A Debunking Of Christianity

 "God is dead, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted it over a century ago. No, God did not die. We just came to the realization he never existed in the first place. We no longer need him to explain what needs to be explained. We now have better natural explanations of the existing phenomena.

"1) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history.

"2) The next big hit came from Astronomy. The Copernican astronomical revolution as defended later by Galileo showed us that we do not live in a geocentric universe. Never did.

"3) An even bigger hit came from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution.

"4) Archaeology has debunked many stories in the Bible.

"5) Psychology shows us we are largely products of our environment, that we think illogically many times, that we believe what we prefer to be true, that human beings are not evil so much as ill, largely because of their social environment.

"6) Anthropology has shown us from the fact that there are many different cultures around the globe and with it a great deal of religious diversity, that there are many rational ways to understand our place in this world.

"7) Neurology shows us there is an extremely close relationship between our beliefs and neuron firings, which can be drug induced, or even surgically removed. There is therefore no need for the supernatural explanation of the soul."

(https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2010/08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html)

All Claims By Christian Apologists Have Been Falsified Or Are Unfalsifiable

Falsified: found not true or correct (link).

Unfalsifiable: not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true (link). Unable to be studied by scientific methods, thus, "We don't know" is the appropriate response.

• "We can consider the existence of god to be a scientific hypothesis and look for the empirical evidence that would follow. Many of the attributes associated with the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God have specific consequences that can be tested empirically. Such a God is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans. As a result, evidence for him should be readily detectable by scientific means." ~ Victor Stenger (The God Hypothesis)

Below are examples of claims by Christian apologists that have not been accepted by science, the best method to understand objective reality (link):

• Science shows that there was no "Original Sin" (link),
• Science shows that the mind is very probably only a function of the brain and that there probably is no independent "soul."  It has been falsified several times by several branches of science.  The mind emerged from the brain, a common occurrence in nature (i.e. water from hydrogen and oxygen, an ant colony from individual ants, etc.). 
• Science shows that the common, layperson concept of "free will" is probably an illusion (link, link, link).
• No studies have supported the existence of miracles. Mark 16:18 has been falsified. One prominent apologist offered one source as the "Best" support for miracles but clearly, it is debunked.
• There is no evidence that prayer has any effect on natural occurrences. (link)
• There is no evidence of life after death. 
• There is compelling evidence that sex/gender are not binary (link) (link) (link) (link) and that same-sex parenting is not a negative factor on children (link). Also, homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom (link). Oh, by the way, pornography is not harmful, and "shacking up" before marriage does not seem to be related to marital stability. 
• Science (especially neuroscience and psychology) has studied religious experiences and can explain them through natural mechanisms. And, no, they are not signs of a need requiring satisfaction by something real (link). Oh, and a study of the history of religion points to Christianity's fallacy of special pleading (link)(link). 
• The New Testament lacks primary sources and is untrustworthy as a historical document (link)(link).
• All logical syllogisms offered in support of Christianity have at least one premise for which there is no evidence. (link).

Why Is YOUR Religion The True One?

In my discussions with the religious, which usually involves Christians, I never get a response that includes objective evidence. The responses may include Bible quotes, intuitions/feelings and/or philosophy.  None of these can be verified objectively as evidence that any religion is true, let alone Christianity.

Virtually ALL claims for an interventionist god have been falsified.  Remember, in science, those who are making the claim (the hypothesis) are obligated to present supporting evidence.  Of course, this isn't saying, "There is no god." It is only saying that the claim for such has not been supported.  Given that the claims for Christianity have been around for about 2,000 years and that science has been evaluating claims for the truth of Christianity for about 500 years, what are the chances that Christianity is true?

Two things to consider:

• Virtually every Christian I have met has at least a somewhat different collection of beliefs regarding such than any other Christian I have met.  Thus, in essence, each Christian seems to have his or her own unique "fingerprint" of faith.  Now, if there is a god, either the "real" god is very silent or a terrible communicator.
• As you read the Bible, including the New Testament, put yourself in the surroundings and events depicted.  Note the reality described about those times: humans interacting with supernatural beings and experiencing miracles.  Now, observe our present reality: where are the interactions with supernatural beings and miracles?

Science is a bitch.

I Agree With This Evangelical Christian Apologist

Dr. Thomas Howe from the Southern Evangelical Seminary, in this article, makes the valid difference between a narrative and a parable in supporting the claim that the Genesis account of creation was written as an historical narrative and not an allegory or poetry.  However, he typically assumes that that settles the issue.  Nope, no such luck.

A brief reading of what I have said on this subject (click here) clearly shows that the entire Creation account in Genesis has been falsified.  If it is falsified, then why the need for a "Savior" to redeem us from a "Sin" that never happened?
- - -

Humans, Animals And Original Sin

Christian apologists claim that God created man in his own image and man initially was "Sin-free."  However, after "The Fall", humans were now capable of "Sin."  Besides the facts of evolution and that humans evolved as a group and not as a pair, science in recent years has showed us that our behavior is not that unlike our closest relatives.  Also consider that human and animal aggression are not that dissimilar, as well as the fact that there were OTHER human species that died out.

Now look at evolution and morality.  Science shows us that humans are more cooperative and altruistic than any of our closest relatives.  If this is the case, what did humanity really "Fall" from?

Christianity Falsified

Below are several links to articles presenting evidence that much of the New Testament is forged and that virtually all of its claims on reality have been falsified:

1352 Reasons Christianity is False *

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says

MORE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence

Biblical scientific errors

Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible

40 Problems with Christianity

* There was an attempt to rebut this article by a Christian apologist (see the last part).  Not only did he not adhere to the author's request to address ALL of the reasons, he attacked the cited material through ad hominem, and quotes the Bible and his cherry-picked apologists only.  He essentially did not address one significant point within the article. It was tediously long and a total waste of time for him, SMH.   If you disagree, let's have at it.

New Testament Mention Of Prayer's Effects Are Falsified

"Christian parents are in a bind. Does prayer work the way Jesus said it does? Prayer as described by Jesus is powerful medicine, though there are different kinds of medicine. A bottle of sleeping pills left in the kitchen where small children could find it is reckless … unless it’s homeopathic medicine, which is just pretend medicine. Is prayer like homeopathic medicine—powerful in name only?"

 Irresponsible Use of the Awesome Power of Prayer

A Deeper Look Into Original Sin

I have made 3 prior posts on the dogma of Original Sin.  I have essentially falsified all Abrahamic religions by doing so.  However, in my interactions with Christians on their websites, I can't seem to break through their dogma.  In light of such, I have searched the internet for more in depth analysis of this topic.  Below is a summary of my result. If you still think that the literal interpretation of Genesis is relatively recent and only within Fundamentalist Christianity, please tell me why the Catholic Church (the MAIN Christian authority at the time) attacked Galileo for challenging Genesis' account of the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.  The writers, while using some metaphorical wording, were clearing writing history from their POV.

Note that even the pre-Abrahamic religions has stories of Original Sin and also assumed that they were literal.

This exposes the folly of religious apologists in attempting to explain away Original Sin as metaphorical.

Exposing the pretzel-twisting of Catholics (the best of Christians accepting science) on the subject, a perfect example of coming to a conclusion first, then struggling to support it.  This is not science, but apologetics.

The religious apply science and evidence when it helps their claims, but ignore it when it doesn't, such as regarding human origins and sex/gender realities.

A final piece of reality:  religious people do not act better than the non-religious.  Therefore, "Original Sin", and the need for a "Redeemer" to be "Saved", does not make sense.

THE Challenge For Christians

At its base, Christianity sinks or swims on the validity of the Story of Adam and Eve, and Original Sin.  Even the most pro-science branch of Christianity, Catholicism, dogmatically states that there was a literal single pair who founded humanity, Adam and Eve, and who gave all of us Original Sin.  This 4-min  teaching video, aimed at the layperson, clarifies the reality surrounding evolution and the beginning of the human species.

There was no first human.

More details supporting humans originating from a group, not a pair. *

Christianity Has Been Falsified: Wiped Out by Information

"The falsification of Christianity has gone unnoticed. The faithful don’t realize that their cherished notions have been left in shambles. It’s a bit like clinging to the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth. We all know that this concept was falsified a long time go. It got wiped out by information. Christian dogma has about as much merit as the Earth-centered solar system."

Catholic Church Official Teachings Conflict With Science

Many theists claim that there is no real conflict between faith and science.  Is this really true?  Following are excerpts from an official Catholic document under which the faithful are obligated to give their assent.  Why am I choosing to present the Catholic teaching?  Because I was raised Catholic, have studied the dogma of all of the major religions, and have found Catholic teaching to be the least resistant to scientific findings.  In other words, as much as Catholic teaching conflicts with science, the other major religions are worse.

Response To "Top 10 Myths About Jesus' Resurrection"

Bob Seidensticker has written a 5-part series of articles in response to Christian apologist Mike Licona’s “Top 10 Myths About Jesus’ Resurrection.”  Many of his points are common knowledge within skeptic circles, but he adds some new ones and the organization of the information is easy to follow:

Part 1 

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 

Part 5 

Miracles In The Bible "Historical"

The writers of the Bible clearly presented a literal and historical account of "Salvation History."  The following apologist's defense of such includes passages in support for that view.  Why am I presenting this?  To blunt any apologists' attempt to use the "metaphor" card when shown the extreme improbability of the Bible actually being historically true.

Defending Biblical Miracles

Christians: Would You Accept This Story If It Wasn't About Jesus?

The New Testament is a collection of stories, many of which contradict each other, about a man names Jesus. It was written decades after the supposed events of his life and include many situations that have been directly falsified by science or violate known reality, especially the resurrection stories. In addition, there are no non-christian, contemporary writings in support of any of the stories. Now, if this situation was regarding any other collection of writings, would you accept them as telling a valid story? I wouldn’t.

Apologetics: A Dead End

There is no evidence for any god, much less the Christian variety of such. All apologetics are unsupported arguments from ignorance, or the 'God of the Gaps" arguments. The best apologists can come up with are testable hypotheses. The testable hypotheses have been falsified.

Original Sin

"Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ."

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/another-catholic-defends-the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve/

How many Catholics who really understand science accept this? Accept Catholic teaching and unequivocally reject science, or vise versa.