Scoffing at all that's holy since 2004 APOLOGETICS If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em Many theists are so afraid (if only subconsciously) of being wrong about their beliefs that they purposefully try not to critically analyze them for fear of where self-interrogation may lead.  (Remember that the next time someone tells you that were not supposed to question god's reasons for doing something or for allowing something to happen.)  It was out of this fear of looking foolish or intellectually challenged that Christian apologetics was borne. Apologetics is that field of religious study that seeks to answer the challenges of cults, evolution, philosophy, false doctrines, and whatever else threatens what is perceived to be biblical truth.  Note that apologetics is not specific to any particular religion, but I will focus on the Christian aspect for this discussion. Apologists are clever, persuasive, and well-educated "rationalizers" who pretend to embrace science and skepticism, but force the results of their research to arrive at the only conclusion that allows them to maintain their faith and their intellect. Some apologists are outright intentionally deceptive, like convicted felon Kent Hovind -- the handsom fellow on the right.  (Just a serving suggestion, pardon the pun.)  These morally reprehensible jackasses rationalize their lies to win souls over for Christ. Other apologists are externally honest but internally self-deceiving whereby the results of their research and self-interrogation are driven by the subconscious fear of standing alone in their faith (or some other psychological need. But driven by either motive, the common thread between all Christian Apologists is that they are panicky, faithless people who need to prove what they want so desperately to be true. While this flies in the face of faith, sometimes believing isn't good enough. Begging the Question Christians love to ask "How is possible that..." while pointing to certain complexities of nature that cannot be easily or concretely explained and attribute their ultimate cause, by default, to their god.  Oh, I see.  I can't explain it, therefore their god must exist, he must be the one true god, and therefore must be the ultimate cause of that thing I couldn't explain.  How brilliant!  And even if I were able to explain it, I would never be able to do so to their ultimate satisfaction.  Gee, I wonder why? Please, let's at least try to be innovative.  The loaded questions that Christian apologists ask have been answered time and time again -- despite the same tired old logic they offer up for their counter-arguments.  And I won't waste my time addressing any of them.  Why?  Because I can't.  You see, I'm not a scientist.  Asking me, personally, to answer complex scientific questions is like asking a tax accountant to diagram the chemical composition of propylene glycol, or asking a geologist to explain the tax penalty provisions for Internal Revenue Codes §§ 6694 and 6695.  I'll leave those tasks to chemists and tax accountants, respectively. My expertise ends beyond dissecting the deluded brain and revealing the cowardice, weakness, and fear-filled motives for believing pure bunk.  My science and technology experts will handle all the scientific stuff to which I've always maintained to know less about than women. The Godless Bastard Learning Annex Presents THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC ARGUMENT TEMPLATE Mr. Apologists points to a picture of {something seemingly impossible to create}.  Example: the Grand Canyon Mr. Apologist demonstrates, in a wholly accurate scientific manner, all of the physical, logistical, monetary, and time elements required to create {something seemingly impossible to create} thus reasonably precluding human causation. Being the consummate "skeptic" [long pause for comic effect], Mr. Apologist asks me specific scientifically-based questions to explain how man could have possibly created {something seemingly impossible to create}. Due to my inability to answer any of his questions to that end, Mr. Apologist will have proven the absolute impossibility that man created {something seemingly impossible to create}.  And he'd be right. Mr. Apologist points to a piece of paper that states that his god created the universe and everything in it -- one of which, quite obviously, is {something seemingly impossible to create}. Mr. Apologist declares, therefore, that his god exists, he is the one true god, and that he must have created {something seemingly impossible to create}. Mr. Apologist tells me that I'll go to hell for ETERNITY to pray for my sins unless I accept Christ, the guy whose father created {something seemingly impossible to create}. First, neither the bible nor faith is proof in any way, shape, or form that god exists or that he created anything.  The bible is nothing more than words on a page, written by mortal men like you and me, and it proves just about as much as these words: The Godless Bastard is 6'2, stunningly handsome, eternally youthful, has wavy blonde hair, and his IQ is 130.  All women desire him, and all men envy him. How I wish the statement above was true (you have no idea...), but like a wise man once said, religion is to rationality as bullshit is to horsepower. C R E A T I O N I S T   H A L L   O F   S H A M E Check out this picture taken at a 2005 Christian Apologetics conference in Paduka, Kentucky.  It shows Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind (center) teaching a couple of up-and-coming apologists how to lie like a sack of shit. Hovind is now in Federal prison serving a 10 year sentence for 58 counts of tax fraud and related crimes, and that's the way the good lord wants it.  It's all part of his divine master plan and it's not to be questioned.  Remember, GOD IS IN CONTROL! Enjoy your time, Kent. Tilting at Windmills Some people believe that the great pyramids in Egypt were built by extraterrestrials visiting our planet thousands of years ago.  Personally, I think it's all a bunch of nonsense.  So why don't I attempt to debunk that theory?  Well, aside from the fact that I have no expertise in any of the disciplines one would need to take on such a task, I have no desire to debunk the theory to begin with. More to the point, I couldn't care less who built the pyramids.  Not that it wouldn't be nice to know just as a curiosity, but I have no vested interest one way or another.  Most importantly, I'm not threatened by the possible truth of this theory.  If I'm wrong, big deal.  My intellect isn't compromised and my life hasn't changed for the worse. People attack that which they fear.  We attack cancer because we fear disease and death.  We attack crime because we fear mayhem.  We attack fire because we fear destruction.  We generally attack things that threaten us in some way. If you're a Christian, you might be thinking, "Well, you're attacking Christianity right now, aren't you?  You're attempting to debunk many Christian beliefs right on this website.  Are you afraid of the truth?"  First, I'm not attacking Christianity.  I'm attacking all religious beliefs.  Get it right.  Admittedly, I focus on Christianity because I believe its followers are by far the worst offenders of proselytization, but I think all religions are based on pure bunk. Secondly, yes, I absolutely do attempt to debunk specific beliefs that I see as bordering on sheer lunacy.  However, my goal is NOT to convert anyone.  Believe me, if you believe in (and fear) a god, I want you exactly as you are.  Although do I wish your reading comprehension was a little better.  Go back and re-read about why this website exists.  Its reason for being has absolutely nothing to do with fear.  But if you want to accuse me of anything, accuse me of selfishness.  This website is all about parity, perspective, and giving Christians a taste of their own bitter medicine.  And I'm selfish in this respect because I don't want them to change. Cheap Table Tricks Christians attack any generally accepted fact or theory if its potential truth threatens what they believe and therefore their intellect. Even if only on a subconscious level, Evangelical Christians are scared senseless of the mere possibility that evolution, for example, might irrefutably explain how we came to be.  The truth of evolution would be devastating to creationists on so many levels. Let's pretend that I formulated a viable theory proving that Mickey Mouse single-handedly built the Great Wall of China.  Would you waste even a minute of your time trying to disprove it?  Of course not.  Now ask yourself why. Evangelical Christians will amass a myriad of "reasons" why they must disprove evolution, but know this: it's only out of fear.  Their true motivation has absolutely NOTHING to do with winning souls over for Christ or any other smoke-and-mirrors rationalization. If Christians had an ounce of pure faith in what they claim to believe, they'd ignore evolution as a theory just as they'd ignore my theory about Mickey Mouse and The Great Wall.  If they're right about evolution, then the two theories are on a par, carry the same weight, and are equally harmless.  Ask any Evangelical Christian what they think about the theory of evolution and they'll tell you that it's pure nonsense...just like Mickey and The Wall, yet they don't respond accordingly.  Interesting, isn't it? In The Event of a Tie My God Wins Disclaimer: In the spirit of fairness, you'll find that I use the phrase "scientific theory" instead of "scientific fact" in the following section.  The Godless Bastard knows very little about science.  He accepts evolution as fact but takes it completely on faith.  If nothing else, the Godless Bastard is fair! One cannot prove the existence of any god by disproving (or discrediting) scientific theories that explain any part of the world around us.  Christian apologists seem to be blind to this rather obvious truth. And even if one could absolutely, irrefutably disprove a scientific theory, it does not provide a foundation, by default, for any divine explanation.  That is to say, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Just for clarification, when I use the phrase "by default" in this context, I mean "to claim proof of the existence of any god by disproving or discrediting other explanations."  It's as silly an argument (and holds about as much water) as saying, "It is proven concretely that Mr. X must have killed Mr. Y because there's no concrete proof that anyone else committed the crime." In other words, even if Christian apologists could absolutely and irrefutably disprove evolution, it would give absolutely no weight to the theory that we were created by a supreme being.  Even if every other possible purely scientific, non-divine explanation could be disproved, it still would not give credence to a god-caused "catch-all" explanation by default.  In this case, all it would mean is that we just haven't found the correct explanation yet. And there's another metaphysical problem that apologists face in their attempt to disprove evolution.  If we were to accept the lack of scientific evidence (as they claim) as proof of a god's existence, then we must certainly regard each and every subsequent relevant scientific discovery as an argument against the existence of god, such as each new Precambrian fossil that we find. But let's face it.  For theists and atheists alike with an expert knowledge of science, debating evolution versus creationism is like a game of Tic-Tac-Toe; anyone with half a brain can't lose the game...or win it either.  In all fairness, each argument (on either side) has a technically plausible foundation if you're willing to accept the necessary premise.  Of course, this applies to many things in life.  For example, E.T. is a wonderful movie and is not viewed as silly or ridiculous if you can suspend disbelief for two hours and accept its premise. Technically, anything is possible. Technically, there could be a god who created the universe in a mere six days.  And, technically, pigs might be able to fly.  Maybe they only do it when we're not watching, or maybe they just haven't figured out how to do it yet.  Anyway, the questions apologists ask (and the answers they provide) to disprove anything that threatens the existence of their god are of little interest to me.  What I'm far more amused by and interested in is their motivation.  And clearly, it's insecurity and lack of true faith. How To Argue Like a Christian Apologist CENSOR THE OFFENSIVE ARGUMENT Lying sack of shit Christian apologist, hypocrite, and convicted felon Kent Hovind boasts that NONE of his published materials are copyrighted (so that they may be copied and distributed without restriction, limitation, or cost).  After video clips of Kent getting his ass kicked by an evolution graduate student during an internet radio call-in debate surfaced, Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) Ministries claimed copyright violation and had the video clips removed.  Watch the story here. Searching for the video BEFORE Kent's cowards cried like a big bunch of babies... And searching AFTER the pathetic little hypocritical little cowards got their way... Standard fare from the lunatic fringe creationism debate arsenal: I think that the only reason anybody would say this happened by chance and there was no designer is because they don’t want to find that designer.  The atheist can't find god for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman. - Kent Hovind Nice try, but I'm afraid you've got that all wrong, Mr. Hovind. I think that the only reason anybody would say this couldn’t happen by chance and there must be a designer is because they're so weak that they can't get through life without the crutch that the alleged designer brings.  A Christian can’t find truth in atheism for the same reason an idiot just can’t seem to find his SAT scorecard. - Godless Bastard You see, when someone's become so heavily invested in a life-long delusion they just can't afford to be wrong. Designer Label Gods Faithless panicky Christians have been repackaging their reasons to believe for centuries.  After one argument has been thoroughly trashed and discredited another panicky apologist stepss up to the plate to put his own unique spin on it in the franic hopes of keeping it alive. Eventually a new name gets slapped on an old argument, but know this: it's the same tired old argument that neither shines new light nor proves a god damn thing.  First Cause or Intelligent Design, it's fundamentally the same nonsense stemming from the same weakan desperate intellect-saving motive.  There's nothing new except perhaps some shiny new foil wrapping to create the allusion of "new and improved" apologetics. First (Lost) Cause If everything must have a cause, then there can be no uncaused thing.  So, who or what caused god?  And if you argue that god always existed, then I'll argue that the universe has always existed (in one transient form or another). If everything with a design requires a designer, then who or what designed the designer? The first cause and design/designer arguments simply don't hold up to their own scrutiny.  They both require one and only one exception to explain how god is above the logic of the argument.  How convenient. But for the sake of the argument, let's go along with it for awhile. There are many different brands of acoustic guitars as well as many different makers of acoustic guitars.  The two numbers are not equal because some makers manufacture more than one brand.  Many of these makers are well-known, and others aren't.  (There are plenty of private "mom and pop" type guitar shops around the world that even the most savvy guitar enthusiast has never heard of.)  Regardless, there are many different acoustic guitar makers.  Therefore, if you see an acoustic guitar, somewhere out there is (or was) its maker.  Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't. Let's say you come across and unmarked acoustic guitar made from lignum vitae, a rare tropical hardwood.  The guitar has no label or other identifying brand marker.  Just because you can prove positively that Gibson has never made an acoustic guitar out of lignum vitae (they haven't) doesn't mean that the guitar must have been built by Ovation, for example, just because someone told you (or you read) that Ovation does (or did) make guitars out of lignum vitae.  Disproving one doesn't prove another, just by default. And even if you verified that every known guitar maker on the planet has never manufactured an acoustic guitar out of lignum vitae, you could neither logically nor fairly conclude that god created this unmarked guitar.  The only fair and reasonable conclusion is that you just haven't found its maker yet. Similarly, even if Christians could successfully disprove evolution, creationism would not stand as the true and correct explanation for how we got here just because it "makes sense" to some and certainly not because "it says so" in the bible.  Furthermore, if you buy into the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent being (through which anything and everything is possible), the Hindu creation story makes sense, too.  Technically, any creation story "makes sense" if you accept the premise of the bible that proclaims it. But here's the thing, and there's no getting around it.  Neither you nor I (like the unknown guitar in the previous example) have any label or marker that absolutely, positively identifies who the maker is.  Cars have Vehicle Identification Numbers; we don't.  You and I are just like a guitar made by some guy in his basement in Dearborn, Michigan who never branded his creations with a label.  And any silly rationalization that one might conjure up to prove that we are in fact "labeled" could easily be applied to any god, like the Hindu creator god, Brahma.  Hey, perhaps we were all created in his image. The Gita (Hindu bible) has a creation story, just like that of the Judeo-Christian god.  If we were indeed created by a god, either creation story could be the correct one.  Maybe they're both false accounts and perhaps the Buddhist creation story is the correct one.  There are many religions with many gods, and each has its own creation story.  Disproving one or more of them DOES NOT prove another just by default. If you truly believe that we were created by a supreme being (rather than evolved through and by a process), in the absence of absolute, irrefutable, concrete proof as to how we got here, the only fair and reasonable conclusion is that you just haven't found our "maker" yet. Fact: Christians have NOT ONE SHRED OF CONCRETE PROOF of the existence of their god. All Christians have is the intangible word of their bible.  That's all.  It's hearsay in a court of law and it carries little weight or probative value.  And while it claims to explain how we got here, well, guess what?  Other bibles of other gods have their own explanations too. Again it's time for some intellectual honesty.  If the written word of the Gita isn't proof of the existence of the Hindu deities (as every Christian on the planet will declare) then the written word of the Old Testament isn't proof of the Judeo-Christian god's existence either. But despite this obvious fact, Christians love to proclaim their god's existence by default.  See this mentality for exactly what it is.  It is borne out of insecurity, lack of true faith, and pure cowardice, and is the fundamental reason why the field of Christian Apologetics exists.  These faithless people fear anything that threatens their intellect and all that they perceive as biblical truth, so they live and fight to prove that which can't be proven. Got faith anyone?  Apparently not. Abject Lesson #3915 WHY YOU CAN'T WIN WHEN DEALING WITH THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST MENTALITY First, for the record, I don't believe in "near death experiences" (NDEs).  When you're dead, you're dead.  The only thing that happens to what's left of you is decomposition.  Medical science has explained away all of those "bright light" encounters.  But Christians do believe in life after death, so they have to deal with the phenomena for non-Christians who claim to have experienced it. So, is it possible that pleasant NDE's experienced by non-Christians discredit Christian doctrine by disproving eternal hellfire for the unsaved?  Click here to read the lamest quick and dirty panicky attempt to shut down this very valid question. This moron writes, "Who would boast about being sent to a place of shame and torment?"  This has got to be the most logically incoherent statement ever uttered.  I think that anyone who truly believed that they journeyed to hell and back would SCREAM from the mountain top that they now KNOW that hell is real and then turn to Christ real god damn fast. I've met several non-Christians (atheist, agnostic, and Jewish) over the years who claimed to have had NDE's, and all of them remained steadfast in their beliefs.  None of them turned to Christ.  Not a one.  And this intellectually dishonest wacko wants us to believe that someone wouldn't sidestep eternal damnation by subsequently accepting Christ because of earthly pride?  Um, I don't think so. Of course, the most pathetic catch-all explanation this guy provides is that for those who were resuscitated and remembered nothing is that "...it was so horrific that his mind had suppressed it."  Yeah, I think someone's supressing something alright. Manufacturing Allies Christian apologists are so profoundly insecure when it comes to their earthy intellect (i.e., that it doesn't jive with what their religion requires them to accept) that they resort to intentionally deceptive misquoting tactics to create the illusion that universally-acknowledged brilliant people share their beliefs. When we think of universally-acknowledged brilliant people we think of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawkins, just to name a few.  It's well documented that Einstein and Sagan were atheists, and that Hawking is an agnostic. Einstein once commented that "God does not play dice [with the universe]."  Christians abuse this quote to create the illusion that Albert (who was a Jew by birth) believed in their god.  However, (mis)used in this manner it's WAY out of context.  It refers to Einstein's refusal to accept the uncertainties indicated by quantum theory.  It gives no more credence to Einstein's belief in a personal god than it does to my belief in the divinity of feces when I say "holy shit."  It's an expression, jackass. The compelling factor, however, is that Christians cling to this quote regardless of Einstein's beliefs.  Faith in what they believe to be a universal truth does NOT need Einstein for validation, yet they manufacture that validation anyway.  That is NOT faith.  It's insecurity. Christians resort to this pathetic Einstein tactic because of their latent/subconscious fear of looking stupid by believing in something that is so seemingly nonsensical.  Obviously having numbers on your side helps to quell those fears, but having ol' Ein-y on your side makes for a warm, cozy intellectually-safe blanket under which to sleep with all the other sheep. Anyway, here (below) is your proof that Einstein did NOT believe in a personal god.  Even though he's long dead, panicky Christians abused his words during his lifetime.  He addressed the issue back then. From "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.  Einstein said: "The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [emphasis his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..." And here's the clincher.  The following is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.  It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Conversation closed. A universal truth (and the faith that one has in that truth) doesn't need numbers, or Einstein, for validation.  I have faith that my parents love me, and I couldn't care less who does or doesn't believe me...even if those who didn't had Einstein's IQ.  The thing is, if I'm wrong and my parent never really loved me, my intellect is still secure.  That is to say, my (mis)belief of my parent's love doesn't make me intellectually inferior or a fool.  My parent's never loved me?  Big deal.  When's dinner?  However, if I spent my entire life praising a god that never really existed, forking over 10% of my income, building houses of worship and wasting hours every day to sing the praises of and pray to, kill in the name of, etc., then I'd appropriately labeled a fool of epic proportions. On a final note, remember that Albert was raised in the Jewish faith and never would have accepted Christ even if he did believe in god.  Looks to me like Einstein rejected Christ. Man, he really was brilliant! TOP 10 SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN Courtesy of The Atheist Handbook Saving Face: In Search of the Historical Jesus Similar to their grasping-at-straws "Einstein" ploy, Christian apologists also cling to the "historical Jesus" method of bolstering their proof of god.  (I'll call him "HJ" for brevity from this point forward.) Under the disingenuous facade of detached fairness, Christians will sometimes step out of their holy cloth and pretend to engage in the secular endeavor of finding the HJ.  (They seem to think that this establishes their credibility as fair, open-minded skeptics.)  Simply stated, if they can prove that Jesus (the man, not the savior) existed through historical secular record, then the biblical account of his existence (the savior, not the man) is somehow validated. Note that you'll often see this method of proselytizing directed at Jews because they generally accept that Jesus did live during that time in human history.  Most Jews won't deny the historical existence of the man called Jesus.  You know the rap.  He was a good man, a Jew, a rabbi, a prophet, blah, blah, blah.  To your average bible-punching Christian, this is a HUGE base lead (or so they think) in their attempt to win one over for Christ.  It gets them one foot in the door before they've even uttered a single word of New Testament lore. Know that my intent here is not to get into all the various historical proofs that refute the existence of the HJ as there are countless sources of related myth-busting information on the internet.  I'll leave that endeavor to the scholars and expert historians who have more than satisfactorily made that case.  Although, I have included a few links here and there to get you started.  I encourage your own independent research on the subject. Mindless Rationalizations I’ve always maintained that what a person says, does, and believes isn’t nearly as important as why.  To me, motive is everything.  In the case of the HJ, I think that the case for him is driven by the need to bolster ones’ personal theology and protect their intellectual integrity -- not to validate history.  I mean, doesn't anyone remember this little thing called faith?  People who try to prove that which is supposed to be founded in faith do so out of sheer insecurity.  Any other reason given is just a bullshit rationalization. I’m a student of the confirmation bias.  It’s a BIG part of my summation of theology (for any religion).  The confirmation bias has you seeing what you need to see: that you’re a good mom, that you can sing well, that Judy Bigjugs loves you, or that god exists.  And yes, it even applies to atheists.  Could there be an atheistic bias to see that no god exists?  You bet. But...there’s a HUGE difference and there’s no getting around it.  Let me show you. Scholars who lay down the case against the HJ are obviously non-Christian, and most certainly most of them are atheists.  Why is this so important to point out?  Because they have absolutely nothing at stake theologically regardless of the outcome.  Maybe the historical Jesus really did exist, maybe he didn’t.  Either way, the historical revelation doesn’t conflict with the atheistic position that god doesn’t exist and, therefore, that Jesus wasn't his son.  Okay, so the HJ existed.  Big deal.  So did the HA (Historical Andy). But it’s not the same on the flip side of the coin, and that's the whopper of a difference. If the person laying claim that HJ existed is a Christian, then the ENTIRE FOUNDATION of their belief system is at stake.  The confirmation bias won’t allow them to be wrong.  A historical Jesus that never existed is NOT an option, and so they see what they need to see, they find what they need to find.  End of discussion. Many love to argue that even Jewish theologians claim evidence for the HJ.  So what?  I'm neither impressed nor swayed.  Why?  Because even Jews have a vested interest in the historical existence of Jesus -- but not for what his existence provides, but rather for what the problem of his non-existence presents. To Jews, if the HJ did exist, the New Testament would be a valid historical account with obvious embellishments for miracles that could not have happened.  But most importantly, the historic validity of the New Testament would pose absolutely no threat to Judaic doctrine.  It would be a historically correct book about a guy who claimed to be the son of god but really wasn’t, and that would give historical credence to very old face-saving documents of religious doctrine. However, if the HJ didn’t exist, then that 2000 year old book would be a complete work of fiction.  By definition it would absolutely have to be.  Problem is, that wouldn’t bode well for the validity of the MUCH older 5700 year old Pentuach -- which was allegedly penned by the hand of Moses. Make no mistake about it.  While it certainly wouldn’t destroy the pillars of Judaism, a fictitious Jesus would lay the foundation for plausible Old Testament mythology giving us a fictitious Abraham, Isaac, Ruth, Ester, and a thoroughly imaginary jawbone of an ass.  And fundamentalist Jews cannot allow for even the mere possibility of that. Christianity comes directly from Judaism, and both religions rely (not heavily but completely) on the validity of very old, directly related documents, so what happens here is nothing more than a little professional courtesy, theologically-speaking.  The mutual historic validity of the Old and New Testaments is like two women misrepresenting their true age.  You vouch for me, I'll vouch for you.  [elbow poke]  Everybody wins, capice? By the way, this kind of cross-doctrine validation is even seen in Christian apologetics when it appears to support their argument.  Some apologists actually declare validity to parts of the Hindu bible (The Gita) and claim that it makes mention of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Myth If you study your religious mythology you'll find many savior gods whose life story matches that of Jesus very closely if not identickally. And here's the clincher.  All of them pre-date the historical Jesus, some by as many as SIX HUNDRED YEARS. Bethlehem, we have a problem... In his book, "The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama" (1956), Lord Raglan developed a 22-point common trait profile of mythic hero archetypes.  (Buy it here on Amazon.com for $12.) This list of traits represents the sum total of all significant life events and attributes of every mythical literary hero that Raglan could identify: Mother is a virgin Father is a king Often a near relative of his mother, but... Circumstances of his conception are unusual Reputed to be the son of a god At birth an attempt is made (often by his father) to kill him Is spirited away Reared by foster parents in a far country We are told nothing of his childhood Upon reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom After a victory over the king and/or giant, dragon, or wild beast... He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor Becomes a king Reigns uneventfully for a time Prescribes laws, but... Loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects Is driven from the throne and city Meets with a mysterious death... At the top of a hill His children, if any, do not succeed him Body is buried, but nevertheless... Has one or more holy sepulchers Out of 22 possible points, Jesus tied King Arthur with a scored of 19.  (Woo-hoo!)  But they were both bested by Oedipus and Krishna who slam-dunked a nearly perfect score of 21, and by Theseus who finished with an impressive 20.  Romulus and Hercules trailed behind with 17. The Greatest Story Ever Re-Told Remember all that crap they crammed down your throat in Sunday school?  Well, let's have a little review.  Any of this sound familiar? Born of a virgin on December 25 Stars appeared at his birth Visited by Magi from the East Turned water into wine Healed the sick Cast out demons Performed miracles Transfigured before followers Rode a donkey into the city Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver Celebrated a communal meal with bread and wine to represent flesh and blood Killed on a cross (or a tree) Descended into hell Resurrected on the third day Ascended into heaven to forever sit beside father god and become divine judge Yeah, well guess what.  What you just read is a list of some of the attributes of other historically documented savior gods -- all of which pre-date Jesus. "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."  - Justin Martyr, church father Here are just a few (of many) historically documented mythological gods to get you started: Mithras Osiris Dionysus Horus (whose birthday just happens to be December 25) Addis Bacchus Adonis Please, I implore you.  Don't take my word for it.  Check it out for yourself, folks.  Just Google their names and read whatever you find -- even if it was written by a Christian apologist.  (This is critical as even they won't deny the existence and identical nature of these myths.)  And don't forget to note when their story was first told. The names, locales, and other minor points may vary, but what matters most is the fact that... There are many of them They are all historically documented They all pre-date the historical Jesus Remember, you won't find even one other savior god myth that followed that of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. Given all this, it's the official fundamentalist Christian apologist response to this logistical nightmare that proves to me that Jesus of Nazareth (not just the Jesus of the bible, but also the historical Jesus) was a complete and total myth.  Read on. Getting Defensive Even the most rabid fundamentalist Christian won't deny that these mythologies exist, that they're dead-on accurate in far too many ways to dismiss them all as sheer coincidence, and that they all pre-date the historical Jesus.  To argue any of the aforementioned would destroy their credibility and lose their audience.  And, as we all know, those who preach are all about the audience. But they can't let this one slide by else the ENTIRE foundation of their belief system would be destroyed.  No historical Jesus, no Christianity.  Game over. So where do they go from here?  They need a defense, and all they have are two options. Option 1: SATAN! Yes folks, the Devil.  The official position of the church is that Satan created these myths long before Jesus was born and brought them to mankind.  Satan planted this unholy seed in Trojan Horse style to weave these mythologies into the fabric of the modern culture of the time.  This brilliant maneuver would make dumb schmucks like me and you debate the topic ad nauseum 2600 years later. Your knee-jerk reaction is probably to reject this option as there's no way any intelligent person would believe (let alone argue) this position.  But if you think about it, it's perfectly in keeping with Christian doctrine.  Satan lies.  Satan draws man away from god -- and this is just one of his nefarious methods of accomplishing that goal. Option 2: Distort & Delude While the first option is completely valid to even the most intelligent, articulate, and well-educated Christian apologist, they know that militant skeptics would just laugh at them the instant it rolls off their tongue.  And so a more (seemingly) academic tactic is preferred.  This second option requires a profound distortion of Old Testament lore. What these panicky apologists do is attempt to turn the tables.  They actually argue that it was the authors of the older pagan doctrines who stole the story of Jesus!  But wait a second.  How is that possible?  After all, we all know that pagan mythologies were authored long before Christ was even born. Brace yourself kids.  Apologists actually have the temerity to claim that these pagan religions stole the story of Jesus from the OLD Testament!  No lie. But how can they claim such a thing you ask?  Like I said before, distort and delude. For example, apologists claim that Psalm 22:1-18 speaks of the crucifixion.  Click here to read it and decide for yourself.  They also claim proof in Zechariah 12:10.  Read it twice folks, pay attention and take notes because you won't find one word of it.  Not a one.  But we're not done yet, kids.  This is where the delusion part comes into play. What you need to do now is reach down deep inside your heart and convince yourself that the following verse was used by several independent pagan religions to derive the CRUCIFIXION of a savior god who was to be born 3000 years later: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." "Whom they have pierced?"  That's it?  Um, are you a complete idiot?  It's the foundation of an incredibly wild stretch of a drug-altered imagination at best. And remember, death by crucifixion is only one tiny part of all of the aforementioned dead-on accurate life events they'd have to account for.  Okay, fine.  I might be swayed to concede a few minor points as sheer coincidence, but to argue all of them would be the most offensive and shameful act of special pleading in the history of mankind. Of all the prior savior gods, Mithras is clearly the most threatening to the historical Jesus because of its age and accuracy.  Click here to study and research all of CARM's "evidences" to support their sin of distortion and delusion.  I strongly encourage you to examine each of their Old and New Testament cross-references and decide for yourself who stole what from whom. Let their words be the strongest case against them. Defensive Slence: The Final Nail in the Coffin The fact that these pagan myths are NEVER taught in Sunday school is one of the most compelling reasons to reject all apologetic refutations.  I mean, who sells a used car and volunteers that it was nearly demolished in an accident or that the transmission is three starts away from hitting asphalt?  Like a textbook defense attorney tactic, damning evidences are addressed only when those with something to hide are forced to defend against them. Finally, I would encourage you to watch the documentary The God Who Wasn't There (Brian Flemming, 2005).  Buy it here on Amazon.com for $17. Evolution: Who Cares? I'll probably catch some grief from my fellow atheists who enjoy the study of (and debate on) evolution, but I must air a big pet peeve of mine.  (Like I never do that, right?) I wish my fellow atheists would stop focusing so much on evolution and using it to bolster the case against god because there's really no need for it.  In fact, making it an arguing point (and defending it) works against us –- not because evolutionary theory is weak (in my opinion it's not), but because it gives credence to their assertion that evolution is the cornerstone of our disbelief.  And if that's true, then falsifying evolution would give credence to their assertion that their god exists and that he created the universe. Sure, we all know how it went down... BEFORE AFTER But really.  Who gives a rats ass?  There's no need to defend it to anyone let alone some panicky bible-thumper.  Let them wallow in their delusion...but let them do so in silence. So how do we do this?  Pay close attention. Want to shut down evangelizing Christians when they start in with all the anti-evolution talk?  Do as I do and give them NOTHING to talk about.  Trust me, it works like a charm. What follows is my standard lecture in my words.  Feel free to steal it or find a presentation of your own style.  It gives them nowhere to go with it. Talking the Wind Out of Their Sails To quote Christian apologist and convicted felon Kent Hovind, "Beer is sold at football games.  Beer has NOTHING to do with football."  (Hey, sometimes delusional criminals are correct.  What can I tell ya?) Similarly, evolution is a theory held by most (and virtually all) atheists.  But evolution has NOTHING to do with atheism. In my opinion, the only people who really care (and need to care) about evolution are Christians. Atheism is intrinsically linked to RELIGION.  Evolution (be it valid or invalid) is intrinsically linked to SCIENCE.  But fundamentalist Christians love to mingle the two BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. REVEALING THE TRUE CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC MOTIVE If evolution is true then the Genesis creation account is false.  If the creation account is false then the bible is errant.  If the bible is errant...GAME OVER!  Simple as that, and there's no getting around it. Christians cannot allow evolution to be valid, so any lie to discredit it is permitted and even encouraged to further that end.  I acknowledge that in their hearts they believe that evolution is false.  But an intellectually honest Christian (when you find one) will confess to their intentional deceptions (plural) in the discrediting of evolution under the hypocritical rationalization that they're trying to save souls.  (So much for Exodus 20:16.) You'll find just one of many stunning Christian acknowledgments here: "While there are ministries and individuals that purposefully suppress the truth and present fallacious information, this kind of behavior is extremely evil and antithetical to biblical Christianity." The Coup de Grace Evolution could be true or false and it would have absolutely ZERO IMPACT on my belief system.  There is no god regardless of the validity of evolutionary theory.  Why?  Again, because evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with atheism.  Errancy in evolution would just make it just another one of man's many faulty theories.  Big deal. So to Christians I say, if it will make you feel better and more secure about what you believe, then I'll stipulate it for you...[clearing throat]... EVOLUTION IS FALSE IN EVERY SINGLE WAY AND IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR HOW HUMANS CAME TO BE. Okay, sweetheart.  Feel better Better now?  Good. Um, psssst.  There's still no god.  Next topic please. One Last Thing to Ponder How often do you see or hear Hindus trying to prove that their creation story is true?  And when was the last time you heard or saw a Hindu proselytize?  To both of these questions, the answer is probably never.  It's clear to me that Hindus, by and large, are far more secure in their beliefs and unabashedly more faithful than Christians. Please take some time to visit my favorite apologetics website: The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) If you're a Christian, enjoy.  If you're an atheist, non-theist, or agnostic, also enjoy.  There's something in it for everyone.  Over the years I've enjoyed countless hours of entertainment (and hysterical laughter) at their expense, so I'll happily plug their website and direct a few sinners to their internet doorstep. "What I got in Sunday school was simply a firm conviction that the Christian faith was full of palpable absurdities, and the Christian God preposterous...The act of worship, as carried on by Christians, seems to me to be debasing rather than ennobling. It involves groveling before a being who, if he really exists, deserves to be denounced rather than respected." - H. L. Mencken Copyright © 2004 The Godless Bastard. All Rights Reserved.