Search This Blog

Friday, September 13, 2024

Did God create death?


By Raul ~   

This is my first article ever posting on this site. So, if you are reading this, please don't criticize it too much. Thank you.

One main Christian belief is that Jesus conquered death through his resurrection. This however contradicts passages in the bible that state god created death himself. Let's have a look at some of them.

Genesis 3:19:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

What I Wish I Had Said


by WizenedSage ~   
Thanks to Carl S. for the idea.

When the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door, this is what I wish I had said…

Men lie. We have all lied; most of us many, many times. In fact, lying among humans is so common that there are currently at least 700 different creator deities worshipped in the world today. TODAY! So, when we come across a wild or outrageous religious claim, shouldn’t we always ask, did someone lie? And isn’t that the most likely, almost certain truth of the matter, EVERY TIME?   

Thursday, August 29, 2024

A Discussion on Faith with My Religious Relative


By Carl S ~


I've known my relative and his family for over 25 years now. I decided to share something with him in an email:
"I woke up at 5 a.m. with a very peaceful and comforting thought. I don't know if there's an actual Heaven or Hell (no one does), but it doesn't matter because after I'm dead. there won't be a 'me' to experience either one." 
(You can imagine the responses to that.) Later on, 
"This particular Carl you think you know, will be dead, and won't experience Hell, Heaven, Paradise, Reincarnation, or any other 'afterlives' ignorant men have created."
Once again I was chided with his repetitive – over 25 years – interpretation of Pascal's Wager, 
"If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing; if you're wrong, you've lost everything." 
(WTF?). I told him,
“That's ridiculous.” 
I knew all the good he'd done, so I couldn't think he wasted his life if he didn't bet on believing. You do not "choose" what to believe any more than you choose who you love or are attracted to. 
"What you describe is gambling. Once again you're asking me to gamble and I'm not a gambler."

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Passionate Machines

By Webmdave ~
Animals often strike us as passionate machines -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
As scientific advancements unveil the mysteries of the universe, it becomes increasingly evident that everything appears to operate mechanistically. Atoms, molecules, stars, planets, cells, and biological systems are fundamentally mechanical. If the existence of a supernatural, invisible soul within my body is negated, then it is undeniable that I too am a machine. Complex machines, including self-programming ones, remain machines nonetheless.

Some individuals may contend that life forms are fundamentally distinct from inanimate objects, despite both being composed of atoms and molecules. However, a closer examination reveals that this distinction is tenuous.

Monday, June 10, 2024

Keep Leaping and You'll Never Have to Grow Up

The Tower of Babel by Pieter Brueghel the Elder
By Carl S ~

Children are still being taught the Tower of Babel tale about building something so high it would enter God's realm in the sky. For thousands of years it's been a warning: Don't ever go there. Be afraid, don't even think of going there. What's up doc? What if we do?

Pictures coming from the James Webb Space Telescope are available for the whole world to see. So why aren't the Christians broadcasting them in their megachurches and singing "How Great Thou Art" to the one they claim created everything? Do you suppose it's because there's no relation between their puny biblical deity and reality? And, oh look! No “Heaven" in the Universe with "many mansions," nor Paradises for Muslims, JW's, or Mormons! No god is in control in the billions of light-year distances. Certainly, not their "God" who cares about the sex lives of humans occupying a pin-prick of its vastness.

I'm past 86 years old, and have no more patience for con's-sense. It's one reason religious beliefs and their militancy are near the top of my hit list. Sure, superstitions enjoy playing with emotions and give comfort, fabricated answers and cocained entertainment to congregants. But they also create and feed anxiety and paranoia. All that trouble, just to avoid unpleasant reality, thrills in new discoveries, the disappointments and unfairness of life, the as-yet unanswerable questions; to deny evidence to propagate ignorance as bliss. There are believers so addicted they'll sell their minds and consciences to keep the habit.

Friday, March 29, 2024

The Problem of the Satanic Panic


By Wertbag ~ 

The Satanic Panic was at its peak during the 1980's, where preachers around the world jumped on the bandwagon to claim that Satanic cults existed and were inflicting sexual and physical abuse on people as part of Satanic rituals, and that almost every form of pop culture was Satanic and hence evil. Some of these claims developed into anti-elite or anti-government conspiracy theories that exist to this day, including bizarre groups such as Qanon who claim a group of the world's wealthiest people gather to do child sacrifices, sexual abuse and child pornography.

It is thought that the start of the Panic was in large part due to the hugely popular movies The Exorcist (1973), Rosemary's Baby (1968) and The Omen (1976). When people who claimed to be victims of such cults were tested, the images they commonly referred to were scenes from the movies, leading many experts to believe that people were recording the movie scenes as memories and not just fantasy.

Saturday, March 23, 2024

The Problem of the True Christian


By Wertbag ~ 

What is a true Christian? What are you required to believe or practice, and which parts can be skipped while remaining a Christian? The majority of Christians will point to Mormons as being false Christians, and yet they follow the Protestant bible (plus 3 extra books), believe in God, Jesus and the resurrection. Their heresy makes them labelled as false, and yet the core of the religion remains the same. Would God really care that people who are actively looking to have a relationship with Him have been led to believe in extra books? By such logic the Catholic church can declare the Orthodox church heretics, the Protestants can declare the Catholics heretics and the Ethiopian Orthodox church can declare all the other heretics.

There are some Christians who say you must be baptised to be a true Christian, but this is not universal and amongst those who do practice it some believe in a splash of holy water while others say it must be full immersion. Some Christians say that a failure to be baptised means you are false and won't make heaven. This seems to make God very petty, in that being taught things, outside of your control, is enough to damn you to hell. 

Thursday, March 21, 2024

The Problem of Cognitive Dissonance


By Wertbag ~ 

Cognitive Dissonance is the fascinating ability of humans to hold two beliefs at the same time which are contradictory to each other. This is commonly done by simply never comparing a person's beliefs to each other, each being looked at as a separate subject on its own. Some such contradictory ideas may be held by special pleading, that is saying certain ideas are exempt from universal beliefs that apply to everything else except the claim. Some examples of this include "It is ridiculous to think the universe came from nothing" and "God made the universe from nothing", or "Life cannot come from non-life" and "Adam was created from dirt". In each of these cases a universal unavoidable standard is held which makes scientific claims impossible, while having the belief that the exact thing declared as impossible was done.

Perhaps the most obvious version of this is the belief that God is all-loving, that all people are equal in His eyes, while believing that the stories of God in the OT are true and therefore the killing of people for victimless crimes (catching the falling Ark or picking up sticks on the Sabbath for example), the massacres of cities in the way of His chosen people, the killing of the first born of Egypt or setting bears to kill children are all things that a "loving" God would do.

Another common belief is that God is active in the world, cares about His followers and will actively help them in times of need, while at the same time Christians are forced to admit that prayer doesn't work, that Christians are as likely to suffer from illness, accidents, crime or disaster. He works but He doesn't.

Good people go to heaven when they die, but also works don't matter and you are saved by faith alone, so a good non-believer won't get to heaven, but a horrific Christian would. Or belief that Satan is active in the world with all of his superpowers, but also God defeated him and cast him down, but also, He'll come back and do it again because He didn't finish him off the first time.

You should "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek", while applying the death penalty for Sabbath breaking, being a witch or being disobedient to your parents. Did God forgive and forget when the guy failed to impregnate his brothers' widow? No, death for such disobedience.

God is all-good and just, but also created hell, a place of infinite torture. God loves all of His creation, but also wants you to butcher and burn animals to Him. The bible is God's word, written by or inspired by God Himself, but reading it is optional, not really that important. God is all-knowing, but failed to see how His creation would turn out so drowned the world. All other religions are false and have no evidence, I have no evidence but believe based on the witness of the holy spirit.

It is amazing what we can be taught and how little we consider our positions in regard to each other. Once we have accepted a claim as true, then confirmation bias will help us keep that idea against evidence showing it to be invalid, even when we hold contradictory positions, we will fight to hold both against logic, justifying such a position by any means and any options presented to us. It is often said that apologetics are not to convince people of the truth of Christianity but are simply there to reinforce the beliefs that you have already been taught.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

The Problem of Heaven


By Wertbag ~ 

Heaven is classically described as a place of pure happiness, where there is nothing negative ever and you live with the angels for eternity. This does sound very much like a carrot and stick situation, where if you accept the claim, you are rewarded, not just with some benefit but with the greatest thing ever, oh but if you don't agree then you'll suffer the worst thing possible. It's the very extremes of the two views, perfect happiness verse unending torment, that points to it being just the greatest thoughts in each direction that the author could come up with.

The problem with trying to propose a place where there is no sadness, is that such emotion is a normal part of being human. We have empathy and care for our fellow humans, but we are expected to believe that we can be in heaven and not care for those cast into hell? Upon arrival in heaven, you find your wife, husband, children, parents or other loved ones didn't make it, so the alternative is they are in torment or, if you are an annihilationist, then they cease to exist, and you'll never see them again. Having just been told you will be happy for eternity but that your loved ones won't be there is quite a contradiction.

Apologists have noticed this hole and there have been some attempts to reconcile it. One way was to say we will not be human anymore. Turned into a being of pure spirit who doesn't have human empathy or possibly even memory. This idea that we lose ourselves upon going to heaven is not widely liked due to the obvious negative outcome such a thing is to most people's minds. It also leaves you wondering what is the point in our time on Earth, as if it is a test for heaven and yet we don't remember or it's not necessary then why bother with the real world at all? God could create the beings in the already existing world of pure happiness, and there is no need for pain and suffering in the real world at all.

If you believe in a faith only salvation message, then some horrible people could potentially be in heaven, from Jeffrey Dahmer to Hitler, to the child rapist priests. Imagine arriving in heaven to be greeted by the guy who raped you, or even the guy who killed you and ate your corpse. But apparently, we will be fine with it, because there is no anger or sadness, so we will have to high five them and say, "Welcome to heaven, prepare for eternity of happiness".

But what about babies? Do they go to heaven in the form they died? Do they get magically converted to adulthood and somehow gain language and education that they never did in life? Will your still born baby be potentially older than its mother in heaven if the best each of them ever was at different ages?

What about someone who suffers a head injury and their personality changes. Do they go to heaven as they were before the accident or as they were when they died? If they go as an early, healthier form, do they lose the memories, friendships and love they had after that point?

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Sunday, March 17, 2024

The Problem of Claiming Jesus is God


By Wertbag ~ 

Within Christianity there is a split in how Jesus is viewed. By far the most popular position is the Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus was God, while the other, the Unitarians, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the chosen one or the son of God but not God himself. Each group will point to the others as misled and, in some cases, claim that being misled in this way makes them not a true Christian. The Trinitarians will say failing to believe in Jesus's divinity will mean you don't have faith and in the case of faith only salvation, can lead to failing to reach heaven. While the Unitarians will say God said to have no other God's before me, so elevating Jesus to be God's equal is against God's direct laws.

Some Trinitarian believers will say Jesus had to be God, as that is the only way his sacrifice is worthy of redeeming the world. The sacrifice of just a man, no matter how pure, is not enough to cover the whole worlds sin, while Unitarians will say Jesus made it clear throughout the bible that he didn't consider himself to be God.

Some examples of Jesus saying he wasn't God that Unitarians can point to include: Luke 22:42 "“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” which says they have separate will, Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind." which is repeated in Hosea 11:9 "For I am God, and not a man" says He is not a human, Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good, except God alone." pointing to God being good but not Jesus or John 14:28 "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." stating that God is more powerful.

Jesus is seen at the right hand of God rather than on God's throne, Jesus prays to God while never asking for prayer to himself, Jesus is baptised, yet God would have no need of this, God says over 150 times in the OT that He is God and Jesus never says it even once. Even after Jesus's death you have bible verses saying Peter and the other 11 disciples spoke to the crowd in Acts 2:22 "Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.". So even here the disciples are not labelling Jesus as God.

The Jews believe that Jesus was a preacher, but believe he failed to achieve the prophecies claimed of the Messiah. The main reason seems to be that the Messiah was reported as a figure who would ascend David's throne and rule over the kingdom, that he would destroy God's enemies and be a great political leader. Jesus never gained those heights, being killed while he was only a preacher of a small sect, so the Jews believe he could not have been the Messiah they are waiting for.

The Muslims view Jesus as a prophet of God, a chosen preacher given powers by God. They hold the Unitarian view, that Jesus was not God but still give respect and devotion to him as one blessed by God.

Often Trinitarians will point to the term Son of God, saying that it can be used in a family way to show relationship, while Unitarians will point to the same term being used for others or even everyone such as Galatians 3:26 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith' or Romans 8:14 " For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.". You also have Adam called the Son of God, so unless the claim is that he too was God, then it doesn't follow that the term means that.

Trinitarians will point to the idea that only God can forgive sin, and Jesus forgave sin showing that he was God. But elsewhere we find others able to do the same, such as John 20:23 where he tells the disciples "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”, angels can forgive sins such as Isaiah 6:6-7 "Then one of the seraphim flew to me...and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” and of course there were many mentions of the priests in the OT performing animal sacrifice with the result of sin being forgiven.

Possibly the most pointed to passage used by Trinitarians to put forward the idea that Jesus was God is the famous "I am" line, John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”, which is pointed to God saying "I am" in Exodus 3:14. There are several arguments about this passage. Firstly no one was apparently present at this time to record the words, so to claim Jesus ever spoke them is hard to confirm. The chance they were added as a parable to show Jesus in a certain light, rather than being a historic event seems plausible. It is also pointed out that only the latest Gospel, that of John, recounts this event or the words spoken, so it is possible he is attempting to elevate Jesus to new heights, possibly as a sign of changing views over time. It would be expected that the author of John had a copy of the OT in hand, so writing a story to link to the existing Exodus quote would be a simple task.

We also have scholars who say it was a common idea that preachers or chosen individuals could be blessed by God and given the holy name. This imbuing of power was considered a sign of those blessed as a carrier of the divine name. Jesus saying God is within me, I and the father are one, but also that God could be within everyone, could be seen as an indication that he believed he was a blessed name carrier but not the being the name applies to. Having God in your heart wouldn't make you God, only one with the holy spirit. This can be seen in Exodus 23:20
“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him."
Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Saturday, March 16, 2024

The Problem of Defining God


By Wertbag ~ 

The simplest version of a God is the deist version, that is an unknown force behind the universe. Such a definition doesn't claim certain features, powers or even a mind, just that there is something beyond what we understand. Such a definition could be a force of nature, or a being, but it says that we don't know from our perspective. While this kind of vague definition is the hardest to disprove, due to its lack of any real claims or clarity, it is also possibly the least important, as any such force would be apathetic to us and if it doesn't interact or care, then its existence is irrelevant to us. So, the focus of apologists and counter apologists is on the claims of interactive, intelligent and supernatural beings who it is claimed have revealed themselves and their wishes to their chosen people. Even once we say we are looking at a being and not just a force of nature, the numerous possible claims and features this being can be said to have makes it a hard task just to get a single clear definition to talk about.

Is there one God or many? Does He have all the omni traits or is He limited in some ways? Does He care about us, or are we insignificant bugs to Him? How do we know the answers to any of these, and many similar questions? The usual answer is that there is a holy book, the Quran, Bible or Book of Mormon for example, which tells us about this being. Normally the book that is selected as revealing the truth is the one that you were raised to believe in, with the others hand waved away as false. If those books were destroyed the knowledge of this being would cease to exist. But outside of those books there is next to no way to learn any details about these claimed beings and their characteristics. Even with those books, many will say they are inspired by God but not written by His hand, so the writings are limited humans trying to describe the indescribable, and trying to report on visions or dreams which may not be coherent. With such views and the idea that parts of the holy books are metaphor, moral stories, parables or otherwise not literal fact, then how do we jump to the conclusion that what we are reading is actually a clear image of what God is or wants?

But even looking at the Christian God, there are debates within Christianity as to what He wants and what characteristics He has. Apologists like to speak with confidence that He is a certain way, yet such claims are not universal. There are some who put limits on His power, others say His love is for his followers and chosen people and not equal for all, while there is also disagreement on whether He can see the future with some saying this would be part of being all-knowing, while others say the future is not written, so it would not make sense to know that which doesn't exist. Even the famous phrase "made in God's image" is debated as to what His image even is. A lot of characteristics are shared with animals, such as joy, love, fear, community, communication, justice or rage, so unless you also wish to say dogs were made in His image too, then it has to be something else.

We have the claim made that He is a trinity, the father, son and holy spirit, all being facets of the same single being. This has been a long running debate, both as to why this unusual claim is required (with Unitarians saying God is one and the holy spirit is just His power manifest) and what it even means. Many definitions end up confusing and unclear, with proponents saying it's a core part of His being, while having to fight against all the issues that such a claim brings in, such as the many times Jesus doesn't appear to think of himself as God. When apologists say these 3 are completely separate entities, but fully the same entity, with all of the omni traits but only sometimes in certain forms and having both one will but also a separate will but one that aligns, it all just works to make the definition of what God is even harder to pin down and understand, and it is not even clear if the Bible makes this claim.

Is it even coherent to claim characteristics such as timeless, spaceless, ageless and immaterial? Existence can be defined as something having a location within space and time, so isn't something that doesn't exist within space and time by definition non-existent? Christians will say you can't start a big bang before time, as there is no time for the causing event to happen within, and yet are happy to say God could cause a physical effect outside of time via magic. Or say you can't posit ideas for the start of the universe such as multi-verses, big crunches or quantum waves as they break what we know from physics, while in turn positing God did it with magic. These definitions of God being outside of time and space seem to be used as an attempt to define God into existence. Only a force outside of the physic universe could start the universe, and I'm defining God to fit that space I've made for Him.

Some religious folks will say God is so great and far above our understanding that it would be like an ant trying to consider a human. While this imagery seems apt, if that logic was followed through then we should say we can't know anything about Him at all. God is mysterious or works in mysterious ways, if so, then why talk about Him and His wishes with any confidence at all? Even if a being made claims about itself, how would we know that those claims were true? A claim of being all-powerful or all-knowing would be impossible to test. Perhaps the being is a demon, supernatural and with vast power and knowledge but lying about who it is. Or perhaps it is an advanced alien, who can hover, read minds, heal and raise people from the dead using technology that we can't even comprehend. Is he God by lack of our understanding?

If Allah made Himself known, appearing to the world, you could guarantee that Christians would deny the being as false because he doesn't match the preconceived idea of what God should be, while in reverse the Christian God's appearance may not convince Muslims that He is actually God and not Satan trying to deceive them.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Thursday, March 14, 2024

The Problem of Experience


By Wertbag ~ 

Some religious folks will say their belief is due to them feeling the presence or actions of their particular God in their lives. The immediate problem raised by this claim is that it is universal across competing religions. Christians will say Mormon's are following false teachings, and yet Mormon's have experiences that they attribute to God as well. Muslims, Hindus and Jews all have similar experiences, but each religion believes the others are incorrect. Of course, any such experience is something that only the claimant can experience, and as their experience is not repeatable or testable, it is valueless as evidence for their claim.

It can certainly be a powerful motivator of belief, with many people putting personal experiences as the foremost reason they believe. Many, such as William Lane Craig, will say it is more important than any other evidence, and if the bible was shown to be completely wrong, they would still believe based on the witness of the holy spirit alone. This position is unfalsifiable and very close minded, with more plausible explanations such as hallucinations being dismissed in favour of confirmation bias to the already held beliefs.

Everyone wants to believe they experience the world as it truly is, but hallucinations are common and for those experiencing them they can be impossible to differentiate between them and reality. One schizophrenic interviewed said he managed to have a half hour conversation with a person who wasn't there. It wasn't until he attempted to take their photo that he realised they didn't appear on his screen. He could describe them in detail, their clothing and mannerisms, and could write out the entire dialogue that he'd just had with this non-existent person. Such a person with religious ideas may well have labelled that person as a demon or angel, giving them a supernatural cause in order to avoid admitting they were mistaken.

But it doesn't have to be a severe mental illness like that, we can all have visual or audio hallucinations from fairly simple causes. Dehydration, running a fever, drugs, alcohol, parasites, heat stroke, head trauma etc. Even just looking at a magician doing sleight of hand, or a visual illusion, we can be fooled into believing that what we saw was other than what was real. When we consider the natural possibilities, the limitations of our senses and our easily fooled brains, to jump to the conclusion that any experience we have had is from God skips the simpler answers.

How we experience the world is based on how our brains interpret the information our senses are presenting it. This unfortunately leaves us at the mercy of both our limited senses (compared to other animals we have only average sight, hearing or smell) and our often-faulty minds. There are phycological effects such as our natural pattern seeking minds and pareidolia (our ability to see faces in inanimate objects) which leave our claims doubtful from the start. Pareidolia in particular has a long history of people putting forward silly things as holy items. Seeing the face of God in burnt toast, in an oil stain on a window or in baked goods. We often experience this ourselves when we look at cloud formations, saying that one looks like a bunny or a face, but while such things are usually laughed off as just an amusing random occurrence, when it appears to resemble a preconceived idea of a religious figure the same random occurrence is given significance to the person.

If you have a preexisting idea that Jesus is a bearded man in a long white robe (as per the popular image in classic artwork, although the blue-eyed, blonde-haired version is most definitely wrong) and you see an image that matches that idea, then your mind will link the two. Of course, a person who didn't have that image in mind could well think a bearded man is Mohammad, Santa or the singer from ZZ Top. The significance is subjective and taught in advance.

It is often asked "What would convince you?", with some saying "I don't know, but God would" or others saying "nothing". For those in the nothing camp, this is quite justifiable due to the above limitations. If you admit that the most likely cause of seeing a supernatural being is that your mind is faulty in some way, then you should never get to the conclusion that what you saw was real. The only way to be convinced of an experience would therefore be for it to be shared with a group of people. At least when a dozen people experience the same event, they can compare their experiences and see that it was at least occurring in the real world. Depending on the event, it could still be hard to jump to a conclusion about what it means (is a floating glowing person Jesus, an angel, a demon, an alien or something else?), and even if the event includes something spoken to you, you will still need to confirm what is said is true. A being claiming to be God could be a demon in disguise, so even direct visual and audio confirmation that something is there, is no guarantee that it is what it claims.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Friday, March 08, 2024

The Problem with Morality


By Wertbag ~ 

Many apologists will quote several bible verses where it says that God wrote His moral code on our hearts. Verses such as Hebrews 8:10
"This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
or Romans 2:14-16 
"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus"
seem to say this is the case, although there are Christians who read this as metaphor rather than fact.

The problem with this often-repeated idea that we have morals on our hearts, is that the apologist is unable to find a single sin for which there is universal condemnation. Morals change over time and by culture, adapting to societies changing sensibilities rather than being set in stone as these quotes would have you believe. You would think something obvious like killing would be a straightforward choice for a moral code, and yet even this is not universal. There are cannibalistic tribes who are raised to believe that eating people is okay, and it seems that as long as you are taught this from birth you will be willing to accept it and partake. There were ancient colosseums and gladiator games, horrific public executions by wild animal or warrior societies that deemed the weak unworthy of life. In ancient Japan a Samurai could cut down a peasant for any perceived slight to their honour, with no justification required. There were many cases of human sacrifice, especially using enemy soldiers captured in battle, and in some cases the consuming of the enemy's flesh to humiliate or take their strength.

None of these groups perceived their own actions as evil, they justified them in many ways and continued to carry out these actions for centuries which would be abhorrent to modern western morals.

Other crimes like rape and theft only apply if the person being harmed has any rights, and rights are never guaranteed. Women were often given in marriage against their will, no consent required for their new husband to do as he pleased. You also have cultures with a caste system, where one group within the population is deemed lesser or even sub-human and have little to no rights compared to the rest of society. Stealing from such a group, or raping someone who doesn't have human status, is viewed as not a problem. It is only our outside view looking at such things with a western upbringing, that the activities are horrific to us, but if we were brought up in such a culture, taught from birth that such a thing is normal, then it is likely we would view the world in a very different way.

A few centuries ago, reading the wrong bible, or following it in the wrong manner was enough to get you executed by other Christians. Did those Christians not have God's moral law written on their hearts? Or did He approve of such brutality? When Christians massacre Christians are we to think the killers were wrong and the victims had God's law right (but obviously not His protection) or were the killers right and successful because God makes everything happen as He wills? The inquisition is now looked on as a horrific organisation, but in its time was supported by large numbers of Christians. Did all those thousands of people have morals on their hearts that lead them to think the inquisition and burning people alive was moral or were the morals of those days wrong and our modern morals correct because they are ours and therefore correct?

Christians will say God's laws are unchanging and the ultimate good, that is how they can claim they are objective morals. And yet Christians will also say all of the OT laws have passed away and were only laws that were right for that time. So, God's unchanging laws, changed. A crime that was so horrific as to be worthy of the death penalty, like breaking the Sabbath, is now considered of no concern to the majority of Christians. A law that God Himself put in place and set the ultimate punishment for a breach, is now ignored because it conflicts with our modern morals. There was no problem in ancient days seeing the slavery in the bible as normal, as it was practiced in almost all cultures. It is only in modern times, as our morals have changed and we start seeing slavery as evil, that the apologists have to work hard to reinterpret and rework the bible to keep it matching our modern view. Did the hundreds of other cultures with slavery not have God's morals on their hearts? Did the Christians who ran Europe for a thousand years not have God's moral code?

If Christians will say the OT laws have passed away, then where do we find the new set of God's objective laws? There are over 600 laws mentioned in the OT, and no revision in the NT to clarify which are still to be followed. Jesus said, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.", which should say the objective, unchanging morals of the God are the morals as portrayed in the OT, but those are so abhorrent to our modern sensibilities that no Christian can accept what Jesus said.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Wednesday, March 06, 2024

The Problem of Physical Evidence


By Wertbag ~ 

Firstly, it must be said that Ron Wyatt is a scam artist who lies to make money. Any of his many claims should be considered false until such a time as more reputable sources can double check his work, as every time this has happened Ron has been shown to be wrong or lying. Ron was the one who claimed to have found the remains of Noah's Ark, which when checked by experts was found to be nothing more than an oval rock formation. He claimed to have found chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, but when checked it turned out they were train wheels (the metal train wheels survived the time under the sea, while wooden chariot wheels would have long rotted away). He also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant under the Temple Mount, but mysteriously his camera failed and others checking the same tunnels failed to find any trace of it.

The Ark of the Covenant was said to be the golden casket in which the ten commandments were kept. The bible talks of this relic being carried by the Israelite army and it made them more powerful warriors. However, the Ark quickly vanishes from history, with some thoughts that it may have been either buried for safety or melted down by enemy armies. Either way we have no idea what became of it. Finding such a thing could prove or disprove the supernatural claims made of it, and if it could be opened then the original 10 commandments could be viewed and whether they were hand tooled or magically created could be confirmed. While it is plausible such a box did exist, sadly it seems unlikely we will ever get to see it.

Noah's Ark was the massive boat built to survive the global flood. It came to rest upon a mountain and after that no further mention is made. Some say those early survivors would have stripped the boat of its wood to build housing, others that such a wooden vessel would not survive the centuries (although it is claimed the wood survived 120 years while being built). We have no idea where it was meant to be and no sign of any such thing. There are those who believe it was only a regional flood, in which case the size of the ship is exaggerated, and others who simply say the story is false or metaphor so there never was a ship to begin with.

We have no evidence of a global flood, in fact there is a lot of evidence against such a thing.

There was the Spear of Destiny, the spear which the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the side, and by some beliefs was the actual cause of his death. For the Roman soldier his spear would have just been a weapon, nothing worthy of being elevated above any other tool, but there are some who say the earthquake at the time of Jesus's death had the soldiers throw their weapons down and flee, which could have resulted in the bloody spear been taken with the body. The spear doesn't appear in the bible after that single thrust, and that is where the story may have ended, were it not for a claim by a crusader army who took Jerusalem. The story goes that they were besieged, and their leader needed to rally the troops for a suicide charge. He went to pray in the catacombs, and returned with what he claimed was the spear, saying it had been divinely revealed as what they needed to win. Rallying behind the relic the crusaders charged the surprised Persians, and broke their lines, sending them fleeing. While this sounds like a ploy by the crusader leader to inspire his troops, later claims were that the spear was returned to Europe and locked away for safe keeping. Whether that is true is impossible to know, but if it was locked away a thousand years ago that is where it has stayed, as it has never been seen since.

One relic that has captured the attention of Hollywood is the Holy Grail. Commonly thought to be the cup that Jesus drank from at the last supper (although other theorists claim it may have referred to Jesus's body or perhaps as a cup Joseph used to collect Jesus's blood at the crucifixion). This is another relic that the bible doesn't mention and disappears from history for the thousand years after Jesus's death, starting to appear in plays and poems in the 12th and 13th century and at some point, around this time it was written into the story of King Arthur and his knights questing for the grail. While there were claims of grails being found and some of which were donated to churches, they mostly have modern materials or designs, lack of history and carbon dating have not found any that could be authenticated. It doesn't seem to have been a relic of any note in the bible, so it seems unlikely that anyone at the last supper would have considered it an item worthy of being kept.

Regarding the bible, we have no original copies of any of the works, being mostly on paper these are works which are very hard to keep intact through the centuries. Of the 12 disciples it is believed only 3 (Matthew, John and Peter) wrote books of the bible, with the other 9 potentially being illiterate or if they did put pen to paper those works are lost to time. We have no writings from Jesus himself, and there are references within the bible pointing to other works that we have no copies of. Sadly, we have no idea how many works were created and lost to time. We have the terrible loss of knowledge from the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, in which some ancient writers claimed as many as 200,000 scrolls were kept. Historians are unsure who destroyed the library, but having been burnt to the ground all of those unique works were lost forever. You would hope an all-powerful God would have protected His holy works, but we seem to have many gaps caused by time.

Perhaps the most famous Christian relic is the Shroud of Turin, a burial cloth with an image of a man showing the wounds attributed to Jesus. The shroud has been on display for decades, with several different groups been given access to test it in various ways. Unfortunately, the best that can be said is the results are heavily debated. Originally there were 3 independent tests done to carbon date the cloth. All 3 results came back saying it was a medieval cloth, so that should have been an end to it, but believers claimed the spot selected for testing had been patched from repairs done in the past. The experts disagreed, but with no ability to retest the controversial result could not be replicated. We have had numerous groups attempt to recreate the image with some close and plausible results, however the believers will point to some differences existing and say none have done it perfectly. Considering, if it is a fake then we don't know the pigments used, the processes it underwent and could not replicate 700 years of natural aging, it does feel like some believers are setting the bar incredibly high.

In addition, we have a letter from a 13th century bishop who says it was known to be fake, we have blood experts who say the blood on the image hasn't run as you would expect from a prone man and due to gravity, we have questions as to why there would be blood at all if the body had been properly cleaned and prepared for burial or why a body that was dead for hours would still be bleeding after the heart had stopped. Others have said the bodies proportions are wrong, pointing to the arms being held up against gravity and extended to cover the groin, potentially an artistic choice rather than what we would expect. Even just the history of the cloth is patchy, with no mention of it for a thousand years after Jesus died, then the first we hear is in the 13th century when it is donated to a church.

While we can say it is fascinating, there are a lot of experts falling on both sides of the fence on this one. A lot of people with strong bias one way or the other and a lot of people who will pick the evidence and apply confirmation bias to say it is what they want it to be. It seems unlikely this debate will ever be settled.

At the end of the day, we are left with no confirmed relics, gaps in the writings, considerable evidence against claims such as global floods or a young earth, and mostly stories from a thousand years after Jesus's death talking about things the bible didn't highlight as important. Nothing Jesus wrote or owned, no confirmed tomb, nothing written by 9 out of 12 disciples and scam artists pushing rubbish claims for their own financial benefit. There is nothing physical that can lead us to belief.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Monday, March 04, 2024

The Problem with Slavery


By Wertbag ~ 

In the modern western world, most people would have no problem saying slavery in all its forms is evil. This is a non-controversial position to take, but one which runs counter to the laws of the bible. Due to this, apologists have had to find ways to justify slavery and condone the laws laid out in the bible. Really, at the point that your worldview puts you in the position of having to justify slavery, it should make you question that worldview.

The most common way this is done is by trying to claim that the slavery in the bible is purely indentured servitude, that is an employment contract where the person is temporarily put under the ownership of the person owed a debt so that the servant can work off that debt. The apologists will often try to paint this as a happy time of sunshine and rainbows, saying it could well be volunteer and the best thing for the servants. This line of argumentation ignores several glaring problems, firstly the bible outlines multiple types of slavery, including sex slaves, prisoners of war, chattel and indentured servitude. Secondly indentured servitude was often just as harsh as chattel slavery, with the owner having full rights to do whatever they deem necessary to work off that debt. This would often mean men would be sent to work in mines, quarries, row ships or plow fields, while women would usually be forced into prostitution. Indentured servitude was also not usually volunteer, with a failure to pay your debts meaning it could well be a court ordered punishment for your failure to pay. And thirdly, indentured servitude is banned by all western nations and by the UN as a form of slavery, so when we say we believe all forms of slavery is wrong, that includes indentured servitude.

Probably the clearest indication of the bibles support of slavery is the famous Exodus 21:20
"“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.".
Clearly stating that a slave owner will receive no punishment for beating a slave as they are legal property. A couple of verses later it does clarify that you cannot permanently disfigure them "An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.", so you may beat them black and blue, give them a good whipping, as long as you don't permanently damage them. It is hard to take Christianity's claims that everyone has intrinsic value as we are all made in the image of God, while the bible gives us laws which are horrific by modern standards.

Sex slavery is more often avoided completely by apologists, or at best will get a "you aren't reading the context". However, a straightforward reading of the bible is clear and matches what was the norm in those ancient times.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
The thing missing from this marriage is consent. Consent is a sadly recent development in human history, with women historically being given or sold to whoever their father's decide for them. They would have no choice in partner, no option to refuse and would be required to have sex with whoever was put in charge of them, saying no was not an option. This common view is highlighted in this bible passage, where the woman is forced to marry the soldier who killed her family, someone who she would never willingly wish to be with. It even clarifies that you cannot sell her as you have dishonored her, meaning taken her virginity and therefore made her undesirable to anyone else.

The bible clearly says to take virgin girls as plunder of war,
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.".
Apologists will try to say this is saving the young ones from execution, so is a mercy, but it is clear that age is not the deciding factor as the little boys are to be killed. The verse states that it is their virgin status which saves them. Sex is the deciding factor.

Some apologists will point to the passage Exodus 21:16
"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession"
as a sign that God doesn't like people taking slaves. However, the legal term kidnapping was to illegally take someone, especially an Israelite, against the law. It did not apply to legal slaves purchased from the nations around, taken in war or given that status by the courts. It is worth noting that in the American Southern states kidnapping was always illegal while the practice of slavery was ongoing. This is not unusual and not a reason to think that slavery was looked upon negatively.

Apologists will say it was Christians who ended slavery, ignoring the fact it was Christians who traded slaves, owned slaves and were the law makers who made it legal. Christianity ruled the world for a thousand years and never got around to banning slavery, it wasn't until after the enlightenment era that societies morals were changing towards our modern standards that Christianity began claiming those changes were theirs all along.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Sunday, March 03, 2024

Recovering from Religion and The Existential Crisis

By Marlene Winnell ~

Recently in our online Release & Reclaim support group (which has multiple monthly meetings over Zoom as well as a large community of deconstructing folks in our forums) we had a conversation about existential panic. 

One member posed this simple question: “Is anyone else hitting the existential crisis part of this recovery process?” And from there, an incredibly nuanced discussion ensued.

Jocelyn (*all names have been changed to protect the identities of members, and all who are quoted gave their permission) expressed a nagging, post-religion feeling of dread, that “nothing is real, and there would be no reason for living if there is no life after this one. I know this is due to a loss of Christian identity, but the fear and pain of this loss is enormous.”

Andres agreed: “It’s been difficult accepting that there isn’t some grand cosmic purpose to this life.”

Kara said the struggle to find meaning and worth feels similar to the journey of addiction recovery. “[I felt] like I didn’t have permission to exist after leaving, like I had to constantly earn my right to be on this earth and enjoy anything about life at all… We are going to encounter new triggers or even old triggers in unfamiliar contexts, and in facing them we may have to develop new tools or sharpen old ones we hadn’t needed in a while.”

Leaving religion is such a difficult challenge, because it can feel like an impossible void to face. Fear, pain, loss, and grief are inevitable parts of this and have to be faced. Michael reminded us that there’s an uncomfortable in-between part of deconstruction, where we don’t fit into the “religious side” of things, but we’re still seeing the world through a conditioned lens (particularly when it’s the only one we’ve known), and it can take a while before we start to see things without that framework. “It is neither quick nor easy to completely reinvent one’s identity, especially coming out of one which puts such high stakes on itself,” he said. “For me, the existential dread and hopelessness I felt as I left religion turned out to be growing pains as I changed from who my church said I ought to be into who I actually am.”

One profound realization Andrew had was that life can’t have meaning if we see ourselves as inherently worthless without god. Part of reclaiming our lives means learning to acknowledge our right to our own thoughts and choices. “I’m now trying to recognise that I am the ultimate authority on me [and] on what I think is valid, which by extension should mean that it is I who gets to decide that I’m valid,” he shared. “Once I do that, then I get to explore what I value, what I find meaningful, what I wish to keep and let go of.”

Another member stated that “Experiencing my own humanity matters.” They listed simple pleasures such as washing dishes, noticing the way their dog’s breath slows when he falls asleep, biffing it on a powdery mountain while snowboarding, as well as allowing intense feelings of grief or joy to pour in as the ultimate sense of aliveness. “It all gets to matter,” they said. “Life actually feels so much more sacred to me now than when I was in religion.”

Overwhelmingly, reclaimers are recognizing that meaning is what we make it – not what someone else tells us it is. “For something to be important, the stakes don’t need to be cosmic or eternal,” said Michael. “It just needs to be important to me.”

“Christianity can do a really good job of convincing us that the most important thing of all is that we as individuals are personally saved,” shared Kara. “I think that’s part of why this journey is so hard; we’ve been primed for constant self-scrutiny and self-reproach and that makes it easier to forget that there is this whole great big beautiful world out there full of safety and wonder and novelty. You matter and you deserve to be here.”

Conversations like this are valuable reminders of our humanity, our shared experiences in our healing and deconstruction, and the powerful realizations that await us in our newly chosen lives. We’d love to have you join us for more discussions like this. You can join our online support group and forum here.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

The Problem with Extreme Christians

By Wertbag ~ 

Most modern Christians will look at the more extreme examples of believers as following false teachings or being led astray, but with numerous different interpretations and significant differences in what is taught, it is often not hard to see how the teachings and bible can lead to some extreme results without having to drift far away from what is written. A mild version of this are the many convents around the world who preach a fallen world. The nuns in these closed off communities will often pray for death, believing that Earth is a test and heaven in the reward, so once you die your worries are over and you'll be in paradise forever. They see the world as full of sin and temptation, but if you are locked away then you avoid drinking, smoking, drugs, anger, lust, stress, magic and anything that could let a demon enter your life. From an unbeliever's view this is just sad, with the people wasting their lives, achieving nothing and adding nothing to the world. Are they happy? Probably an individual question, but they are certainly fearful and look forward to death, so don't have a positive outlook on the world.

There are more harmful extremes, including groups who want a Christian theocracy. This is an easy one to understand, if you believe that Christianity is true, sin is evil and "the fool has said in his heart there is no God", then putting the righteous in charge makes sense. Some want to keep western democracy, but have only Christians in charge, while others think it should be fully church run. The line of thinking that "others" are bad, and it is their sin that causes the problems in the world, quickly leads to bigotry and the suppression of rights. Whether it be outlawing gay rights, trans rights, women's rights, the rights of other "false" religions or the rights of unbelievers, there will be restrictions imposed on those who are not in the group with the power. The western world is built on the secular ideal of separation of church and state, but of course to a true believer that rule should only apply to everyone else, because they have the truth.

Christians will look at extreme Muslim groups like the Taliban and say how horrific their laws are, while ignoring the history of their own church inflicting the same punishments. While the Taliban will kill gay people today, Christians did this previously and there are undoubtedly those who still would if the legal protections were removed. For centuries we had the inquisition throughout Europe, where devout Christians were given power above the law, and the horrors they unleashed are talked about till this day. Their extreme punishments and brutality were easily supported by biblical verses, things like "you shall not let a witch live" cannot be mis-construed, and we have many examples of God destroying those He doesn't like from setting bears on the children for insulting the prophet, to butchering the followers of Baal for failing Elijah's test, to massacring the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf, to stoning to death sabbath breakers. It is clear God wants such punishments handed out by his devoted followers, so while we see their actions as abhorrent and extreme, it is really not drifting far from what the bible says should be, and has been, done before.

There was the recent story of a mother who drowned her children to death in a bathtub. She handed herself in to police and said that what she did guaranteed her children would now be in heaven. She was unsure if her actions would send her to hell, or if faith only salvation is a thing, then her personal sacrifice and murder out of love would see her reunite with her children once she dies. Either she goes to hell, the ultimate sacrifice of love to save her children, or she goes to heaven because of her faith and love, either way the children are saved. It is hard to argue this logic as that is where faith only salvation should lead. When we have Christians saying Jeffrey Dahmer will have reached heaven due to his faith, it is hard to imagine a woman who was nowhere near as horrific, would be punished if he isn't.

One place of disagreement that has led to very different outcomes is the idea of a new covenant. This idea is that the laws presented in the OT were only meant for the Israelites at that time and are therefore all obsolete and do not apply to modern Christians. This view allows Christians to avoid the laws such as "you shall not allow a witch to live" or that Sabbath breakers should be killed, by saying those are OT laws. This appears to be an effort to cancel the laws that are horrific to our modern sensibilities so that Christians can realign with modern morals. This is at odds with Matthew 5:18 which says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.". This has said to Christians for thousands of years that the laws God put down have not passed away and should be followed to this day. Some sects of both Jews and Christians do, taking great lengths to avoid anything that could be considered work to be done on the Sabbath. Considering laws such as Sabbath breaking was given by God Himself and considered so bad as to be worthy of death, it does seem strange to hand wave away such a thing and say working weekends is now fine.

Of course, this idea that the OT laws still applies has led to groups such as the Soldiers of Christ, who admitted to kidnapping and murder of atheists, bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors. They believe they were justified by the bible and their killings were for the greater good and believe that it is what God would want. Looking at God's commands in the OT, it is hard to say they are wrong.

The common argument put forward by apologists to counter this is the idea of intrinsic value. We are all made in the image of God and He says, "love thy neighbor", so any hatred or violence against other people isn't matching this ideal of love. This of course runs contrary to the OT stories, where being in the image of God was no reason not to be killed or to become a slave, and no reason not to beat your slaves. Love thy neighbor, unless he breaks the Sabbath, then stone him to death, has a very different ring to it.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

The Problem of Gullibility



By Wertbag ~ 

Humans are bad at determining reality. We have limited senses, limited views and imperfect minds. Our memory, even short term, can be horribly wrong, while long term we struggle to remember even important details of events. The Mandela effect is an example of how groups of people can all be convinced that something was different historically to how we can show it to be. Some Mandela effect proponents will even refuse to believe that they are wrong, instead claiming that the universe has changed around them. We see thousands of people being defrauded by scam artists, falling into cults or believing crazy ideas like reptile overlords or a flat earth. It almost doesn't matter what crazy idea is floated; it seems thousands will accept it as true.

We have people like Ron Hubbard starting Scientology, Joseph Smith starting Mormonism or Sai Baba convincing millions that he had supernatural powers. While outsiders can look at these people and the religions they formed and be surprised anyone accepts such clearly made-up stories, we also have to admit that millions of people are absolutely convinced these things are true. Then in reverse fail to apply the same skepticism to our own beliefs.

Some of our inability to apply skepticism to our own worldview are phycological effects such as confirmation bias (that we instinctively think things that agree with us are more likely than those that disagree), sunk cost (if we've invested time, money or resources into an idea, we will fight against anything that may show that it was a waste), cognitive dissonance (holding two contradictory ideas at the same time by never comparing your beliefs to each other) or Dunning-Kruger (the instinct that we are better than we really are and failure to recognize our own limitations).

In the case of religion, proponents will invariably believe that all other religions are wrong. They have to be for the selected religion to be true. But then within that religion they will in turn believe that their particular sect or denomination is the correct one and will rally against the ones who have corrupted their message or been led astray. This has happened in Islam, with Sunni and Shiite Muslims disagreeing, it has happened between the numerous schools of Hinduism, and it has happened between the various groups of Christians. The Christian will point to the Mormon's as heretics, the Mormons will point to the JWs as lost, while the JW's point at the Scientologists and laugh. Everyone is right, and everyone is sure everyone else is wrong.

Now consider that in the light of human gullibility. If we as a species are terrible at telling what is real from what is fantasy, and with imperfect brains and terrible memories, then why should we be looking at any of these man-made stories and putting faith in them? We know charismatic preachers from any cult, religion or any con artist can convince the general population to follow their view. Are we arrogant enough to think we are special and such things will only affect others and never us? Is the Dunning-Kruger effect applied to our own cognition of reality?

The scientific method was designed to take the human out of the conclusion, or at least to highlight the bias so that others can peer review and repeat your tests. The data is tested, the tests are, wherever possible, done blind with controls. The tests are repeated, and the results are shown to be falsifiable. It is this recognition of our own shortcomings that allows us to work to plug those gaps. It is this humble understanding that makes this appeal to so many people.

For those who have left religion, whether that be ex-Muslim, ex-Christian or whatever, there is the humbling experience of realizing your worldview is wrong. It is admitting that you held belief for poor reasons, whether that was how you were raised, confirmation bias to what you were taught or simply no self-reflection on what and why. In many cases you will hear people who have changed worldviews be a lot humbler with their claims, happy to say, "I don't know" or "I can't be sure", as they recognize the errors that being absolutely convinced of something without good evidence can lead to. The deconstruction of religion involves a lot of self-reflection, consideration of what evidence a view has and why the same levels of skepticism aren't being applied equally to all claims.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net

Sunday, February 25, 2024

The Problem of Hitler/Stalin


By Wertbag ~ 

Apologists will often point to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as examples of atheistic societies, showing what will become if atheists take control and apply their terrible morals and lack of God to running a country. This of course is a ridiculous claim, one that many believers will pick up and repeat having never looked into such claims. Firstly, let's look at Hitler, a strong candidate for the worst person to have ever lived, having caused both the holocaust and World War 2, his actions lead to the greatest loss of human life ever. But was he an atheist?

Hitler was raised in a Catholic family and throughout his rise to power repeatedly said Christianity was the basis of the Nazi party "Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit" or "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" or "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian". With statements like that would you really jump to the conclusion that he was an atheist?

It is actually more complex than that, as he did indeed talk negatively of Christianity elsewhere and at other times. He appears to have changed beliefs at various times through his life and was clearly mentally unstable and an adept liar when it could lead to more power. It is possible he flip-flopped between belief and unbelief, it is possible he lied to get different groups on his side and its possible he was psychotic and believed nothing like what he said. At best we can say he openly claimed to be Christian and Germany was a majority Christian country, so the majority of the army and Nazi party were Christians. A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era, indicates that 54% of the population considered itself Protestant, 41% considered itself Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as "believing in God", and 1.5% as "atheist". Hard to point to atheism as the cause of any of the problems with a self-professed Christian leader and 98% of the population being Christian, and yet many of the high-ranking Nazi party members were clear in their hatred of the church and its Jewish based holy book.

In addition, we have the Nazi's playing on long held anti-sematic views that were Christian based. That is why the propaganda used Christian imagery to get the majority Christian population onboard. The Jews were the ones who killed Jesus, they were the ones who rejected Jesus's divinity or that he was the Messiah. They had been cursed by God and demon possessed. It was Satan's plan that they enacted to cause WW1 and the great depression. The political cartoons of the day often used the classic devil image of horns, bat wings and cloven hooves to point out the Jews. Do you know they don't even celebrate Christmas? All this kind of rhetoric used to "other" the out group, dehumanize them and reduce the populations care for that group.

Our second famous fascist dictator, Joseph Stalin, also has a death toll in the tens of millions but large amounts of those losses are from famine and disease, more from harsh environments, harsh laws, mass corruption and terrible governance. At least in this case the Russian Communist government was based on strong anti-church and atheistic claims. "The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone. Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.

In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500 (1.7%) due to systematic demolitions of the churches and cathedrals."

A lot of this Communist hatred of the church came from the churches support of the opposition during the revolution. "Many sections of the Russian Orthodox Church supported the anti-Soviet regimes during the civil war. In 1918, the Bishop of Ufa made xenophobic and anti-Bolshevik speeches and rallied the people to the White cause in 1918. The Archbishop of Ekaterinburg organized protest demonstrations when he learned of the Romanov family's execution in July 1918, and he held a victory celebration when Admiral Kolchak took the city in February 1919. In both the Siberian and Ukrainian fronts, "Jesus Christ Regiments", organized by Orthodox hierarchs on the scene, aided White Armies. The church had expressed its support to General Kornilov's counter-revolutionary coup attempt, assisted the rebellions of Kerensky and Krasnov, and had called on believers to fight against the new state, and even to shed blood in fighting against it." These direct actions against the red uprising were used as justification of the attacks against the church.

This was not the only reason that the Orthodox church was hated by some groups in Russia, for one "In the mid-17th century the Russian Orthodox patriarch Nikon came into violent conflict with the Russian tsar Alexis. Nikon, pursuing the ideal of a theocratic state, attempted to establish the primacy of the Orthodox church over the state in Russia." but also from a wealth perspective many Russians saw the church as corrupt and greedy, and when famine hit and the church refused to spend its wealth to feed the population, many were left hating the church. The church had also famously sold indulgences, an idea made famous by the Catholic church throughout Europe, in that a priest could pre-forgive sin for a cost. This idea appears to have been little more than a money-making scheme, with many clergy living extravagant lifestyles from the sales of these indulgences. When you are starving and struggling to survive, while the priests are living in opulent palaces, you can see why there was a strong ground swell of hatred to the church.

So yes, the Russian Communist government was strong in its pushing of atheistic ideas and the destruction of the church. However, these ideas were not because atheism led to those conclusions, but a fascist dictator wanted power and struck out against the institutions that he hated and that had levels of control that he couldn't stand. In every case it is fascist dictators and the violence inherent in their power plays, and not the specific group being targeted.

There are also horrific Christian leaders, something apologists will avoid mentioning or at best label as "not true Christians". One of the most famous ones tainted Russian history from 1533-1584, Ivan the Terrible. "Ivan was a devoted follower of Christian Orthodoxy but in his own specific manner. He placed the most emphasis on defending the divine right of the ruler to unlimited power under God. Some scholars explain the sadistic and brutal deeds of Ivan the Terrible with the religious concepts of the 16th century, which included drowning and roasting people alive or torturing victims with boiling or freezing water, corresponding to the torments of hell. That was consistent with Ivan's view of being God's representative on Earth with a sacred right and duty to punish."

The clear reason that we know governments that are secular, with strong separation of church and state, are the most prosperous and happy, is that is now the norm throughout the western world. Famously the countries with the least religion, Scandinavian countries for example, are constantly rated as the most prosperous. This is also true with the founding of America, where the founding fathers were fleeing from the centuries of religious warfare in Europe, so made sure to enshrine secular laws in the founding documents, with the first amendment being the freedom of religion.

There have been atheistic leaders that did not result in terrible outcomes, usually when they are raised in western society with a democratic government and no hatred of "others" driving their ideals. Absolute power corrupts, and this is true regardless of a person's religion or lack thereof. Apologists wish to reduce this massive complexity to a simple black and white, atheism = evil, which if delved into just goes to show the dishonesty and "othering" of the group they dislike.

Originally posted in the Reasons for Disbelief thread on Ex-Christian.Net