Exhibit A For Pretending To Be An Expert

One of the main flaws of religious apologists is rejecting the consensus of scientific experts in fields pertinent to the claims made by the apologists. While that's bad enough, some, like William Lane Craig, pretend that they actually know more about the subjects than the true experts!. Click on the link below for a video debunking such nonsense:

William Lane Craig Thinks He Knows Evolution Better than Biologists

More on "Original Sin": Not Only Is It Falsified, But It Is Immoral

Several months ago, I posted on the falsification of the dogma of "Original Sin" by science, thus making Christianity bogus from its start (link). The link below is to a video delving into the incoherence and immorality of the fictional story:

The Rotten Fruit of Christianity | Immoral From The First Bite

THE Basic Answer To Why I Am Not A Christian

ALL versions of Christianity hold that we need Jesus the Christ to "Save" us from "Original Sin." I am not a Christian because there was no "Original Sin", thus no need for a "Savior." (mic drop)

Christianity Struck Out At Its Beginning

1. There is an objective reality that can be understood.
2. Science has demonstrated that it is the best method to understand objective reality.
3. Science has falsified "Original Sin", thus, no need for a "Savior."

Traditionally, Genesis was read literally

The Jewish people before Christianity believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis (link).

Most of Christianity assumed that Genesis is literal before Darwin, and, presently, most fundamentalist/conservative Christians still believe in a literal Adam and Eve (link) (link).

Then, recently the Catholic Church came up with a "fudge factor"

The Catholic Church historically goes back the farthest within Christianity. It accepts the Old Testament. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

• 390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language but AFFIRMS A PRIMAL EVENT, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265" (also here: link) 

(THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR AN "EVENT" STARTING THE HUMAN RACE, thus, the claim is falsified!!)

Humanity came from a group (? many groups) of primates, not a single pair (link).

Modern humans evolved from archaic humans and their characteristics were not dramatically different (link).

(Note: there is NO evidence for the claim that God infused one pair of humans with a Soul and all of the present humans are descendants of that pair. link)

(Note: supposedly, humanity lived in Paradise prior to The Fall. There was no death or suffering there. This claim has no evidence behind it, in spite of weak attempts to defend it.)

(Note: science shows that as pre-humans evolved into modern humans there was a mix of selfish and altruistic behavior with which our species struggles with today link.). "Sin" is a religious term that has been used to foster guilt, shame, and fear for the control of individuals and societies (link).
- - - - - - -

***If you disagree with this post, how do you justify or verify that your beliefs are true? What is your view regarding the value of evidence?***

- - - - - - -

For more Christian Counterapologetics, please read this post AND all the links. Thanks: https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html

- - - - - - -

Original Sin: Talk about Difficult To Defend

The Catholic Church should be embarrassed over this Dogma. Even this child questioned the apologist’s initial answer. ANY thinking person can see the answer was just pulled out of his ass. Hello??? Science has not only falsified Original Sin, but also an independent soul. SMH

How Do We Know Adam And Eve Existed?

Free Will, Original Sin, And Education

Proponents of the Abrahamic religions like to talk about the sinful nature of humanity due to Original Sin.  They also promote the concept of Free Will and push for overcoming our weaknesses with such.  All of this is magical thinking and is counter to reality and harmful.  This article is a good example of science-based thinkers promoting something that works.

Students need trauma-informed care

You Can't Claim As Evidence Unverified Statements

The New Testament was written from oral statements decades after they supposedly were made by unknown authors in a culture of miracles and superstition well before the advent of science.  There are NO secular historical writings supporting the claims about Jesus, or even the historicity of him. Oh, and, there is no need for a "Savior" from "Original Sin", since science has falsified an historical Adam and Eve.

Anyone wish to dialogue with me on this?

Click here for a short video that the above debunks

- - -

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?

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. *

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.

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.