Ten Reasons Why Christianity Makes No Sense

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestrssyoutubeFacebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestrssyoutube

When I discovered the online atheist community a few years ago, one of the things that astounded and humbled me the most was the scholarliness of so many activist atheists. I had never before been in the company of so many people so versed in scripture, so skilled in the arts of rhetoric and argumentation, so keen to identifying and deconstructing logical fallacies. I’m not going to lie: It’s often been intimidating to be surrounded by people whose expertise in such things is so far beyond my own, comparatively unsophisticated approach. But as time passes and I learn more and more about these subjects, I find that my basic issues with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, have not evolved to more abstract ontological questions, but have rather crystallized my inability to reconcile even the most basic and fundamental principles of Christian faith.

1. Jesus didn’t die. Christians are always going on about how Jesus died for our sins, but if he came back 3 days later then he didn’t die at all; more like being in a brief coma, which is a drag, but not exactly the ultimate sacrifice that the crucifixion is cracked up to be. And it wasn’t just his spirit that departed to heaven, but his actual physical being. If you go dig up a 3-day old grave, regardless of what you think may have happened to that person’s immortal soul, there’s still going to be a body in it. Jesus’ tomb, on the other hand, was empty, meaning that following his resurrection he was either a zombie or he was fully alive, neither of which is dead. Even more relevant is that when he was hanging there on the cross, Jesus knew that he was going to come back. He didn’t have to endure the fear of death that any other human being would have had to face or the uncertainty that presumably afflicts all but the most devout at the moment of death about whether there really was going to be an afterlife, or if this was lights out for good. Yes, he probably suffered physically, but he knew that death would be no more than a long nap and then he’d be up and at ‘em again. In short, he didn’t die.
2. Jesus didn’t have faith. Jesus was always rolling his eyes and scolding his disciples for not having enough faith. There are many verses to be found in the New Testament in which Jesus says some variation of, “Don’t trust your senses, don’t look for evidence, just accept it because I said so.” But if Jesus was the son of god, then faith wasn’t something he needed – he knew god and heaven were real because that’s where he came from, no faith required. How fair is it to command the rest of the world to believe something on faith alone, threatening eternal punishment to any who don’t believe it, when you yourself have no faith and all the evidence?
3. Jesus didn’t take away my sins. Or did he? I am no logician, but if Jesus died to take away the sins of humanity, then doesn’t that mean that once he was crucified there was no longer any such thing as sin? If his “death” was the absolution of the human race, which we are told it was, why do I still have to do what the bible says, or go to church, or even believe? Aren’t I already saved by his “sacrifice?” And if I am not, and there are still rules to follow and sins that could keep me out of heaven, then what exactly was the point?
4. Jesus wasn’t a very nice guy. American Christians talk a lot about so-called family values, but that concept doesn’t have much, if any, basis in the actual story of Christ. Jesus demanded that his disciples abandon their families and save all of their devotion for him and him alone – a rather narcissistic and not particularly family-centric expectation. Aside from seeming to be in direct contradiction to the commandment about honoring thy mother and father, abandoning spouses and children, while not against any commandments, still seems like a douchey thing to do, even 2,000 years ago.
5. Jesus’ dad was really not a nice guy. We all know that the bible is full of rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and every manner of atrocity – and not in a, “This is what our enemies do so don’t be like them” way, but in a “As long as you are one of mine, have at it” way. Then Jesus showed up and said, more or less, that the old laws still applied, and he wasn’t about to change them. Yes, he was willing to call out hypocrisy, and he did seem to care somewhat about social justice – at least with regard to poverty and leprosy – but otherwise he was still the enforcer of some rather distasteful rules. And don’t even get me started on Jesus being his own father – a concept that, in addition to making no sense, makes Jesus himself the very same god of the Old Testament that Christians like to dismiss as no longer relevant (except when it comes to hating gays).

Prayer

6. Prayer is contradictory. We are told that god has a plan for everything, but then we are told to pray – for our loved ones to get better when they fall ill, for safety in the storm, for the home team to win the big game. Does that mean god will change his plan if you pray hard enough, or the right way, or get enough other people to pray for the same thing? At the very least this seems to suggest he doesn’t really have much of a plan if he’s willing to modify it based on popular opinion or for those who ingratiate themselves to him, not to mention that it’s a rather arbitrary, if not capricious, approach to human suffering. Further, people often say they pray for things like inner peace, strength, understanding, the solution to personal problems, etc. I don’t pray, but I do a lot of introspection in search of those same things, and then I do either what my conscience tells me is right or what my objectivity tells me has the best chance for the desired outcome. I suspect that people who pray end up doing more or less the same thing but attributing their conclusion to an outside agency. If that is the case, how can they explain that atheists (or members of other religions) can get to the same place with no (or a different) agent? And how strange is it, anyway, to carve out your conscience, that innermost part of yourself, the very core of what makes you you, and say it isn’t you?
7. The bible doesn’t set the moral bar very high. Let’s face it: Don’t rape people, don’t own people, don’t hate people, and don’t hurt children are kind of no-brainers when it comes to morality. Our friend Jesus and his old man not only failed to make these things clear, but in many instances they encouraged, condoned, or commanded them. Sure, Jesus said a few things about loving your neighbor and being kind to strangers, but he also said that not believing in him was the worst offense a person could commit and that anyone who didn’t believe would burn in Hell for all eternity. And seriously, the Ten Commandments as a basis for all morality? Checking out your neighbor’s wife is worse than raping his daughter? Taking the lord’s name in vain is worse than owning slaves? Nice priorities. Add to this the fact that god himself does not follow his own rules, to which Christians respond that mere mortals cannot understand or judge the morality of god. But if the bible defines morality, and god has a different set of rules for himself than for humans, and we are not allowed to know or understand his rules except that we are expected to do as he says but not as he does, then how exactly does that provide any kind of moral baseline whatsoever?
8. Christian love is not very loving. We hear a lot about Jesus’ love and god’s love, and how god so loved the world that he gave his only son, yada yada yada. We already covered the part about him not really giving up his son, and enough has been said by people smarter than I am about the questionable necessity of having a baby, leaving him be for 30 years, torturing him to death, and then bringing him back to life a few days later as a way of forgiving humanity instead of – oh, I don’t know, just saying “I forgive you.” We covered too that this supposed forgiveness isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if I’m still considered a sinner and an apostate and bound for hell for not believing. But if we set that part of the contradiction aside, how loosely are we defining love if we are applying it to the bible? “I love you so much that I will torture and murder my own son as a symbol of something I could just give you without the bloodbath. I love you so much that I will reward you with an eternity in heaven, but you have to suffer and die in this world first. Salvation is yours, so long as you swear your devotion to me and only me. And believe what I say even if it sounds like nonsense because I told you to. And admit that deep down you are a rotten piece of garbage who doesn’t really deserve my love. And if you don’t do all of these things you will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity. But seriously, I love you.”
9. Terrible things happen to good people. A quarter of a million people died in the tsunami of 2006. Twenty first graders and six adults were slaughtered at Sandy Hook. People die of starvation, are killed by war and disease, are raped or beaten by people who have power over them, and suffer in countless other ways. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent god who is also loving, as Christians would have us believe, why do these things happen? Why do children suffer and die? Why are there droughts and floods and famines and pestilences and earthquakes and wars? Why couldn’t god just make people nice? Why create natural disasters? Why didn’t he set forth better, clearer rules to eliminate ambiguity about how we are supposed to treat each other? God either intervenes or he doesn’t; god is either omnipotent or he isn’t. If he does and he is, then suffering exists because god intends for it to be that way. If he doesn’t and he isn’t, then he isn’t in control of anything, including the minutiae of how we live our daily lives. How is either a god worth worshipping?
10. It’s all just way too convenient. Got what you prayed for? He answered your prayers. Praise Jesus! Didn’t get it? He has another plan. Praise Jesus! Don’t have the answers? You’re not meant to. Praise Jesus! Figured out the answer? He chose you. Praise Jesus! Sad about the deaths of your loved ones? They’re in a better place. Praise Jesus! Sad about how much your life sucks? You’ll be happy once you’re dead. Praise Jesus! Honestly, when the answer to every question is exactly the thing that makes you feel best / most comforted / least in need of using your own intellect, should that not send up a huge red flag that maybe you’re not being completely objective?

These are not overtly intellectual, clever, or even particularly insightful observations, nor am I the first person to make them. But as someone who has lived an entire life without religion, the exercises of engaging apologists, philosophizing, or running ontological obstacle courses seem – perhaps naively, but seem nonetheless – to be almost beside the point when the most basic premises of religious belief are so deeply flawed. These irreconcilable contradictions explain a lot about why religious indoctrination is necessary at a very young age, and sadly, they explain a lot about why the world is in the sorry state it is: Because they make people adept at rationalizing the irrational, believing the unlikely, and justifying the immoral.

82 Responses to “Ten Reasons Why Christianity Makes No Sense

  • Randy Everist's failboat attempt to refute you can be found on his blog here: http://www.randyeverist.com. My rebuttal, which he censored, can be found here The Impossible World of Randy Everist | counterapologistblog
    https://counterapologistblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/the-impossible-world-of-randy-everist/

  • Gretchen Robinson
    3 years ago

    Christian Mingle has improved on its dating site. It went from "Find God's match for you" to 'sometime God wants you to make the first move'. So now, this capitalist company wants you to pay them to tell you that God told them to buy their service. Btw, they do NO background investigations on the people who sign up. It's a complete scam, of course.

  • Gretchen Robinson
    3 years ago

    'village atheists' -where did you get that little term? is it your own neologism? Sounds like a snarky put down like 'village idiots.' Don't be so snide Randy.

  • Micah Christensen , that last comment truly made my mouth hang open. Refuting the existence of one god of thousands of the ones humans believe in, especially one that has glaring contradictions, could only be done with all the knowledge in the universe? That is a truly weird non sequitur. If you don't believe in Thor, do you have all the knowledge in the universe? This post is not about refuting the existence of all potential gods…that might take some incredible chops. It is about specific points, that you haven't refuted…you've just complained about them.

    You have the accountability thing backwards…atheists aren't accountable to any invisible force, so we are *only* accountable to ourselves and the people around us. Who else would be accountable to? If I screw up, I have to make it right myself, not ask someone else to do it for me or tell me how to do it.

    In order for you to level a strawman fallacy charge, you have to say what is incorrect about the characterization of your god in this list. "I don't like the way you put that" is not the same as "that's false". The "good news" is, basically, "I'm God. Love me back or I'll set you on fire for eternity." You may dislike my characterization, but the message is essentially the same, just put into flowery language.

    Aside from your dislike of the message, where is it wrong?

  • Micah Christensen , that last comment truly made my mouth hang open. Refuting the existence of one god of thousands of the ones humans believe in, especially one that has glaring contradictions, could only be done with all the knowledge in the universe? That is a truly weird non sequitur. If you don't believe in Thor, do you have all the knowledge in the universe? This post is not about refuting the existence of all potential gods…that might take some incredible chops. It is about specific points, that you haven't refuted…you've just complained about them.

    You have the accountability thing backwards…atheists aren't accountable to any invisible force, so we are *only* accountable to ourselves and the people around us. Who else would be accountable to? If I screw up, I have to make it right myself, not ask someone else to do it for me or tell me how to do it.

    In order for you to level a strawman fallacy charge, you have to say what is incorrect about the characterization of your god in this list. "I don't like the way you put that" is not the same as "that's false". The "good news" is, basically, "I'm God. Love me back or I'll set you on fire for eternity." You may dislike my characterization, but the message is essentially the same, just put into flowery language.

    Aside from your dislike of the message, where is it wrong?

  • First of all, it is of absolutely no consequence whether Alexander the Great actually existed, because people today don't claim that they need to worship him or risk an eternity of torment. That said, an account of an emperor, who didn't do miracles, wasn't the son of some deity, and built numerous monuments, is automatically more credible than a story about a man who cured a blind man with some mud made out of spit.

    Now, as to whether I meant "plagiarism" or "used Mark as a source" I can only say "a rose by any other name". Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not count as three accounts of the life of Jesus. They are one alleged account, and two copies that attempt to make the Jesus character look more impressive.

    As for your claim that John is an "independent source", you're laughably wrong. It steals the "cleansing of the temple" story from the synoptic gospels, but moves it from the climax of the story (when the Pharisees begin to plot to kill Jesus) to the beginning of his ministry. The ministry is expanded from one year to three years. Also, the parable the rich man and Lazarus is take from Luke and reworked into the "raising of Lazarus". After the raising of Lazarus, we have the "anointing at Bethany" episode, except that it has been moved from the house of Simon the leper/pharisee to the house of the newly resurrected Lazarus. (I could go on, but I'm trying to be brief.) In short, I would be overjoyed if John were a second independent source because nothing destroys credibility like contradictory "witnesses". Unfortunately, John owes it's existence to Mark, and the other gospels that copied Mark.

    So Mark, the gospel in which 1) everyone speaks in limited and stylized dialogue 2) the contents of everyone's thoughts are freely known to the author, and 3) the author is aware of occurrences that he could have had no knowledge of (i.e. that a womon's menstrual flow ceased. Exactly how would someone come to have knowledge of this in the context of a Jewish society?), among other things is the only extant source of information about this supposed holy man's life. Really, if we're going to conclude the existence of an "historical Jesus" from that account (or any of the gospels for that matter), we may as well also say that author Anne Rice's late husband Stan is the "historical vampire Lestat" because she based the character on him.

    Lastly, I'll give you the bit about recent discoveries about Nazareth. It would seem I'd missed that little bit of archaeology. Of course, the existence of a small hamlet doesn't really mean much.

  • Do tell?

    So…intellectually speaking, just what are you trying to say?

    I see an attempt at condescension from a religionist…which I always find amusing.

    Go ahead Randy…..defend your religion using logic, reason, and critical thought. Refute the article above using same.

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth
    3 years ago

    The truth is that people who are brainwashed at a young age have trouble with learning English.

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth
    3 years ago

    Sam Ostrowski I'm glad I'm neither. Being a human is enough for me.

  • I absolutely loved this piece. Good job! 🙂

  • Francisco Herrera
    3 years ago

    The truth is that people are always trying to condone there selfish behavior …so sad

  • Catherine Moon
    3 years ago

    Debora A. Carver Ellsworth I wish I could like this comment to infinity… If I were gonna believe in a god, though, I think I'd pick Thor. His movies are way better…

  • The fact that the core story of Christianity is that God needed blood to fix the universe and only his own blood had enough magic to do it, so he gave himself a body and killed it. — AND — Nothing about that made that list means this list sort of sucks.

    How about why dead people can't talk to the living. Seems like your Jesus-loving grandmother could be more persuasive while violating no more of your free will 6 months after she died than 6 months before hand. — I totally get why dead people don't talk to the living, but that's not something Christianity explained.

  • Oh dear dear me… What an awful load of trash written by someone after an argument! I'll pray for you!

  • Randy, the author admits his arguments aren't the best. But, he also states–correctly, IMO–that many of the claims made by Christianity, and Christians, are ludicrous, contradict easily observed reality, and thus don't necessarily require nuanced rhetoric

  • You left out the most important reason:
    The First Commandment: There shall be no other Gods but ONE.

  • Micah Christensen "That is a fact carefully overlooked by historians." LOL. Publish a paper then with the real facts! Do it!

  • Fundamentalist Christian logic just baffles my mind. Reading some of the comments on here just reinforces my belief that they are blind to any true logic. I have seen so many examples in my life of people putting more effort than should be required into proving gods existence and the power of prayer. For example I had a friend whose car cracked a head. He proceeded to pray then take their car to a mechanic and spent hundreds of dollars to get it fixed. Then he tried to tell me god answered his prayers by helping him get his car fixed. That is just flawed logic if prayer worked and god is so powerful why was the mechanic and money needed? I can accomplish the same thing and I haven't prayed in years. How is that prayer working. I told him I would pray for the car to run without fuel and if it happened I might think about converting just to save gas money.

  • I'm a Christian apologist who likes reading good counter-arguments… Oh dear! 😉

  • But satin is so smooth!!! LMAO – wow, your brain has been scrubbed of any ability to think for itself hasn't it? Poor thing.

  • Stephan Westbroek LOL

  • Tyler Ewing BOOM! Ha! Loved that!!! So eloquent, yet so in-your-face.

  • Micah Christensen – "liberated the social status of women" gee, somehow they went terribly wrong with that one! You've got to be kidding or absolutely ignorant.

  • I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

  • Google.com

  • Natalie Ziemer
    3 years ago

    Paul Keller the God of this world doesn't mean Jesus it's referring to satin God wants everyone to believe in him

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth
    3 years ago

    Ray Meade You're welcome. The bible is irrelevant to my life, there's no way that a book written thousands of years ago by people that didn't understand where the sun went at night can mean anything today. It's just silly to me. Why would I believe in the christian god when there have been so many others throughout humanity? I don't get it, and I'm not wasting my time with it. It's so obvious that it's a tool to control people. I'm amazed that that are still religious people in the world. It's only because of a fear of death.

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    Randy your arguments are incredibly flawed. You keep referring to NT scholars. These are not real academics. These are the exploiters who try to find any shred of information that can be twisted and spun to suit their needs. I am an expert in all things Spiderman, but just because I can recall his written history doesn't make him any more real.

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world.
    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
    – Quote by Ron Weasley
    See, we can quote fantasy as well. It still doesn't make it real.

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    Randy Everist I think you have severe comprehension dysfunctions. Its the Christians who are the 'flat-earthers', not the intelligent people. The intelligent people were the ones persecuted, tortured, and even murdered by the Christians for trying to show them the truth. So using that as an argument against what I said is completely void of any reason. You argue on behalf of the unintelligent, therefore you are the flat earth worshipper.

  • Thanks Deborah, you just saved me a bunch of typing. It's quite obvious that Micah has never really studied Christianity and is just spewing the standard Christian rhetoric. (that I would expect from a brand new Christian) He, like most Christians, choose to ignore the MANY scriptures from Jesus own mouth where he makes crystal clear distinctions between him and god (such as John 5:30, Mark 13:32, Mark 10:18 and many others) and they choose to focus on scriptures like John 1 that can be interpreted to mean just about anything. To them, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god" and "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us" is absolute proof of Jesus being "God manifest in the flesh" even though it's a huge stretch of logic and wasn't even spoken by Jesus, but are the words of John. Of course, they also like to rip John 10:30 and 14:7 completely out of context so that they can say that Jesus was claiming to be god, but when you put it back into context, it's quite obvious he was saying no such thing. The part I find the most hilarious is that they always try to say things like " if God is real and just, at some point you have to be accountable for your life" when in reality, it's them that are using their religion to avoid all personal responsibility by blaming everything on fictional characters. There are literally dozens of scriptures that tell Christians not to worry about finding a job, pursuing justice, raising their children properly (it's better to just kill them the first time the disobey), etc. but they choose to ignore those scriptures and pretend they no longer exist or that somehow Jesus changed everything about the scriptures and the law even though he specifically said he didn't. They claim that one must have perfect knowledge in order to disprove the existence of a god that has never been proven in the first place. (we don't believe in flying invisible unicorns circling Venus either but we can't prove there isn't one so according to their twisted logic, we should all be worshiping them anyway since we can't prove they don't exist…lol) After 30 years as a born again Christian (12 of them as an Evangelist) and over 3 years studying all 3 of the Abrahamic religions (not just their scriptures, but their origins and history as well) I can say with 100% certainty that anyone who thinks the bible is the "inerrant word of God" has obviously never really studied it for themselves and have been content simply accepting whatever their Pastor feels safe spoon feeding them.

  • Micah Christensen
    3 years ago

    I would also argue that you and others like you create a Straw Man God that is easy to brush aside as illogical and unneeded so that you can ignore the reality that if God is real and just, at some point you have to be accountable for your life. Perhaps, indeed, your life is not your own to rule as your own demigod. How bold of you, you who is such a small part of an infinite universe, to proclaim that with your knowledge of a tiny portion of just one planet, you possess enough information to refute the existence of God. For to truly know that God is not real, you would have to know all the knowledge in the universe, observed of course by only five senses. Do you possess such knowledge?

  • Micah Christensen
    3 years ago

    Deborah: If I believed in your interpretation of God and still chose to follow him, then I would probably be devoid of morality. But I don't interpret God in that light.

    And the comment "religion has always oppressed women" is grossly ignorant of religion and the nature of man. Society has repressed women, historically speaking. The Roman Empire treated women as property; yet the empire was devoid of and even against the religion you claim is oppressive. Christianity, at the time of its origin, gave women a moral and social significance not ever seen before. That is a fact carefully overlooked by historians.

  • Natalie. You just said god blinded the minds of non believers. Why would he do that if it's his desire that all should know jesus? Seems counterproductive. Also seems like a parroted line from a sermon. If God has blinded me, how will you, his lowly creation, help me see? Surely you are not more powerful than your god, to undo what he has done….

  • Hmm. Believing a book is true because said book claims itself as true. "Here we go round in circles"

  • Paul Keller but that's all they have 🙂

  • There is absolutely nothing anyone could ever say to sway a christian is there? It is honestly pretty sad.

  • You made your point in your own question 🙂 Too stupid to get angry about that.

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth
    3 years ago

    Micah Christensen instead of saying "how can anyone debate them", I should have said "how can anyone refute them?" Sorry. But the rest of your comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm probably not a "great thinker", but I know logic and common sense. Religion has always repressed women. And God limited his unlimited power in order to have a relationship with his creation? What? He doesn't have unlimited power, obviously. What kind of god creates flawed beings, plays with them, then drowns them? Or lets them kill each other for thousands of years without stepping in? Or ending suffering? Why worship that?

  • How do they not get pissed being called sheep?
    Because they're sheep.

  • If religions made sense, theologians would have to get real jobs.

  • The burden of proof is on believers. The audacious claim is that God exists. Lack of disproof does not equal proof of the opposite. Grow up.

  • Quoting the bible in an argument that denies the bible won't work

  • The most important line in this article is "least in need of using your own intellect."

  • I'm probably just going to leave it here, since I don't debate flat-earthers either.

  • Tyler Ewing , virtually no academic scholars (those who publish in peer-reviewed academic journals) in ancient history nor NT studies believe in the Jesus-myth. As to your "evidences," by your first criterion, you'd have to say Alexander the Great didn't exist (his first credible biography was 350 years after his lifetime), and it just doesn't follow with ancient historiography that if someone didn't write within their lifetime, they're regarded as plausibly not existing. Mark's style of writing is largely regarded to be what is called "bioi," or ancient Greek biography, not fiction. That's just ancient literary analysis, not the pseudo-scholarship you're peddling. Matthew and Luke are not "plagiarisms," what you mean is that they used Mark as a source (or even a prior document called "Q"). Virtually no NT scholar says they're "plagiarisms," because if they did, they would immediately betray they didn't understand the category of bioi. John does write as an independent source, but it's unclear why you think his telling different stories (original material) is problematic. Do you think no other events occurred in Jesus' life? Next, let's take Nazareth. You are demonstrably wrong. Consider this: "In AD 70, at the end of the Jewish war with the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and this meant that Jewish priests and their families had to be redeployed. An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima, which documented that the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth. This has only been confirmed by later discoveries. For example, in 2009, the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus’ era was excavated by archaeologists. The house was a simple structure, consisting of two small rooms and a courtyard."

    Finally, you've confused something about existence claims. It's funny because the example you provide only works because we would expect to see the evidence we do see whether or not there was an invisible elephant in the room (provided, of course, we add in a few other caveats, such as: no smell, trace of them, etc.). But this is not the case in historiographical research: it's just *not* the case that we would expect to have the evidence we do have whether or not Jesus existed. Since you are going against the vast majority of NT scholarship, it's up to you to provide good counter-arguments for thinking that Jesus did not exist. Otherwise, this position looks as kooky as contending for a flat earth.

  • Stephan Westbroek So I suppose you believe in a flat earth, is that right? Intellectual kookdom.

  • This is pretty substandard, intellectually speaking. Also, I don't think you know what "irreconcilable contradictions" or "scholarly" means. I've come to expect nothing more from Internet village atheists.

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    I meant 'god', not 'hod' , he must be of another world! 😉

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    The hod of this world? Do you realize how retarded you sound? As for evidence, see Tyler Ewings comment. Good timing friend!

  • Gretchen Robinson
    3 years ago

    read The God Virus and Darrel Ray for how Christianity and all fundamentalisms keep 'reproducing' themselves by indoctrinating their own children.

  • Then your deity has no right to condemn us for merely doing what he causes us to do.

    Evidence that Jesus didn't exist:

    Not a single person wrote a single word about Jesus during his alleged lifetime. Even the first gospel (Mark) wasn't written until at least 35 years after the events it claims to portray.

    Mark's style of narration is third person omniscient, a style used almost exclusively by writers of fiction. Mark knows the contents of private conversations between Yhwh and Jesus, knows what the pharisees were "reasoning in their hearts", and even knows the events of Herod's birthday party, among the numerous other things that he knows despite his having had no opportunity to learn these things. To make a long story short: Mark was writing a play. A work of fiction. He knew what all characters were thinking because he invented the characters in his own mind.

    Matthew, and Luke are both blatant plagiarisms of Mark's gospel (with each one adding his own unique twist to the story) and no serious gospel scholar (to my knowledge) disputes this fact. Furthermore, John is a blatant reworking of all three of the "synoptic" gospels, and tells a radically different story from any of them.

    Archaeology has shown us that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century.

    Finally, prove to me that there is not an invisible elephant in my bedroom right now. (The moral of the story: The burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence of Jesus.)

  • Natalie Ziemer
    3 years ago

    The God of this world has blinded the minds of those that don't believe Stephan Westbrook what evidence do you have that Jesus did not excist

  • How do they not get pissed being called sheep, A stupid animal that will follow any one or thing,

  • Stephan Westbroek
    3 years ago

    Actually, jesus didnt 'say' any of those things as ìts clear he never existed. Just another fairytale.

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth I am an atheist, but I do have to ask how the hell this Jesus guy escaped his tomb. Supposedly there was like a circular rock in the entrance of his tomb. But you never know. Maybe someone else was in on it and came during the night.

  • Obviously not if you're still a nut.

  • Micah Christensen
    3 years ago

    Deborah: To say there is no room for debate is quite close minded and the opposite mindset of any great thinker.
    Ray: 7 and 8 in particular, undervalue the liberation of Christian morality. In an era when strength and power were the only traits that determined success, Christianity pointed to humility, grace, and forgiveness as powerful; an idea scarcely considered. Not to mentioned it liberated the social status of women and children in the Roman era of oppression. 6 cab be refuted with the passage of scripture that essentially says, God limited his unlimited power in order to have a relationship with his creation. Prayer and blessing are essential in this circular framework. I could go on about some of the others but it would take to much time to address in a post.

  • Natalie Ziemer
    3 years ago

    Jesus didn't say life would be perfect he said in this world you shall have tribulation but be of good cheer I have overcome the world and he's real,and he answers prayers,and heals the sick,and broken people!!

  • Natalie Ziemer
    3 years ago

    His ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts as high as the heavens are above the earth so are his ways above are ways and his thoughts above are thoughts Isaiah 55 8-9

  • Puts a whole buncha things in perspective. IMO

  • Debora A. Carver Ellsworth
    3 years ago

    These arguments work just fine Micah. How can anyone debate them?

  • Fair enough, what points are you referring to?

  • Praise Jesus. Lol. Excellent piece.

  • Praise Jesus. Lol. Excellent piece.

  • One of my favorites is….God answers ALL prayers. It's just that sometimes the answer is NO. There was a TV show about angels that devoted an entire episode to that one.

    Now….that's REALLY creative….ROFLMFAO!! They have all their bases covered.

  • Micah Christensen
    3 years ago

    Omits too many points for these arguments to work.

  • Micah Christensen
    3 years ago

    Omits too many points for these arguments to work.

  • Renee L. Ten Eyck
    3 years ago

    outstanding.

  • Randy Everist’s failboat attempt to refute you can be found on his blog here: http://www.randyeverist.com. My rebuttal, which he censored, can be found here The Impossible World of Randy Everist | counterapologistblog
    https://counterapologistblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/the-impossible-world-of-randy-everist/

  • I absolutely loved this piece. Good job! 🙂

  • The truth is that people are always trying to condone there selfish behavior …so sad

  • The fact that the core story of Christianity is that God needed blood to fix the universe and only his own blood had enough magic to do it, so he gave himself a body and killed it. — AND — Nothing about that made that list means this list sort of sucks.

    How about why dead people can’t talk to the living. Seems like your Jesus-loving grandmother could be more persuasive while violating no more of your free will 6 months after she died than 6 months before hand. — I totally get why dead people don’t talk to the living, but that’s not something Christianity explained.

  • Oh dear dear me… What an awful load of trash written by someone after an argument! I’ll pray for you!

  • Randy, the author admits his arguments aren’t the best. But, he also states–correctly, IMO–that many of the claims made by Christianity, and Christians, are ludicrous, contradict easily observed reality, and thus don’t necessarily require nuanced rhetoric

  • You left out the most important reason:
    The First Commandment: There shall be no other Gods but ONE.

  • Fundamentalist Christian logic just baffles my mind. Reading some of the comments on here just reinforces my belief that they are blind to any true logic. I have seen so many examples in my life of people putting more effort than should be required into proving gods existence and the power of prayer. For example I had a friend whose car cracked a head. He proceeded to pray then take their car to a mechanic and spent hundreds of dollars to get it fixed. Then he tried to tell me god answered his prayers by helping him get his car fixed. That is just flawed logic if prayer worked and god is so powerful why was the mechanic and money needed? I can accomplish the same thing and I haven’t prayed in years. How is that prayer working. I told him I would pray for the car to run without fuel and if it happened I might think about converting just to save gas money.

  • I’m a Christian apologist who likes reading good counter-arguments… Oh dear! 😉

  • Paul Keller the God of this world doesn’t mean Jesus it’s referring to satin God wants everyone to believe in him

  • If religions made sense, theologians would have to get real jobs.

  • The most important line in this article is “least in need of using your own intellect.”

  • This is pretty substandard, intellectually speaking. Also, I don’t think you know what “irreconcilable contradictions” or “scholarly” means. I’ve come to expect nothing more from Internet village atheists.

  • read The God Virus and Darrel Ray for how Christianity and all fundamentalisms keep ‘reproducing’ themselves by indoctrinating their own children.

  • The God of this world has blinded the minds of those that don’t believe Stephan Westbrook what evidence do you have that Jesus did not excist

  • How do they not get pissed being called sheep, A stupid animal that will follow any one or thing,

  • Jesus didn’t say life would be perfect he said in this world you shall have tribulation but be of good cheer I have overcome the world and he’s real,and he answers prayers,and heals the sick,and broken people!!

  • His ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts as high as the heavens are above the earth so are his ways above are ways and his thoughts above are thoughts Isaiah 55 8-9

  • Puts a whole buncha things in perspective. IMO

  • Praise Jesus. Lol. Excellent piece.

  • One of my favorites is….God answers ALL prayers. It’s just that sometimes the answer is NO. There was a TV show about angels that devoted an entire episode to that one.

    Now….that’s REALLY creative….ROFLMFAO!! They have all their bases covered.

  • Omits too many points for these arguments to work.

Trackbacks & Pings

Leave a Reply