No person in the history of humanity was born worshiping, praying to, and constantly praising a God or deity because they didn’t know what a god or deity was as of yet due to the fact they were just born. This means people were born atheist.
If someone tells you all humanity was born worshiping, praying to and constantly praying to a god or deity and you believe it………
It’s obvious that all world religions are the product of extremely ignorant (not stupid) near barbarians who didn’t understand much about the world around them and made up stories to explain things the best they could. We no longer believe that the universe is made of four elements, that our health is governed by the balance of our four humors, that the Earth is the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, etc. Why, then, should we still cling to ancient ideas about gods?
It’s obvious that most people who say they believe in God believe in the God that is worshiped by the culture in which they grew up. And everybody is convinced that their religion is the only “right” one. They can’t all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.
It’s obvious that the universe is just too vast and full of stuff not in any way related to humans to seriously believe that it was all made just for us and that we are the pinnacle of all creation.
It’s obvious that the religious beliefs of today are substantively the same as every other discarded superstitious belief of the past. If it’s silly to believe in Thor and Osiris, it’s just as silly to believe in Allah or Jehovah.
It’s obvious that every single bit of proposed “evidence” for the existence of God has either been totally debunked or can be explained through other means. And it is obvious that any justification for believing in God is part of an ever-shrinking “god of the gaps” argument.
It’s obvious that the various “Holy Scriptures” that supposedly provide the only source for knowledge about God are riddled with internal inconsistencies and blatantly wrong information about the world and world history.
It’s obvious that every depiction of God that is actually worshiped by anybody is riddled with logical inconsistencies. How can God be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving if he permits massive suffering throughout the entire universe (and not just suffering caused by man’s free will)? Why would an all-loving God set up a system whereby the vast, vast majority of his children would never get a chance to hear the “truth” and be saved, and thus be condemned to an eternity of torture? How can God simultaneously be immaterial and timeless (“pure mind”) and still interact with the material world?
It’s obvious that things like “God moves in mysterious ways” and “God always answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is no” are just lame excuses to explain why God rarely (if ever) keeps his supposed promise to actually GIVE the faithful what they ask for in faith (not just “answer their prayers”).
It’s obvious that “God” is just Santa Claus for adults. Believing in Him may give you comfort in times of trouble and give you something to look forward to, but that doesn’t mean He is real.And, to top it off, after thousands and thousands of years, no believer has ever offered a shred of compelling evidence or any sound logical argument to support a belief in such a being.
Although, to be absolutely honest, the entire notion of “God” is so insanely ridiculous and childish and obviously the product of ignorant superstitions in the first place that it’s hard to even imagine what sort of “evidence” or “argument” would actually be sufficient to support a belief in such a being. And if you think that makes me sound “closed-minded,” then I’m afraid you’ll just have to blame the people who came up with such a ridiculous notion in the first place.
Sage Kadow, Lifelong study of Origins of Christianity, now Atheist
Christianity is a good example for this question. If anything about it were true, you would expect to find evidence for it in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible but there is none. Examine the subject through the lens of the religion of Jesus, Judaism, and you will find no substantiation for the Christian story. None. Nothing at all finds validation in the OT. Here is what I discovered researching this very subject.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, died and was buried as a Jew right after he celebrated the Passover, as a Jew. He was not a Christian, nor did he create Christianity. The name Jesus never appears in the Old Testament, he is never mentioned nor referred to, not his birth, his life or his death. He was totally unworthy of note.
Christianity claims Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible but according to Jewish scholars, all claimed prophecies were fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus, in the OT times. Yet even today, Christian clergy still claim the prophecies were about Jesus, disregarding the scholars of Judaism, the very religion of Jesus right up to his death.
The awaited moshiach (messiah) of the OT is to be:
1. Fully human.
2. Not divine.
3. Not born of a virgin and a ghost.
4. Not a Son of God.
5. Not a god.
6. Not a savior. Note: the word moshiach is not translatable to savior in any way.
The moshiach is to be of the (tribal) line of David, through his son Nathan only, but Christianity denies Joseph as the father of Jesus, insisting god is the father. The tribal line however passes down only through the biological father. Jesus was Jewish because his mother was Jewish, but the mother is not considered for tribal line. That’s the law.
There is no concept of Original Sin in the Old Testament so we are not born tainted with sin but pure and innocent with no need of a savior. The word sin in the OT means “separation from god.”
There is no heaven or hell in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible either. The words *sheol* and *gehenna* were wrongly used by Christianity to mean hell when they just meant trash or fire pit. In the religion of Jesus, Judaism, when you die, you go to your grave in the ground, not heaven or hell
The word redeemer is wrongly used by Christians to mean savior. In Judaism, it means the moshiach is to redeem all the Jews from wherever they may be on earth, and bring them all home, which today would be Israel.
The moshiach is to complete a number of tasks, none of which were even begun by Jesus. There is no need to list them here because the most important item is that if someone claims to be the moshiach, but dies by any means before completing the tasks, he cannot have been the moshiach.
After his death, his followers split into various sects of Judaism but it wasn’t until the 4th century that the Christianity we recognize today was created. In 325 AD the Council at Nicaea was convened by Constantine to organize and offically create Christianity as the state religion of Rome. I have found that this Christianity has far more in common with Paganism than with the religion of Jesus.
The Council used Jesus, without his knowledge of course, and modeled him after the numerous preceding and concurrent god-men so popular at the time. These god-men were born of virgins and gods, on December 25th or around the Winter Solstice, in a stable, cave or other lowly place, they came to save the world, they had 12 disciples, they performed miracles (magic), they had a communion using bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood, they died horrible deaths and after three days, they were resurrected. Does this storyline sound familiar?
If Jesus had been the awaited moshiach, it would have been proclaimed loudly and clearly in the Old Testament! It was not because he was not.
This is why, according to the scholars of Judaism and the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Jesus had no divinity, no authority, title or status in his own religion, so he certainly had no status to be carried over to Christianity.
Jesus was made a false god in a false religion.
Note: Everything here has been checked and approved by Orthodox Jewish sources and even upvoted right here on Quora by and I would invite anyone wishing to double-check me to do so. If any errors are found I certainly wish to and will correct.
I started doing graffiti in 1982 with the tag name “choice.” I found far to many other artist using that same tag name. In 1986 I started using the tag name “search.” Here in 2018 I still do graffiti. Back then I tried to cover as much ground as possible. I had to compete with taggers with smaller tags like my friend at the time Ram and another tagger name Nes. In Springfield, Massachusetts “Simon” was one of the best muralist. I was mainly just a tagger.
Eventually I started doing murals in different cities and states. The bad thing about it was the fact most of my stuff got painted over and I ended up doing prison time for unrelated criminal offenses. Now I’m trying to get some of my graffiti drawings published.I some some graffiti on you tube that I thought was exceptional.
You are very confused. “Creation” – which ostensibly refers to the the overall origin of the universe – has nothing to do with evolution. Even if you are using the term “creation” to describe the origin of biological life, it still does not involve evolution.
Evolution describes how species are created. It describes this process of speciation via the mechanism of natural selection.
Evolutionary science does not involves itself in the creation of the universe or the origin of biological life, just as nuclear science does not involve itself with the freezing point of water or tooth decay.
The origin of the universe is the study of very advanced physics and mathematics. And it is not accurate to say it is “unknown” – we have considerable knowledge about it. But be prepared to spend many years studying physics and mathematics if you wish to completely understand it. There are some scientists who feel we have, already, solved the origin of the universe.
There are no real scientists who deny the validity of evolution – only a very small handful of crackpots who have no standing in the scientific world. Evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact, proven a bazillion times over by mountains of conclusive evidence.
When someone is doubting whether their religion is viable today, I would have to reason it’s because their brain is working again. So many theists became believers at such a young age when they were indoctrinated, most likely by their own parents. They were too young to have done much but accepted it. They didn’t yet have good reasoning skills.
Let’s say the religion is the Judeo-Christian variety. God was invented by Bronze Age tribesmen goat herders less than 6,000 years ago, on a small speck of sand in the most desolate part of Middle East, when they feared floods, eclipses, tsunamis and plagues must be punishments from a higher power. Their leaders used that to their advantage to control the people by saying, “Don’t do that again or god will punish us again!” Thus was born the God of the Israelites! (not the gentiles) And he hasn’t been heard from since.
Many believers have just been going on about their lives, never giving their religion much thought, but now something is triggered in their heads. Maybe they catch a news article or realize there are more atheists than they had realized. Their brain starts thinking about their outdated and outmoded religious beliefs and they start to wonder! That is a great sign!
They may be really wondering about the Adam and Eve story versus the widely accepted knowledge that humans, like us, were walking the earth hundreds of thousands of years before that. Then the recent science new article like this one may have helped wake up the dormant area of the brain.
To biggest help to them would be tuning in to YouTubes of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins discuss religion or debate the top theists so the best answers from both sides will be featured.
If they like call-in shows, try Matt Dilahunty’s. Here’s Matt, and another vid just to get them started:
So the believer has been listening to sermons for years and years and now, better late than never, is really giving the idea, and that’s all religion is, some real thought. There are plenty of books and videos he may have never heard. Now the brain is begging for them!
This is not to say he must change on a dime. No, just let some more information into the brain and start reasoning, thinking logically and critically. The brain will do its work.
What specific statement or supposed fact of the Bible can be refuted as blatantly false by atheists?
The Bible is riddled with demonstrable textual corruptions, forgeries, factual errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, anachronisms and signs of a story that grew in the telling. I will list a few examples.
Here is an example of the Lord getting his facts wrong:
And he said unto him [Abraham], I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Genesis 15:7 KJV
And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
Genesis 11:28 KJV
The problem is that Abraham and his father Terah could not possibly have been native Chaldeans, because Chaldea only existed as a nation between the 9th and 6th centuries BCE, centuries after Abraham was supposed to have lived.
The people who put the above words into their god’s mouth obviously did so during the first millennium BCE, blissfully unaware of the fact that the Chaldeans did not even exist as a nation when Abraham is supposed to have lived.
Here are two stories that could not have happened:
In the Book of Genesis there are two very similar stories of Abraham (Genesis 20) and some decades later his son Isaac (Genesis 26) having dealings with a Philistine king Abimelech of Gerar, each one telling the Philistines that his wife is his sister, because of fear that the Philistines would kill them for their wives.
However, neither Abraham nor Isaac could possibly have had any dealings with the Philistines, because we know beyond doubt from archaeology and extra-biblical records that the Philistines had only settled on the south coast of Canaan during the Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BCE, centuries after Abraham and Isaac are supposed to have wandered Canaan.
Here is one example of a major problem for the exodus narrative:
For more than three centuries until the early 12th century BCE, during the time that the Bible places the exodus (around 1450 BCE), Canaan was a province of Egypt and Egypt had a very strong military presence in Canaan:
It makes no sense for the Israelites fleeing the Egyptians by fleeing from Egypt to … Egypt.
Even if that was the case, it is not mentioned anywhere in Egyptian records that Israelite invaders were encountered in Canaan, but more significantly for Bible believers, neither does the Bible itself mention that any Egyptians were encountered during the Israelites’ seven year military conquest of Canaan, let alone mentioning their strong military presence in the region. For this and other reasons some try to place the exodus later or even earlier in history, but those attempts run into even more anachronisms.
The above are just three examples of many anachronistic problems with the stories about the patriarchs, the Egyptian enslavement, the Exodus, the forty year wandering of the Sinai and the seven year military conquest of Canaan. In fact, these narratives are almost entirely consistent with the first millennium BCE geopolitical landscape when the stories were written, instead of with the second millennium BCE geopolitics, when the stories are supposed to have played off. And the anachronisms are by no means the only problems with the narratives.
In the video clip below (thanks Robert Hollander) prominent archaeologist and biblical scholar William G Dever says:
To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds biblical archaeology’s Conquest Model. Not one.
The Conquest Model that Dever mentions, is the model that says that the narrative in the book of Joshua is true, or at least mostly true. Instead, people have proposed different models in an attempt to still give some validity to the Bible, for example by arguing that the narrative in the book of Judges, which significantly contradicts the narrative in Joshua, is more accurate. However, those models have all been discredited. For more detail, see:
The 45 minute video above of Bill Dever is a good summary, but there is a wealth of evidence that the Israelites were not foreigners who have invaded and conquered Canaan as the Bible would have us believe, but that they were indeed predominantly indigenous coastal Canaanites who have settled in the highlands and gradually evolved their religion from coastal Canaanite culture and polytheism into an own identity. This is described in much more detail in Dever’s books and in the work of other prominent scholars, like Israel Finkelstein.
In the answer below I have summarised some of the evidence for the origins of the Israelite religion in Canaanite polytheism. It will be noted that some other answers attempt to answer the question, but none of them are able to present a single item of direct evidence for the exodus or conquest narrative. They present some evidence that the Israelites were present in Canaan at a later date, long after the exodus (for example the Merneptah Stele), which we already know anyway, but none of them addresses the question with direct evidence:
Let’s move on from the exodus and conquest to some more examples regarding the question of the OP.
The oldest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain references to hell, but most modern translations do, like the King James Bible. These translations have been translated from, or influenced by, the Latin Vulgate, which has been corrupted by the Catholics to support their doctrines. For example, the Catholics have built hell into the Vulgate.
The translation used by Jehovah Witnesses is more accurate in this regard. JWs don’t believe in hell, so they have made sure that they got this bit right. However, JWs have also made up their own nonsense.
Somebody should tell the Pentecostal snake handlers that Jesus never said this:
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mark 16:17-18 KJV
The oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark (which was written anonymously and only later attributed to Mark) ends at 16:8. The ending of gMark (16:9–20) in the KJV and other modern translations is a forgery. The smoking gun is that verses from all three of the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John (which were written later than gMark and which were also written anonymously), were subsequently used in later copies of gMark to concoct the bogus ending of gMark, with the bit about the snakes and the poison added as a bonus.
For more detail, see this article by James Tabor, Professor in Religious Studies at North Carolina University:
The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.
He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!
Here is another story about Jesus that never happened:
In gJohn the scribes and Pharisees bring an adulteress to Jesus and ask him whether her punishment should be stoning to death, but Jesus first ignores them and writes something in the sand, and then tells them that the one without sin should pick up the first stone.
While the story mentioned above about Jesus talking about the snakes and the poison is just completely bonkers (and apparently dangerous to some gullible people), the story about the adulteress contains a good moral lesson. However, the story itself is probably also a forgery. As can be seen in the above article, some try to argue that it is authentic, but it does not appear in the oldest copies of gJohn. It was added later by scribes.
It is impossible to address this question in detail in a short answer like this, but people who try to argue that there is nothing “blatantly false” in the Bible should read the work of respected scholars in this regard. Don’t just believe everything that you have been told to believe since you were very young.
Because one persons God is another person devil. One persons heaven is another person hell. One concept was made in opposition of another. That’s the whole point of good vs evil. Whats good for one will be evil for another. Racism and sexism is an example. Some people benefit off the misery of others.
Mother Theresa was intent on converting as many people to Catholicism as possible, even at the expense of the poor.
No one builds a church purely for the love of God — especially in third-world countries where critical services, like hospitals, are lacking. Religious groups that erect houses of worship in these areas do so not just out of the kindness of their heart, but to increase the number of people who believe in their faith…………………….