By Marlene Winell ~

On “Good Friday," I thought about how little was good about it. The atonement is a Christian doctrine that is both absurd and horrible. The cross is a symbol of execution and represents Christianity.

Iconic images of our country’s major religion are violent and unjust: A powerful male outsider forcibly impregnates a young woman who is engaged to another, and she is compelled to have the baby despite any social consequences.

The ruler of the universe has his only son killed in a brutal and unjust manner, and this torture and death of an innocent is considered an act of love. The guilty ones, all the people for whom the son was a scapegoat, go free and never have to be responsible for any of their own wrong-doing. No attention is paid to anyone’s real behavior so that punishments would fit crimes, as they do in modern law. Instead everyone is considered deserving of death and eternal damnation; this includes all since no one is perfect. No one has any opportunity to stand trial, account for their own life, or make their own amends.

The ruler-god demands a blood payment. This is nonnegotiable despite being ruthless; forgiveness is not an option, despite the preaching by his son about forgiveness. State violence is used as an acceptable mechanism to administer torture and death, even though the legal process is flawed and unjust; it is the will of the ruler-god and there are no other measures of morality. Might is right. A demand for blood payment must be met. When it is done, the people must accept and be grateful. If not, they must be eternally punished. Justice is far more important than mercy, righteousness more important than love. The ruler-god decides what is just and what can be called love.

The son is nothing in comparison with the father-ruler-god. His teachings of love and compassion and forgiveness drop away in the face of the crushing, obliterating horror that is the Doctrine of the Atonement. The image of a bloody, tortured son appealing to his powerful father who will not intervene to protect him is considered a beautiful sight in our culture. It is seen as a symbol of the ruler-god’s love for us instead of a supreme act of cruelty easily prevented. No other religion worships such torture, calling it love, and people in other lands wonder why our god would allow it to happen to his own son.

This is the mental imagery in the bedrock of our nation’s Christian culture. It may explain why so many Bible-believing American Christians seem so, uh, unchristian. If one’s moral compass is based on the Atonement, then it has been compromised. It is a morality devoid of rationality, modern legal precepts, and Jesus’ own teachings. It says “judge” rather than “judge not,” teaches punishment rather than forgiving “seven times seven,” and retribution, not loving one’s enemies. It’s really no wonder that the U.S. leads the world in incarceration rates, and perpetuates wars that claim a kind of justice that is recognizable to no one else. The country is addicted to power. Many are more attached to their guns than the safety of their children. It seems no amount of global or domestic suffering makes much difference. Could it possibly be related to the fact that the most primary icon in our cultural consciousness is a man obscenely tortured with God’s full approval, who then absurdly absolves us of our sins?

God was crucified for all sin, including his own because it holds God responsible for creating evil in the first place.Just consider what difference it might make to reject the primitive demands of an imagined tribal god. What if we took responsibility for ourselves and made our own decisions about justice and mercy? We would have to grow up, have some self-respect, and learn to listen to our own wise instincts. It would be a paradigm shift that just might save the world.

Here’s another thing to think about. The popular protestant understanding of Christ’s atonement as penal substitution is only one interpretation of the meaning of his death. There are many,, and they have changed through history and across Christian sects. The question raised by theologians is How does Jesus’ death bring salvation?

I came across one modern explanation I actually liked (if I had to choose). It says God was crucified for all sin, including his own because it holds God responsible for creating evil in the first place. It’s called shared atonement theory by David Jeremiah, and described by Jamey Massengale in his book, Renegade Gospel The Jesus Manifold. The basic idea is that if “Jesus is homeomorphic to God, the logical consequence is that God died on the cross. The implications in atonement are two fold, 1. That our primary separation from God is that we make the argument of evil, (that there was no just cause for God to create evil which humans suffer from in this life, and may suffer for in the afterlife), therefore God is responsible for it, and is unjust; 2. That God had given a revealed law to the nation of Israel called the by Moses at the Exodus, that defines the sin and Evil, God was responsible for creating and then punishing men for, and is thereby unjust: God bearing the twofold guilt of both satisfies the cry for justice in Gods being crucified and dying for the guilt of all sin.” (More here, including a mathematical formula for showing Jesus is God).

Of course all this would be meaningful and not just morally more acceptable if it worked. That is, if it made any difference in the world, or to any individuals. But looking at the state of the world, I don’t think the claims of the New Testament about conquering sin and death have been met yet. More accurate is Jesus’ statement about bringing a sword instead of peace.

But in the mythology that is Christianity, I still like the idea of God owning up to making a Very Big Mistake with allowing evil and therefore coming to die for it.

By Valerie Tarico ~

An interview with Dr. Tony Nugent, ordained minister, scholar of world religions, and symbologist.

Ishtar--the goddess who became the resurrected Jesus?

Many ancient religions, including early Hebrew and European pagan traditions, evolved in part out of star worship. Because so many traditions treated celestial events including the solstices and equinoxes as auspicious, it can be hard to tease out which holiday traditions originated where. But even Church authorities acknowledge that our Easter holiday was named after an Anglo-Saxon fertility goddess alternately known as Estre, Eostre, and Ostara.

Over time, religious traditions tend to merge and blend, which the Catholic church saw as an opportunity rather than a problem. Authorities advised early missionaries simply to retain local holidays and rituals and give them new meaning. A letter from Pope Gregory I to St. Mellitus, credited with Christianizing England, suggested that it would be easiest to convert the heathen Anglo-Saxons this way.

In pre-Christian Europe, Lent, which originally meant no more than “spring,” culminated in a day or week celebrating the emergence of new life. A festival of Eostre is associated with the vernal equinox, which landed this year on March 20. The modern Easter holiday draws on both the Anglo-Saxon tradition and the biblical crucifixion stories, which tie the resurrection to the lunar calendar, Passover and Sabbath. Easter is now set for the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox. And yet, still today, we celebrate the holiday with ancient symbols of fertility: brightly colored eggs and a highly fertile, promiscuous animal, the hare or rabbit.

But the roots of Easter in goddess worship go much deeper than the name and pagan symbols associated with the holiday. The very death and resurrection story itself may be an adapted and historicized version of a more ancient tale, one that involved a dying and rising goddess. What is that story?

Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions and mythology. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is a Presbyterian minister.

Easter is coming. Some people are saying that the crucifixion and resurrection narratives simply retell the cycle of seasons, the death and return of the Sun. Others say that these stories are literal histories. But you say the reality is more complicated than either of these. You argue that the Easter stories - the death and resurrection of Jesus have very specific mythic origins.

Nugent: I view the story of Christ in the Gospels of the New Testament as a powerful and spiritually wise sacred story. While the story is told as if it happened, it is a theologically and mythically constructed history. The conclusion of the story, the account of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to heaven, has many layers. But at its core I would say it is an historicized version of a very ancient myth from Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Civilization, the land we today call Iraq.

What does that mean?

Nugent: Some stories speak to people in a deep spiritual way. These sacred stories are what are called "myths" in the field of religious studies. Despite our common usage, a myth traditionally is not just a false tale. Rather, it is a story that, at least at one point in time, had a very powerful spiritual resonance. The story of death and resurrection is one such story. In the Sumerian tradition, in which much of the Bible is rooted, the story is called, "From the Great Above to the Great Below" or "The Descent of Inanna." There is also a Babylonian version of the myth, which is called "The Descent of Ishtar," and she is known elsewhere as Astarte.

Let's hear the story!

Nugent: The Sumerian goddess Inanna is the personification of the planet Venus the "Queen of Heaven" and a major deity in the Sumerian pantheon. A long, long time ago, before humans are even created, Inanna, takes a journey to the Underworld, a realm under the control of her sister Ereshkigal. Before heading out Inanna gives instructions to her assistant about rescuing her if she runs into trouble, which she does. In the underworld, she enters through seven gates, and her worldly attire is removed. "Naked and bowed low" she is judged, killed, and then hung on display.

I can't help but notice that the number seven is a sacred, just like it will be later in the Bible.

Nugent: Yes, the numbers three, seven, twelve are sacred throughout ancient Mesopotamian writings including the Hebrew Bible (seven days of creation, twelve tribes of Israel) and subsequently Christianity (three days in the tomb, twelve apostles, twelve days of Christmas). They have their roots in universal human perceptions of the movements of the heavens (e.g. twelve signs of the zodiac).

To return to the story, the result of Inanna's death is that the earth becomes sterile. Plants start drying up, and animals cease having sexual relations. Unless something is done all life on earth will end. After Inanna has been missing for three days her assistant goes to other gods for help. Finally one of them Enki, creates two creatures who carry the plant of life and water of life down to the Underworld, sprinkling them on Inanna and resurrecting her. She then prepares to return to the upper realm.

So Inanna is the prototype for Jesus in the Easter story?

Nugent: Not quite. She is part of the prototype. After Inanna gets out of the underworld we are introduced to her husband Dumuzi. When mythic stories get passed from one culture to the next, sometimes one character can split into two or two characters come together. In this case, the Jesus of the resurrection story blends parts of Inanna and Dimuzi.

Ok, let's hear about Dumuzi.

Nugent: The Underworld has a number of names, including "the Great Earth" and "the Great City", and it is also called the "Land of No Return." If, by extraordinary chance, someone is resurrected or escapes from there, a substitute must be provided. So when Inanna returns to the upper realm she searches for a substitute. She doesn't want to send anyone who has been missing her and mourning her down there, but she finds her husband Dumuzi on his throne and totally unconcerned about her being gone. She decides that he will be her substitute.

He protests vigorously and is helped to escape by his brother-in-law Utu, the Sun-god. But then a compromise is agreed upon, whereby Dumuzi will spend six months of every year in the Underworld, and for the other six months his devoted sister will substitute for him. Life and fertility thus return to the earth. And that's how the story ends.

Six months up and six down. Now I am reminded of Persephone.

Nugent: Yes, and many other dying and rising gods that represent the cycle of the seasons and the stars. In Christianity one way the story changes is that it is detached from this agricultural cycle. The dying happens just once.

But this story of Inanna/Ishtar is the oldest, the prototype?

Nugent: It is one of the earliest epic myths recorded. We know this story because it has been found inscribed on cuneiform clay tablets dug up from the sands of Iraq by archaeologists, and because linguists have deciphered the Sumerian language and provided translations in English. This was a popular myth, and so we have multiple copies of it, or of portions of it. The earliest tablets inscribed with this story date to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, and it is thought to have been originally formulated about 2100 BC, i.e., 4200 years ago.

Lay it out for us. How do you see this being a prototype for the story of Christ's death and resurrection?

The roots of Easter in goddess worship go much deeper than the name and pagan symbols associated with the holiday.Nugent: Let's start with the first part of the myth. Inanna and Jesus both travel to a big city, where they are arrested by soldiers, put on trial, convicted, sentenced to death, stripped of their clothes, tortured, hung up on a stake, and die. And then, after 3 days, they are resurrected from the dead. Now there are, to be sure, a number of significant differences between the stories. For one thing, one story is about a goddess and the other is about a divine man. But this is a specific pattern, a mythic template. When you are dealing with the question of whether these things actually happened, you have to deal with the fact that there is a mythic template here. It doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a real person, Jesus, who was crucified, but rather that, if there was, the story about it is structured and embellished in accordance with a pattern that was very ancient and widespread.

So what about the 2nd part of the myth?

Nugent: The 2nd part of the Inanna myth really focuses on her husband Dumuzi. Dumuzi is the prototype of the non-aggressive, non-heroic male; he cries easily; he is the opposite of the warrior-god in the ancient pantheon. The summer month which corresponds to our month of July is named after him in both the Babylonian and Hebrew calendars, and during this month each year his followers, mostly women, mourn his death. From this myth we are talking about, and from a few other references, we also know that he is resurrected. But unlike Jesus, who dies and is resurrected once, he is imagined to die and be resurrected over and over, each year. There are other major differences. However, there really are a lot of similarities between the personalities and the stories of Jesus and Dumuzi. They both are tortured and die violent deaths after being betrayed by a close friend, who accepts a bribe from his enemies. They both have a father who is a god and a mother who is human. Dumuzi's father, the god Enki, also has many similarities to Yahweh, the father of Jesus.

Other than this gospel story, are there any other signs of Inanna's influence on Christianity or on Easter?

Nugent: There are a few points I would mention. Inanna becomes known outside of Mesopotamia by her Babylonian name, "Ishtar". She is a personification of Venus as an evening star, and there is also a male aspect of the deity who is usually the morning star. At the end of the Book of Revelation when Christ speaks to John he says, "I am the bright morning star." In ancient Canaan Ishtar is known as Astarte, and her counterparts in the Greek and Roman pantheons are known as Aphrodite and Venus. In the 4th Century, when Christians got around to identifying the exact site in Jerusalem where the empty tomb of Jesus had been located, they selected the spot where a temple of Aphrodite (Astarte/Ishtar/Inanna) stood. So they tore it down and built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest church in the Christian world.

Also, our holiday of Easter was traditionally called 'Pascha', and still is in many languages, named after the Jewish festival of 'Pesach' or Passover. In the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon world we have, however, come to name the holiday 'Easter'. This name may be a reflex of the goddess Ishtar. In the pagan spiritual traditions of Germany and England in the medieval period the goddess Easter, and who as a deity of rebirth became strongly associated with the season of springtime and ultimately gave her name to Christianity's main holy day.

No rudeness intended, but how can you call yourself a Christian? Mark Driscoll, rising Evangelical star, told his Seattle congregation: "If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here."

Nugent: Well, many Christian theologians see the crucifixion and resurrection as a spiritual story rather than a literal one--a story about hope beyond despair, redemption and new life. But they are not the ones who get the media attention. I consider myself to be a Christian in a spiritual sense, not in a doctrinal sense. This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century, when orthodoxy was established, Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy -- many different forms of belief.

If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it's ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ's torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Subscribe at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

More from Dr. Tony Nugent:

Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story

Was Jesus Married? A Religion Scholar Decodes the Clues

The Same God? Twelve Beliefs the Mormon Church Might Not Want You to Know About

By Unoder ~

As ex-Christians, one thing we’ve all had to contend with at some point is the asinine arguments of Christians in defence of their faith. Whether its arguments with Christian friends, family, or strangers on the Internet, anybody who is not a Christian has attempted (and most likely failed) to reason against the fervent, barely coherent nonsense that passes for most Christian apologetics.

What I have discovered from online discussions and speaking to believers is that they always rely on the same old tired arguments, rarely, if ever bringing anything new to the table. With this article, we will look at some of the more common tactics employed by Christians attempting to debate or defend their beliefs in the face of scepticism and why these arguments fail.

The Bob and Weave

Probably the most common Christian debating tactic is to not actually address any direct questions. We’ve all seen it around here at some point: a Christian comes wading in, fists flying, cocksure and drunk on their self-righteous superiority. They know it all, they have all the answers, Jesus talks to them personally and tells them everything, so they just KNOW they’re right. So, you ask them a question; something that shouldn’t be too difficult for someone so enlightened to answer. A biblical contradiction here, a logical flaw in the very fabric of their beliefs there and… your questions go completely unanswered. In fact, you may as well have not even bothered asking it. Instead, they ignore you altogether and carry on flapping their cheeks.

Not only is this tactic fairly commonplace, it is also very annoying, especially as Christians will usually insist that you address every single point they raise. Interestingly, this circumlocution tactic figures into how they address your responses to their questions too as, for the most part, unless you give an answer they want to hear, they will ignore what you have said and continue banging their drum, repeating their questions over and over again until you drop the discussion out of frustration.

In an online discussion with a Christian, I repeatedly provided answers to his questions and he ignored every single one. I even posted links to articles and YouTube videos that addressed his concerns, but they were never acknowledged; and yet he continued to ask the same question over and over again. In the end, I had to terminate the discussion. It wasn’t going anywhere and this guy had no intention of listening to me.

“Oh, look at that over there!”

Picture this. You’re in mid discussion with a Christian, then all of a sudden, the unthinkable happens: you’re actually able to stop them from wriggling about and get them to focus in on a specific topic. Knowing they’re cornered, what do they do? Completely change the subject!

The discussion is about the lack of historical evidence for Jesus, and after a brief silence, they respond with “…so you’re saying all this came from nothing?”. The discussion is about the unabashed barbarity of the biblical Yahweh, and they retort to the tune of “…so if god doesn’t exist, then where do you get your morals?”.

You will often see this in debates concerning evolution, where the Christian will suddenly switch to abiogenesis or the aforementioned speculations on so-called “objective morality” (Christians LOVE that one). It’s infuriating. It’s like trying to watch a TV program with someone who keeps changing the channel, and it’s the last resort for the apologist who can’t stand the heat.

“Oh, look at that over there!”, they say pointing over your shoulder, and when you look, they run away.

Blahblahblahblahblah

Another favourite of the apologist, and one that works especially well in verbal discussions is to just keep talking. If you’ve ever watched any of The Atheist Experience videos online, you’ll see this a lot with their Christian callers. These people know they don’t really have much of an argument, so they just keep on talking to stop their opponent from getting a word in. They will interrupt you, talk over you and do everything they can to prevent you from actually making your point, stopping only to declare themselves the “winner” when they’ve finished.

This one is a personal irk as I like to be civil in verbal discussions. I listen to what the other person has to say, but expect them to extend me the same courtesy, so it gets very frustrating when the civility is not reciprocated, and instead, I find myself being constantly interrupted by one rambling monologue after another. Christians know exactly what they are doing with this tactic as well. They know it can be disarming and that the never-ending barrage of speech can throw you and derail your train of thought. They also know if they actually stop and allow themselves to listen, they might be faced with something they don’t want to hear.

Bible quotes

Possibly the laziest weapon in the Christian arsenal. If you don’t have the intelligence to formulate a credible argument, simply quote the bible at your opponent! Again, it’s something else we see on here a lot. Drive-by apologists roll past, unloading a clip after clip of scriptural bullets from their “good book”. Unfortunately for them, it’s like a child shooting at you with a toy gun and shouting, “Bang! Bang! You’re dead!” in terms of its effectiveness.

Christians like to quote the bible because they believe it to be the word of god and are therefore convinced that it is somehow powerful enough to silent all dissenters. However, much like the child in the previous paragraph, the potency of this particular weapon exists only in their imagination.

“I know you are, but what am I?”

This one is quite subtle mainly because the apologist using it is not even aware of what they are actually doing.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. Some time ago on another forum, religion came up as a topic when someone asked about the bible. I chimed in with my thoughts, basically summarizing some of the bible’s more unsavoury moments as statements of fact. The forum Christian then pounced on my post and accused me of making an “emotional appeal” against Christianity, which was strange as there was no anger or upset in my words. What he was in fact doing was projecting his own feelings on to what I had written. My criticism of his beliefs made him feel angry and upset, so he pushed those feelings onto me.

They (Christians) are not at all interested in facts or evidence (which is already apparent by their beliefs) they just want to stop you from challenging them.You also see this in debates with Christians about the purpose of life. The Christian, and ONLY the Christian postulates that if their god doesn’t exist life would be empty, miserable and without purpose, yet they accuse the non-believer of leading an empty, miserable and purposeless existence even if the non-believer claims the opposite to be true!

These people don’t seem capable of understanding that there are others who do not see the world like they do, and do not realise the extent to which they project their own irrationalities. They claim to be “free” and “happy” and decide that it is the atheist who is unhappy. They are like people in a cell, thinking those on the other side of the bars to be the ones imprisoned, when it is really they who are incarcerated.

Mud slinging

As there are so many of these, I felt it made more sense to include them under one category.

What I am talking about here is something that is inevitable in every single debate you will ever have with a Christian. Again, as with most of the weapons in the apologist’s armoury, this tactic is another way for the Christian to compensate for not being able to argue their position effectively.

How many times have you been accused by a Christian on not “understanding” the scriptures as you point out questionable verses? How many times have you been told you hate a god you don’t even believe in, or that you really do believe, but simply “reject” god so you can live a life of hedonistic excess? How many times have you been charged with taking verses out of context and how many times has a Christian simply just called you names?

To my mind, all of these accusations are childish and beyond desperate; ad hominem attacks or puerile copouts. Often the apologist playing the “you don’t understand…” card doesn’t realize or even consider that they might actually be dealing with an ex-Christian, and if this is pointed out, they will often change tack by claiming that person was never really a “true Christian” in the first place.

The use of these sort of tactics are usually the first indication that the person you’re speaking to is completely beyond reasonable discourse and is probably too arrogant to consider they could ever be wrong about anything.

Distortion

Of course it would be negligent of me to compile something like this while omitting the good old fashioned Straw Man. This one, in my opinion is similar to the diversionary tactic mentioned earlier, only this time, instead of changing the topic altogether, the Christian using it deliberately twists their opponent’s words. As a result “We don’t know how the universe was formed” becomes “Everything came from absolutely nothing” and asserting there is no absolute, objective basis for morality is turned into an appeal to nihilism.

This is a very deliberate tactic, which shows just how dishonest and unscrupulous the believer using it really is. You can’t help but think they know they are misrepresenting you. They know they cannot actually argue against what you’re really saying, so they have to put words in your mouth. It is probably one of the lowest and dirtiest weapons in the apologist’s armoury and should be roundly called out as soon as it is unsheathed.

Shifting the burden of proof

Apparently, Christians were not privy to the memo, which states that it is the responsibility of a person making an outlandish claim to prove that claim true. Frequently, Christians try to argue that not being able to disprove their assertions automatically proves them by default. In one particular discussion with a Christian, I was challenged to prove the bible wasn’t the word of god. He seemed to be of the impression that my initial scepticism of the bible and its god meant that I had to prove it false in order to have an argument, and not being able to do so made it true.

Christians love this tactic as they think it gets them off the hook. What they frequently miss is that a theist of another religious persuasion could use the same argument against them. Imagine a Muslim asking a Christian to prove that Allah wasn’t real and the Koran wasn’t his inspired holy book. That same Christian would no doubt insist (somewhat hypocritically) that the burden of proof was on the Muslim.

However, the biggest problem here is that even if it were possible to prove a negative, even if somebody could provide rock solid proof that biblegod didn’t exist, it is highly unlikely that a Christian would accept it anyway. After all, Christians pride themselves on faith in the unbelievable. Noted apologist William Lane Craig smugly boasts that he would persist with his beliefs no matter what because his feelings provide veracity. Christians the world over continue to deny the facts of evolution and cling instead to ridiculous tales about talking snakes, a young earth and a global flood in spite of the overwhelming proof that none of it is real. So, there really is nothing anyone can say to someone who chooses to believe in things that aren’t true that could change their mind.

In essence, when a Christian uses this tactic, they are simply trying to silence you. They are not at all interested in facts or evidence (which is already apparent by their beliefs) they just want to stop you from challenging them. Which leads nicely into the next weapon in the apologist’s armoury.

Presuppostionalism

This particular debating angle proves there are no depths too low for Christians to sink. For those not familiar with presuppositionalism, it is the bald-faced assumption that the bible is the infallible word of god simply because it says it is, and that everything stated within is unquestionably true as a result. It is essentially faith taken to its absolute conclusion. Presuppositionalim makes no apologies for its circularity since it believes with complete certainty that it is operating from a position of absolute truth. The presuppositionalist believes god (that is, a voice in their head), gives them direct revelation concerning the truth and as god supposedly cannot lie, everything they think is therefore true.

According to the presuppositionalist, god created everything and knows all things, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to question god or critique Christianity in any way because their logic and ability to reason comes from that same god, and since humans don’t know everything (only god does), they can’t ever be sure with any certainty that anything they think they know is even real. If you are new to this argument and it hasn’t made you want to headbutt your keyboard, then you’re doing better than most people.

Presuppositionalism represents the very nadir critical thinking. It is wilfully and proudly anti-intellectual and gleefully absurd. It is also great for people who aren’t very smart as it tries to prevent the sceptic from even making an argument. It is a bit like someone playing chess by arranging the pieces on the board in such a way that they win before the game has even started and then claiming this arrangement proves they are the victor. The Christian using this argument is basically saying, “Let’s suppose I’m right, which I am, that means you can’t say I’m wrong because I’m not, therefore god exists and I win!”.

Shockingly, Presuppositionalism has actually caught many a sceptic off-guard in debates by virtue of its sheer stupidity. This has mistakenly lead Christians who use this tactic (amateur apologists Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind being two notable examples) into thinking they have something of a silver bullet argument against non-believers. The reality is, people can’t quite believe what they are hearing.

I have seen a few rebuttals to Presuppositionalism that, in my opinion over-complicate the issue and give it more gravitas than it deserves. To my mind, the presuppositionalist position falls at the first hurdle; they can “presuppose” what they wish, but cannot tell me what I can and cannot accept if they have no proof to offer. As the late Christopher Hitchens once said, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

The Threat

I have saved the most commonly used apologist weapon until last. You CANNOT escape this one tactic, which pretty much guarantees that the Christian using it has completely lost the debate. This one is usually deployed as a final parting shot before the Christian runs away. When all else fails, when the logic is too solid to deny and the arguments impossible to dance around, it’s time to let the other person know that they will be the ones roasting in hell FOR ALL ETERNITY. But it’s OK, since you’re a kind and compassionate soul, you’ll pray for them. Pray that they’ll come to see the world as you do and agree with your delusional wittering.

Yes, Christian, that’ll learn the dirty atheist. Threaten them with eternal torture at the hands of your all-loving god in a place that you don’t even know for certain even exists.

Conclusions

So there you have it. Christian debating tactics in a nutshell. As before, there is no doubt you’ve encountered all of these at some point, as they are widely used by Christians in defence of their beliefs. It’s almost laughable to think that these approaches, which would be completely unacceptable in any other form of discussion are employed relentlessly by Christians trying to argue for their faith.

It should be clear from everything I have presented here that Christians are generally not interested in an open, honest discussion of the facts, they merely wish to protect their house of cards and will do anything to prevent you from blowing it down.

When I realised I was slowly falling away from the fold, I looked for anything to reinforce my dwindling beliefs and these were the kind of arguments I’d see being trotted out by apologists. Coupled with the outright lies I would often hear Christians peddle to support their beliefs, it really made me stop and question everything. If god was real and Christianity was true, arguments like these wouldn’t be at all necessary. After all, nobody needs to rely on elaborate sophistry to prove that the sun is real; all one has to do is point at it in the sky. The fact that Christians needs to go to these lengths to try and validate their position shows that they don’t have one.

By Valerie Tarico ~

At age sixteen I began what would be a four year struggle with bulimia.  When the symptoms started, I turned in desperation to adults who knew more than I did about how to stop shameful behavior—my Bible study leader and a visiting youth minister.  “If you ask anything in faith, believing,” they said.  “It will be done.” I knew they were quoting the Word of God. We prayed together, and I went home confident that God had heard my prayers.


But my horrible compulsions didn’t go away. By the fall of my sophomore year in college, I was desperate and depressed enough that I made a suicide attempt. The problem wasn’t just the bulimia.  I was convinced by then that I was a complete spiritual failure. My college counseling department had offered to get me real help (which they later did). But to my mind, at that point, such help couldn’t fix the core problem: I was a failure in the eyes of God. It would be years before I understood that my inability to heal bulimia through the mechanisms offered by biblical Christianity was not a function of my own spiritual deficiency but deficiencies in Evangelical religion itself.


Dr. Marlene Winell is a human development consultant in the San Francisco Area. She is also the daughter of Pentecostal missionaries. This combination has given her work an unusual focus. For the past twenty years she has counseled men and women in recovery from various forms of fundamentalist religion including the Assemblies of God denomination in which she was raised. Winell is the author of Leaving the Fold - A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, written during her years of private practice in psychology. Over the years, Winell has provided assistance to clients whose religious experiences were even more damaging than mine. Some of them are people whose psychological symptoms weren’t just exacerbated by their religion, but actually caused by it.


Two years ago, Winell made waves by formally labeling what she calls “Religious Trauma Syndrome” (RTS) and beginning to write and speak on the subject for professional audiences. When the British Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Psychologists published a series of articles on the topic, members of a Christian counseling association protested what they called excessive attention to a “relatively niche topic.” One commenter said, “A religion, faith or book cannot be abuse but the people interpreting can make anything abusive.”


Is toxic religion simply misinterpretation? What is religious trauma? Why does Winell believe religious trauma merits its own diagnostic label?


Let’s start this interview with the basics. What exactly is religious trauma syndrome?


Winell: Religious trauma syndrome (RTS) is a set of symptoms and characteristics that tend to go together and which are related to harmful experiences with religion. They are the result of two things: immersion in a controlling religion and the secondary impact of leaving a religious group. The RTS label provides a name and description that affected people often recognize immediately. Many other people are surprised by the idea of RTS, because in our culture it is generally assumed that religion is benign or good for you. Just like telling kids about Santa Claus and letting them work out their beliefs later, people see no harm in teaching religion to children.


But in reality, religious teachings and practices sometimes cause serious mental health damage. The public is somewhat familiar with sexual and physical abuse in a religious context. As Journalist Janet Heimlich has documented in, Breaking Their Will, Bible-based religious groups that emphasize patriarchal authority in family structure and use harsh parenting methods can be destructive.


But the problem isn’t just physical and sexual abuse. Emotional and mental treatment in authoritarian religious groups also can be damaging because of 1) toxic teachings like eternal damnation or original sin2) religious practices or mindset, such as punishment, black and white thinking, or sexual guilt, and 3) neglect that prevents a person from having the information or opportunities to develop normally.


Can you give me an example of RTS from your consulting practice?


Winell: I can give you many. One of the symptom clusters is around fear and anxiety. People indoctrinated into fundamentalist Christianity as small children sometimes have memories of being terrified by images of hell and apocalypse before their brains could begin to make sense of such ideas. Some survivors, who I prefer to call “reclaimers,” have flashbacks, panic attacks, or nightmares in adulthood even when they intellectually no longer believe the theology. One client of mine, who during the day functioned well as a professional, struggled with intense fear many nights. She said,

I was afraid I was going to hell. I was afraid I was doing something really wrong. I was completely out of control. I sometimes would wake up in the night and start screaming, thrashing my arms, trying to rid myself of what I was feeling. I'd walk around the house trying to think and calm myself down, in the middle of the night, trying to do some self-talk, but I felt like it was just something that - the fear and anxiety was taking over my life.

Or consider this comment, which refers to a film used by Evangelicals to warn about the horrors of the “end times” for nonbelievers.

 I was taken to see the film "A Thief In The Night". WOW.  I am in shock to learn that many other people suffered the same traumas I lived with because of this film. A few days or weeks after the film viewing, I came into the house and mom wasn't there. I stood there screaming in terror. When I stopped screaming, I began making my plan: Who my Christian neighbors were, who's house to break into to get money and food. I was 12 yrs old and was preparing for Armageddon alone.

In addition to anxiety, RTS can include depression, cognitive difficulties, and problems with social functioning. In fundamentalist Christianity, the individual is considered depraved and in need of salvation. A core message is “You are bad and wrong and deserve to die.” (The wages of sin is death.) This gets taught to millions of children through organizations like Child Evangelism Fellowship and there is a group organized  to oppose their incursion into public schools.  I’ve had clients who remember being distraught when given a vivid bloody image of Jesus paying the ultimate price for their sins. Decades later they sit telling me that they can’t manage to find any self-worth.

After twenty-seven years of trying to live a perfect life, I failed. . . I was ashamed of myself all day long. My mind battling with itself with no relief. . . I always believed everything that I was taught but I thought that I was not approved by God. I thought that basically I, too, would die at Armageddon.



I've spent literally years injuring myself, cutting and burning my arms, taking overdoses and starving myself, to punish myself so that God doesn't have to punish me. It's taken me years to feel deserving of anything good.

Born-again Christianity and devout Catholicism tell people they are weak and dependent, calling on phrases like “lean not unto your own understanding” or “trust and obey.” People who internalize these messages can suffer from learned helplessness. I’ll give you an example from a client who had little decision-making ability after living his entire life devoted to following the “will of God.” The words here don’t convey the depth of his despair.

I have an awful time making decisions in general. Like I can't, you know, wake up in the morning, "What am I going to do today? Like I don't even know where to start. You know all the things I thought I might be doing are gone and I'm not sure I should even try to have a career; essentially I babysit my four-year-old all day.

Authoritarian religious groups are subcultures where conformity is required in order to belong. Thus if you dare to leave the religion, you risk losing your entire support system as well.

I lost all my friends. I lost my close ties to family. Now I’m losing my country. I’ve lost so much because of this malignant religion and I am angry and sad to my very core. . . I have tried hard to make new friends, but I have failed miserably. . . I am very lonely.

Leaving a religion, after total immersion, can cause a complete upheaval of a person’s construction of reality, including the self, other people, life, and the future. People unfamiliar with this situation, including therapists, have trouble appreciating the sheer terror it can create.

My form of religion was very strongly entrenched and anchored deeply in my heart. It is hard to describe how fully my religion informed, infused, and influenced my entire worldview. My first steps out of fundamentalism were profoundly frightening and I had frequent thoughts of suicide. Now I’m way past that but I still haven't quite found "my place in the universe.

Even for a person who was not so entrenched, leaving one’s religion can be a stressful and significant transition.


Many people seem to walk away from their religion easily, without really looking back. What is different about the clientele you work with?


Winell: Religious groups that are highly controlling, teach fear about the world, and keep members sheltered and ill-equipped to function in society are harder to leave easily. The difficulty seems to be greater if the person was born and raised in the religion rather than joining as an adult convert. This is because they have no frame of reference – no other “self” or way of “being in the world.” A common personality type is a person who is deeply emotional and thoughtful and who tends to throw themselves wholeheartedly into their endeavors. “True believers” who then lose their faith feel more anger and depression and grief than those who simply went to church on Sunday.


Aren’t these just people who would be depressed, anxious, or obsessive anyways?


Winell: Not at all. If my observation is correct, these are people who are intense and involved and caring. They hang on to the religion longer than those who simply “walk away” because they try to make it work even when they have doubts. Sometime this is out of fear, but often it is out of devotion. These are people for whom ethics, integrity and compassion matter a great deal. I find that when they get better and rebuild their lives, they are wonderfully creative and energetic about new things.


In your mind, how is RTS different from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?


Winell: RTS is a specific set of symptoms and characteristics that are connected with harmful religious experience, not just any trauma. This is crucial to understanding the condition and any kind of self-help or treatment. (More details about this can be found on my Journey Free website and discussed in my talk at the Texas Freethought Convention.)


Another difference is the social context, which is extremely different from other traumas or forms of abuse. When someone is recovering from domestic abuse, for example, other people understand and support the need to leave and recover. They don’t question it as a matter of interpretation, and they don’t send the person back for more. But this is exactly what happens to many former believers who seek counseling. If a provider doesn’t understand the source of the symptoms, he or she may send a client for pastoral counseling, or to AA, or even to another church. One reclaimer expressed her frustration this way:

Include physically-abusive parents who quote "Spare the rod and spoil the child" as literally as you can imagine and you have one fucked-up soul: an unloved, rejected, traumatized toddler in the body of an adult. I'm simply a broken spirit in an empty shell. But wait...That's not enough!? There's also the expectation by everyone in society that we victims should celebrate this with our perpetrators every Christmas and Easter!!

Just like disorders such as autism or bulimia, giving RTS a real name has important advantages. People who are suffering find that having a label for their experience helps them feel less alone and guilty. Some have written to me to express their relief:

There's actually a name for it! I was brainwashed from birth and wasted 25 years of my life serving Him! I've since been out of my religion for several years now, but i cannot shake the haunting fear of hell and feel absolutely doomed. I'm now socially inept, unemployable, and the only way i can have sex is to pay for it.

Labeling RTS encourages professionals to study it more carefully, develop treatments, and offer training. Hopefully, we can even work on prevention.


What do you see as the difference between religion that causes trauma and religion that doesn’t?


Winell: Religion causes trauma when it is highly controlling and prevents people from thinking for themselves and trusting their own feelings. Groups that demand obedience and conformity produce fear, not love and growth. With constant judgment of self and others, people become alienated from themselves, each other, and the world. Religion in its worst forms causes separation.


Conversely, groups that connect people and promote self-knowledge and personal growth can be said to be healthy. The book, Healthy Religion, describes these traits. Such groups put high value on respecting differences, and members feel empowered as individuals.  They provide social support, a place for events and rites of passage, exchange of ideas, inspiration, opportunities for service, and connection to social causes. They encourage spiritual practices that promote health like meditation or principles for living like the golden rule. More and more, nontheists are asking how they can create similar spiritual communities without the supernaturalism. An atheist congregation in London launched this year and has received over 200 inquiries from people wanting to replicate their model.


Some people say that terms like “recovery from religion” and “religious trauma syndrome” are just atheist attempts to pathologize religious belief.


Winell: Mental health professionals have enough to do without going out looking for new pathology. I never set out looking for a “niche topic,” and certainly not religious trauma syndrome. I originally wrote a paper for a conference of the American Psychological Association and thought that would be the end of it. Since then, I have tried to move on to other things several times, but this work has simply grown.


In my opinion, we are simply, as a culture, becoming aware of religious trauma.  More and more people are leaving religion, as seen by polls showing that the “religiously unaffiliated” have increased in the last five years from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. It’s no wonder the internet is exploding with websites for former believers from all religions, providing forums for people to support each other. The huge population of people “leaving the fold” includes a subset at risk for RTS, and more people are talking about it and seeking help.  For example, there are thousands of former Mormons, and I was asked to speak about RTS at an Exmormon Foundation conference.  I facilitate an international support group online called Release and Reclaim  which has monthly conference calls. An organization called Recovery from Religion, helps people start self-help meet-up groups


Saying that someone is trying to pathologize authoritarian religion is like saying someone pathologized eating disorders by naming them. Before that, they were healthy? No, before that we weren’t noticing. People were suffering, thought they were alone, and blamed themselves.  Professionals had no awareness or training. This is the situation of RTS today. Authoritarian religion is already pathological, and leaving a high-control group can be traumatic. People are already suffering. They need to be recognized and helped.



----  Dr. Marlene Winell is a human development consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area and the author of Leaving the Fold - A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion.  Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.  She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org.  Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.



Related:

Recovering from Religion? Give Yourself Time

From AwayPoint on Youtube: How Beliefs Change

The Fragile Boundary Between Religion and Child Abuse

These are people who are intense and involved and caring. . . When they get better and rebuild their lives, they are wonderfully creative and energetic about new things.

By Daniel out of the Lion's Den ~

I was in the 5th grade when I came to the realization that Santa Claus was not real. Even in 1973, eleven years old was ancient in terms of believing in Old Saint Nick. But why should I not believe? Every year I wrote a letter to Santa, and the presents appeared. Maybe not exactly what I asked for, but close enough to keep me believing. My mother taught me that Santa was a real person who knew who was naughty and who was nice. When I came home from school telling her that classmates had become unbelievers, she acted appalled, and assured me that those who stopped believing would no longer receive his gifts on Christmas morning. Believing that Santa Claus was real gave me a sense of joy - a magical being cared so much about me that he gave me gifts! So it came as quite a shock when my younger sister outed my parents for lying to me all the eleven years I had spent on this earth. I was played the fool. A seismic jolt had altered my worldview. I didn’t want to stop believing, but when presented with the observations, evidence and rational facts which demonstrated that Santa Claus could not possibly exist, I had no choice but to face a reality without him.

The entire premise of the Christian faith is based upon belief in a singular event: The bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I never completely understood the “rose on the third day” thing, since a simple calculation from the gospels shows it was less than 39 hours. Nevertheless, in order to receive the gift of everlasting life, one must choose to believe in this event. A person must choose to believe in this event with the same mind that decides to not believe that the earth is supported on the shoulders of a primordial Titan named Atlas, or that lightning bolts are thrown down from Mount Olympus by Zeus, or that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from divine gold plates with the help of an angel named Moroni.

We are taught that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were divinely inspired and written in order that the generations of humans that would follow, for centuries and millennia, would benefit from the observations of the original followers of Jesus. More specifically, that these followers observed the event: the resurrected Jesus. We are to choose to believe in the event because in A.D. 367, the Bishop of Alexandria “canonized” the Gospels into the 27-book New Testament. Yet, in these divinely generated and preserved writings, the observations recorded by the original witnesses are enough to conclude that the event was at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a fraud.

There are many theories put forth by non-believers to explain how it is that the followers of Jesus came to believe that he resurrected from the dead. I won’t rehash them here. I will only make an observation from the very writings that are intended to produce belief in the event. The observation is this: that in many instances where followers encountered the resurrected Jesus, they did not recognize him. This leads me to lean toward the Impostor Theory, one of the many aforementioned theories. Here are the instances that I reference:

1) In the Gospel of John, at the tomb on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene first encounters angels, then encounters a man who she presumes is a gardener. She has a conversation with this man, asking him where he took the body of Jesus. The man reveals himself to be Jesus. Are we to believe that Mary, who sat at the feet of Jesus, hanging on to every word he spoke, who cured her from seven demons, could not recognize him after only 39 hours?

2) In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus appears to his eleven disciples, but some doubt that it is truly Jesus. Such doubt, after spending every waken moment with him for the last three years – when not three full days had past when they had broken bread with him?

3) In the Gospel of Luke, on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appears to two disciples. I have heard commentaries that the journey was seven miles and that the conversation Jesus has with the two was approximately two hours long. Yet the two did not recognize that this was Jesus. It isn’t until the man revealed that he was indeed Jesus that they believed.

I conclude that the original followers of Jesus wanted to believe so badly that Jesus resurrected from the dead that they believed an impostor.According to the Bible, Jesus took his last breath at around 3:00 PM on a Friday. He was found resurrected by 6:00 AM on Sunday. This was 39 hours later. After being beaten and crucified, he had to look like hell - if you’ll pardon the expression. I’m talking scars, bruises, and open wounds. It never states that the body of the resurrected Jesus exhibited all these scars. Are we to believe that all these scars miraculously healed, except for the holes in his hands and side – which he kept for nostalgia sake? Observation, of the very testimony meant to substantiate belief in the resurrection, condemns it. In order to believe, one must add conditions and assumptions to the Bible – yet the Apostle John warns against adding anything to this book in his Revelation.

I conclude that the original followers of Jesus wanted to believe so badly that Jesus resurrected from the dead that they believed an impostor. Further, I will render a guess that Mary Magdalene had something to do with arranging the impostor. I will leave the details of that theory to a future post. With this Impostor Theory, it’s important to note that the resurrected Jesus became pissed off, so to speak, when his disciples did not recognize him right away, or did not believe he had risen from the dead when others reported it. This just reeks of a deceptive cult leader using anger as a tool for power and control. It’s a well-documented characteristic of cult leaders to frighten followers with social-psychological influence, and anger plays a monumental part of their character composition.

Knowing that Jesus resurrected from the dead gave me a sense of joy - he loved me enough to die for me, giving me the gift of everlasting life. But observations from the Bible itself reveal that the resurrection story, something I have believed most of my 50 years I have spent on this earth, is a lie. I was played the fool. A seismic jolt has now altered my worldview. I didn’t want to stop believing, but after finally coming to terms with observation, evidence, and the rational facts which demonstrate that Jesus could not have possibly resurrected from the dead, I had no choice but to face a reality without him.

By God O Rama ~

If the Bible is vague, confusing, and contradictory about the details of the crucifixion and resurrection stories, it is even more puzzling when it comes to the nature of the resurrection itself.

We all want to live beyond the 70 or 80 years most of us are allotted on this earth. We all want to believe that there is something beyond this life. All religions offer some hope for the afterlife, whether it is the Greek concept of existence in the spiritual underworld or the Hindu teaching of reincarnation.

Christianity is unique in that it teaches that just as Jesus died and rose again in a body of flesh and bone, so the resurrection of believers will be like his own resurrection. Here's what Paul teaches in Romans:

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken [bring to life] your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Romans 7:11)

First-Century Christians believed that if they died, they were going to be raised again. However, they were sure that Jesus was going to come back before they died a natural death. Paul the Apostle told them to comfort each other with the knowledge that Jesus was going to come back and awaken their fellow believers who had “fallen asleep,” and those who were still alive would be caught up together with them in the clouds to be with the Lord forever.

But as time went on and Jesus didn't return, Paul (or whoever was writing the epistles) had to revise the story a bit to comfort believers about Uncle Titus and Aunt Cleo, who had been “asleep” a very, very long time, and were rotting in their graves.

So Paul the Apostle writes in 2 Corinthians 5 that there was nothing to worry about, because those dead relatives weren't actually sleeping at all; they were already present with the Lord. He explains that there is a spiritual body which has been prepared for believers in heaven, to which they go and inhabit when they die.

Paul leads up to this particular conclusion by encouraging believers not to grow fainthearted, because “though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” Why were they growing fainthearted? Because Jesus didn't show up when he said he would, and people were seeing their fellow Christians kick the bucket just like everyone else. Paul then goes on to say that if “this tent” (meaning our earthly body) is dissolved, we have “a building of God” (a heavenly body), eternal in the heavens.

To remove any doubt about what he means, he goes on to say, “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven,” and that if we are present in the body we are absent from the Lord, and if we are absent from the body, we are present with the Lord. (I Cor. 5:2-6)

Wow. That kind of changes things. Having a spiritual body prepared in the heavens for us eliminates the need for a resurrection altogether. I thought that the “good news” in a nutshell was that our sinful, corruptible bodies would be raised incorruptible just like Jesus' body was.

So now the question is, “If God could merely create new, perfect heavenly bodies for us to inhabit immediately after we die, then why would Jesus need to die on the cross, and then raise up his own body, in the first place?

The two descriptions of the resurrection don't match. In fact, the idea of a new body expressed in 2 Corinthians is not even a “resurrection.” It's the transfer of a soul from one body to another. How could the Holy Spirit allow there to be such a direct contradiction about the “blessed hope” of the Christian faith? It has to be one or the other.

Do those who die in the faith lie asleep in the grave until they are resurrected in a glorified, incorruptible human body of flesh and bone, or are they immediately transported into the presence of God to inhabit a body made of spiritual stuff awaiting them in the heavens? It can't be both, and yet the Bible whipsaws us back and forth between two irreconcilable concepts without so much as an attempt to reconcile the vast difference.

When Christians are faced with this kind of conflict, they invoke the “It's a mystery” clause, or the “God's ways are above our ways” clause, which, with the wave of a hand, eliminates the need to explain or understand anything. In fact, they say that to attempt to explain something so profound and so heavenly would be foolish for us ignorant, earthbound humans to try to do.

But it shouldn't be surprising that the Bible is confusing about the nature of the “resurrected” body of the believer when it isn't at all clear about the nature of the resurrected body of Jesus himself. From New Testament accounts, it's difficult to determine whether the risen Christ inhabited a real body or was just a phantom.

Once when Jesus appeared to the apostles, they were afraid, thinking he was a spirit. But he comforted them by eating, saying, “A spirit doesn't have flesh and bone as you see me have.” (Luke 24:39)

On another occasion, to prove he was real flesh and bone and not just a ghost, he encouraged the unbelieving Thomas to put his finger into the nail prints of his hands and thrust his hand into his side. After feeling these flesh wounds and being convinced, Thomas proclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-28)

There we have it. Proof positive that Jesus rose from the dead. Thomas felt his wounds. It was a real body of flesh and bone, and not an apparition. Or was it?

Here's the fly in the ointment of the resurrected body story, though. It turns out that the gospel of Mark tells us that on another occasion Jesus appeared to a group of men who were walking along the road. In the story, the men did not recognize him because it says “he appeared in a different form.” (Mark 16:12)

So, if Jesus is like a shape-shifter who can take on “another form” at will, what's the purpose of eating in front of the disciples, or forcing them to touch his wounds to prove that he has risen in a real human body? Taking on another form” would simply invalidate the proof you just gave that your body was real flesh and bone. It actually doesn't really exist at all. It only appears to be a real body. It's just an illusion, an elaborate hoax.

Indeed, there is also something very puzzling about the fact that every time the resurrected Jesus shows up, no one recognizes him, no matter how many times they've seen him before. Hmmm.

After the episode with Thomas, Jesus showed up on the shore a few days later while they were out fishing. Remarkably, the disciples didn't recognize him, even though they were close enough to hear him ask if they had caught any fish. (As a surfer, I can tell you that that isn't too far out in the water at all.) Which leads me to ask, Was there nothing that distinguished the risen Jesus from an ordinary human being? Was there nothing that would make him recognizable within shouting distance? Nothing at all?

One day the disciples are afraid they're seeing a spirit. Another day, he looks like a typical bystander on the beach. The idea that someone would ever forget the face or the form of his leader who had risen from the dead after seeing him up close at least three times, to me, is preposterous.

Website: http://www.godorama.com

By Dano ~

We are all born atheists!

Look at it this way. If it were important for us to know whether there is a god as in the bible and what happens to us when we die, we would all more or less believe the same thing. We would all be born with that instinctual knowledge, just like instinctively knowing that we need to eat.

On the contrary we are all born atheists and may be taught to believe some form of mythology before we die, or we may not, depending who our parents are and where we are born. Believing in a "Bible God", heaven, hell, angels, devils and all that made up stuff is incidental to living, loving, enjoying life and dyeing. Other than how it effects our capacity for reproducing. Mother nature (God/it) has no regard at all for what we believe,only how well we live.

The same thing happens to all of us in the end, and it again becomes just as important to us as it was for the eternity before we were born.

I know I never worried about it before I was born, and don't think I'll be losing any "sleep" over it for another eon or so after I check out.

By Carl S. ~

Has anybody written on this subject here before? This site is (pleasantly) dangerous because this is where thinkers ask questions, for one thing. If you‘re a believer reading this, you have probably been warned by your religion's reps not to, because you're “endangering” your eternal soul! They want you to avoid anything unapproved by them, which means everything we have to say, and that's a lot! We hope you are not intimidated by them, and take your own initiative to be independent adults, and listen to us who have made the “leap of facts“ already. We are gathered around the water coolers and coffee pots of free speech, interrupting each other in enthusiastic enjoyment of freedom from religious beliefs and freedom to laugh at those prior beliefs, and are not intimidated by such foolish talk of “danger.” In fact, dangers have been the means to the end.

Danger is not always a warning. Much of the time it's a challenge. Ask the Coast Guard members diving into huge waves, firefighters rushing into a burning building, test pilots flying untried planes, new astronauts in uncharted space, etc. Soldiers, policemen, etc., face dangers by profession. So do volcanologists and Doctors Without Borders, as did the first civil rights protesters. In life, going into danger is only natural, and often, inevitable. (The sparrows in my backyard, the stray cat, and every animal in the wild is in danger from predators.) But in spite of - or even because of - such circumstances, advances are made, new strategies are created, lessons are learned, and victories are enjoyed.

Danger challenges in other ways: adultery; pedophilia; deceiving innocent people who trust you wholeheartedly; lying; stealing thousands or millions of dollars in funds managed for trusting investors. Can there be any greater thrills for someone in an authority position than to take such advantageous, dangerous risks of being found out and even prosecuted? But notice that of those caught, many are clergy. Are they not, every one of them, the same people who are telling you that you are”endangering your soul” if you yourself commit them? Aren't their “actions speaking louder than their words,” making hypocrites of them in demonstrating that they don't take that “endangering” stuff seriously? Especially since they repeatedly engage in these actions, until they are caught? (And will, unless they are caught.)

As a child you were taught that the first humans took the first step into danger by going, as you are, where they were told not to go, and that because of their act, someone else paid for it with his life. What you have not been told is that it's curiosity which is responsible for all human progress; oftentimes, curiosity involving danger. You were not informed that the Dark Ages are the ones when faith dominated, and the very fear of endangering one's soul kept minds in darkness and superstition for over a thousand years. In all those centuries, the danger came from self- crowned agents of God, not from curiosity, or the thrill of discovering that the “danger” warned about is not dangerous after all. Quite the contrary.

In taking the dangerous baby steps of questioning the beliefs you are told are true, you've decided to become an adult, not a gullible child. This is no insult to you, but a challenge worth risking. Those who have taken the risks are here to cheer on your efforts. And, unlike pedophilia committed by clergy, or adultery, or absconding with entrusted funds, no one will be hurt.

Those who would send you into holy wars are telling you not to endanger yourself? Go on, stay in doubt. As Dan Barker says, to get rid of doubt, give in to it. That‘s the thrill in living dangerously free!

A letter from a "fan" of Ex-C ~

It does so offend the mental palate!

The sheer arrogance of this site is astounding, congratulations to all of you who have no doubt solved all humanity's millenia of questions about how and why we are here with such utter and complete certainty, there could of course be no way that YOU could be wrong, no way that perhaps the 6000 years folk have believed in God might have meant something and no way any of you would be willing to accept that what you are preaching is another religion, and a nihilistic and empty one at that, which slings insults and critisises mainstream religion for its intolerance whilst simultaneously trying to efface all mention or religious expression.

Do none here comprehend that to be intolerant of other beliefs because they are supposedly intolerant is the most ludicrous piece of bollocks ever to grace this green earth?

Finally, even if you don't put this up, which i doubt you will, so prove me wrong there, please have a read of it and maybe think on it, if you managed to control your effervescent foaming rage long enough to get to this point i am not asking you to believe in God, or the divinity of Jesus or any such thing just to stop acting like utter dicks and show a bit of respect for other beliefs.

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

According to the Bible, Jesus’ primary mission on earth was to modify Judaism for the Jews, as their Messiah. In Matthew 15, for example, Jesus is quoted as saying: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And, in Matthew 10, Jesus’ charge to the disciples is: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Now, given that very few Jews converted to Christianity, so few that Paul later put the focus almost entirely on Gentiles (non-Jews), it becomes apparent that Jesus failed in his primary mission. But, not only did he fail to convert many Jews, he also failed to foresee that failure. Remember that in Christian dogma, Jesus is a god and can foresee the future: “Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he (John 13:19).”

Now, recall that the Jews were fully primed to expect a Messiah; they were told in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be one of them, a Jew, and would lead them to renewed greatness in the world. They should have been eager to accept a reasonably convincing candidate.

Further, Jesus was born into, and spent virtually his entire ministry in Jewish lands. He also took special care to act in ways which would fulfill Old Testament prophesies concerning the Messiah. In entering Jerusalem, for example, to accord with scripture: “And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written (John 12:14).”

Interestingly, the Gospels disagree on just what Jesus rode, but all were trying to make the passage fit what they thought the Old Testament called for. John says Jesus rode on an ass, Mark and Luke say he rode on a colt, while Matthew says he rode on both an ass and a colt . . . somehow.

The Gospels also claim that Jesus was regularly followed by great crowds of mostly Jews. For example, Luke 12 reads: “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all . . . “

Tens of thousands of Jews must have been eyewitnesses to his sermons and miracles (if we are to believe the Bible). Yet, they were largely unconvincedTens of thousands of Jews must have been eyewitnesses to his sermons and miracles (if we are to believe the Bible). Yet, they were largely unconvinced. Many would have seen him turn water into wine, heal the sick, cast out demons, and resurrect the dead. Why didn’t the word travel like wildfire throughout the Jewish world of this miracle worker, a hero of their own, given all those eye witnesses?

According to Judaism.About.com, Jesus was seen as a false Messiah by the Jews in part because he was not an ordinary human being, as was prophesied, but claimed to be a “son of god.” Perhaps those early stories about Jesus and his miracles “oversold” him?

Whatever the reasons, so few Jews bought into the Jesus-as-Messiah story that Paul decided to concentrate on spreading the “Good News” to the Gentiles instead. Of course, the Jews’ rejection of Jesus doesn’t prove he wasn’t the son of god, but it should raise a very large red flag. Something very strange is going on here. Think about it: The son of god was sent to god’s chosen people and they largely rejected him, so god didn’t get what he wanted? How can such a story make sense to anyone?

According to the words of the Bible, it seems pretty clear that Jesus not only failed to convert the Jews, largely, but he also failed to foresee that he would fail. Does this sound like the work of a god to you?

By Seth ~

I feel as if I should post my deconversion story, for others to read, and for me to simply recall why I left religion, and how far I have come.

A little background information; I am a teenager, and I still currently live a very strong religious household. My Father is a Baptist preacher, and my Mother and older Sister are gospel singers, and my Sister is practically a celebrity among the Baptist churches of North Carolina. I was a firm believer up until about a year and a half ago. I was the essence of the stereotypical Christian. Gays were bad, God was real, science was irrelevant, and Atheists were in denial...and now that I look back, I am embarrassed to even think that my mind was that far warped.

My deconversion is a slightly odd story. I used to be into a Military Simulation sport, and had a YouTube channel dedicated to it. This brought me a number of Internet friends who I would join Skype calls with on Summer nights. One of these friends, from Canada, was an Atheist. He started presenting questions to me that I had never given much consideration to. I have always been a person to accept things the way they are, and that means I had to accept that I didn't have an answer to his questions. This led me to studying both sides of these questions, and as much as I hated admitting it at the time, the Christian Apologetics weren't cutting it. Where most Christians would at this point ignore the facts and just have faith, my naturally questioning mind led me into studying deeper arguments, deeper Biblical fallacies, and eventually, Science. My rejection of the Bible was no over-night thing. I held on to my god in fear of what would happen if I was wrong. I don't know if I had just read one-too-many contradictions, or one-too-many stories of genocide in the name of god, or one-too-many talking animals, but I eventually crossed that "line" and let go. I have been a better man since. I still had not come to accept the FACT of evolution, nor did I care much for science...the only thing needed to disprove Christianity to me, was the Bible. Since the day I said "I am an Atheist", I have only come to think of the Bible as more and more ridiculous every day. The hurdle that I had to get over was breaking away from all I was ever taught (private schools, church since birth, etc.)

Now that I was an Atheist, I still did not want my family to know. My Father knew, because I had asked him many questions during my studying and deconversion, but other than him, nobody knew. Things were great. I had no worries that everything I do is being watched, my dead loved ones are not burning in a pit, and best of all, since nobody knew I was an Atheist, I didn't have to face the discrimination and hate...YET. Every man has a day when he is confronted about who he is, and what he believes. Many lie in fear of persecution, and many stand strong and proud. This day came in an argument about gay marriage with my parents. I was stating that just as the law can't dictate your religion, your religion can't dictate the law. My mother then asked me a question I didn't want to answer. "So you don't believe the Bible, God, or anything?", she asked. I was hesitant, but I am not ashamed of who I am, and I never will be, so I proudly stated "No. I don't believe in God, or the Bible." I have absolutely no regrets with this answer, but it opened the floodgates for a world of hurt. Firewalls were put on the computers to block any website containing anti-religious material, the internet was cut off every day until they got home from work, I was accused of being demon-possessed, I (as always) am forced to go to church and will not have that choice until I leave this house, but the worst of all was having an enmity in my family. Here is this great Christian family, and then there was me. I was never abandoned by anyone, but this to me was as close as I have ever been to the feeling.

They discouraged me from telling people the truth about who I really was, they tried to sweep it under the rug that their son is a hell-bound Atheist, and I was told every day how I was ripping the family apart and that I was going to hell. I generally like to take my feelings out with aggression, taking a drive, or music, but some of these times I have to admit I broke down and cried. My "friends" were walking away, I couldn't be around my family without an argument starting, I was literally ridiculed by my own parents, and my best friend that I have know since I was 6 and I would soon split apart. But this was just the tip of the iceberg...

Being the voice of reason is no walk-in-the-park. Relationships WILL be destroyed, you WILL be alone...About 9 months or so into my Atheism, things had calmed down between me and my family to where arguments are only occasional, and we can now to things together every now-and-then. My former friends were still gone, but I wasn't to worried about them at this point. I received a Facebook message from a Youth Pastor of a Church that I attended elementary school at. I hadn't seen these people in seven years, so maybe now would be a good time to re-acquaint them. I decided, since church is mandatory anyway, to drop by. I became a regular for Wednesday night teen services. All went well, for now. I heard of this trip to Atlanta, GA that the teens were going on. It was an open-invite, so I went to try and meet some of the teens that didn't previously know me from school. This is where word got out that I was an Atheist. A few guys were having a debate on interpretation on the van I was riding...me being the argument-inducing person I am, I jumped in on it. A total of 3 people knew I was an Atheist at this point, but the very next day, people that were nowhere near us came up to me asking me if I was in fact, an Atheist. From this point on that church has accused me of being demon possessed, a drug abuser, alcoholic, and even went as far as to say I was doing nothing but trying to have sex with all the girls in the church...all because I was now that "evil" guy! As soon as one rumor would die another would take it's place. The youth pastor started calling parents of the Youth Group to WARN them about me. Because of this, all the friends I had just made were no longer allowed to even contact me. Saying my name would get them grounded. Being seen with me would make them an outcast. And I won't lie, I wore it like a badge of honor. I take great pride in that these people were so afraid of me, that I was of that kind of superiority, that they would do anything to get rid of me. Eventually I was told to leave the church, which I gladly did. I still kept a few of my friends that I still hang out with regularly, and despite all of the efforts of the church, we are tightly-knit, and we cannot be split.

I left the church, and quickly found a new one. Two of my friends from the previous church left. We all three visited another church one Wednesday night, and wow, the people were very friendly! Second week comes along, same deal, very friendly folks, definitely tolerable! Third week comes along, and this times something is different. I am being watched. A leader out of random brings up Apologetics classes that the church provides, and then I found out that they know I came from the previous church. I knew exactly what had happened. I look further into it, and I found that the previous youth pastor called the new one, told him every possible lie, and now the reputation from the old church, has new followed me into the new one. I lost the two friends I originally came to this church with because of it, and then I was told to leave. Again, I wore it like a badge of honor. I am here for a mere three weeks, nobody knows my name yet, and I still posed that big of a threat to your god? Well thank you!

By this point of writing I am growing cold to the feeling people have towards me. I don't care what they think, and the rumors go in one ear and right out the other.

Being the voice of reason is no walk-in-the-park. Relationships WILL be destroyed, you WILL be alone, people WILL hate you....but to me, I would rather be secure and happy with myself than have the whole world be happy with a blindly-following, gullible, illogical, unreasonable, and unstable me. Was it hard? You bet. It still is. Is it worth it? Oh yes. I can look back and say "I didn't back down under all they put me through. They threw all they had at me, and I wasn't shaken a bit. I know how to lead and think for myself, while they can only follow their pastor. I stood with science and facts, and while that would never admit it, we win, every time."