Christianity, for most of the Christian meatheads out there,
rests upon just a few really dumb arguments. These arguments are not very good,
but they've become very popular, simple arguments to appeal to simple minds. For
that reason I would like to answer them here, rather than keep emailing the same
answers to the same dumb arguments. --Mark
Only Christians Can Comprehend The Bible
A stock argument used by some Fundies is that Christians, and Christians
only, can really understand what the Bible is trying to say. These Fundies teach
that unless one has "the holy spirit" it is impossible to know what the Bible is
teaching. But this leads to the following absurdity:
Before knowing the Bible, you have to know Jesus.
But before knowing Jesus, you have to know the Bible.
The end result is that no one can know either Jesus OR the Bible, and this
Fundy dog ends up in a unsuccessful chase of its tail for all eternity.
Another logical conclusion to be drawn from this Fundy belief is that they
REALLY believe in the insufficiency of scripture, which is actually one of the
foundation stones of Catholicism. The Catholics believe that having just the
Bible is not enough to guide one in their Christian walk, one must also have an
official interpreter. The Catholics believe this to be the Church; Fundies would
believe this to be their "still inner voice" which differs from man to man,
which is why there are thousands of different Protestant churches all teaching
different ways to get to heaven. Division seems to be the end result of
abandoning an objective standard for religious dogma.
If It Is
a Myth Why Fight It
Christians who email me this argument seem to think it is just soooo clever,
but, sorry to disappoint you, it's always seemed pretty stupid to me- even when
I myself WAS a Christian. Why? It is too easy to answer. Ready? Here goes:
||Harmful Side Effects
of the Myth
||Religious wars in the Balkans.
Religious wars in Ireland.
Religious wars in Africa.
Discrimination against women, gays, and non-Christians.
Used to justify slavery in pre-civil war America.
Blow up clinics, shoot doctors and nurses.
Turns families against each other, forbids marriage outside of group.
This list could go on for pages. If you really need to see more detail,
then visit my pages:
Victims of Religion
Happy Father's Day
As you can see, the difference is this: a HARMLESS myth such as Santa doesn't
hurt people much. However, a HARMFUL myth such as Christianity needs to be
fought against. If Christians would treat the Biblegod myth the same as the
Santa myth, there wouldn't be any evangelical Atheists, just like there are no
organized "anti-Santa" movements.
And the final sword to finish off this stupid Christian line of reasoning:
The Aztecs used to do human sacrifices to the tune of sometimes over a thousand
a day, all based on a myth- their pagan religion. If you destroy their myth, you
destroy their religion. My question to modern Christians: IF there were still
practicing Aztecs today, would you ignore them, or would you rather battle their
myths with everything you've got???
Christianity is a Relationship and Not a Religion
Dear sir, I am writing this as a christain, but not in a hostile way
towards you. I do not condemn you for your beliefs. Any christain who
ever has, has not been acting in a christain fashion. The reason I found
your posting is that one of my best friends is an atheist, and he is open
minded to debate, and I was trying to better understand his point of
view. So just for debate purposes let me show the proof that you asked
for of God's existence.
I submit this to you that christainity is not a religion at all, but a
truth that we all search for.
Mark Smith here} "Religion" as defined by
the dictionary is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural"
(Webster's). Christianity certainly fits the definition- they serve and
worship their imaginary Biblegod.
As to why Christians seem ashamed of being a
religion, I don't know. Their own New Testament admits quite openly that
they ARE a religion: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the
Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,
and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27 KJV) Of course,
since 99.9999999% of all the people in the world who call themselves
Christians don't live up to James 1:27, in fact, don't even try to, maybe
Christians aren't good enough to be called a religion, and that's why they
are shy about the name.
It is not about church, not about missions, and ceremony it is about
Jesus, who most of us have had a encounter with. I myself was an
atheist up unto the age of 16, but I had a personal encounter with christ
Mark Smith here} This person no more had a
"personal encounter" with Jesus than a Jehovah Witness actually witnessed
Jehovah. What- did this person have lunch with Jesus the other day? Did
him and Jesus watch a football game together? No. His "personal encounter"
with his imaginary friend all took place within his head.
but if you research enough you will find all kinds of things that can
only be explained through the existence of a higher being. Healing
when doctors ahve given up, and even newspaper clipping of people being
Mark Smith here} Claimed healings are
common to many religions. If healings are proof that Biblegod exists, then
they are also proof that the Mormon gods exist, the Hindu gods exists, and
Apollo and Zeus also exist. Is he willing to grant the existence of these
other gods? Hell no, he is a confirmed Atheist when it comes to any gods
other than Biblegod.
I want to submit this historical fact for you, there is not denying that
Jesus was a real man, that is historical,
Mark Smith here} Uhhhh, actually, Jesus is
NOT historical, and that's been one of the main problems of the religion.
There are NO (zero, zip, nada) legit historical references to Jesus
whatsoever from ANY historian- Roman or Jewish- who lived when Jesus is
claimed to have lived. Of course, for someone who supposedly did ALLLLLL
those miracles, you'd think there'd be at least one tiny reference
somewhere in the thousands and thousands of pages of Roman history- IF
Jesus really lived. But there isn't. This does not PROVE he never lived-
most people who live then or now never register a blip on the radar screen
of historians. But then, most people never do the kind of miracles that
Jesus supposedly did, and THAT fact, combined with the LACK OF historical
reference to Jesus, proves an embarrassing problem to the xtians.
it is also historical that he was crucified on the cross, it is also
historical that his disciples fled from him and denounced him after his
death. My question is if this undenyable facts occurred, why does
christainity excist at all. Should it have died with Jesus, but it
Mark Smith here} The FACT that a religion
exists in no wise PROVES it is true. Hell, if existing were the sole
qualification for a religion being "true" then every religion that exists
nowadays, even the Universal Life Church, would be a true religion.
The disciples all of a sudden came out of hiding for three days and
started to preach Jesus, and every one of them were killed. Why did they
get so brave all of a sudden?
Mark Smith here} This claim that all the
Apostles died for their faith is pure horseshit. It is based on a book by
William McBirnie entitled The Search for the Twelve Apostles. The
book itself admits time and time again that these claims of martyrdom are
contradictory, one Apostle may have several different stories as to how
and where they died, and these claims are based on nothing but pure myth
and speculation. One quick example: Simon the Zealot died in England via
crucifixion AND he also died in Persia by being sawed in two!!! Such
horseshit as this is NOT history, but rather Christian gossiping run amok.
I think it is almost undisputable that Jesus had to rise or Christainity
would ahve died with him. But it is the biggest religion in the world
today, and growing all the time,
Mark Smith here} Since when does the SIZE
of a religion have anything to do with the RIGHTNESS of a religion? By
this kind of "logic" Christianity was a FALSE religion for at least the
first fifteen hundred years. And also by this same kind of "logic", since
billions of flies eat shit, we should too: after all, billions of flies
can't be wrong!!! Another point to bring up: Jesus HIMSELF said that "many
are called but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14), so how in hell could ANY
religion that had a BILLION people in it be Jesus' religion???
because he still lives and his tomb is still empty,
Mark Smith here} Of COURSE the damn tomb is
empty- the Christians came in and stole the body!!! (see my essay:
The Roman Soldiers- "We Were There!"
) All an empty tomb proves is that the early Christians were good
if you need more physical proof I can show it to you, I ask you to stay
open minded to my point of view and I will stay open minded to anything you
want to refute or say in response. Sir I take this very seriousy, there is
too much at stake to be wrong, so I hope to hear a response.
Hurt Feelings Resulted in Your Leaving the Church
I was going through your site and I just have one question...Why or what
makes you think the way you do? From my deductions, you seem to have had a
bad experience with the church or someone that represented the church.
Mark Smith here} You would not BELIEVE the
number of Christians who believe the ONLY way someone could POSSIBLY leave
their religion is if they were somehow nuts, mental, screwed up or "hurt". If
I were to blame my leaving your religion on BAD TOILET TRAINING as a child,
would that make you feel safer in your myths??? Fact is, I left your religion
because the founder of your religion, Jesus, was a FALSE PROPHET. But you
can't handle the fact that people- GOOD people- oft times leave your religion
every day and for damn good reasons- not stupid "hurt feelings" or some such
Were an ex-Mormon or ex-Jehovah's Witness join your
church, would you blame their leaving their old church on mere "hurt feelings"
or "crying over spilt milk"??? No, you would extol their moral and theological
courage and pat them on the back for a job well done. Knowing this, why can't
you grant US the same benefit of the doubt, and assume (unless and until
PROVEN otherwise) that we likewise left for good reasons??? Must you ALWAYS
assume the negative???
Of course, I know alot of preachers slander anyone
who becomes an Atheist, claiming (without foundation) that the ONLY reason
someone would DARE to leave their religion of birth is if they wanted to run
wild and naked thru the streets raping and pillaging. The fact that study
after study shows the opposite to be true- that Atheists actually behave
better than Christians- this fact never seems to matter.
I do not share your opinions on the site and am interested to know why you think
the way you do. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I enjoy my
walk with him each day...
Mark Smith here} Once again, the close personal
relationship with an imaginary friend. Fact is, you NEVER met Jesus, never had
lunch with him, never even talked on the phone with him. By definition, you
CAN NOT have a "personal" relationship with ANY body that isn't there in the
Cant imagine life without Him... I respect people of all faiths even though I
may not believe in what they believe. Found it hard to understand your (seeming)
Why Are You
So Angry ???
Typical Christian Email}
I have just finished reading the information on your web
site and I was struck by your tone.
Why does you piece
feel so angry?
Reading your discourse with people who wrote to you to
discuss this topic I felt this same
Anger usually comes from some other emotion.
What is causing your
While reading your piece I felt like you were yelling at
me. Instead of
making any sort of case for your position in a rational tone
you are spending too much time yelling. What are you
afraid of? If your position is so strong why do you bow to
the rhetoric of hate?
If your position as an atheist is secure why do you care
about a bunch of deluded nut cases? You are putting way to
much effort into to your case just for the fun of it. What
is your reason for all this effort and why are you so angry?
So, What About Anger???
I get emails from Christians (see the above for a typical example),
complaining that I come across "so angry" on my web site. Well, I'm not so
sure that I really do. It may just be that most of these Christians, living
in their little antiseptic home-school bubbles, isolated from reality as
much as humanly possible, have never run across real criticism of their
faith before. (Hell, alot of them have never even met a "real live Atheist"
before!) But even if I am angry now and then, why is that so hard for
Christians to handle, and how would me being angry possibly refute my
arguments anyway? The logic and evidence still stand, their Jesus is still a
false prophet and a liar, and pinning labels on me all day long won't change
that- angry or happy the arguments and their conclusions still stand.
The really ironic thing about their complaints of my anger, though, is
that they've really got no room to look down upon anger in others while
their own Biblegod has a hair-trigger temper like Donald Duck. Their whole
religion is based on the concept of "an angry god" as anyone who's read
Jonathan Edwards classic essay "Sinners
In The Hands of an
ANGRY God" can see. Hell, the title itself
ought to be a HINT that they worship one pissed off god. The very foundation
of Christianity is that we've somehow angered this deity to the point he
wants to kill us all- but not satisfied with that, he also wants to bring us
back to life once he's killed us, so he can hurt us even more, TORTURE
us for ever and ever- now THAT is alot of anger! He even let his only son
get tortured, and somehow that made him hate us less- it cooled his hot
head, made him smile. In light of this, ANY anger that I or other Atheists
may manifest is nothing but "chump change" in comparison to THAT treasure
In light of that then, if being angry is somehow inherently bad, or
proves one wrong, or is something to criticize or look down upon, then
Christians- please start with your own very angry Biblegod.
The Anger-Management Problems of Jesus
PUBLIC BEATINGS &
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
Jesus got pissed off to the point of driving total strangers out
of the temple by whipping them and throwing over their business
desks (Gospel of John, 2: 14-17). Imagine if someone today were to
walk into your church, pull out a bullwhip, and start whipping your
mother in the face, you in the stomach, a little baby on his
back, BOOM CRACK BOOM, and throwing all the furniture around,
screaming and hollering about this not being your house. He'd be
locked up for assault and battery and be forced to attend several
months of Anger Management!!! Have I even ever come CLOSE to this
level of anger? No! Regarding those I disagree with, I WRITE about
them- I don't BEAT them or whip them when I become frustrated. Jesus
did. And maybe some of these people later on picked Barabas to
release rather than that mean and angry nutcase that hurt them. IF
being angry is by definition a BAD thing, then Jesus leads the pack
of being bad. The above email complained of me that "instead
of making any sort of case for your position in a rational tone you
are spending too much time yelling". Yelling, maybe, but
at least I'm not BEATING anyone like Jesus did! And I wonder how
RATIONAL Jesus came across as he was beating people and destroying
the place??? Jesus ran out of arguments so he just resorted to
violence. But does the email writer feel any need to criticize JESUS
for being angry? Of COURSE not!!! IF being angry is such a sin,
certainly Jesus is a bigger sinner than I.
RIGHTEOUS ANGER -or- MENTAL CASE?
CUSSING OUT A FIG TREE
Fruit is seasonal. Oranges ripen in one season, apples another.
If apples aren't ready for picking until the fall, it would be
childish to get pissed at an apple tree for not having apples in,
say, the spring time. In fact, getting pissed at ANY inanimate
object is childish (unless that object is a computer, of course. Or
a VCR. Or a dead battery in a car). It would be beyond childish to
actually CURSE at the tree for just doing what nature is set up to
do, especially if you're the supposed architect of mother nature
itself. In fact, by Jesus doing this, is proof enough he wasn't the
creator or knew anything about it. But anyway, when Jesus, the
"Prince of Peace" lost it over a friggin' fig tree for not having
figs in the NON-fig season, lost it to the point of actually CURSING
the tree (he must have REALLY had his heart set on figs!), don't
tell me THAT was a case of "righteous anger" like that tree DESERVED
to be cursed. If anybody else had done what Jesus did, it would have
been labeled an adult temper-tantrum. (Mt 21:18,19)
And let us not forget the Apostle Paul who, in Galatians 5:12, got so
angry at anyone advocating circumcision that he wished they'd maybe slip
with their knives in the ceremony and cut off more than just the foreskin!
AND he even put this in WRITING and it ended up in the New Testament! Angry?
Yes. But why don't I ever hear a condemnation of Paul from modern
"anti-anger" Christians??? Oh, I forgot: the old double standard. It's ok
for Biblegod, Jesus, and Paul to blow a fuse, but not ok for an Atheist.
IF any Christian wants to condemn me for writing in anger, let him FIRST
condemn Biblegod, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul. As for the old excuse that
Biblegod's anger is ok because it's a "righteous anger", maybe my anger is
too- somebody has to stand up for the truth. The Bible says that
judgment is to start in the house of God. Condemn the anger inherent in your
own religion first, then maybe I'll take what you say about my anger more
Out of Context
Regardless of how much of the context I put in, always and forever until
time ceases to exist the Christians will complain that I take things out of
context. In my essay
Matthew 24 Verse by Verse I put in
the WHOLE DAMN CHAPTER, all 51 verses, but even with this these rocket
scientists still accuse me of "taking things out of context".
- If I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and only had that verse in the
essay, they'd complain I should have included the verse before and
- If I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and included those THREE
verses, they'd complain I should have included the verse before and
after those three.
- If I were to do a paper on Mt. 24:34, and included the whole damn
chapter LIKE I'VE ALREADY DONE, they'd complain I took the verse out of
- If I were to do a paper on Mt. 24:34, and typed in the whole Gospel
of Matthew- all 28 chapters, they'd STILL complain I hadn't included any
- And if I were to do a paper on Mt 24:34, and typed in the entire Old
Testament, the entire New Testament, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and
all the volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica, THEY'D STILL COMPLAIN!!!!
Why? I'll tell you why: because they don't have the slightest idea of
what "taking out of context" means!!! It's just a "knee-jerk" reaction that
pops up anytime they run into an argument they can't deal with. And even
though I'm tired of telling them what it means- because they don't listen
anyway- here goes once again...
Taking something "out of context" does NOT mean quoting one verse or
statement without quoting those around it. Rather, taking something "out of
context" means to isolate and/or arrange the statement or words in such a
way that its meaning has been changed from what the writer or
John Kerry in a speech last night said "If I
were to support George Bush on tax cuts, they would say that I am
Context Usage of Statement} Fox news in our never ending and
eternal support of George Bush just learned that John Kerry in a
speech last night finally admitted what many Republicans have long
suspected: that he is crazy. In his own words, and I quote, John
Kerry said to the nation: "I am crazy".
Taking something out of context does NOT mean isolating a statement by
itself. Were that its meaning, nothing could ever be quoted from a book
without quoting the ENTIRE book. Were that to happen, quoting in writing
would cease, for who could afford to quote even the shortest verse in the
Bible, "Jesus wept", if it meant he'd have to throw in THE ENTIRE BIBLE in
the process??? Yet this is the definition most Christians seem to have in
No, taking something "out of context" means you've isolated a portion of
a complete statement so that its meaning has been changed, not just that
you've isolated something. Isolating WITHOUT changing meaning is NOT taking
something "out of context".
NOTICE: Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the
property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of
SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry, your email
address will probably be deleted. Views contained in SET FREE
represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE
is to be assumed.