Skip to main content

Are you willing to use your personal BS detector on your own holy book?

By John Draper ~

The most incredulous person in the world is a fundamentalist who is reading someone else’s holy book. Suddenly, they can smell subterfuge a mile away.

But point out something ridiculous about their holy book—and watch the fur fly. Obvious discrepancies are “apparent” discrepancies. Any “apparent discrepancy” a True Believer can’t resolve is an “unsolved mystery.” We’ll just have to ask God about that when we get to heaven.

Everybody seems to have a personal bullshit detector, which they’re eager to use on all holy texts except their own.

I discovered this truth when I was researching my first novel, which is about a Mormon missionary who goes insane on his mission. I read more books about Mormonism than you can shake a stick at it. How can people believe this crap? Then I read the Book of Mormon itself.

Here’s the Book of Mormon in 79 words: It was Jews who populated North America, coming over first in wooden submarines. The good Jews were “white and delightsome.” The evil Jews were given a black skin so God could tell them apart. They built a vast steel-smelting, chariot-driving civilization and engaged in battles that left millions rotting on the field of battle. After his resurrection, Jesus showed up and quoted the New Testament, King James Version. Meanwhile, elephants roamed the heartland in a vain search for peanuts.


The Book of Mormon’s an obvious fraud—obvious to non-Mormons, that is—the whole thing written in a wooden King James English. In fact, large swaths of the Book of Mormon were lifted whole hog from the 1611 edition of the King James Version, including all of that version’s errors. Joseph Smith obviously had a King James Bible at his elbow when he “translated” the golden plates.

What he needed was a National Geographic. He was woefully ill informed about the nature of Pre-Columbia America. There was no steel, silk, bumblebees, or wheels in the land before the Spanish arrived. No elephants either.

What’s more, no archeologist—that is, no non-Mormon archeologist—has ever found a scintilla of evidence for these civilizations. And they’ve looked. A lot. No roads or temples. No Hebrew writing. No kosher delis. And never has anyone ever found Arrowhead One from these hyperbolic bloodbaths in upstate New York.

And the Mormon apologists’ justifications of these “problems” are so tortured as to be hilarious. For example, the Book of Mormon claims Pre-Columbia America was lousy with horses. The Book of Mormon has the ancient Americans riding them into battle all the time. Non-Mormon scientists point out that there is absolutely no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 3,000-year history of the Book of Mormon. None. Horses evolved in North America but grew extinct at the end of the Pleistocene. Horses did not reappear in the Americas until the Spaniards brought them from Europe.

What was the response from Mormon apologists? When the Book of Mormon said “horses,” it really meant—ready for it?—tapirs.

Tapirs. Can’t you just see the ancient Americans riding out to battle on their tapir-drawn chariots?

And Mormons wonder why people make fun of them.

But when I stopped chuckling, I was struck by an inconvenient truth, as Al Gore says. I couldn’t help but compare the Mormon apologists’ apologies to those proffered by evangelical apologists.

One example out of many: Just exactly how many angels did the women encounter when they came upon Jesus’ empty tomb? The gospels vary. Some say two; some say one.

Well, to solve this conundrum, I went to—where else?—the internet. I found the website for J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case homicide detective and adjunct professor of apologetics at Biola University. He calls his ministry Cold-Case Christianity.

Using his hard-won detective skills, Wallace concludes that there were two angels at the tomb. One rolled away the stone. Both helped Jesus from the tomb. His conclusion: Matthew does not say there was only one angel. John and Luke say there were two—and wherever there are two, there is always at least one!

Where do I start?

The gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses. The gospels were put to paper 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Thirty. During those 30 years, the stories of Jesus were told and retold and amended and exaggerated across the Roman Empire. Over in this geography, Jesus did/said X. Over there, he did/said Y.

The gospels say different things because they were written for different faith communities hundreds of miles apart from each other. They couldn’t fact check one another. To say they even saw the need to fact check belies a modern worldview. The church then wasn’t even remotely what it is now. It wasn’t even the church.

When True Believers like Wallace defend the Bible, they’re not doing so based on thorough examination of the data. Rather, they start by assuming their point of view is correct and then sift through the data to find that which confirms their assumptions.

It’s not that I think they’re stupid. Wallace is probably smarter than me, which isn’t that difficult. It’s not a matter of intelligence. It’s a matter of motive.

Apologists have an agenda.

Apologists have an agendaApologists don’t seek the truth. If they did, they’d be willing to go where the data takes them. They defend the truth as they see it. Which means they dismiss and deflect. They engage in rhetorical prestidigitation. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

True Believers use apologists like castor oil. They don’t read their stuff on a regular basis. It’s as dry as dirt. But if a nonbeliever presses them with a question they can’t answer, they run to the apologists, read their baloney, and heave a sigh of relief—comforted that “smart people have dealt with these issues.”

Ask yourself this question: If your religion were false, would you want to know it? Most folks say no, which means job security for apologists.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi