Don't fret Mr. Camping, it's not the end of the world.

For many months now, Harold Camping and his followers have been putting up thousands of billboards, handing out pamphlets, giving radio talks, and even traveling across the country in a caravan of ad-covered vehicles to get out the word that the rapture was to occur at 6:00 PM on Saturday, May 21st.  Below you can see some of these unfortunate folk carrying signs with the dubious claim that "The Bible guarantees it!" (as though that were a selling point?)

For anyone not familiar with Camping's rapture predictions, or the Biblical sources he used to reach the date of May 21st, you can check out his "We Can Know" website here.  The site is currently down, likely due to high traffic, but I took a bunch of screenshots several months ago when I first heard about these guys, as I figured the content of the website would likely drastically change when the predicted date came and went without any supernatural events occurring.  You can check out the images below, which feature some of Camping's, er, "rationale" as to why judgment day would be occurring today.

Clearly Jesus didn't descend from the clouds, earthquakes didn't ravage the planet, and fire and brimstone failed to fall from the heavens, as pretty much anyone with the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality already figured was going to happen.

Camping and his followers will get all the ridicule they deserve in the coming weeks for being gullible enough to accept these claims, but today I won't be adding on much more.  Many of these people spent all of their money, ran up massive debt, quit their jobs, left their families, and abandoned their homes to go spread the word.  The shattered lives they will have to try to piece back together after today is far more of a punishment than I could ever give them with mere words, and I sincerely hope they will be able to find a way to return to a semblance of a normal existence.

What bothers me most about today is not Harold Camping or his followers.

On news stories, blog posts, religious websites, and even Facebook discussions, I've seen many Christians attempt to distance themselves and their brand of Christianity from Camping, claiming that no one can know the day when Jesus will return to Earth and rapture off the believers. They've frequently quoted Matthew 24:36, which states "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." I've even engaged in discussion with people who have gone so far as to say that these armageddon ready folks aren't actually "true" Christians at all.

Take, for instance, this post from the Grace Fellowship Baptist church, which derides Camping for making a prediction of the end times, while still maintaining that Camping is correct that the rapture will happen one day.  There's also the delightfully silly Rapture Condition website, which even has a daily rapture forecast (today's is a 2, or "likely rapture." Would they ever have a "5: Not Possible Today" forecast?)

While Camping and his followers have shown the dangers of religious belief first hand, it's not them that prompted me to write this blog today. It’s the Christians who disagree with Camping, not because of his belief that magic zombie Jesus would be descending from the clouds and taking the believers to an invisible heaven realm, but because he had the audacity to try to put a date on this absurd supernatural event that they *all agree will happen* at some unknown date in the future.

All Christians are complicit in this lie, and all are equally guilty here.

It is absurd for Christians to distance themselves from this movement, while still maintaining that it's core belief is perfectly reasonable. They are trying to have it both ways - believing the event will happen, but going out of their way to avoid putting a date on it so they can't ever be conclusively shown that their belief is wrong. They can forever say it will happen any day now, with all those wars and rumors and wars proving it's getting closer, and no amount of time will ever convince them that their faith was misplaced.

Honestly, it’s like hearing someone say “Oh no, no, we’re not like those silly people over there who believe in the boogey man. I mean, the boogey man is definitely real, but they think they know what bed he’s under! How ridiculous is that? Our religious text clearly says no one can know which bed the boogey man is really under, therefore those crazies aren’t *real* boogey men believers, and they give us a bad name!”

Camping has created an amazing case study in how open to interpretation the Bible really is, however. One would think that a book that very clearly says no one can know the day or the hour of Christ's return could only be interpreted one way.  But, like nearly every other passage in that entire "holy" text, 50 people can read it, come away believing 50 different things, starting 50 different denominations, and all believing with great fervor that God backs up their interpretation and disagrees with all the rest.  

If you read through Camping's writings, he uses other verses found throughout the Bible to show that the text in Matthew doesn't currently apply to believers, and that God really does say we can know when the end times will finally roll around.  For those Christians who may scoff at this notion, consider how much of a common practice this is in any denomination of Christianity. Plenty of Christians are willing to use later verses in the Bible to explain away why people no longer have to follow the earlier verses about stoning children to death, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, sacrificing goats and splattering their blood on an altar, and prohibitions against eating shell fish or wearing clothes with mixed fibers. One of the most elegant solutions I've seen from Camping followers is to simply look at the tense of the verb in the sentence.  After all, it only says "No one knows the day or the hour," it doesn't say "No one can know the day or the hour later."

The link between standard Christian belief and Harold Camping's belief doesn't end there however. Consider those verses that clearly state "this is a permanent law for you, to be observed by all generations." There are many such laws in the Bible that Christians no longer follow, such as Leviticus 3:17, which issues a permanent edict against eating fat.  Much like you'd think the phrase "No one knows the day or the hour" wouldn't be open to interpretation, it would seem like the phrase "This is a permanent law for you, and it must be observed from generation to generation, wherever you live" also wouldn't be open to interpretation.  And yet, were I to point this or any other similar verse out to a Christian, they would happily explain to me why the phrase "This is a permanent commandment" doesn't actually mean "This is a permanent commandment."  For Christians to deride Camping for doing this, while they themselves do it on a daily basis, is hypocritical in the extreme.

Isn't it odd that this supposedly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (every at once) being can't be bothered to come down here and settle the matter, plainly and openly telling people which interpretation is right, and which is wrong?  Is baptism in Jesus's name required for salvation?  Can you lose your salvation?  Will there be a seven year tribulation or only months-long tribulation? How many people will get raptured? Is speaking in tongues and casting out demons still supposed to be done by the faithful?  Ask those questions to 10 Christians, and you will get 10 different answers, all with Bible verses backing up their position.


It shouldn't be hard for God to pop down here and let Camping (and the rest of us), know whether or not his interpretation of verses is correct, and yet he remains silent on the subject.  While Camping now has two failed rapture predictions under his belt, there's no doubt in my mind that it won't dissuade him and others like him to continue setting new dates in the future.  God's silence on the subject is rather odd, considering how easy it would be to put a stop to this nonsense if he disagrees with it.


What's even more damning about the Christian deity's silence is how greatly Camping's claims impacted the lives of both Christians and non-believers. Take the Haddad family. The parents of this family believed today would bring the second coming of Jesus, while the children wisely wanted nothing to do with such claims.  These parents have irredeemably changed their children's lives for the worse - going out of their way to tell their kids they aren't going to heaven (just what every child wants to hear from mom!), dragging them through ridiculous streetside demonstrations for something they completely disagree with, and even failing to save any money for their college tuition, since they saw it as a waste of time, what with the world ending and all.


Other people have been completely financially ruined and destroyed relationships with family and friends, all in the name of God and his message. It should have been perfectly within this God figure's power to have warned all these people not to leave their jobs and spend their life savings on false teachings, and yet he actively chose not to.  They joyfully ruined their lives, believing that they were following God's word and that God fully supported their actions. I would submit that such a being could not be considered to be either "loving" or "good," which are two qualities Christians frequently attribute to their deity.

During my discussions with believers and skeptics about the failed rapture, I've noticed that Christians don’t seem to realize that nonbelievers probably want the rapture to happen even more than they do. Personally I would love for the rapture to occur, and I hope that if it did, God would be in a very generous mood and decide to take absolutely anyone with sincere religious beliefs up to heaven, rather than just the members of one denomination of Christianity.

Imagine a world with no Fred Phelps and his family picketing the funerals of dead soldiers with hateful signs. No Pat Robertson blaming terrorist attacks and natural disasters on people’s sexual practices. No laws taking away people’s civil rights because of the words of Bronze Age goat sacrificers. No Pope telling the people of Africa to stop using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. No children dying because parents think prayer is a better option than medicine. No blocking of stem cell research funding due to religious beliefs so we can finally get on the road to cures for diabetes and Alzheimer’s and spina bifida. No groups launching rockets and strapping bombs to their chests because God told them this particular stretch of desert belongs to them. No people giving stupid amounts of money to Scientology to find out the whole thing was really about galactic evil lord Xenu all along. No groups deciding women can’t hold positions of power because the invisible wizard in the sky has a penis and not a vagina.

I’ll take that world over this one any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

And to finish off, I'll leave you with this little slice of animated rapture awesomeness:

The Trades: Judging the Case For Christ

My wife Megan runs a Facebook group in which atheists and Christians come together to read the Bible from the beginning of Genesis all the way to the end of Revelations. One of the religious members of that group suggested that everyone should watch the movie version of Lee Strobel’s apologetic work “The Case for Christ.”  I’d personally already read the book version during my Christian school days (along with other apologetics like Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis), but we agreed to watch the movie anyway in the interest of helping to foster a dialog and get Christians and atheists discussing their beliefs or lack of beliefs.  (As a side note, Megan also posted a blog about Lee Strobel last year that can be found here.)

For anyone who would like to see the video before reading my blog, it’s currently available for instant streaming through Netflix, or you can probably pick up a copy of the book or video version at your local library.  You can also check out Strobel’s website here for additional information on his beliefs and claims.

Strobel’s claim to fame in the apologetic community is that he was a journalist for many years, and he frequently states he used his journalism skills to perform an impartial and open minded study of the Bible to determine if Jesus was a real historical figure, and if he really was a divine entity.  According to Strobel, he was either an atheist or an agnostic, and decided to study Christianity after his wife converted to see if its claims could be verified.

After conducting this lengthy study, Lee Strobel claims he got out a legal pad and drew a line down the middle. On one side he wrote “Evidence For” and on the other side he wrote “Evidence Against.” He stated that he simply had to believe in Jesus, as the “Evidence For” column far outweighed the “Evidence Against” column. 

What he fails to mention in this story is that he only interviewed people on one side of the debate, and only looked at pro-Christian information.

Consider for a moment if I drew a line down a legal pad and on one side wrote “Reasons why Taco Bell is the best.” Then on the other side I write “Reasons why Taco Bell is not the best.”  Now let’s say to compile the evidence for this list I only interviewed Taco Bell executives. I never interview anyone from Arby’s or Sonic or Burger King or any other restaurant that may disagree with the phrase “Taco Bell is the best.” 

Do you see why this doesn’t work?

For all his claims of being on an “investigative journey,” Strobel never once interviews anyone from the opposing side.  That’s not only dishonest, it also makes the whole “investigation” completely pointless. For those who have seen this video and have used it to try to convince people that Christianity is true, I recommend that they go back and watch it again.  If you have the book version of “Case for Christ,” please pull it out now and flip through it.  Look for the interview Strobel conducted with a scholar who does not believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who performed miracles.  Look for the interview with the prominent atheist who has a book published or some other credential that would make the person relevant to the debate.  You can stop looking now, because these interviews don’t exist.  Strobel never once interviewed a single person on the opposing side of the issue.

He makes a point of asking everyone to be open minded and critically examine the evidence, no matter where it leads, but he himself was completely unwilling to do so in this video.  The only time nonbelievers appear is for 15 to 30 second clips of random people on the street talking about what they think of Jesus.

As the movie progresses, it becomes unfortunately clear that Strobel doesn’t actually know what the word “witness” or phrase “eyewitness testimony” actually mean.  He repeatedly claims that there were many eyewitness testimonies (that is, first hand accounts) of the life and resurrection of Jesus.  This just simply isn’t the case.  The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all written literally decades after the events they describe. 

Consider whatever you did last night. Now consider if someone decided to write about that night forty to seventy years later and claim to know exactly what you did or said in detail.  See the problem here?  The bizarre part is that Strobel seems to be aware of this fact, but it doesn’t bother him.  He even says that “only being one generation removed is still good eyewitness testimony.”  I’m sorry Lee, but that’s just simply not the case.  Being an entire generation removed no longer qualifies as “eyewitness,” and it certainly isn’t “good testimony.”

Luke wasn’t even actually there to witness the events described in his gospel, so his accounts must be considered second hand even if you believe the Bible is entirely literally true. The problem is further compounded when one considers that it’s commonly accepted among scholars that Matthew, Mark, and John weren’t actually written by the apostles bearing those names.  The subject of the composition of the gospels is a rather complex one, with many different sources to be considered, but I would urge anyone wanting further information to simply perform a google search for a phrase like “gospel of Matthew” or even “Authors of the gospels” and dive in headfirst.

Strobel is also aware of the contradictions present between the four gospels, as many of them explain events quite differently or leave out important pieces of information present in the other ones. To explain this, Strobel says that we should expect differences in eyewitness testimonies (again, the gospels cannot in any way be considered “eyewitness testimonies”) and that courts of law suspect that witnesses are colluding together if their stories *don’t* differ in some way.

The problem with this is that we aren’t dealing with minor discrepancies of normal, everyday things that might show up at a trial.  The issue isn’t something minor like whether Jesus’ robe was white or brown.  The issue is with major differences.  For example, the gospel of John doesn’t even mention the virgin birth or Jesus being baptized.  Think about that for a moment.  The person who wrote the gospel of John either didn’t think it was worth mentioning that Jesus was born of a virgin, or he wasn’t even aware that people held this belief. That’s pretty much a deal breaker right there, and not some minor discrepancy that one would expect between different witness testimonies.  When dealing with outlandish supernatural claims, a higher standard for evidence is simply required.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

From there, Strobel and his interviewees go on to make a common mistake from theists – trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible.  The people he interviews talk about how 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 claims that 500 people personally saw the resurrected Jesus.

To address this “evidence,” I’ll ask that the Christians consider how they would feel if someone used this exact same tactic to try to “prove” another religion or the claims of another book.  Say, for the sake of argument, that I believed Middle-Earth was real, and the Lord of the Rings books are descriptions of real events.  Pretend that I tell you I believe in Gandalf, and that he really did arrive with an army to save the defenders of Helm’s Deep in “The Two Towers.”  As a rational, reasonable person, I would hope you’d say “I don’t believe you, prove it. Show me eyewitness.”

In response, I’d say, “Look right here in my book The Two Towers, it says that Gandalf told them he would arrive if they looked to the east at the light of the fifth day – and behold, he appeared!  Hundreds of people at Helm’s Deep saw him! I know it’s true because my book says its true! Those people are eyewitnesses!”

Do you see the problem here?  I can’t use The Two Towers to prove the events in The Two Towers actually happened.  Likewise, saying that the Bible says 500 people saw a resurrected Jesus is not proof that 500 people actually saw a resurrected Jesus, and it certainly can’t be considered “eyewitness testimony.” You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible any more than I can use The Two Towers to prove The Two Towers.

Later, Strobel has to admit that much of the Bible was originally passed down as oral tradition for generations before being written (and that’s not even taking into account the fact that we are dealing with copies of copies of copies of copies of copies in modern day Bibles).  He tries to defend the Bible’s authenticity by saying that oral tradition can easily be passed down for generations without changing.

To answer this claim, I’ll simply ask the reader to play a round of the game of “Gossip.”  For anyone who isn’t familiar with the game, all you do is get 15 or 20 people in a circle.  Have one person whisper a phrase into the next person’s ear.  Have that person whisper the phrase into the next person’s ear, and so on, until it gets back to the original person.  Guess what?  The phrase won’t be even remotely similar to what it was originally.  Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here.

As his coup-de-grace, Strobel asks the question, “But why would they lie?  Why would the people who wrote the Bible be willing to die for their beliefs in they weren’t true?”

First off, he’s shot himself in the foot just by asking the question.  If martyrdom proves a religion is true, then Islam and Judaism and a horde of other religions are also true.  Christianity is most certainly not unique in that it has members who have died for their beliefs.  There are martyrs of many religions.  Should I ask why those people would die for something they knew was a lie?  Religion makes it clear that human beings are willing to die in order to maintain a delusion, and that believing something is true does not actually make it true. 

Religion is dangerous in that regard, as it teaches people to ignore the one life they really have in favor of a fictional afterlife that they can’t even prove actually exists.  It’s this willingness to die for religious beliefs that leads to suicide bombers and Christians who shoot abortion doctors and religious parents who let their children die because they believe prayer works better than medicine.

Strobel also uses the tactic known as the “argument form prophecy,” which claims that the Bible must be true because Jesus in the New Testament fulfills the prophecies in the Old Testament.  All one has to do to counter this argument is point out that not only was the New Testament written long after the Old Testament, but that the people who wrote the New Testament were intimately familiar with the Old Testament.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened there.  How hard is it to make prophecy fit if I am intimately familiar with the prophecies and am writing the next book?

I’ll also again ask Christians to consider if they would accept similar claims from other religions.  Should we take fulfilled prophecies from the Koran as proof that Islam is true?  Should we take the foreshadowing in The Hobbit that is later fulfilled in the Lord of the Rings as proof that Middle-Earth is real?

To finish off my look at the Case for Christ, I’d like to mention an off-hand comment Strobel made about how he realized he needed “more faith to maintain atheism” than he needed to become a Christian. It always baffles me when Christians uses this phrase, because it’s clear they haven’t thought through the implications of what they are saying.  Is this phrase meant to be an insult, or a compliment?

By saying this, does the Christian mean that having more faith than a Christian is a negative thing?  Are they saying that having faith in something without evidence is bad?  If so, it is the Christian’s duty to immediately stop having faith in zombie Jesus or his talking snake nemesis.  On the opposite side, is the Christian trying to say that having more faith than a Christian is a good thing?  If so, then what was the point in making the statement at all?  It’s a self-defeating argument, and one that makes the arguer look rather foolish in the process.

For anyone who would like to see what others had to say about the Case For Christ, you can find other reviews here and here.

Common Religious Tactics: The Personal Testimony

During my discussions with the religious, I’ve found that there is a major disconnect between what the theist will accept as valid evidence and what the theist expects others to accept as valid evidence.  While a Christian theist has no problem proclaiming that atheists will see the truth of God’s glory and the reality of hell when they die, they aren’t in any way persuaded by a similar argument that they will see the truth of Valhalla’s existence when they pass away without knowing a glorious death on the field of battle.

One of the areas where this disconnect comes most strongly into play is that arguing tactic known as the “personal testimony.”  Anyone who has been directly involved with Christianity (of absolutely any denomination or creed) has likely heard many personal testimonies describing why an individual believes in a talking snake and a big invisible man in the sky.  Perhaps they heard a voice, or had a prayer answered, or got through a tough time due to the help of religious devotion, or so on.

For those not familiar with this particular phenomena, here is the definition of a “personal testimony” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormons):

“A testimony is knowing something is true through revelation from the Holy Ghost.”

While Christians of other denominations may consider Mormonism to be a cult, it is almost without doubt that they would agree with the above statement if they didn’t know it came from the LDS church. The problem with the personal testimony as an argument for theism is clearly highlighted by the differences between Mormons and absolutely any other denomination of Christianity, from Catholics to Baptists to Pentecostals to Charismatics to Seventh Day Adventists. 

The problem is this: absolutely no one can agree on what the Holy Ghost is truly saying.  Pentecostals believe the Holy Ghost is saying something completely different than what Catholics think its saying.  Mormons think it says something very different from what Baptists think it has said.  The kicker here is that all of these groups are equally convinced that they alone are aware of what the Holy Ghost has really revealed, while simultaneously believing that all the other groups are misled in some way.  None of them ever consider that the rest of these groups feel the same way about them.

To an outside, unbiased observer it is clear that “the Holy Ghost” is nothing more than any given person’s own thoughts and personal feelings.  How else does one explain that one denomination allows priests to marry while another does not, or how one denomination feels that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of hellfire while another disagrees completely?  How else does one explain that Pentecostals fervently believe that baptism and speaking in tongues are required for salvation, while evangelical Christians think it requires nothing more than a telepathic affirmation of your allegiance to Jesus?  All of these completely opposing beliefs are also all drawn from reading the exact same book. Wouldn’t an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God make it more clear what He really required to be saved from an eternity of torture in hell?

While arguing with the religious, it’s critical that the non-believer hold the believer to the same standard as they would hold anyone else.  At the very least, a Christian engaged in debate with an atheist should be able to agree that the same standard of evidence and proof be held by both parties.  If one person in the discussion would refuse to accept a particular argument as valid, it should be agreed that the other party can also refuse to accept that particular argument as valid.

To explain what I mean, let’s take a look at a few personal testimonies I’ve received while debating with the religious.  This first testimony found below is from a person we’ll refer to as “Mr. Habit.” While explaining to my wife why he believed in Christianity and why he felt his supernatural beliefs were more real than those of any other religion, “Mr. Habit” had this to say:

Our delusions are not delusions as you suppose. Us Christians have a sure Rock as a foundation to Hold us at peace when All hell Has Broken Loose. But I challenge you, when Your Job Has no more demand for You, and YOur Friends All Abandon You, And Your Love Ones Abort YOu, We will see if Science is able to Hold on to you...LOL!

But Jesus is the Truth the Way and the Life! For He died And came back to Life. I know because I tried to Live by His Standards and MY Death Was Turned into Life.

My feining Drug Addictions, My unnatural Masturbation Habits which I did so frequently that my penis started to Sting and My Body began to age like a 40 year old and I'm only 25, been masturbating since thirteen, and finally seen it's bad effects and started to quit. Masturbation speeds up the Aging Process. Look at the male Black widow.! When it ejaculates, it takes up so much energy that He dies after Ejaculating.

My Lust habits were so bad that when I would have sex with women of whom i didn't even know their first name several times....

My Bitterness was so bad that I told My OWN Mother that I wish I had never been born, And I wish that I myself had never been Made.

My thoughts Of Suicide were so Bad that I Said to myself... That I might as well Search and Find out if God is REAL or Not Before I give my Life Up For Nothing!

But HOW Could Science Save Me from my bitterness, or Drug Habits, or Fornication Lusts, and My Anger and RAge At Creation?

But O' When I searched OUt Jesus, to get baptized in HIs name to See if He was REal, I took His Word for what It was and I was sorry for all of My sins, and asked him to search my heart , and if there be anything unclean that He would not approve, to take it out that I might Live Pleasing to His Sight! All I wanted to do was be a Good Child to My Mother Growing UP, but when I looked at the World and Our Government and Saw HOw Evil Everything was Governed, I felt That The World was unfair and I decided to Give my life away to Riotous Living.

Until I called out for Jesus and He saved Me!

1) NOw I have Glorious Relationship with my mother!

2) I have become the C.E.O. of my own Non-Profit Organization and am as graceful and meek as a servant!

3) And I no longer snort drugs, nor have sex premaritally, and no longer have thoughts of suicide but have rather thoughts of giving life to those who didn't have a fair chance like me.

See that's What God does, He turns your Sorrow into Rejoicing!

YOur Blame and Shame into fame.

Your Death into life.

Leaving Everything to Follow HIs Word( Christ's Commands) is A way to find Him! Seek and ye shall find. KNock and it shall be openned. As and it shall be given.

First off, I want to point out that, as always, I haven’t changed a single letter of what this Christian wrote. All the misspellings and punctuation errors are original text that hasn’t been altered in any way. We’ll set aside all the absurdities and the bizarre views on masturbation (black widows die from masturbation according to this person?!?), as Megan has already dealt with the subject extensively in her blog at this location.

It should also be noted before moving on that “Mr. Habit” seems to think reality is subjective, as he implied that Christianity would suddenly become more real for me if my friends and family abandoned me.  For the record: something either is real or it isn’t.  Zeus doesn’t become any more or less real just because events in my life go either well or poorly.

Before explaining in detail why I don’t accept the personal testimony of “Mr. Habit” as proof of Christianity's claims, let’s take a look at another Christian testimony I received online some months back.  This one is from a previous conversation on this blog (available here) with an individual I’ll refer to only as “DM.” Here’s the personal testimony from this person:

This is the result of the Bible you say was written by humans. A dictionary could not have done this: (a brief history to the present)

Because of spending time with people raised in families who knew not God, I was smoking by the age of seven. At nine I started drinking, started smoking pot at 10 and playing drums in a heavy metal band for nine years starting also at age 10. During that time I made $25. 57 an hour at the age of 18-19. I drove a 72, SS Chevelle, had beautiful blondish/brown hair going down to the middle of my back, had a stunning girlfriend, the popularity of a band member, and all the drugs and extra women I wanted. The years that I was knowingly apart from God were the most irresponsible, empty, misguided and ill-directed years of my life. When at 19 years old I saw a vision of destruction while intensely inebriated, my life was about to radically change. A voice relentlessly called me to pick up and read the Bible. I finally listened, and within a month I was baptized. I read the Bible from six to eight hours a day for the first year of being a Christian. I was trained as a missionary and called to be a pastor after only four years of accepting to follow God. Since then I have seen more miracles and have had a far better life than ever I could have imagined possible. Why? Because I committed my self to the God in Bible study, prayer, and witnessing. Since becoming a Christian, I’ve seen many lives changed from being like mine to being like Christ’s in radical ways. These lives are an example of multiple miracles each. Beyond the changed lives, I’ve seen Sheri take a CT Scan that showed a major heart attach which the doctors said must have been a mechanical error because of the further tests that were done the next day after I had prayed for the Lord to give her a new heart. Larry’s granddaughter was only two years old with a tumor inside of her head the size of a man’s fist. After praying on our knees together, Larry’s granddaughter was tumor-less while the doctors had no explanation. What about a man named David? He fell many feet from a rock and exploded his ankle. When going in for an x-ray, the results showed that he needed to be immobilized in that leg and would need a cast after the swelling went down. After praying about it, the very next day he woke up, got out of the bed and put on his clothes. He went to work and saw the doctor come in, a non-Christian doctor, which was amazed at his standing and mobility. What about when I was working and heard a mental voice give me an address? I wrote it down, told the boss about it, a Christian, and she said that I should write a letter to it. I knew that it must be to my girlfriend’s mother, who lived on Jajoba road, so I wrote and sent it. A week or two later the response came back with an exasperating note that said, something like, “Thank you sooo much for your letter DM. I had been praying, and that letter was my answer!” Time would fail us both if I were to recall all the times I needed money, clothes, food, and the basic other needs of life while a missionary. While without pay for a year and a half with my family, God sent ample provisions for myself, my incredible family, and enough to share with others. Now, my life has been so changed as to have a peaceful, loving, happy home with my wife and two amazing children.

My testimony is living proof that there is Divine power in the Bible that works to do what it says it will.

I challenge all of you to use the Bible for the next year to find what you can to prove that God is who you say He is, and you will not only see a Holy and Living God, but an angry devil. Open that Word and give it a fair chance, and your lives too will be changed.

Again, I want to stress that I haven’t altered a single letter or changed the formatting of this text in any way.  The personal testimony you’ve read above has been delivered in exactly the same way it was first presented to me during an online conversation.

I’ve posted the video below in several of my blogs, and it seems it’s necessary to do so again.  It’s important for the religious to understand that personal anecdotes are not proof, as anyone can claim anything and I would have no way of verifying the information.  It would be just as easy for me to claim that an invisible giant fuzzy pickle named Bob cured a tumor as it was for the individual above to claim the Christian God cured a tumor – and both claims have absolutely no evidence to back them up. 

It’s always interesting how the claims of these personal testimonies don’t seem to have any corroborating evidence.  For instance, the person who gave the testimony above was both unwilling and unable to provide a link to a news story from a legitimate news source where a doctor discussed any of these “miracles” occurring.  I know that if I had a serious ailment miraculously cured through supernatural means, I’d have copies of my medical records created immediately and I’d make them available for the whole world to see so that they too could benefit from supernatural healing.

As a side note on the subject of faith healing, you can check out the video of our own trip to Portland to test the claims of faith healers here. I also have a blog discussing a documentary on faith healing titled "The Finger of God" that can be found at this location.



After having read both testimonies, are you seeing a trend here?  Apparently Christians can’t stay off the drugs or keep themselves from cheating on their girlfriends without a belief in a big invisible man in the sky, his zombie son, or his talking snake nemesis.

This all very odd, considering my own atheist version of a “personal testimony.”  I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe in Jesus or Yahweh or Zeus or Thor or Poseidon or Hecate or Allah or Cthulhu or any other deity.  Yet despite this oh-so-damning fact, I am not a drug abuser.  I am not involved in gang violence.  I’m not a thief.  I haven’t been randomly aged to 40 despite my masturbation habits.  I am a married, monogamous, heterosexual man who has never even once cheated on his spouse.  I am a productive member of society with an amazing job. 

What all these testimonies have led me to this is conclusion: a belief in the supernatural is simply not required to be a good person or to keep yourself off the drugs.

Whenever I’ve brought this point up to the religious in my discussions, both online and offline, I’ve always been presented with a question in response.   Christians frequently bring up this objection to give their personal beliefs credence. They will simply ask, “But why would they lie?”

This is a common Christian tactic that is presented in many different settings.  Christians are just as likely to bring up this idea while talking about the gospels of the New Testament as they are to bring it up while explaining modern personal testimonies. 

First of all, it’s quite easy to see why someone would either purposefully lie about outlandish claims or accidentally continue to spread false information due to ignorance of the subject.  Religion gives people things they can’t actually have.  By believing in Christianity, an individual gets to believe that they will live forever in paradise, while the people they don’t like will be punished for all eternity.  It lets people believe that the creator of the universe is looking out for them specifically.  It’s not hard to realize why someone would lie about a personal testimony.

While it’s important to answer the question of “why would they lie?” it’s even more important to immediately turn the question around and post the same query to the Christian.  If the very question of “why would they lie?” is meant to be evidence of a claim’s truth or falsehood, then that question proves the personal testimonies of all people of opposing religions as well.

If the theist is using an argument they absolutely would not accept in any way from members of opposing religions, then the atheist shouldn’t have to accept it from a Christian either.

Consider for a moment if a Christian provided a personal testimony from a friend who had given up a cocaine addiction through belief in Jesus.  When this testimony is met with skepticism, the Christian asks “But why would my friend lie about this?”  Now consider for a moment if I responded to that question with another question: “Why would a Wiccan lie?”

Yes, that’s right, I’ve heard personal testimonies from Wiccans as well as Christians.  In fact, I personally know a Wiccan who was a Sunday school teacher for many years and later converted from Christianity to Wicca because the Christian religion offered her no peace, while Wicca gave her a peace beyond understanding. 

 If this Wiccan woman provided her personal testimony to a Christian, would that Christian in any way be moved to convert to Wicca?  Of course not!  While Christians expect their personal testimonies to convert others, they never consider that people of opposing religions might have equally compelling testimonies.  I’ve heard Wiccans make claims of supernatural healing through casting spells that are on par with any claim of supernatural healing from a Christian due to prayer.

The two testimonies I presented earlier are not by any means the only testimonies I have heard from Christians.  While interviewing a series of Christian heavy metal bands for an article on religion’s role in music (available to be read here) I was sent the following testimony by a musician who goes by the name “Fire” from the Polish black metal band Elgibbor:

I came to a time in my life when I felt the lowest. I was doing drugs and felt like life had no meaning. God used that time to open my eyes through some help of a friend. He showed me that He was more than just religion. God still helps me exist in this cruel world. Sure I have problems just like everyone does, but with God it makes life so much easier.

Now let’s take all these personal testimonies from Christian folks, and let’s compare them to the personal testimony of actress Kirstie Alley, who (much like Mr. Habit, DM, and Fire) claims that her religion got her off drugs (cocaine to be specific).  The kicker?  She’s talking about Scientology, not Christianity, in the following quote:

“This work gives me the opportunity to help people in the fight against drugs, which were ruining my life a dozen years ago. This branch of Narconon especially helps Native Americans in the area. Indians have a big problem with alcohol and drugs. I grew up with an admiration for their culture and was sensitive to their problems.

"Most of the people I know--literally--have been through drug rehabs two or three times. The difference is that this program stops the revolving-door effect. For me it means being drug-free and learning to function in life.

"This program salvaged my life and began my acting career. When I was an interior designer in Wichita I was a druggie and life didn't go well. I'd call in sick a lot, making excuses just so I could do coke.

"When I came to Los Angeles in 1979 I went to the detox center at Narconon. It was like night and day once I had completed the program. I've never had the desire to do drugs since. When I was straight, I had the courage and energy to try to become an actress. I owe my career to my will to stop using."

Neither “Mr. Habit” nor “DM” nor “Fire” can claim fame or an acting career because of their personal testimonies.  Should we take the words of Scientologist Kirstie Alley over the words of these Christians?

But it doesn’t end there.  Consider the personal testimony below found on this site, which also explains a man giving up drugs due to God.  Only this God is Allah, and this man’s religion is Islam, not Christianity.

My life before was bad. I had no direction in life. I was wasting my life away by dropping out of school in the 11th grade. I would hang out in the streets with my friends "partying", getting high, drinking and selling marijuana. Most of my friends were gang members. I myself was never in a gang. I knew most of them before they turned bad, so it was not a problem. I slowly began to use harder drugs. I had dreams, but they seemed too far away for me to make them reality. The more I became depressed, the more I turned to drugs as a temporary escape.

One day a friend of mine told me that he knew where to get some good marijuana. I agreed to go check it out. We arrived and went inside this apartment. There were a couple of people inside. We sat around and talked for a while and sampled the weed. My friend and I bought some and were getting ready to leave when my friend said one of the guys there invited us to his apartment to give him a book.

We left for this guy's apartment. When we got there, he gave my friend a book and asked him to read it, and said that it might help him out with his problems in life. On the way home I asked my friend to show me the book that the guy gave him. It was the Qur'an (Koran).

I had never in my life heard of The Holy Qur'an. I began to briefly read some pages. While I was reading I knew that what I was reading was true. It was like a slap in the face, a wake up call. The Qur'an is so clear and easy to understand. I was really impressed and wanted to know more about Islam and Muslims.

The strangest thing is that I was not looking for a new religion. I used to laugh at people that went to church, and sometimes said that there was no God, although deep down I knew there was. I decided to go to the library a couple of days later and check out the Qur'an. I began to read it and study it. I learned about Prophet Muhhamed (Peace be upon him) and the true story of Jesus son of Mary (Peace be upon him).

If a Christian wouldn’t accept the above personal testimony as proof of the existence of Allah and the truth of Islam, then they simply can’t expect anyone else to accept their personal testimonies as proof of the existence of Yawheh and the truth of Christianity.

Common Religious Tactics: Idiocy, Morals, Monkeys, and Everything

Over the last year or so both Megan and I have been involved in dozens of direct debates, both online and in person, with theists of various stripes and individuals who believe in supernatural events but don’t adhere to a specific religion.  In addition to our own discussions, we also frequently watch videos or read transcriptions of other debates on the subject to remain informed on the various arguments and tactics used by both sides.

While watching a video this morning we came across a condensed version of some of the most frequent arguments we see from theists.  In the clip, the religious individual brought up four main points in rapid succession, while trying to prevent the opposing side from being able to respond to any of them.  Since we’ve seen these same arguments, in one form or another, in many of our discussions with the religious I’ll explain how I respond to them.

Broken down, the objections to atheism were as follows:

1. Atheism is idiocy, because the existence of God is self-evident.

2. Where do your morals come from if you don’t believe in God?

3. Why are there still monkeys around if we evolved from monkeys?

4. How do you explain the existence of the universe if God isn’t real?

When dealing with a barrage of opposition of this nature, frequently delivered all at once, it’s important to take a step back and address each issue on its own.  During debates with the religious, it’s entirely too easy to let the discussion drift between issues quickly without anything being covered in adequate detail, which gives the religious debater the upper hand.  Religious belief of any nature thrives on jumping to conclusions without closely examining the evidence, or even outright ignoring evidence that is readily available and contradics currently held views. With a discussion of this nature, it’s critical to calmly and rationally delve into each objection singly and try to get the opposition to actually think about the answers to these questions, instead of just letting them continue to believe that the very questions themselves somehow prove a point.

Before moving on to dealing with the four issues themselves, at least some time should be taken to clarify what exactly is meant by the term “atheist.”  I’ve had discussions with religious folk who literally believe that atheism somehow equates to active devil worship, despite the fact that atheists don’t believe in the Christian devil.  Other than clearing up misconceptions, explaining the meaning of the term atheism gives you a chance to establish common ground with the theist. 

For example, as an atheist I don’t believe in anything supernatural or in the multitude of gods and goddesses described by mankind throughout our history.  I don’t believe in magic powers or unicorns or fairies or Zeus or Thor or Jehovah or Allah.  While a Christian may completely disagree with me about the existence of Jehovah, most of them are willing to admit that Zeus isn’t real and is nothing more than a fairy tale.  Creating that common ground gives the atheist a better place to argue from and a better way to frame arguments from a perspective both parties can agree on.  Many theists are willing to admit that it would be a nonsensical practice to offer sacrifices to Zeus in hopes of staving off his lightning bolt wrath.  Likewise, I find it equally absurd to think that I need to telepathically affirm my allegiance to the sacrificial lamb/zombie son of Jehovah to avoid an eternity of hellfire and torment.

As a final issue before delving into the issues themselves, it is critical that the burden of proof be discussed with the arguing theist.  When a theist asks a question such as “If God isn’t real then where did the universe come from?” they are working from a worldview where atheists have to disprove the existence of their deity.  This clearly isn’t the case, however, because the burden of proof requires that the person claiming something exists must prove that thing’s existence.  The person hearing the claim isn’t required to disprove the claim.

Consider if we ignored the burden of proof, as so many Christians do, and we worked off the assumption that all beliefs are correct until proven wrong.  This would mean that all Christians would need to disprove the existence of Allah, and conclusively prove that Islam is not the one true religion, before being able to dismiss Islam’s claims.

One of the easiest ways to illustrate this point is to explain an absurd supernatural belief that has no evidence to back it up, and ask the theist to disprove it.  A favorite example of mine is the giant fuzzy pickle named Bob.  Say that I believed the universe was created by a giant fuzzy pickle named Bob, and that Bob’s nemesis (an invisible purple elephant named Tim) created Christianity to lure people away from Bob’s truth.  Christians absolutely can’t prove my belief wrong and conclusively disprove the existence of Bob (to do so would require knowing literally everything in the universe, as Bob may be hiding at the center of reality and actively obscuring himself from human detection). 

I could even say things  like, “But if Tim doesn’t exist, then how do you explain the existence of Christianity?  The very fact that you believe Christianity proves that Tim exists and that he’s lured you away from the truth.  I pray that one day your eyes are opened before it’s too late.” But just because a Christian can’t disprove my claim, doesn’t mean they have to accept it as a valid possibility.  The burden of proof falls on me to clearly demonstrate Bob’s reality – the burden of proof does not fall on the Christian to disprove Bob’s reality.

1. Atheism is idiocy, as God’s existence is clearly self-evident

The first point brought up by the theist in this particular discussion was that all atheists are idiots, because it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that God must be real.  Laying the framework for a common ground is the best way to approach this objection and show how poorly thought out this point really is.  The person making this claim very likely doesn’t believe in Zeus or Mithras, and yet both of those deities were once widely believed in and worshipped with the same fervor that a Christian believes in and worships Jesus.  Clearly the existence of Zeus isn’t self-evident, which means the theist using this tactic needs to explain in great detail how they feel their deity’s  existence is any more believable than the existence of Zeus or any other man made deity. The burden of proof is the killing blow here.  Its one thing for someone to say God’s existence is self-evident.  It’s quite another to provide the credible, verifiable evidence to back up that claim.  An all-powerful God who is omnipresent (meaning he is everywhere at once) should be able to easily appear and prove his own existence, and yet you’ll note this has never once verifiably happened.

As our understanding of the natural world grows, our need for a God to explain mysteries continues to diminish.  Earlier in our history, human beings attempted to appease various gods with prayers and sacrifices in order to ensure good weather for their crops.  Now that our understanding of weather patterns and atmospheric conditions has advanced through the use of the scientific method, we can predict with a great deal of accuracy what the weather will be like in any given region.  As our understanding of weather grows, our need for gods who influence the weather diminishes.

2. Where does your morality come from if you don’t believe in my God?

By asking this question, the theist exposes his or her belief that atheists (or even people who believe in a different deity) must be completely immoral.  In one discussion I had with the Christian we’ll call “DD” (You can find a different discussion I had with “DD” here), he informed me that if he was an atheist there would be nothing wrong with him murdering my entire family, as there would be no God to declare such an action immoral.  That sort of statement, which is used frequently by Christians trying to cite morality as a proof of God’s existence, shows that religion doesn’t actually account for our morals.  How can one be considered a moral person if his first response would be to go on a murder spree if he discovered God wasn’t real?

Before explaining how atheists can have morals and where the atheist’s morality comes from, it should be noted that belief in the Christian deity, or any deity at all, does not somehow bestow moral values. Take, for instance, those parents who have allowed sick children to die by refusing to use medicine and instead deciding to rely solely on the “healing power” of prayer.  I would hope that even theists can agree that killing children through neglect is not a moral behavior, and yet that behavior is explicitly created by belief in God.  (As a side note, be sure to take a look at the video clip of us taking a trip to Portland to test the claims of Christians that prayer can heal diabetes) An atheist would never pick a magical cure over chemotherapy for a child with cancer, or beseech aid from invisible forces instead of getting a diabetic child insulin, but a theist very well may (and in fact have in all too many cases).

The many atrocities caused by religion aren’t a secret by any stretch of the imagination, and literally thousands of examples can be brought up if one bothers to discuss them long enough.  Holy war, terrorism, Christians who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors, the Pope’s claim that condoms worsen AIDS and that people in Africa therefore shouldn’t use condoms, child abuse and the direct protection of child molesters, the murder of homosexuals, slavery, stoning women to death for nearly any slight imaginable, and many more completely immoral actions are all caused directly or fostered in a supporting atmosphere by religious belief.

I am an atheist, and I consider myself to be a moral human being.  I don’t rape, murder, steal, destroy property, or attempt to enact legislation preventing people I don’t like from getting married.  But how can I possibly stop myself from doing all these things if I don’t believe in an all-powerful outside force that decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

Simple: I follow the golden rule.  I don’t believe any god, be it Jesus or Zeus or any other deity, has a cosmic tally board and is watching to see who is following the rules and who is breaking them. I don’t believe that deity has decided for me what is cosmically right and what is cosmically wrong. People decide on their own, both singly and together as societies, which actions are morally acceptable and which are not.  As an atheist, I don’t require the threat of hell or the dangled reward of heaven to be a good person and prevent myself from hurting others.

At this point the theist is likely to ask something along the lines of: “Why bother being good then if there’s no punishment or reward?”  First off, this very question shows how bizarre the mindset of religious folks really is.  Who has the superior morality – the person who abstains from murder without any threat of punishment or reward, or the person who abstains from murder only *because* of the threat of punishment or reward?  There is nothing inherently moral about giving to charity or being a decent person if the only reason one does these things is to appease a cosmic dictator or ensure a better spot in heaven.

As to why I specifically choose to behave in a moral manner without threat of punishment or promise of eternal reward, the answer is again simple: it is in my best interest to do so.  I don’t want to be stolen from, so I don’t steal.  I don’t want to be murdered, so I don’t murder.  By abiding by the laws of society and my internal moral compass, I help to foster a world in which it is less likely that unpleasant things will happen to me.  Likewise, I help to foster a world that will be safe for my future children.  Belief in God simply is not required for anyone to have moral values.

In many instances the very basis of Christian morality (punishment or reward in the afterlife) is itself immoral.  The Christian denomination of Mormonism has a doctrine known as “baptizing the dead,” in which church members hold baptisms for people who have already passed away.  Mormons believe that these baptisms allow the deceased to reach the celestial kingdom even if they weren’t Mormon in life.  One of the many historical figures the Mormons have symbolically baptized after death is none other than Adolf Hitler, mastermind of the Jewish holocaust during World War 2.  Mormons (or at least the specific Mormons who performed the baptism for Hitler) literally want Hitler to be in heaven.  Where is the morality in that?

One also has to question the morality of a supreme being who decides that an eternity of hellfire is the proper punishment for disbelief. If I, as an atheist who is generally a good person and has never done anything particular “hellworthy,” am to be condemned to hell because I saw no evidence to back up the existence of the Christian God, then I have to call into question that God’s “goodness.”  If God has the ability to prove his existence to me, and therefore save me from being tortured for all eternity, but actively refuses to do so – then it would seem God is the immoral one in this equation.

Finally, there is another important issue to consider when contemplating where morals come from.  If I am correct, and the Christian God isn’t real, then atheists and theists are both taking their morality from men and not from God.  The people asking how I can be moral without belief in God aren’t considering that their morals didn’t come from God either if I am correct in my non-belief.  The various religious figures throughout history who wrote the “holy” books of the world and claimed to receive divine revelation of morality from God were either being actively dishonest or were simply delusional, but either way the end result is the same – all people create their own morals. Some people just claim their morals are backed up by an invisible entity who can’t or won’t show up to confirm their involvement.

3. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

The number of times I’ve seen this question come up in discussions with the religious is actively disheartening, because this is a myth that just won’t seem to die.  Evolutionary biologists do not, in any way, claim that humans evolved from monkeys.  Let me repeat that, as this is key: humans did NOT evolve from monkeys, and no biologist makes this claim.  Christians who ask this question are literally attacking a stance that no one holds to begin with.

Evolutionary biology teaches that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, which likely lived somewhere in the neighborhood of six million years ago.  Humans and chimps both evolved from that common ancestor, taking different evolutionary paths.  The short video clip below shows biologist Richard Dawkins discussing our common ancestor with chimpanzees.



But how can we possibly know this?  Two of the key evidences available for our common descent are the fossil record, and the human genome. Human and chimp DNA is 96 percent the exact same, which is even more of a match than is found between rats and mice. One of the most overwhelming evidences for our common ancestry with chimpanzees is that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes, while humans only have 23.  Yet when scientists studied one of the human chromosomes, they found it to be a perfect blending of two chimp chromosomes.

Another frequent objection, which usually comes up with this same issue, is for the theist to state there are no intermediary forms or “missing links.”  This is one of the most common misconceptions theists hold in regards to evolution, because the fossil record does in fact have many intermediary forms, both in the evolution of humans and other creatures.  This brief clip from Richard Dawkins shows him discussing the evolution of whales and the many intermediary forms that have been discovered and are readily available for scrutiny.



Evolution is an exceedingly complex subject with many different issues to be discussed. If you’d like to see some of the other objections to evolution brought up by theists, you can check out my earlier blogs about famous creationists Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort. I also have another blog here that covers a common creationist tactic of taking a quote from Darwin about the human eye out of context to purposefully be misleading.  I highly recommend that everyone study the science of modern evolutionary biology further to gain a greater understanding of why mankind is the way it currently is.  Numerous websites are readily available on the subject that can be found with a Google search as simple as “evidence for evolution.” Many books on the subject are easily obtainable, such as Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show On Earth,” which is likely available at your local library.

4. Where did the universe come from if my particular God isn’t real?

This issue is usually an “end game” tactic when debating with theists, as they fall back on the same method of thinking that led people to pray to deities to change the weather.  As mentioned before, the need for God shrinks as man’s understanding of the natural world grows.  One of the remaining mysteries that haven’t been 100% explained by science is: “Where did the universe come from, and why is it the universe as opposed to anything else that it might have been?”

First off, it should be noted that man most definitely isn’t completely in the dark when it comes to the origin of the universe.  As has been discussed in several of my previous posts, the theory known as the Big Bang does have observable, verifiable evidence backing it up.  You can check out two resources on the observable evidence for the Big Bang at this location and also here.

Attempting to delve into a subject like the Big Bang with a theist who hasn’t read anything on the subject that didn’t come from an explicitly pro-Christian source, and will likely refuse to do so anyway, is an exercise in futility.  An easier way to tackle this subject is to again refer to the common ground of disbelief in certain supernatural claims and to bring up the burden of proof.

Say, for the sake of argument, that we have completely misinterpreted all the available data, and that all current ideas on the origins of the universe are completely wrong.  Even if that were the case, it wouldn’t suddenly make a supernatural explanation more likely to be true.  Simply having a lack of data or complete understanding of a subject is not a valid excuse to throw up your hands and proclaim “An invisible wizard in the sky must be responsible!”

Take, for instance, any of the supernatural beliefs mankind has held throughout its history which were shown to be wrong when more evidence became available.  Lightning is no longer attributed to an angry Zeus, but is now understood to be electricity brought about by atmospheric conditions.  There was a time when people fervently worshipped the sun as a deity.  Now we know the sun is but one of many stars composed of burning hydrogen and helium.  We no longer have to attribute sickness and healing to witchcraft or the whim of the gods, but instead to germs and genetic dispositions and medicine.

Likewise, in current times, there is no reason to assume that a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe is plausible just because there isn’t enough evidence to have a full understanding of the issue yet.  If a theist insists that a lack of understanding somehow shows that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, then the burden of proof shows that it’s just as likely that Zeus created everything as it is that Jehovah created everything – as there is equally no evidence to suggest either being created existence.

It's also important to take into consideration the implications of the claim that God created the universe.  Christians frequently use an argument known as the "clock without a clockmaker" when trying to convince people that the deity of their particular denomination created everything. I attended a Christian school as a child, and I frequently heard this particular argument.  Typically the Christian will say something along the lines of "If you saw a clock lying in the road, you would never assume that clock simply developed by chance. You would assume that a clock implies there was a clock maker who deliberately designed the clock."

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable argument.  It would in fact seem foolish to say that a working clock developed solely by chance instead of assuming someone put the clock together on purpose.  Unfortunately, this is where the Christian stops using logic in order to continue to maintain a religious delusion.  If nothing exists without a designer, and a clock must have a clock maker, then the next logical step is to ask where God came from.  It would be exceedingly hypocritical, not to mention rather nonsensical, for someone to claim that nothing can exist without a maker, and then immediately claim that God can exist without a God maker.

By throwing your hands in the air and proclaiming "Some invisible God being must have done it!" you only move the equation back one step.  In no way does the assertion that (insert the name of any given religion's God here) created the universe actually answer the question of where the universe really came from.

Please feel free to leave a comment below with common theist arguments you have heard, thoughts on my responses, or even how you have responded to Christians or other religionists when they bring up these issues.

Common Religious Tactics: "I'm Not Religious, I Have A Relationship With Jesus"

In nearly every conversation with the religious that either Megan or I have been involved with, we always see the exact same deflections and arguments come up if the discussion goes on long enough.  In the last segment of this series on common religious tactics, we took a look at the practice of “quote mining,” or taking something out of context to make it sound like something was said when the opposite was actually intended. 

One deflection in particular has been used more and more frequently lately, as it catches on with Christians who spread it across the Internet.  An interesting aspect of the particular tactic we’ll be looking at next is that it relies on the belief that most Christians aren’t “true” Christians, and yet it is used by an increasing number of theists every day. Like many of the arguments we see from the religious, this particular tactic is used because it’s a snappy catch phrase that seems, at first, to shut down any opposition.

Anyone who spends any significant amount of time conversing with the religious about their supernatural beliefs will eventually hear the phrase “I’m not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”  This statement is usually brought up as a defensive mechanism when the many horrors caused by religion are discussed, or when someone mentions that all Christians claim to belong to the one true denomination.

I recently posted an editorial on Metalunderground.com dealing with the subject of Christian musicians playing a style of music known as black metal, which is traditionally known for being vehemently anti-religious.  You can check out the article here.  In the arguments that ensued in the comments on that article, we saw a Christian use this tactic of claiming to have a relationship with a religious figure, while not actually being religious himself.

The following quote comes from “Adonijah,” the drummer for the Christian black metal band Frost Like Ashes:

“Funny that many here actually believe that Christianity is religious.

Actually, a personal relationship with the Creator is the antithesis of religion. Jesus was 100% against religion, as are Frost Like Ashes.

Religion IS enslavement, and it serves the purposes of corruptible man who uses it to bend the weak to their fleshly desires; be it money, power, fame, or simply to feed their ego.

What I have transcends the confines of religion. I don't pray to a god with ears that cannot hear, nor an idol with eyes that cannot see...I have communion with the Father of all Creation. No simplistic and narcissistic religion such as paganism and satanism (or any other pitiful attempt at deperately grasping for some kind of meaning in life aside from acknowledging that God is the Author of Life) can touch that. Not even close.”

For another take on this particular deflection, check out this video of a spoken word poem about how loving Jesus and following the Bible is somehow different from belonging to a religion that's been making the rounds on pro-Christian Facebook pages lately. 

Even a cursory glance at this argument reveals how incredibly attractive it is to anyone who believes in the supernatural.  The argument lets a Christian continue to hold on to literally every aspect of their religion – the zombie savior and his talking snake nemesis, the parting seas, the immediate distrust of science and denial of biology, the contradictory and frequently immoral edicts of the Biblical deity – all while allowing them to distance themselves from any aspect of their religion that causes problems for them in a discussion with atheists. 

It lets them back away from a church that routinely rapes children and then protects the rapists, while still holding to the beliefs put forth by that church.  It lets them claim to be different from the parents who let their children die by refusing to seek medical attention for illness, while still believing that prayer can cure ailments as well as medicine.  It lets them side step the absurdity of Ken Ham’s Ark Park, while still believing that every single species of animal in the entire world lived within walking distance of Noah’s house and got along just fine on the ark without eating each other.

Looking at this tactic from a rational and reasonable standpoint shows that it’s not actually any better than just outright saying “I’m religious.”  A grown adult should definitely take pause and consider whether or not they really want to tell the world they have an ongoing relationship with an invisible friend whose existence can’t be proved in any way.

The amazing thing about this argument is that literally anyone can use it.  There’s no litmus test for who really has a relationship with Jesus and who doesn’t, and it’s a pretty sure bet that (the supposedly all-powerful and omnipresent) God isn’t going to come down here and tell anyone who has it right and who doesn’t, even though it should be well within his power and would actually be in his best interest to do so.  A Seventh Day Adventist can use this tactic just as easily as a Pentecostal.  A Charismatic can spout it off just as quickly as a non-denominational.  People with truly bizarre takes on Christianity that blend in occult concepts or aspects of other religions are just as free to say it as the most mainstream, right wing, gun toting Evangelical.

Based on my own extensive discussions with Christians of many, many varieties, it would seem that only the person you are currently talking to is the “real” Christian, while all the rest are fakes somehow.  Since no one can decide which denomination is the right one or who is really interpreting the Bible correctly, there’s nothing preventing religious people of any leaning from claiming they aren’t religious, they just have a true relationship with Jesus.

Claiming to not be religious, while admitting to having an active relationship with a religious figure, is nothing more than attempt to separate oneself from the absurdities and abuses of religion – while still retaining all the benefits offered by religion.  Claiming to not be religious gives the theist the opportunity to try to separate their supernatural beliefs from other absurd beliefs that have no evidence to back them up.  It’s meant to create a barrier between the person using this tactic and the crazy beliefs of Mormons or the followers of Fred Phelps or any other Christian group worthy of ridicule – even though a critical examination will inevitably show that the person making the argument believes things that are equally ludicrous.

This tactic is similar to the way Christians will attack science whenever it conflicts with the Bible, but then continue to make use of electricity, connect to the Internet on a computer, check the weather forecast, drive a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, fly in planes, use medical therapies and vaccines, etc.  They are more than happy to “sleep with the enemy” when it suits them, but then drop their allegiance whenever it causes them problems.

This tactic is a roundabout way of saying “I’m not religious, I’m just religious.” There’s no practical difference between someone who says “I’m not religious, I have a personal relationship with Jesus” and someone who just says “I’m a Christian.”  Both use the same book as the basis for their supernatural beliefs.  Both believe that a big invisible man in the sky impregnated an engaged 13 year old girl named Mary to give birth to himself and then die and rise from the dead.  Both belong to some denomination or school of thought within Christianity. 

It’s clear that this phrase doesn’t have any actual meaning, other than to give the person making the claim an opportunity to distance themselves from other religious people while still retaining their religious beliefs.

James, another contributor for Metalunderground.com, offered this succinct response to the idea that “having a relationship with Jesus” is somehow less absurd or more grounded in reality than “being religious:”

“Websters does define the word religion, go look it up and tell me which part of your Christianity (since yours is the one true one, right?) is so incongruent with each of those definitions that the mere mention of the phrase religion should be struck down as you do.

“Or, let me tell you why you and other Christians pull that line. It's because you're either embarrassed at the state of the Church and want to distance yourself from them (with weasel words) or you're embarrassed at the fact you believe in supernatural forces so you cover it up to make it sound different to, say believing in ghosts or aliens visitations (with weasel words). In case you haven't guessed, I hate weasel words.”

Common Religious Tactics: Quote Mining

Throughout the many discussions I've engaged in with the religious, both on and offline, I've seen a recurring pattern of certain tactics, arguments, and misunderstandings from the Christian side. Since these come in up in almost every instance, I've decided to devote a short blog to each one, along with an explanation of how to deal with each tactic.

We'll start off with one that no Christian should ever use, considering the Christian proscription against dishonesty, but its one that happens with alarming frequency: Quote Mining. Christians often refer to quote mining as "taking out of context" when its done in reference to the Bible. Essentially what occurs with quote mining is that someone selectively quotes a small amount of a larger text or speech in an attempt to make it sound like someone is saying something they weren't actually saying.

To be fair, many Christians may not actively be aware when they are quote mining, as they very rarely attempt to verify any information before spreading it. Since many Christians would never consider the idea that their pastor or priest or bishop may possibly be wrong about something, the misinformation brought about by quote mining spreads very quickly.

As a first example I'll start off with an instance of quote mining I saw on a person's Facebook info page. This individual listed the following quote from U.S. President Barack Obama:

"To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

This is in fact a correct quote - President Obama did actually say this. The quote comes from his "Call to Renewal" keynote address in 2006 at a conference that was sponsored by a Christian group. President Obama both discusses and defends his faith in Christianity. The quote mining occurs because the individual who posted this quote failed to post the next segment of his speech, in which he said:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Do you see how the first part of his quote now has a very different connotation when taken in the context of the whole speech? By only quoting the first half, it appears that President Obama is advocating that laws should be based on the Christian religion. But when you read the whole thing in context, it's very clear he's advocating for no such thing - he's actively stating the opposite, in fact. First he brings up his faith in order to set his religious audience at ease, and then he explains why religious faith alone cannot be used when passing laws - as not everyone is of the same faith, with some people having no religious faith at all. A clip of Obama stating the second half of the quote can be viewed below, while several clips showing the entire speech can be found at this location.



Quote mining most definitely isn't limited to selectively pulling quotes from political figures however, as evolutionary biologist and atheist author Richard Dawkins is probably the person most frequently quoted out of context by the religious. During a discussion with a family friend we'll call "DD" (You can see some of my previous discussions featuring "DD" here and here.), one of DD's acquaintances came on to defend Christianity and attack science. This individual quoted a single sentence from Dawkins that read, "I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything," implying that even atheistic Dawkins believed in God.

What this person failed to understand was that Dawkins was stating that, scientifically speaking, absolutely nothing can be disproven with absolutely certainty. While I can't conclusively disprove the existence of the Christian God, Christians also can't conclusively disprove the existence of a giant fuzzy pickle named Bob who created the universe. The context of this statement is all important, however, as will become clear when you read the whole quote:

"I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying that there definitely is not anything. I mean, I can’t definitely commit myself to saying there are no fairies. I’m pretty sure there are no fairies, but I think it would be unscientific to do what the extreme religious people do and say ‘I know there is a god.’ I can’t say ‘I know there is no god.’ I can’t say ‘I know there are no pink unicorns.’”

Do you see the difference now? Dawkins wasn't saying that belief in God is reasonable - he was saying the exact opposite. He was stating that an inability to disprove something doesn't mean you have to accept it as a valid possibility. We can't disprove fairies, but that doesn't mean we have to accept fairies as valid possibilities without any evidence to back up their existence. A clip of Dawkins saying this quote in an interview with Bill Maher can be viewed below.



As a final example, we will delve into one of the most common acts of Christian quote mining, which comes from Charles Darwin himself. Creationists frequently quote a single paragraph from Darwin's book "Origin of Species," which seems to indicate Darwin wasn't sure his theory was actually correct. The quote reads:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

When taken alone, it seems like Darwin is saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution. However, as before, the context is all important. The very next paragraph reads:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people is the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Do you see how the context changes everything? Darwin brought up a potential objection a reader might have to his theory, and then goes on to explain why that objection isn't valid. The next few pages of the book explains how eyes evolved, and even list specific examples of animals with eyes in some of those different stages of evolution.

So how do you tell if a quote from a religious person is being mined out of context? Simple: always assume they are quote mined.

Before responding to a quote, always look it up. Google is your friend, and always an easy way to tell if the quote is taken out of context. Type nearly any quote from Dawkins or Darwin in Google, and you'll see page after page of Christian apologetic websites listing the quote, but it will take some time to actually reach the original source of the quote. That's the easiest way to tell - if there are a huge number of religious sites posting the quote and the original source is hidden, it's probably been mined and then repeated without being verified first.

The religious have to rely on ignorance and dishonesty to get their points across. Don't stoop to their level. Truth and reality can win out over superstition and myth if enough people take the time to look at evidence and verify information.