters. Unfortunately as of late a bigoted Christian overheard my counsel and I have been banned from visiting any more patients in hospitals. And yet pastors are allowed to continue spreading their bigoted, hateful propaganda to those poor sick people. What sickening discrimination. Thus I am now reduced to spreading my little nuggets of love via the Internet. And yet none of them seems to appreciate my thoughts. Go figure, I was just telling them the truth. See, that's what those Christians want; they want to suppress the truth. Don't they always say "the truth will set you free"? Such hypocrites.
Again, I once again thank Mr. Locust for letting me join this blog. Now if you'll excuse me I have a funeral to attend. It takes a lot of time and hard work to impersonate a pastor so that I may spread my love, and it's painful to get thrown out of the building by the security, but it's all worth it for the cause of atheism.
Joe E. Drollman
Like, back when I was, like, a Fundie Christian man, my fellow church members were, like, criticizing me for my Cocaine Habit... It's, like, not my fault I was cutting it up and doing it when the minister was speaking. Like, when you gotta snort you gotta snort, man! And like, besides, I figured that God would prevent me from, like, being addicted and, like, eventually dying eh?
Like, anyways I, like, landed in the hospital and the doctor, like, told me that I had overdosed. I was like, "How's that possible, man?! God is, like, supposed to Prevent me from doing such things, man!" The Doctor just laughed...
Then, like, during an acid trip it, like, suddenly hit me; God does not exist man! Like, if he did, he would have prevented me from overdosing; he'd have, like, prevented me from snorting laced blow... when I was, like, gonna snort it man. And most importantly, like, if he existed, like, he would have also told me where the most premium stuff could be bought man!
After all, like, the purpose of an Omnibenevolent is to have, like, fun, isn't it?!
Like, Anyways, that was my, like, testimony man... Now if you'll excuse me, the Razor Blades and the White Stuff are, like, callin' man! And Like, if a God really exists, he, like, better stop me man...
This is Snortin' Blow, like, Tokin' Off
Dec 24, 2007
For example, christmongers (also known as Xians, christards, and other assorted names) believe that there's some god out there who actually likes us, and who likes everyone. But come on, who likes everyone? Even my really annoying Aunt Esther who has this really bad rash on her neck that oozes some kinda weird goo and talks with a lisp? (I mean the goo talks with a lisp, not Aunt Esther. Duh.) Nobody likes her. Somebody would have to be crazy to like her. But christmongers say that their gawd likes her. Therefore, the bible god is crazy. It's a proven fact, see? I just proved it!
And another thing is, christmongers can't see how hateful their god is. Well, I mean, for starters, a truly good god would make sure that I never had anything to complain about. But I'm really clumsy, see, and every morning before I have my daily injection of caffeine and LSD, I stub my toe on a little statue lion that 'god' keeps forgetting to move out of the middle of the doorway. Now, if this god were really there and were really as cool as christmongers say she is, he'd do something! Like, maybe he'd create a whole bunch of tiny winged elves out of air molecules and arm them with itty-bitty lasers and have them whittle away super-fast at the lion while standing on my toe so that my toe wouldn't ever hit it. But apologists say that'd be too obvious. But couldn't 'god' create a second army of magic elves to reconstruct the statue at almost light speed so that I'd never notice? Why not? Is the bible god too dumb to see what a brilliant idea I have?
This "Argument from My Stubbed Toe" is just one more reason added to an already infinite list why nobody who can breathe should believe in Xianity. Plus, just look at the holy bibble itself! I mean, check out this moral travesty!
See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! (Galatians
That's just sickening!!!!!!! I can't believe anyone, no matter how twisted, could consider a hateful message of bigotry like that to be divinely inspired! Can't you all see what this "St." Paul was doing? He bragged to the little cults in Galatia--you know, those "churches", ugh...--that he was writing in "large letters". You get it, right? Paul was deliberately wasting PAPER!!!! Haven't you heard how scarce paper was in the superstitious, pre-scientific world? And there he was, wasting precious resources on purpose! Where were the conservationists then? Oh, that's right, the early christmongers persecuted anyone who disagreed with their paper-wasting founder! (Jesus, after all, is just a myth based on pagan deities like Anubis, Enlil, Loki, and Ronald McDonald, all of whom were obviously crucified between two insurrectionists and then physically resurrected, which was really appealing to a bunch of people in the first-century Mediterranean world, especially the ones who did a lot of mushrooms just like the wise John Allegro said. That's how Xianity started.) How terrible! It makes me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry, just thinking about all that wasted paper! (Well, except that I'm afraid of getting in the fetal position because my co-bloggers might try to abort me. Uh, not that there's anything wrong with that.) It's even worse than this terrible passage:
There were white and blue linen curtains fastened with cords of fine linen
and purple on silver rods and marble pillars; and the couches were of gold and
silver on a mosaic pavement of alabaster, turquoise, and white and black marble.
DISGUSTING! It's things like this that make me want to vomit on somebody's baby. I mean, there's no need for that sort of extravagance. Think of how many freethought non-tracts could've been published with all the money we could get by selling off all that fancy, uh, stuff? But no, instead of helping us spread the message about how evil and non-existent he is, the bible god just sticks this in there to taunt us with wealth! That jerk!
Oh, and one more thing! Xianity claims to be original, but don't they know that Xi'an is a city in China? Ha, those moron christmongers! The only difference is that... that comma thing that hovers so creepily there... as if it's watching me no matter what I do... just like the Xian god is supposed to watch everybody all the time... which is really creepy, because that means he sees me in the middle of the night when I sacrifice chipmunks and wet myself in terror... and he was watching that time back in college when I got so wasted and high at that one party and ended up licking the inside of a toilet because I thought it was made of glow-in-the-dark candy... and how creepy is it that the god these people worship would want to watch that? What a pervert... just like the thing in the name Xi'an... wait... The bible god is a floating comma!!!!
I'll have to run this fresh insight by my mentor, His Imperial Highness of Reason and Freethought, Master of Objectivity, John W. Locust.........
Now, don't think this changes anything. We can still declare that God does not exist, and that anybody who thinks He does is a delusional, insane, stupid idiot, but this time, when they (the theists) call us out, we can simply state "We don't believe anything, therefore we don't have to prove anything!"
This keeps the burdon of proof (Which we can't hold) on the theists, and keeps us from looking like we believe something. And, when a theists shows us that modern psychology proves that there is no such thing as a lack of belief, we will simply compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus and act like asantaclausism is a lack of a belief, even though it isn't, and we will win.
So remember, atheism = lack of belief. As such, we are still allowed to insult and mock Christians and Christianity, assert that God does not exist, make unvarifiable assumptions about life and the universe, and we simply have to say "We don't believe anything" in the face of modern psychology, and there we go. Atheists win.
Guess what! One of my fans, Brain Spleen, sent in their own personal “anti-testimony”! Here it is in two emails.
The first one:
Hi, I just apostasized and wanted to thank you and John Locust for brainwashing me with all that misinformation at Debunking Crap, as well as in John’s great awesome book, Why I Lost My Mind. It has helped me see the world as a place where everyone is too mean to me, and I deserve better. It’s very freeing not being bound to moral responsibilities to others and all of that Biblical stupidity.
Thanks from a drone!
ps: looking forward to kissing up to you more in the future!
The second one:
I was born into a Christian home and never took being a Christian disciple seriously until just recently, after we adopted our new pet gecko. I’ve always been tormented by some godawful atheist arguments, such as, “If you were born in Saudi Arabia you’d be a Muslim.” Obviously something can’t be true if it is believed mainly or only in certain parts of the world, that makes no sense at all. As we all know, the only way Christianity could be true is if it was believed by a broad cross-section of the population interspersed geographically; for example, if 66% of all people living in New York were Christian, but all were born on the East Side, then clearly Christianity cannot be true and the Resurrection of Jesus never happened; but if they were born in various boroughs of greater New York, this would be a tremendous proof that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
I also wondered why is was that (in my objective judgment) some mature Christians didn’t have as much “fruit of the Spirit.” It seemed to me that all those mature Christians (and by that I mean, the ones who watch Charles Stanley on TV at least once a week) ought to have more of the fruit. Now, thanks to you, I know they’re all nuts!
I read a lot of apologetics literature but all of it was by Christian authors. I never found any Christian apologetic literature by non-Christians for some reason. Then one day people at my church were mean to me, and this clearly gave evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead in first century Palestine. As we all know, how people behave is what governs historical epistemology: For example, if a guy with a Confederate flag bumper sticker cuts you off in traffic, this proves that the South lost the Civil War.
Your book just blew me away! I couldn’t believe that all that pagan copycat stuff was never taught in church and never appeared in any serious scholarly literature. Other books I’ve read that helped were Losing Face and Brains by Dan Barker (the Christ-myther who says Jesus helped him find parking spaces) and Gary Lenaire’s An Ignorant Manifesto (the guy who proved) the Council of Nicaea decided the canon). These books made so much sense to me as a cerebral, intelligent person, as opposed to stuff like N. T. Wright which has so many big words in it.
It took me only a year to arrive at a concrete decision on these complex issues because I am so brilliant now, when I was so dumb as a Christian! I feel really great because I don’t have to think any more – I used to just read the Bible and follow all it said without question. Now all I have to do is read your book, Lenaire, Barker, etc and follow that uncritically instead! Woo hooo!
Thanks again I read your blog every day!
That stupid “JP Holding” guy has this article up called “The Impossible Faith”! It really torques me off! How dare he try to prove Christianity is true! I’m so ticked about Christianity that if anyone ever did prove it was true, I’d have to throw myself into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades! So I’m going to refute his stupid article right now so I don’t have to do that!
Let’s start with Factor #1, which he idiotically titles, “Who would buy one crucified?” “Holding” quotes a bunch of stupid, brainwashed Christians who bribed some institution of higher learning for a doctorate (or went to some low quality fundy school, maybe) like Hengel, Malina, Rohrbaugh, Bauer, Wright and de Silva who say that crucifixion was a"status degradation ritual" that was so offensive that no one would ever believe Jesus was really divine unless he was actually resurrected! He also quotes a bunch of even more brainwashed ancient Christians who say the same thing, and a bunch of equally brainwashed pagans who support this idea! HA!
It’s all a bunch of crap, I tell you! Here’s what “Holding” and the rest of his moronic suckers don’t realize. It’s all really, really, simple, see? Like this:
Obviously, there must have been an otherwise unknown, unattested group of people living in that time who thought that it was just awesome to be crucified! I call these people the Cross Ups! In fact, it’s pretty darned clear that one of several things happened, such as that the church burned all the writings of the Cross Ups (who were actually the majority of people in the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine, at least) and/or altered the writings of people like Celsus to make it look like they disapproved of crucifixion; or, the church went out and stole all the ink and parchment from the Cross Ups so they couldn’t write anything down! It’s that simple!
I know this has to be true, because it’s so obvious that miracles like the Resurrection can’t happen! I know this because God never did any miracles for me! God could have stopped me from eating a million chalupas and gaining 568 pounds – but He didn’t! God could have got me a girlfriend in spite of the fact that I dress like a vagrant, use foul language, and haven’t yet met a bar of soap that I liked – but He didn’t! God could have appeared to me in a bank of clouds and gave me a personal message telling me that He exists – but He didn’t, and He still doesn’t! It's clear that God doesn't exist because He won't do these simple things for me -- or else, it is clear that if God does exist then He is obviously incompetent to raise someone from the dead!
So from all of this, it is very, very obvious that this group called the Cross Ups existed and that they were the people who initially accepted Christianity! “Holding” thinks the crucifixion is one of Christianity’s “most incontrovertible proofs” but it’s really proof that all those so-called “scholars” are a bunch of brainwashed, deluded religionists! It is so obvious to anyone with half a brain that Christianity survived only because the Cross Ups must have existed!
This also takes care of a lot of other points “Holding” makes, by the way! He talks about how all these other things about Christianity would have been offensive, and cites all these scholars for support, but I say instead that it is clear that in the first century there existed a whole group of people who:
· thought being crucified was awesome;
· thought being a Jew from a small hick town in a province that was a hotbed of sedition was a good thing;
· thought resurrection was just groovy and happened all the time;
· thought new things were great!
· Respected women and bumpkins more than they did everyone else;
· Valued being poor, stupid, and ignorant!
I mean, it’s obvious that such people must have existed back then, because they do now -- we call them “Christians” today!
But come on now, why should we abbreviate it just to "X-mas"? Why not "XX"? After all, that way, we get rid of the name of the guy who never existed, AND we get rid of the name of a Catholic church serivce! I mean, isn't Mass so disgusting? After all, the people who go it SING! And they-gasp!-listen to a preacher! Then, to top it all off, they, and this is the big shocker, eat bread and drink grape juice! How can anyone stomach it?! It's disgusting! The priests probably take turns raping the altar boys afterwards, too.
I mean, just look at the origins of XX. Constantine decided to repurpose a pagan holiday into a Xian one, and call it "X's X." Obviously, this means Xianity is based on paganism, because there's no other reason he'd do that. Certainly not, like, giving people an alternate celebration or anything.
And look at the Biblical account, too. The wise men followed perfectly normal cultural practices and followed a new star, that just happened to take them to where Baby X was. What a joke! One of them must have been a woman, or they would've gotten lost. And the shepherds, what's with them? The anonymous writers of the gospels probably changed the real first witnesses, who were obviously the Men in White Coats, to "shepherds" so nobody would know that Mary and Joseph were nutjobs.
But today, it's different. Xians put up trees, obviously pagan symbols, and give each other gifts, an obviously pagan practice, while atheists laugh at them and wonder why they feel discriminated because manger scenes are taken down in public places while menorahs are made even bigger.
Man, Xians are dumb.
So here's how it went down. Somehow Turkel finds it necessary to check up on almost every activity I'm engaged in and digs into my own personal agendas. So "Holding" comes across this blog post of mine where I stated:
I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him.
The link provided led to this blog: http://jpholding.blogspot.com
Okay, so then Turkel thinks he's discovered some sort of "conspiracy" on my part because the descriptions of both blogs were identical:
Notice that there's no name attached to this blog, no one who takes responsibility for it whatsoever. Yet DJ says he "recently noticed" this blog. Hmmm. Note also this quote:
There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding
Hmmmm.....this seems to be some kind of source code and material for the site noted as Exhibit 2...look, the very same quote appears:
There are several sites dedicated to exposing James Patrick Holding's disgusting and depraved tactics, along with the way he dishonestly mischaracterizes his skeptical opponent's arguments. This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding
And then in Holding manages to "prove" I was the owner and author of the advertised blog:
And my goodness....whose name do we find there in the code?
John W. Loftus
My my my my my my my my.....Doubting John is SUCH a liar. And a very stupid one, too.
There never seems to be an instance when "Holding" could refrain from insulting remarks, because if he did he probably won't be earning such high praise from the jackels over at TWeb.
Getting on to the point here, people have been making a fuss in my blog response to this ludicrous post:
As far as my being dishonest goes, technically I was not dishonest, even if I was deceptive.
Turkel manages to put the quote on his website as though I've made a contradicting statement here. This is what makes Holding and his little batch of acne-filled teenagers at TWeb so gullible and shamefully ignorant. Anyone who does not know the distinctions between dishonesty and deception should really have their head checked, or at least, become educated on the true meaning of the terms.
Nonetheless, this is an appropriate self-defense, and by which, I will demonstrate that dishonesty and deception can be placed into exclusive contexts. With that said, I will be defining both words straight out from the Online Oxford Dictionary:
• adjective not honest, trustworthy, or sincere.
— DERIVATIVES dishonestly adverb dishonesty noun
So there's our first defintion. Notice that "deception" is not listed as a synonym. Hmmm....I wonder how Turkel manages to explain away that one.
• noun 1 the action of deceiving. 2 a thing that deceives
Yet again there seems to be no sort of defined relationship between dishonesty and deception. There is no doubt Turkel and Co have displayed a large amount of their ignorance by not recognizing their distinctive differences.
So when it comes to logic and reasonable inference, Holding doesn't stand up by a longshot. The fact of the matter is that one being dishonest does not constitute one being deceptive. Let's see Turkel and his friends try to debunk that one.
Dec 23, 2007
Sure, the vast majority of historians agree that a man named Jesus lived in Nazareth about two thousand years ago and had twelve apostles and many followers and founded Christianity, and it is true that this is supported by massive amounts of evidence from scholars of the past, but these scholars overlook some very simple facts (probably because of subjective bias):
1. Coincidence. How do we know that this Jesus who did everything that is told in the Bible is the same Jesus from history? Simple: We don't. Therefore, the Jesus depicted in history is simply in the right place at the right time, and completed all the things the Biblical Jesus completed.
2. Conspiracies. The Catholic church was a big hit back then, and everybody knows that they made up their information, so they probably made up Jesus as well. They just took the Bible and scribbled in some stuff about a guy named Jesus, so that their influence would grow and they could rule the world. It is also possible that the Apostles (of the man who didn't exist) simply spread some stories about a guy doing great things, and, since people in ancient times were gullible, stupid morons, everybody blindly believed them.
3. The many scholars that are quoted talking of a historical Jesus, such as Tacitus and Josephus, lived after Jesus supposedly existed. It is a widely known fact that history cannot be written in hindsight, therefore, those historians are all false. We don't even know where they got their info from; Probably the Church, which was engaged in their mad conspiracy at the time.
4. Nobody wrote about this "Jesus" during his lifetime. Sure, only about 10% of the population knew how to read and write, but you'd think they'd learn for somebody as big as Jesus was supposed to be.
Jesus was an obvious myth, as this irrefutable proof shows.
The obvious problem with this reasoning is that science has again and again proven this sort of fundamentalist retreat wrong on repeated occasions. We now have naturalistic explanations which do not require any sort of divine intervention that would interrupt natural laws. Since the authorization of the Bible, we have come to discover all sorts of God-contradicting facts like how babies are made, why people get sick and ill with disease, and why it rains. These very scientific facts alone are problematic for the Christian faith and should be answered too accordingly. The reason why there are no responses to these evidences is because it is a deteriation of the Christian faith to do so.
Further on down the road it should also be acknowledged that Christians are more apt to justify their perspective by arguing things from a "possibility" and not a "plausibility." As this becomes more and more apparent, it then follows that fundamentalists are not equipped with the necessary tools of logic for being grounded in religious belief reasonably. Just look at what I have to say in my book: In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control beliefs the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that what they believe is “not impossible.” However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is “probable” in order to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.
Therefore, what are Christians left to do when YWHEH begins to shrink in the face of empirical scientific evidence? Well, they defense becomes a statement of how weak methodological naturalism (MN) really is. In other words, because science hasn't filled every gap, God hasn't been disproven. However the facts remain that science has indeed closed a great number of these gaps, and God is becoming less and less improbable to the natural world. Although MN cannot disprove the miracles of the Bible or account for the origin of the universe itself, Christians already give admittance to the MN's deductive powers. And so the only option of choice here is to formulate a double standard: naturalism applies to everything else but the Bible.
It gets even more fundy-ish when Christians say that even if all of the gaps were filled, God would still exist being that he is behind the order of the universe. And, while true if a God does exist, it would give us less reasons to believe that he does exist!
In the end, the best the Christian community can give in defense is either double standard thinking and or a rearranging twist to logic.
Dec 22, 2007
Hi, I'm Andy AtkinsDiet (a handle I chose remembrance of Anna Nicole Smith, may she rest in peace), but my real name is Herman. The picture you see is me with my family.
John Locust wants me to bore you to tears with how I went from stupid Christian to super-smart atheist, so I will.
I'm way smarter than you, so this might go over your tiny, underdeveloped mind a bit.
I was a stupid Christian for a number of years. After swallowing that God crap when I was like 6, I became a fundy Christian. I was like this for years and years, only reading the Authorized KJV, not giving a damn about using my brain, and all the rest of the things a Real True Christian(TM) does.
Then, some years later, I realized that not using my brain was a bad thing, so I went back to my Bible. I read one verse out of it, thought about it for 5 minutes, and decided that I was never really a Christian in the first place. I had bought into the crackpot idea that the Bible was written yesterday, for me personally. So I quickly rid myself of those beliefs, and now I'm a smart, smart dude.
Why, now, I even realize that the Bible was written thousands of years ago, but we should still judge it by today's standards, because by golly ours are better than theirs!
There's my story of how I went from fundy Christian, to obviously brilliant atheist.
Have a nice, sky-daddy free day.
Dec 21, 2007
Here is a debate between my marvolous self and some "Holding" guy:
Me: "Jesus didn't exist. This is fact, and is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by geniuses like Archarya S. and the creators of Zeitgeist."
"Holding" guy: "Yeah? And what is this proof?"
Me: "I'm not even gonna show you, because you will simply ignore it (like all you delusional Christian idiots) and act like I'm wrong, when it is painfully obvious I'm right."
"Holding" guy: "Well, if you will not show me this proof, I must assume you are lying."
See?! He called me a liar! After my respectful and intelligent attempt at discussion, he (just like all those Christian buttheads) started throwing out the accusations, because he is unable to counter my irrefutable proof (which is obvious to anyone with a brain)! He is just a representative of all two billion Christians in the world!
Another reason why Christians are all mean: They're eeeeeeeeeeevil. Just look at what they did during the Crusades! And the Holocaust! All this mumbo jumbo about the Bible saying "Love thy neighbor" and "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously a lie, as their religion supports their horrible actions 100%!
But here's the real nail in the coffin: A Bible verse that can only be interpreted to mean "Be evil:"
"Do unto others."
I don't know what verse it is (I just looked it up on evilbible.com, a very intelligent website), but it obviously means to "Hurt other people!"
Christians are rude, evil, lying, brainless scumbags, with absolutely no respect for people of real intelligence (like myself). They can't so much as post a blog without resorting to generalizations, accusations, out-of-context quoting, bigotry, hypocricy and simple bad grammer.
I was the founding president of Operation Shelter, (now called Turning
Point) in Angola, Indiana. It was an organization that seeks to give temporary
shelter to people in need, I worked day after day with the executive director,
whose’ name was Linda. She practically idolized me. She did everything I said to
do, and would call me daily to help her deal with various situations that came
up from the running of the Shelter, along with her personal problems. What man
doesn’t want to be worshipped? I guess I did. I was having problems with my own
relationship with my wife at the time, and Linda made herself available. I
succumbed and had an affair with her.
There’s so much more I’d like to say bout this, but few people would believe me. I believe she was a con artist, and she conned me. As a former stripper she had it inn for preachers, and she took out her wrath on me. Perhaps because I was a moral crusader in town and stood
against abortion and X-rated video rentals, she chose to humiliate me. Suffice
to say there are some women out there who, akin to Potipher’s wife in the Bible,
find it challenging to see if they can sack a minister, and she did.
Stupid people like the dumb Christian blogger Frank Walton have charged me of being a "slave" to my own sexual impulses. That's stupid! Anyone with a brain stem clearly knows that I am not a sex whore. Linda was the sex whore. She made me do things I didn't want to do. Let's put it in this perspective: Linda was the devil after my Christian soul. At least, that's what the circumstances where back in my years of life wasted as a devout religionist. That's just one of many problems with Christianity these days, it is a belief system bred out of a phobia for sexuality, and our wants are to be demonized. While we are dubbed the most vile of God's 'beautiful' creation, we are also to give glorification and satisification to a demanding invisible sky fairy somewhere up in the clouds hanging above our heads.
Was I ever a sexual slave? To answer such a propesterous assertion, the answer is to lay it out with a big fat NO. It logically goes without saying that I was adhering to the best of my abilities as a Christian, and like all contenders that wrestle with the obstacles of life, there are moments when even the innocent and the heroic must bleed for their passionate sufferings. The end all to the reality of the story was that I was a martyr for Christ, and alas when I discovered that I would be forever tortured and condemned by a sexphobic God, I made the bold transformation from preacher to atheist.
You know what? Back when I was still a dumb fundy Christian, I used to do serious Bible study all the time. I went to the Holy Babble for everything. I mean, one time, I had to make a decision as to whether to ask this girl out or not, right? She was the prettiest girl in class and I felt like a real idiot thinking I should ask her out. So I got on my knees, sticking my head between them, and prayed:
Dear Holy God, please please please show me if I should ask Matilda out. I know you love me so much you will tell me everything I want to know. In Jesus holy precious beautiful name amen!
And then I opened the Bible, which was my Magic Communication from God book back then, and I found this under my finger:
Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion
WHOA! I knew right then that God was talking right to me with that verse! Little did Solomon know, I thought, that he wrote that verse just for me in the 21st century! So I immediately packed a little bag with some stuff, brought my Bible to school, and waited 4 hours for the opening bell to ring. I opened my little bag; inside I had a box of candy – really nice candy with a hazelnut filling! I walked right up to Matilda as she was opening her locker and gave her the box of candy with a trembling hand. “These are for you,” I said in a sweet voice. Matilda actually smiled! My heart leapt! “Thank you,” she said, and she ate a few pieces. Excited, I posed my question.
“These are for you,” I said in a sweet voice.
Matilda actually smiled! My heart leapt! “Thank you,” she said, and she ate a few pieces. Excited, I posed my question.
“You know what flavor that is?” I asked excitedly.
“Um,” she replied, “it’s walnut, isn’t it?”NO!!! My hopes were dashed! She didn’t know the difference between hazelnut and walnut! Here, then, was a woman without discretion! So sadly, I said to her:
“You’re a gold ring in a pig’s snout.”
That’s just one example of how stupid the Holy Babble is. Here’s another that helped me change my mind and become an atheist:
Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Now anyone can plainly see that what we have here is an open contradiction. Stupid Christian apologists make up excuses about things like “proverbial literature” and “wisdom genre of the ANE” but it’s all a bunch of horse crap! There’s nothing in the Holy Babble that says that Proverbs aren’t absolute, or are part of some “genre”! The Bible means what it says and it says what it means, and that’s that!
Some apologists are even dumb enough to ask whether I really believe the author could put so clearly contradictory sentiments one right after the other! Of course I do! What else would you expect from a bunch of bronze age, tribal, nomadic, desert-dwelling, goatherding, bone in the nose illiterates but that they’d contradict themselves within two seconds! People in Bible times were stupid! That’s a fact of modern science!
I learned the hard way about how the Holy Babble is a pile of steaming bovine refuse! I once tried to apply these verses at the same time, thinking in blind faith that they were not contradictory!
What happened was this. I wanted to test these proverbs, so I did some research. I Googled “fools” looking for fools, and I found some here:
I immediately drove 1000 miles (without a bathroom break) to see these guys so I could test the timeless truths of Proverbs 26:4-5! I found one of them by a poolside and decided on a strategy: I would talk out of both sides of my mouth at once, one side following Prov. 26:4 and the other following Prov. 26:5! It was so simple and brilliant!
I came up to the guy and waited for him to say something.
“Nice day, isn’t it?” he asked.
At once I went into action. The Prov. 26:4 side of my mouth was supposed to not answer according to his folly, so out of that side of my mouth I tried to say, “Can you direct me to Taco Bell?” The Prov. 26:5 side was supposed to answer according to his folly, so out of that side, at the same time, I tried to say, “Nice day? I’ve seen nicer days at Russian gulags.” But I couldn’t get my mouth coordinated, and what ended up coming out was something that sounded like, “You are a slimy pusillanimous worm.”
I can’t remember what happened after that. When I next remember anything I was swinging from the diving board by the seat of my trunks with a big knot on my head. But one thing I do remember: God failed me that day! He/she/it could have stopped me from making a fool of myself, heck, could have stopped me any time during that 1000 mile drive, but NOOOOO! It’s all God’s fault! And that’s one reason I’m a proud atheist today!
Dec 20, 2007
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Oh right! That's clear as mud, it is! I mean, it must be, because my brilliant best friend John Locust had no idea what it meant! Let's deconstruct this a bit at a time and show how.
For one thing, you have to ask why God would even issue a command in archaic English! I mean, he/she/it sounds like one of those goofy cartoon characters Bugs Bunny runs into, like Sir Osis of Liver. If God is gonna sound like that, he/it could at least have entertained me some -- I mean, made it more clear -- by sounding more like Foghorn Leghorn:
I say, I say, boy, now, you shouldn't be messin' with other people's spouses, ya hear? It just ain't right, I say, it just ain't right!
But aside from how stupid it is to sound like that, this command is so murky that it could mean anything! Look:
"Thou" -- who's "thou"? Me? John Locust? Ferile Till? WHO? There's nothing here showing who God is talking to! If God REALLY cared about us understanding his/her Holey word, then he/she/it should have included a list of all people throughout history he didn't want to commit adultery!
"shalt" -- This is REALLY confusing, because for all we know someone mistyped here and the command could have been addressed to the famous movie critic Gene Shalit, telling him to commit adultery! Or not!
"not" -- Aw, crud! What does this mean? It depends on what you mean by the word "not"! It could mean, "go ahead and" for all we know!
"commit" -- UGH! This could be the word "comet" spelled wrong, and then we also have no idea whether it means a shooting star or a bathroom cleanser!
"adultery" -- WHAT! This is a really, really big word for God to use! Why can't he/she/it make it simpler? You know, if God wanted to make it clear, he/she could have said, "fool with someone else's old lady." It's really inconsiderate of God to make me run to a dictionary to look these things up!
I think we've made it VERY clear that God's so called Holey Writ is anything BUT clear! A command like this should include 500 pages of explanation in triplicate to make sure there is NO mistake about what it means!
The other day I was browsing through the one-star reviews of my book on Amazon.com, and one Amazonian user remarked I was never a "true" apologist for Christianity:
The title of this book is a little bit misleading. This guys claims that he
was formerly an "apologist." Unfortunately, having a head full of
knowledge,answers, etc. does not an apologist make. A true apologist is able to
look atthe philosophy of atheism (or any other competing worldview/religion)
andrecognize the internal flaws and inconsistencies of the philosophy. Atheism
isfull of poor philosophy (begging the question, special pleading, etc.), and a
true apologist would not only be familiar with the objections presented toward
Christianity by atheism, but would have an understanding of why the
atheist's arguments are flawed. Being familiar with their arguments is worthless
if a theologian is unable to explain the internal inconsistencies and
poorphilosophy. On to the substance of the book... As stated in many of the
commentshere, this is just a guy who threw a temper tantrum when things didn't
turn outthe way he wanted them to. He blames God for the way God's people act as
aresult. This is absolutely ridiculous...if someone were to have a child,
andthat child were to grow up and murder someone on their own free will, would
theparent stand trial. Enough said...I feel sorry for this guy, but his ad
hominemarguments and senseless ramblings aren't worth your money. He tried to
dosomething - and expected others to do something - that nobody can do: live
agood, Christian life; and he blames God for the shortcomings of God's
children.Ridiculous. I feel sorry for any student who has learned "philosophy"
from thisman. I know I'll be put to the flames for this, but that's just because
theso-called "free thinkers" aren't really "freely thinking."
Now exactly what gives anyone else the right besides myself to say whether or not I was a "true" Christian apologist? Luckily I gave him a full load of a mind just so I could personally expose what an ignoramus he truly is:
All I can say is that my book is recommended by Christian apologists Norman L.
Geisler, and James F. Sennett. Sennett said I am a "scholar" and that my book is
"a wake up call to the church." Geisler said "it is a thoughtful and
intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist
and Christian should face." I guess you just disagree with them.Norman Geisler
calls me an apologist in his review of my book, titled, "From Apologist to
Atheist: A Critical Review." Christian Apologetics Journal, Vol 6, No. 1/Spring
2007. Again, I guess you just disagree.You never tell us what an apologist is.
Does having the equivalent of a Ph.D. degree in the Philosophy of Religion under
Dr. William Lane Craig count? Does teaching apologetics classes in Christian
colleges count? Does teaching philosophy and the philosophy of religion classes
as a Christian in secular colleges count? Does being the founding editor of an
apologetics journal count? Does writing several articles on apologetics count?
It's like you're saying no one is an author unless he's a bestselling author,
and that's ridiculous. It's like saying no one was a minister unless he was a
Senior minister, and that's laughable. Say what you will. My book will make a
difference. I'll leave you and your ad hominems to yourself. Besides, you don't
even show any evidence that you ever read my book. And you never dealt with any
of the substance in my book.
I think we can all fairly say who had the greater credibility and intellectual position on his side.
Dec 19, 2007
So what were my reasons for "rejecting" Christianity? Eventually I figured Christianity was just complicated to comprehend, and therefore, demonstratably false. If something doesn't fit or is too big for scientific explanation, it should be rejected immediately. Speaking of which, why doesn't God provide scientific evidence for his existence that should be made apparent and easily comprehendable? Take the time to really think about it, a transcendent intelligence like the Christian God should make things simple after all. Also, the Holy Trinity? Three gods in one? That doesn't make comprehendable sense either. How can God manifest himself in three different ways yet still retain his sinlge Godenessesseness? Complexity and confusion defy the smooth flow of human reasoning, and I eventually chose to embrace this reasoning over silly superstitions such as God and Jesus. I went from complex and confusing, to simple and understandable. Or is it a simple concept that the universe has always existed being material and subject to material breakdown? Gah, well, I'd rather not think about that right now, this is about garbage, not human reasoning.
In addition for God not making things simple, there is also the Church. Televangelist churches are getting scarier and more frightening as time goes by. I mean, take a good look at this video to see what it is I'm talking about!
Watch that? Bleck. Talk about creepy and disturbing. Televangelists are getting comfortable in their little Church pues listening to people talking to themselves in the voices of unborn infants. Absolutely disturbing, sheesh. Clearly such disturbing behavior stemming from the Church gives us enough reason to suppose that Christianity is a scary, scary, scary, belief system. After all, you can read through Deuteronomy and Numbers for info on how the Jews condoned adultery, abortions, and the eating and devouring of babies.
Well, that's all I can reveal for now. For more information on my deconversion, buy my book.