The Immorality of Christian Morality

Although I would much rather live next door to a moderate Christian than a fundamentalist, they both share a common, very troubling belief: that it is moral and just to punish people for their thoughts and beliefs (thought crimes).

The punishment of the fundamentalist is much worse: eternal burning in a lake of fire. But most moderate Christians hold to some form of thought crime punishment, for instance “annihilation”. Is it moral and just to annihilate a human being simple for what he or she thinks/believes? And how is annihilating billions of human beings for what they believe, any less immoral than the annihilation of millions of people in the 1940’s for who they were?

Annihilating people for their thoughts and beliefs is immoral. No good, just being would ever perpetrate such a horrific crime against humanity. How can moderate Christians not see the immorality of their belief system? Are their beliefs really any better than that of the fundamentalists?

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Is a Moderate Christian More Rational than a Fundamentalist?

Yes, moderate Christians love to snicker and look down their noses at “knuckle-dragging” fundamentalist Christians. But let’s take a closer look:

The fundamentalist Christian believes that:

–an omnipotent Creator created the universe in six literal days.

–an omnipotent Creator caused a great flood to cover the entire earth, many feet higher than the highest mountain.

–an omnipotent Creator confused the languages of all ancient peoples at a tower called Babel, resulting in all the modern languages today.

–an omnipotent Creator caused several million Hebrews to exit ancient Egypt in mass, wander in the Sinai for forty years…but never leave an archaeological trace, all part of his plan to confound the wise.

–an omnipotent Creator caused a man to be swallowed by a great fish and live in its belly for three days.

The moderate Christian snickers at the naivete of the fundamentalist Christian for believing these ancient tales to be real historical events, but the same moderate Christian is shocked and indignant when skeptics snicker at him for believing two other ancient tales to be historical facts, tales which are far more preposterous than all the tales above put together!

–that a first century human virgin was impregnated by an invisible (holy) ghost, giving birth to the creator of the universe.

–that a first century brain dead corpse was “resurrected” back to life, given a superhero like body, and then levitated into outer space, where it currently reigns as Lord and Master of the Cosmos!

So is the fundamentalist Christian really any more irrational than the “enlightened” moderate??

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

What is the Purpose of Life?

Answer: to survive.

It’s that simple.

Theists try to make this issue far too complicated. We humans are animals, and like all animals, our primary goal is to survive as long as we can, and if possible, make our survival pleasurable.

That said, thousands of years of collective human experience have taught us that if everyone in a society looks out for the well-being of his or her neighbor, the chances that our own survival and happiness/pleasure will be dramatically increased. That is why most non-supernaturalists (aka atheists) that I know encourage all people to live by the moral principles of secular Humanism; not by our animal instinct of “survival of the fittest” or by the morality of most major religions, based on ancient superstitions.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Dear Evangelical Apologists: Put Up or Shut Up

For how many other alleged events in Antiquity do modern educated, sane people base their belief in the historicity of that event, in whole or in part, on their perception that they have a “personal relationship” with the primary character involved in that event?

None.

Yet evangelical Christians such as Randal Rauser tell us that they can objectively evaluate the historicity of an alleged first century resurrection while at the same time believing that they have a “personal relationship” with the deceased individual in question.

How rational is that??

I would urge all skeptics to refuse to debate any evangelical apologist until the apologist unambiguously answers the following question:

Is historical evidence the primary basis for your belief in the resurrection of Jesus or are your personal perceptions of answered prayer, experiences of miracles, and an ongoing personal relationship with this individual (“the testimony of the Holy Spirit”) the primary basis for your belief in the historicity of this alleged event?

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why are Evangelical Apologists so Squeamish About Discussing their Personal Relationship with Jesus with Skeptics?

Randal Rauser, PhD, theologian and philosopher

Evangelical apologists love to discuss almost any topic with skeptics…except their perceived personal relationship with a person who lived and died 20 centuries ago. Why is that?

Case in point: Randal Rauser

I don’t think Randal Rauser is a bad person. He is simply behaving badly because he has been backed into a corner. He is lashing out like a frightened child.

I’m sure Randal is a good person. The majority of Christians are good people, just as the majority of Muslims, Hindus, and atheists are good people. The issue for most non-supernaturalists (atheists) like myself is not that CHRISTIANS are bad, but that their belief in the supernatural is bad. It is our position that a society in which educated adults trust science, reason (critical thinking skills), and the principles of secular humanism, is much more likely to provide a higher level of equality, prosperity, and justice for all than a society in which educated adults are susceptible to fantastical supernatural claims.

It is our view that it is dangerous, and often deadly, for adults to believe in the supernatural. And that is why apologists like Randal Rauser need to be backed into a corner, using the Socratic Method (Street Epistemology), to demonstrate to them and to their readers just how irrational and dangerous their belief is that they have a relationship with a two thousand year old dead man!

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Is it Rational to Believe that a First Century Peasant is Lord and Master of the Universe?

Is it rational to believe that an Intelligent Being created the universe? Well, some fellow atheists will disagree but I would say yes. Since scientists have not reached a consensus as to the origin of the universe, I would say that belief in a possible Intelligent Designer/Creator is rational.

But is it rational to believe that our Creator is a first century peasant? No. That is not rational.

The only evidence that a first century peasant is the omnipotent, omniscient creator and ruler of the Cosmos is something his followers call “answered prayer”: silent petitions directed telepathically to this first century personality; petitions which come to pass no more frequently than random chance.

No. Belief that a first century peasant is the creator and ruler of the universe is not rational.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Dear Christians: Please Provide Evidence that Jesus is Still Alive Today

Gary: You believe that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is strong enough for it to be sufficient for you to believe, but you said above that you would not describe it as strong, per se. Very good.

Let’s assume as fact that Jesus was seen alive again after his crucifixion and burial, either through some rare natural explanation (we know of at least a couple of other people who survived crucifixions) or the Creator of the universe performed a miracle, and brought Jesus back to life.

What evidence do you have that Jesus is still alive today and that he rules as omnipotent Lord of the universe?

Christian: I don’t know if I have any strong empirical evidence to offer just things that encourage me. These would be the categories of those things:

1. Testimonies of people whose lives changed radically after an experience with Jesus. some people used to be really big jerks and now they’re not.
2. Alleged miracle accounts. There is this guy Keener I think his name is who wrote a whole volume on some of them. maybe you don’t find the evidence to be strong enough for any of them but of course it could be something to consider.
3. Answers to prayer like the example I gave above that have a reasonable degree of complexity and specificity.

Gary: The early Christian Church has told you and every Christian for the last two thousand years that Jesus of Nazareth not only was seen alive again after his death, but that his dead corpse had been transformed into a superhero-like body with unlimited supernatural powers, that this body lifted off the face of the earth into the sky, that he is the Creator of the universe, and that at this very moment, he reigns as omnipotent Lord and Master of the cosmos. What evidence is there for this fantastical claim?

Any?

We have ZERO eyewitness testimony from someone alleging to have seen Jesus disappear into the clouds. We have one account of this alleged levitation, from someone who admits that he was not an eyewitness, and whom many scholars doubt was even an associate of one of the eyewitnesses. This is the same author who alleges in the Book of Acts that Peter’s shadow magically healed people of their illnesses as he passed by on the street!

So isn’t it possible that even if Jesus survived his crucifixion by some natural explanation/or was miraculously raised from the dead by a Creator, that he lived for a few more years and died just like the rest of us? What evidence is there that Jesus is still alive and well??

-You stated above that you are “uncertain” as to the evidence that Jesus answers prayer and intervenes to alter the course of human events. That doesn’t sound like convincing evidence to believe that a first century peasant is the current ruler of the universe.

-Testimonies: If you go on youtube, you will find hundreds of videos by Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Hare Krishna, etc. who believe that their conversion to their new faith has dramatically changed their lives; changes that could only have occurred by the intervention of their god, proving that their new religion is the one true religion. How do we know which of you is correct??

-Miracles: I’ve read Craig Keener’s book, “Miracles”, both volumes, cover to cover. Keener lists hundreds of alleged miracles…but admits that he did not spend one DIME to investigate them. Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons can also give thousands of accounts of similar “miracles”. So either a lot of different gods are doing a lot of different miracles, or a lot of random chance occurrences are being falsely interpreted as acts of a god.

-Answered Prayer: You said previously that the evidence that Jesus answers your prayers is sufficient for you but probably unconvincing on its own.

So David, is it rational, based on the evidence you have presented, to believe that the Creator and ruler of our universe is a back-from-the-dead first century peasant turned superhero?

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

The Question that Evangelical Apologists Do Not Want to Be Asked

Evangelical Christian apologists love to answer questions from skeptics about their Faith. But there is one question that they typically do not like to answer:

How old were you when you first believed in the resurrected Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Many evangelical apologists do not like answering this question because it forces them to publicly admit that they first believed in the reality of dead corpse reanimation at the tender age of ELEVEN (the median age of an evangelical born again experience)!

“The majority of the respondents (63 percent) accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord while they were 4-14 years old, in what is known as the 4/14 Window.“

––the National Association of Evangelicals

The 4/14 Window??? Good god! How can a FOUR year old make an informed, rational decision as to the reality of dead corpse reanimation??

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Dear Fundamentalists: Evolution is a Fact

It isn’t just a theory, it is a fact.

Evolution is a FACT. Don’t believe me, listen to the scientists. From Scientific American:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

Source: https://www.scientificameri…

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Do Fundamentalist Religions Distrust Science?

Evangelical Christian apologist: Science is littered with unreliable findings.

Do not trust scientists!

This anti-science attitude pervades much of evangelicalism and fundamentalist Protestantism. And this is why every American (Canadian, Briton, etc.) should have access to a free public university education! He/she will learn just how reliable science is, including biology. The evidence for Darwinian evolution is MASSIVE. The fact that it is called a theory does not mean that scientists are still skeptical of its veracity. In reality, the “Law” of Gravity is really still a theory, yet no rational person questions that theory. The overwhelming majority of scientists are just as confident in the veracity of Darwinian evolution as they are of the “Theory” of Gravity. Never in human history has there been a method of evaluating our universe whose accuracy comes anywhere close to that of the Scientific Method. 

Trust the consensus opinion of scientists, folks!

A public university education (contrasted to an education at a private Bible college or religious university) will expose the young person to new cultures, new religions, atheism, agnosticism, multi-culturalism—people outside the social bubble of his parents and church.

A public university education for the entire population will do more to reduce the influence of fundamentalist religion in the West than the efforts of all us online skeptic apologists combined. A public university education free of religious influence is the bright light that lightens the dark corners of superstition and anti-scientism, replacing them with reason and rational thinking.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.