Jesus Christ - Fact Or Fiction?
One question that I often wonder about as an atheist is “Did Jesus Christ really exist?”. It’s something that the vast majority of Christians blindly believe without question since Jesus plays such a large part in the Bible. The entire basis of Christianity relies on Jesus being a real person, who was the real son of God, and was really crucified for our sins. As an atheist, I have the freedom to question that belief, and I have done so on many occasions since I became one.
A few decades ago, the idea that Jesus Christ was an exaggerated myth would have been shunned by the community, but in recent years, especially with the rise of atheism and free thought, coupled with books such as “The God Delusion” and films such as “The God Who Wasn’t There”, the so called “Jesus myth hypothesis” is being more widely supported and investigated.
The biblical story of Jesus covers his birth and childhood with great detail (the nativity story especially so), but then a strange thing happens. 18 years of Jesus Christ’s life are inexplicably missed out. After a 12 year old Jesus is found by Mary and Joseph in a temple in Jerusalem, surrounded by scholars and priests, he vanishes from history. The next mention of him is when he is 30, and he gets baptised by John the Baptist. The rest of Jesus’ life (from the baptism to the crucifixion) is pretty much covered completely. However, if Christ’s life was being so well documented throughout his childhood, how come there is absolutely no reference to 18 years of his life? Obviously if Jesus was as popular as he supposedly was, his trial would have been well documented, as would his subsequent crucifixion. Unfortunately, if we follow the Bible’s historical account, that documentation just didn’t exist.
Assuming that Jesus died around 33 A.D, we should expect the gospels to have been written around this point as well, but historically this is not the case. The first gospel written was Mark, and it mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D, which means that taken chronologically, Jesus Christ died on the cross, and then 40 years later, his life was documented. Of course, this assumes that Mark was written in the year 70 A.D, but the likelihood is that it was written much later. In fact, some scholars put the date of the Gospel of Mark as late as 135 A.D, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This leaves a staggering 102 year gap, with no historical documentation of Jesus’ life.
It is well documented however, that the Apostle Paul (originally Saul) lived in the era after the death of Jesus Christ, and he was the founder of the original Christian church. Jesus Christ supposedly came to Paul in a vision, and prompted Paul to teach people about their sins. Paul wrote hundreds of letters about Christianity during his life, but not one of them mentions the life of Jesus. In fact, Paul never believed that Jesus ever existed, and the only three events he knew about Jesus’ life - the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension - took place (according to Paul) in another realm of existence.
Already the validity of Jesus’ existence is being called into question. Surely a man whom people believe to be the son of God would have been remembered after his death? Surely people would have heard the story of his resurrection and written it down? History has already shown us that stories are very easily distorted when spread by word of mouth. It is very probable that in the 40 years or so that the story of Jesus was going around, it was exaggerated to the point where the only rational explanation of Jesus Christ is that he is the son of God, and thus people assume him to be so.
Let’s not stop there though, because there are some striking similarities between Jesus Christ, and just about every other popular “God” that came before him.
Gods and heroes of mythology such as the Egyptian Osiris and Dionysus, the Hindu Krishna, Mithras, Quexalcote, Buddha, the Greek Hercules, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus, and indeed many more ancient mythological figures all share a similar list of attributes:
- Father is a God and mother is a mortal virgin.
- Born in a cave or cowshed on December 25th in front of shepherds and angels.
- Gifts of frankincense and myrrh were presented at their birth.
- Survived a massacre of newborns.
- Offer followers to be born again through baptism.
- Turn water into wine.
- Performed numerous miracles.
- Rode triumphantly into the city on a donkey.
- Had a following of 12 “disciples”.
- Died at Easter as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
- Crucified between two thieves.
- After death, they descend into hell, arise after 3 days, and ascend into heaven.
- Followers await for their return in a time known as “End of Days”.
- Death and resurrection is celebrated with bread and wine, to represent their body and blood.
Obviously each individual only has a select number of these attributes, and because of this, the list is actually much larger, but the ones I have listed are the most commonly held by each of my examples. For example, although Buddha was not born of a God or virgin, he did perform miracles, and had disciples, and therefore scores an average on the above list. Jesus Christ, the so called saviour of mankind, and the one true light of the world, ranks pretty highly in comparison.
I propose then, that Jesus Christ did not exist, and any historical record of a person known as Jesus Christ, is simply an exaggerated version of any of the ancient Gods who follow a long line of tradition. Jesus is simply one of the most recent branches of a story told across millenia, but nothing more.
Sources
- Wikipedia (all articles history checked for validity)
- The God Who Wasn’t There (Documentary Film)
- Zeitgeist Movie (Documentary Film)
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
Very nice article, Adrian. :)
Ryan Ashbrook
14 Feb 08 at 7:30 am (GMT)
I went to a x-tian fundamentalist highschool for three years when i lived overseas and one of my friends told me about his bible version that had love poems between jesus and mary magdelene. It sounded like his version had a lot more history from jesus’s life that got excluded in other versions when the folks back in the day decided what would be included. do you know anything about those texts predominantly missing from mainstream bibles? sorry i don’t remember what denomination he was.
julie
15 Feb 08 at 12:44 am (GMT)
Julie,
I’m not sure I’ve heard of a version of the Bible that contained love poems, but I have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a lot of “extra” sections from the Bible that were edited out of the current edition. Certainly there are sections of the Dead Sea Scrolls that mention Jesus and Mary Magdelene as a couple, but none of them are 100% clear on this, and there is a lot of room for debate. The popular book “The Da Vinci Code” explored the possibility of a marriage and family between the two.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
15 Feb 08 at 1:26 am (GMT)
you’re being just like the christian fundamentalists when you don’t check you facts, hey im an atheist, but it pisses me off when you say things as fact, when they arent. my example is when you give your list, you claim all the deities “Egyptian Osiris and Dionysus, the Hindu Krishna, Mithras, Quexalcote, Buddha, the Greek Hercules, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus” who’s “Father is a God and mother is a mortal virgin.” buddha and krishna were born of royalty. perseus’ father was zeus and his mom was mortal, fine, but they never claim she was a virgin, like those inspid christians think. hermes was born of a goddess, not a mortal woman. krishna was bron on july 19 or 21st, not in december. these are just a few facts you wrote that are, in fact, wrong. funny thing, i was using wikipedia, the source you claim to use as a reference. do a favor, for all of mankind; next time you claim something as fact,use a source, check to make sure the source is reliable, (btw wikipedia isnt the best), do not generalize, and DO NOT CLAIM SOMETHING AS FACT WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA. otherwise, all you do is use blind ignorance, which is the problem with western religion.
BS
15 Feb 08 at 1:48 am (GMT)
Julie,
I think you are referring to the Gnostic Gospels. Those Gospels were written at the same time as the others but were not included in the final Bible. And the Gnostic Gospels documented the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdelene, and the children they had. The “Da Vinci Code” refers to those decedents.
But I think the important point Adrian is making is that there is zero evidence that Jesus actually existed. The only descriptions of his life were made by people who could not have known him. These type sources are referred to as secondary sources. Primary sources would be sources written by eyewitnesses. Or written on behalf of eyewitnesses. There are zero primary sources on the existance of Jesus. Yet there ARE numerous primary sources on the existence of many of his contemporaries. Not just Gospels, but in all kinds of documents. Legal documents, death notices, trial records, etc etc.
The contemporaries I’m referring to are Herod and Pilate and numerous others. There is even data on the actual existence of prisoners who were executed back then, but nothing on Jesus. This is rather unbelievable when you realize the commotion he supposedly caused as laid out in the crucifixion stories. “The King of the Jews!”
Mark
15 Feb 08 at 2:03 am (GMT)
BS,
I did not claim anything of the sort. If you read the article again, you will see that I said they “all share a similar list of attributes”. I then go on to say “Obviously each individual only has a select number of these attributes, and because of this, the list is actually much larger, but the ones I have listed are the most commonly held by each of my examples”.
Obviously not all the Gods / heroes mentioned were born of virgins, but the important thing is that *most* of them were. Just like *most* of them performed miracles, and *most* of them were killed.
I do understand where you confusion has come from however, and have added a bit about Buddha into the article to make sure others do not get confused by the same bit.
Adrian Hayter
15 Feb 08 at 2:17 am (GMT)
I will be praying for you.
Haha. I enjoyed the post.
Jim
15 Feb 08 at 4:18 am (GMT)
You don’t “become” an atheist. You are born that way.
EvilGod
15 Feb 08 at 10:13 am (GMT)
EvilGod,
I was born an atheist, and then I became a Christian, and then at age 11 I “became” an atheist again. It’s a minor technicality and not one I think we should cover in great detail.
Adrian Hayter
15 Feb 08 at 10:44 am (GMT)
cool, thank you
BS
15 Feb 08 at 1:49 pm (GMT)
please site your sources for paul’s beliefs. i would really like to know them for my own discussions.
robert v.
15 Feb 08 at 3:33 pm (GMT)
robert v,
I recommend watching the documentary “The God Who Wasn’ t There” for more information on Paul’s beliefs. There are interviews with historians in the film that talk about him.
I also found this interesting website written by a Professor of Biblical Studies:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/missions.html
I am sure any web search will give other related documents.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
15 Feb 08 at 3:47 pm (GMT)
Excellent article, on a topic I’ve pondered myself. I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that Jesus the man probably did actually exist, though the events in his life have also probably been grossly exaggerated and embellished. The simple fact that most of the story of his life was written many years after his death, largely by men who never met him siphons off a significant amount of trust I may have in the account of his life.
We’ll *never* know. :)
Bill Vincent
16 Feb 08 at 1:06 am (GMT)
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_followup.htm
These two links will tell you everything you want to know in depth. Great reading if you wish to follow up on what Adrian states.
nomdeplume
16 Feb 08 at 4:44 am (GMT)
[...] nicht am Bewiesenen festhalten muss: darum diesen Sonntag der Verweis auf ein neues Atheisten-Blog, The Atheist Blogger: Jesus Christ — Fact or Fiction, der sich mit der Frage [...]
Sonntags-Predigt für die Dekonvertierten: Der ahistorische Jesus « Begrenzte Wissenschaft
17 Feb 08 at 8:38 am (GMT)
Excellent post. It is a very difficult question you have asked, and certainly more can be written on the topic. Bertrand Russell would probably agree with your view on the existence of Jesus.
You are correct that nothing ever has been written about Jesus during the supposed life span of Jesus. But the question remains: If we have so many stories about him, all from the same general time and location, how can we say definitively that he did not exist?
I’m not advocating the divinity of Jesus. I am erring on the side of historical caution. I tend to work with the idea that every myth is based on some truth. Even the myths of Romulus and Remus may have an ounce of truth mixed into the lore.
I suspect that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was fed up with the Jewish establishment and the Roman occupation, so he began his ministry by fostering a peaceful rebellion against the two. As soon as he began to have a following, the Romans crucified him, just as they did to every other rebellion leader. As time progressed, the stories about Jesus outgrew the actual events. These stories were eventually recorded into the Book of Mark.
Then again, you may be right. It is an interesting topic of debate, and I look forward to your future columns.
James C.
18 Feb 08 at 3:32 am (GMT)
Distortion of the truth. Everywhere.
The promise for the Christian is a very good one:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
This is definitely worthy therefore of a more careful study.
One interesting point I’d like to make is the sheer influence of whatever Jesus did or said to convince people to write about him.
Jesus Claimed to be God, exorcised demon-harassed people, healed sick people, raised the dead to life, forgave sins, rose from the dead, and promised that the Spirit of God himself would come powerfully to those who believed.
These are just some of his extraordinary claims and if there is a chance of truth (a cause for the effect of the cosmos we live in), we ought to make every effort to investigate the matter fully.
eternal life sounds good.
Rather risk humility than pay with death.
Simon
18 Feb 08 at 4:04 am (GMT)
You’re just as ignorant and blind to historical facts as fundamentalists. No serious religious historian denies Jesus’ existence. By supporting such absurd claims, you only undermine the credibility of your anti-Christian crusade. Perhaps you think Bush should be impeached because he’s really a reptilian humanoid.
peter takamura
18 Feb 08 at 4:25 am (GMT)
…
nothing new here
…
Christian
18 Feb 08 at 2:38 pm (GMT)
yawn
Christian
18 Feb 08 at 2:39 pm (GMT)
Two more:
Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else — and it hasn’t — it’s that girls should stick to girl’s sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such.
– Homer Simpson
No offence Apu, but when they were handing out religions, you musta been out taking a whizz.
– Homer Simpson
Richard
18 Feb 08 at 5:05 pm (GMT)
I know Jesus is real because he talks to me all the time. He’s my Mexican gardener!
Liam
18 Feb 08 at 5:14 pm (GMT)
There is evidence of a historical “Jesus,” but to understand the “Christian fundamentalists,” one must first understand how the so-called “Bible” came to be, and how Christianity overtook the world (i.e. Constantine, and the Roman Empire). Many stories about “Jesus” were kept out of the “Bible” because the scholars putting the book together did not like them.
Religion has always been just a way for people to explain what they do not understand, nothing more.
Pandora
19 Feb 08 at 5:07 am (GMT)
“Religion has always been just a way for people to explain what they do not understand, nothing more.”
It is atheism that is an excuse for people to do whatever they please without constraints or any restrictions put on them. If it wasn’t, they would just believe. There aren’t any consequences of believing and living a life according to God’s will. Please - name me one!
Christian
19 Feb 08 at 6:10 am (GMT)
God has done SO much for me and others(including you!). He is an AMAZING God. He will hear your prayers — if you just come to know him through his son Jesus. Do you know this God?
GOD LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN YOUR LIFE. HE WILL ACCEPT YOU!!!! :) HE IS A LOVING GOD THAT WILL ACCEPT EVERYONE. DON’T SPEND ANOTHER SECOND NOT KNOWING HIM!! :)
ITS NOT WORTH THE RISK!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to be SURE of what will happen WHEN (NOT IF!!) you die, CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS. THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES IN BELIEVING IN JESUS :):) THERE ARE NO RISKS!!!!
Christian
19 Feb 08 at 6:18 am (GMT)
“If you want to be SURE of what will happen WHEN (NOT IF!!) you die, CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS. THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES IN BELIEVING IN JESUS :):) THERE ARE NO RISKS!!!!”
Geez….. Calm down, drink a decaffeinated coffee, read about Pascal’s wager on Wikipedia, think it over, and go find a Christian singles website on Google.
James C.
19 Feb 08 at 6:23 am (GMT)
Good luck ending a religion lasting thousands of years. I am sure your efforts will be more effective than the Romans.
Christians will still love you though and welcome you back with open arms when you get this out of your system.
I love the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. Reminds me of you. You should read those again.
Matthew
19 Feb 08 at 6:41 am (GMT)
Christian: you say “It is atheism that is an excuse for people to do whatever they please without constraints or any restrictions put on them”. That is certainly a wrong view of atheism. We, human beings, follow some moral codes inscribed through evolution to our social needs. These moral codes are basic: “Don’t do wrong to others, and be empathic”. If christians need those code written for them and separated, well… it might mean that they need some help with the basic moral codes. Don’t think that just for being atheist, we don’t care for anyone else, that’s a big misconception.
In the other hand, for atheist, there is a consequence in believing in jesus: hypocrisy. I think I can speak for other atheists, but I least I think that believing in something just for the reward of it (in the case of the christian god: life after death) is just plain coward. In that case i would ask you to consider to convert to a fundamentalist muslim, and be a martir to get 47 virgins (poor virgins.. anyone thought about them?)
Chilean
19 Feb 08 at 12:03 pm (GMT)
Christian,
“CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS. THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES IN BELIEVING IN JESUS :):) THERE ARE NO RISKS!!!!”
…unless of course you are wrong and Islam is the correct religion, or the ancient greeks got it right with Zeus, or Thor is the real deal. If any of the multitude of Gods throughout history are an actual God, you have pretty much the same risk of going to “hell” as I do.
Matthew,
When did I ever say I was going to end religion? Oh, and the Romans didn’t end any religion since Christianity started years after the death of “Christ”. If anything, the Romans started the religion.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
19 Feb 08 at 12:22 pm (GMT)
Christian, I don’t really believe you know your own “god.” Remember the Old Testament in the “Bible?” Where was your “loving and amazing” god then?
Also, no one is “sure” of what happens after one dies. It is all a matter of chance. If you wish to be a hypocrite like Constantine, (who, by the way, was ROMAN), then so be it, but never preach your hypocrisy to those who have seen through it.
*Don’t analyze my beliefs, and I won’t pick out the flaws in yours* (Thorin~Wicked Jester Clothing).
Pandora
19 Feb 08 at 12:59 pm (GMT)
When I hear some people say that religion is benign, it makes me wonder what they are comparing it to. Regardless of religious faith or lack thereof, any mentality which endorses a philosophy rooted in concepts outside of the universe is dangerous. The universe which we should all be able to agree on is right here, detectable, testable, consistent in behavior to a large degree. When I think of the mentalities which generated (and still oppose) environmental conservation, they are not rooted in practical and reality-based analysis of the world. Many are not concerned with pollution or overpopulation because they “know” that Jesus is coming soon. This mindset is extremely dangerous. Insisting that the past or future application of the known laws of physics has been suspended or manipulated in fanciful ways is an unreasonable claim; evenif it is true that these things happened, it is not reasonable to believe this without some sort of evidence. And a distant nth-degree account of a goat-herders recollection of what his grandfather told him about a guy who lived a hundred years before is not evidence. Any mentality, religious or secular, which values belief in events which completely contradict all known reality and are neither subject to testing nor willing to make concrete prediction for verification is dangerous. This is madness.
Dave
21 Feb 08 at 7:01 pm (GMT)
Oh yeah…. there are no more risks to believing in magic belly button lint. This is not a sufficient argument in support of the idea.
Doing away with religion is not a goal, it is a by-product of a goal. The goal is to advance society and the human race to the point where we can work together to achieve greater knowledge. This is done through the production of ideas, which are then publicly vetted against all scrutiny. The protection given to religion is bizarre. We have deemed it inappropriate to openly recognize incorrect beliefs. I would not respect someone’s belief that 1+2=4, I would politely demonstrate the accurate answer. And afterwards, if they refused to accept it, this would not be a scenario of contradictory but valid belief sets. When people say that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that people lived side by side with dinosaurs, this is not an alternate belief set. This is excrutiating ignorance. I find it seriously concerning that we are waffling on identifying whether or not to respect ignorance. It is a severe danger to our society, and casts grave doubt on the likelihood that we will survive our own technological development. At the core, it is not religion that is the problem. But respect for religion is a shield for mental deficiency, ignorance, and stupidity.
Dave
21 Feb 08 at 8:08 pm (GMT)
Nicely worded.
As a Buddhist, I too have the freedom to question all without fear of my faith crumbling.
I do, to an extent, believe that a man such as Jesus Christ did exist, and I believe he was quite a dynamic teacher, speaker and magician. I do not believe he was the son of any god. No more than I am, or you are. If there is a “god” in the traditional sense, then we are all sons and daughters. This fellow was probably just more dangerous to the powers that be at the time.
Thanks for the head-scratching. :)
Michael Allen
21 Feb 08 at 8:47 pm (GMT)
Christian,
That is no argument for the belief in something.
I would rather die having lived my life the way I saw fit, than to have lived according to ancient dogma in a fully hypocritical manner.
When I die, I will die knowing I am moving on, not worrying about my soul.
Michael Allen
21 Feb 08 at 8:49 pm (GMT)
There is also some question as to whether Paul himself was an historical person,- certainly a large proportion of his supposed writings are fake. In fact, with 15 letters definitely fake plus the large amount of pseudepigraphy making up the central part of the New Testament, one would have to be cautious before accepting any of the rest as genuine. I read a rather interesting theory that St Paul himself was cobbled together out of Apollonius of Tyana and others. Apollonius’ life mirrors much that is claimed for Paul,for instance his famous travels. Apollonius spent time in Paul’s cities of Antioch, Ephesus and Athens and also faced charges in Rome before the emperor Domitian.
There are no contemporary historical witnesses to St Paul. His travels are highly dubious and if you actually trace them, they don’t make much sense. Acts doesn’t accord with Paul’s own accounts. The earliest canon list of Paul’s writings comes from the late 2nd Century.
The most likely assembler of material that would make up the ‘canonical’ writings and history of Paul is Marcion.
Aramis
22 Feb 08 at 12:41 pm (GMT)
[...] as I mentioned in “Jesus Christ - Fact or Fiction?“, Paul never met Jesus, which means even if he was told the story from an eyewitness, the [...]
The Bible: Impassioned truth or a load of lies? | The Atheist Blogger
26 Feb 08 at 1:10 am (GMT)
[...] post of my own. I thought about submitting something controversial (like the one about Muhammad or Jesus), but instead I chose the post that really started the site off; “101 Atheist Quotes“. [...]
Carnival of the Godless #89 | The Atheist Blogger
14 Apr 08 at 2:36 am (GMT)
There aren’t any consequences of believing and living a life according to God’s will. Please - name me one!–Christian
How about 4? All some form of self-denial.
1. Intellectual self-denial
As an atheist, I don’t believe in any god b/c I don’t believe in the existence of things that cannot be proven. I cannot take the statement “God exists” on faith because I have intellectual doubt, which negates faith. First of all, “God” means too many different things to too many different people/religions to have any coherent meaning. Secondly, “God” is unproven by rational, scientific means and only “evidenced” by “miracles,” which are unexplained or misunderstood phenomena. A lack of an explanation implies nothing more than a lack of an explanation. I am willing to deal with unexplained phenomena, but intellectually, I will not deny myself and pretend to know a god exists when I do not know it rationally, which is the parameter I have set for me or anyone else to know anything.
2. Emotional self-denial
I have emotions that are labeled by some religions as wrong and sinful. I feel anger, inconsolable sadness, envy, greed, and lust. I behave morally towards others, and will not deny my emotions by believing in a god that would punish me for emotions (which are difficult to control) and not actions.
I may engage in behaviors that are labeled by some religions as sinful but harm nobody. I will not submit to a god that will force me to deny my true feelings and label my behavior as wrong, when I and other reasoning people disagree.
I do not feel the existence of any god, and when I tried to believe, I often felt angry towards “God” when I was supposed to feel love and worshipful adoration. My anger towards “God” was not immoral but based on despair and righteous frustration at the continual injustice and random misfortune I saw in this world and recognized in the”afterlife” concept when “God” was promised to be loving and omnipotent. I knew that if I had “God’s” power I would prevent injustice and senseless misfortune, especially that carried out under my own name. I will not deny my feelings by pretending to worship and love a “God” that made me feel so powerless, fearful, and enraged, and I will not claim such feelings as immoral when they were rooted in morality.
3. Psychological Self-Denial
Attempting to believe in “God” was painful to me psychologically. First, it didn’t elevate my sense of self-confidence, which was very shaky at the time. “God,” being the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent didn’t provide comfort; it revealed a standard I couldn’t measure up to. Religion also smacked a heavy dose of guilt into my head over things I shouldn’t have felt guilty about (doubt, my emotions, behavior that harmed nobody) and made the already excessive guilt over things from my past continue to linger, since I feared the wrath of “God.” By the way, I was afraid of “God,” because I didn’t know how this deity would react to me, my “sins,” and the things that I knew I was supposed to feel guilty for but couldn’t change about myself. The “God” concept I had built up in my head made me feel helpless, weak, and powerless as a human being, while as an atheist I feel relatively secure. I didn’t recognize my own power when I tried to believe: I gave “God” credits for achievements that I accomplished and became too dependent on the “God” concept in my daily life, which prevented me from empowering myself. When I tried to practice religion, it turned into a toxic psychological disorder, and there is just no way, for my own mental health, that I will believe something that makes me crazy.
4. Moral self-denial
It is immoral to punish those who have committed no crime and immoral to punish people for characteristics they cannot change. I cannot believe in a god, and I particularly will not believe in some god concepts for moral reasons. I should not be punished for the doubt I cannot (and believe me I tried to) extinguish. It is so much easier to be a theist, why would I voluntarily decide to be something that made people stereotype me, refuse to accept me and consider me immoral and evil? There is nothing wrong with said doubt anyway. I refuse to attempt religion and make myself miserable. Should I be punished for having conscience, doubts, and a lack of masochistic tendencies?
The same as written above could be said of many other groups religion has historically (and continues to) marginalize: GLBT community (people don’t choose these things and live in a very difficult situation in because of it like atheists, and expecting them to deny themselves and be something else when they hurt nobody is immoral, yet religion asks this of them, like atheists), people of other religions ( religion is often determined primarily by upbringing), people with mental illness (a person who commits suicide is not immoral and shouldn’t suffer in “Hell” because a person in that situation is more often than not severely mentally ill, not able to think rationally, and they are more often than not unaware of how their behavior harms others–as someone who faced suicidal thoughts, I know).
See last point in number two. In that point, I mentioned the presence of injustice and random misfortune in the world. Best case scenario with an omnipotent and omniscient god, “God” is negligent. Free will is not a good excuse, because throughout religious literature, “God” intervenes in events of this world. Besides, human societies have police officers that enforce the law, and this isn’t considered to impinge on freedom and free will, so why couldn’t “God” only intervene to prevent/stop misfortune and injustice? If “God” isn’t negligent, “God” is complicit to some degree.
Many stories in the Bible contain examples of God-sanctioned behavior I consider immoral. The fall is a story of immense immorality, since it punishes people for the crimes of their supposed ancestors. Same occurs with the Jesus crucifixion story, since it blames all Jews, now and forever, for the false and baseless report given in the gospels that a few killed Jesus.The flood is another Biblical example of sanctioned immorality, wherein “God” kills innocent animals for the sins of humanity. Then “God” convinces Abraham to murder his son, encourages genocide throughout the Old Testament, and degrades women relentlessly. I could go on and on.
Morality is fundamental to my self-concept as a decent human being. I will not change my morals to please any authority figure or respect an immoral authority figure, supernatural claims aside. Might does not make right in my book.
Conclusions: I suppose this whole argument rests on how much you value yourself and other human beings. Personally, I value myself quite a lot. So I’m not going to deny my reason, my emotions, my psychological needs, or my morals, which constitute the essence of myself. On a more interpersonal note, it’s true that being an atheist does alienate me from people sometimes. But I’m not going to force myself into a belief system of any kind that denies human beings on the basis of differences in viewpoint regarding gods, which closely ties into my morality on the subject. For me, there are multiple, ridiculously heavy costs of belief, especially regarding morals, which is what really sealed it for me. All of the costs of belief and benefits of atheism outweigh the supposed benefits of belief and the costs of atheism. Maybe it’s different. If we are talking about Pascal’s Wager, my main objection is in regards to morality. If I believe your god concept to be an immoral monstrosity, I won’t worship it, even if it means I go to “Hell.” Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Friendly Neighborhood Atheist
23 Sep 08 at 10:01 am (GMT)
Bravo! Well stated FNA! I think I just had a religious experience…wait….damn.
Bill Vincent
23 Sep 08 at 12:54 pm (GMT)
“GOD LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN YOUR LIFE. HE WILL ACCEPT YOU!!!!” -Christian
Unless, of course, you piss him off, and he’ll send you to a fiery pit of pain, suffering and despair.
Pfft. All religions are contradictory, hypocritical mind-numbing silliness, and christianity is the worst one I can think of. Islam is a close second because of how easily the Quran can be read to promote violence.
Bill Vincent
23 Sep 08 at 12:59 pm (GMT)