Christianity Debunked

So I decided to piece a few links together to show how christianity really is nothing but a fraud and a lie:

Noah and the flood weren’t true:

and it was just a ripoff of a fairytale over 1000 years older than Noah and the ark tale called “The Epic Of Gilgamesh”.

Aswell as several other things stolen from this story and plagarized for the old testament as shown here:

The Exodus never happened:

The gospels are pure fiction and there is no evidence of Jesus and it all comes down to the fact that Jesus was Paul’s imaginary friend who talked to him in outer space.

And half the new testament are proven forgeries anyways as confirmed by the majority of biblical scholars:

Evolution is true:

Yes there are hundreds of transitional fossils:

And the Earth is 4.54 Billion years old:

And the Big Bang happened:

All the elements came from exploding stars:

And the universe is 13.8 to 14 Billion years old.

There are 3700 different gods worshipped throughout history and christianity, judaism and islam were stolen directly from other religions and gods.

The devil is made up also:

All that evidence that was claimed of the bible was coincidentally all found by one guy named Ron Wyatt who died in 1998 and all his discoveries were confirmed frauds.

As even this christian website will tell you:

And the only reason christianity exists is because of a psychopath emperor who didn’t even believe in christianity but wanted people to think he was a god.

Emperor Constantine:


I really don’t know how else to say it that christianity is a complete fabrication and a lie.


We ARE Born Atheists

So I found an article a christian wrote online a few months ago and I thought I would copy and paste some highlights I made to a response to the deluded individual who failed to do anything but waste everyone’s time and help me to make an article that shatters common christian arguments.

The christian has the incorrect view and statement that people are NOT born atheists.

Now the article was quite ridiculous, but I am bringing this up because this isn’t new and these are things religious people say every day. So I will address a few things and clear the air on this.

In this we will also address and talk about “Atheism” “child indoctrination” and “belief”.

Yes it’s true. We are born Atheists until:

– We’re mentally poisoned with religions which are all lies and nonsense.

– We’re child indoctrinated and mentally conditioned to deny any other reality.

– We’re brainwashed when older by being exploited from being in a state of being caught while mentally, or emotionally vulnerable.

– We’re lied to and deceived by people who are so amazing at brainwashing people because they themselves are brainwashed (which is why it feels so natural).

> Deceivers like cult leaders though are true masters. (belief for the brainwashers though is unecessary)
The christian said this:

“Atheism, at its core and true definition, is the belief that God doesn’t exist.”

The christian is soooo wrong on this, but I gather that the reasoning behind the christian’s thinking is because he is superimposing and projecting his own brainwashed thinking into the minds of Atheists (so he thinks).

– What the christian doesn’t understand is that a mind that is free to think on it’s own and not brainwashed to be the slave of a delusion, thinks differently than theirs.

– The christian has it completely wrong when he says that “Atheists believe there is no god” because that is NOT how our brains work.

– The correct term is “ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD”

– Atheist’s brains work on evidence and rationality you see and religious people’s brains work on faith and delusional belief.

Carl Sagan said it best when he said:
“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.”

Also Bertrand Russell:

“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite”.

– Atheism is the neutral position.

– Atheists simply DO NOT BELIEVE because we have no reason to believe.

– Atheists simply acknowledge what we know to be real because of evidence and science.

– Atheists are not religious and not believers of gods because there is no reason or evidence that we should be.

– “Deists” might believe in intelligent design and various other beliefs, but not a religion.

– Religious believers believe in all kinds of things.

– Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE in gods, or the truth of religions, because there is no evidence to believe.

– If Atheists had evidence to believe in gods, or religions being based on real things then we would believe.

As Richard Carrier brilliantly explains:

– Even Christianity’s hero William Lane Craig agrees:
The christian then says….

“A belief requires a certain amount of cognitive ability. With this ability one forms a belief through various means of knowledge acquisition.”

So what kind of belief is something if you don’t believe it because there is no evidence, or sound scientific theories?

– Believing something that has no evidence and makes no sense is in no way interpretted as knowledge, but of delusion.
The christian also said….

“As babies we lack this ability to form meaningful beliefs.”

The christian actually raised a good point.

– Until children are child indoctrinated to only believe nonsense, or to be brought up having a SOUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD instead.

– Science makes sense.

– Science isn’t always right and can change with evidence.

– Religion teaches to ignore evidence.

– Religion teaches to believe things that make no sense and have no evidence.

Case in point:

“The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…”

– As many times as I ask, no christian has yet to explain how that makes any sense, just that “because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense”.

LOL Yeah like that’s an answer.
The christian uses an example…

“My niece just turned six the other day, and while she knows what she likes and doesn’t like, and I love her to death I wouldn’t trust her on making certain decisions, or trust her on some beliefs she may currently hold: such as she should ALWAYS get her way.”

Yeah we sure don’t want people thinking for themselves, or turning into freethinkers do we?

– I guess the christian is saying one of 2 things.

1) His niece hasn’t been shown and taught what is universal and demonstratably true through scientific interpretation.


2) She hasn’t been brainwashed enough yet to completely make her deny all evidence against anything that might disprove christianity.

– So she must have religious delusions programmed into her because her christian uncle and family doesn’t want her to have the ability to doubt, or think for herself.

– The christian does not want his niece to have the ability to rationally say “this religion and all other religions make no sense and have no evidence”.

– Now this is the problem I have with religion is that it causes the lack of the ability of independent thought, but also the lack of thought period.

Another Bertrand Russell quote:

“So far as I can remember there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.”

“For sure, at some point we develop our cognitive abilities to the degree that we feel we can make rational decisions and form rational beliefs.
The christian then asserts…

“But as babies, since we lack this ability does that make us atheists at birth?


Actually yes it does.

– Babies are born not believing in god, or gods and their religion is programmed into them later through child indoctrination rather than allowing them to come to their own conclusions through scientific theory, or simple observation.

– If they were simply raised in a colony of people that weren’t necessarily Atheists, but simply kept religions to themselves and were schooled and educated on science and demostratably real things, then how would they be subjected to any religion?

– Was the christian I respond to here implying that they would just naturally be religious?

> Even if that were true it would mean that they created a religion themselves from scratch and it wouldn’t be any religion that would resemble christianity, or any other religion.

> This creation of a religion from scratch is due to imagination and lack of information.

> There is no reason this should happen in this day and age.

– The only reason the christian believes his non-sensical lie religion is because that is the one he was brainwashed to as a child.

– Just like other people are religious because that was the religion that they were brainwashed to, no matter what religion they are, that is why they believe it.
The christian then says….

“At this moment and for some time beyond we truly lack the ability to form meaningful beliefs.”

What the christian fails to tell us is why it’s meaningful to believe in things that make no sense and have no evidence and are no different than any other religion that makes no sense and has no evidence.

– If the christian meant “beliefs” as “a simple way of thinking” then he fails completely since people don’t need religions, or belief in gods to be good, or to be defined as a moral human being.

– In fact people are better off without religion when it comes to morality and are far superior in the morality department if they aren’t religious.
Religion itself actually blinds people from being moral and knowing right from wrong.

– If we look at my list you can see what I mean:

There are many points I make but specifically regarding morals let’s talk about 1,2,4 and 8.

– As an Atheist I know what right and wrong actually are far better than any religious person who are doing nothing but following the guidelines of an imaginary telepathic crime boss.

– Even now christians are attempting to fuel the world’s lack of morality by spreading their faith virus to others.
The christian then makes this bold statement…

“I call BS on atheism being just a “lack of belief”, I explained how that definition makes it meaningless – for a rock can be considered an atheist then.”

– Does the christian believe in smurfs?

– Does he have reasons to believe that smurfs exist, or don’t exist?

> They’re based on a cartoon maybe?

> They would have been discovered by now.

> They would have all been dead by now.

> Whatever reasons the christian might have.

– So does the christian BELIEVE smurfs do not exist because he has reasons, or EVIDENCE?

> Now try the same thing with God….

– Atheists have no evidence, or reasons to believe, or disbelieve in God simply for the reason because there is no evidence of God, nothing.

– Atheists have no belief in God because there is no reason to believe, or disbelieve, there simply is no evidence.

– There is no reason to believe a god exists, but no reason to believe God DOESN’T exist, but it just seems highly unlikely and illogical, but we await evidence that would change our minds.

> So in other words “I have no belief in God”.

> You could say that “I have no belief in God NOT existing” also, but it still wouldn’t be a belief because there still wouldn’t be a reason for that either if there isn’t any evidence either way.

– Now if you wanted to go the other route and say “Atheists believe christianity to not be true and every other religion” well that would be true, but certain Atheists like myself would KNOW christianity to not be true because we have examined the evidence against it and the lack of evidence for it.

– There are many reasons why Atheists believe christianity and all other religions are not true and are complete lies and delusion.

Coincidentally though, the same reasons that christians have for believing all other religions to be false are the same reasons that I have for believing christianity and all the other religions are false.

– The only reason that christians BELIEVE in God is because they are brainwashed to believe in christianity and brainwashed to somehow believe that the gods of their religion Yahweh, Jesus and Satan are real and that Yahweh is the omnipotent master of the universe, or that Jesus and Yahweh are the same.

– Both are a belief and both are a delusion.

> More specifically is that the “god” of their belief is a delusion.
The christian continues….

“Atheism IS a belief.

Thus, we are not born atheist, theist, agnostic, or anything.

We are born into pure neutrality.”

This particular christian just gets dumber and dumber with every sentence.


– The christian is defining Atheism like a religion.

– Atheism IS THE NEUTRAL POSITION! Why is this so hard for christians to realize?

– Let’s give some examples here…..

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Atheism is a religion like “off” is a TV channel.

Atheism is a religion like “barefoot” is a shoe.

Atheism is a religion like “unemployed” is a career.

Atheism is a religion like “clear” is a color.

Atheism is a religion like being sane is a mental illness.

Atheism is a religion like following the law is a crime.

Atheism is a religion like “healthy” is a disease.

Atheism is a religion like invisible is something you see.

The christian continues….

“We can’t form any belief. We need evidence based on facts and evidence.”

– I was so shocked to hear a christian say “anything about needing evidence”.

– Of course we can form beliefs.

– I really have no idea what the christian is even talking about now?

– He seriously must have written this article just for the reason of wasting people’s time.

– We form beliefs on what we see as ethical and moral and what right and wrong are.

– What society, or different parts of society and the world believe is ethical, or moral.

– What we ourselves believe we are capable, or incapable of doing when it comes to moral, or ethical boundaries we set in place for ourselves.

– We form all kinds of beliefs in regards to personal views and perspectives.

– HOWEVER, what the christian is confusing “belief” with is the same thing that billions of other people confuse belief with, which is “religion” which is “delusion”.

– Unless the christian gives any credit whatsoever to scientology, hinduism, buddhism, islam, Zeus, Odin, Aztec sun gods, or aboriginal spirits.

– Being brainwashed to a delusional belief takes outside influence.

– Simply living your life and observing the world around you, without being force fed religious delusion and then coming to your own conclusions, isn’t brainwashing, but just “not spreading that particular strain of faith virus to others”.

– We evolve our thinking to adjust to the world around us.

– We do this evolving with, or without religion, but the difference is that without religion we learn to be good people because we want to fit into society better, not simply because we feel we have to because of a delusional sky daddy.

– With both sides there are good people and bad people, but for good people to do bad things that takes religion.
The christian finishes….

“So are we born atheist?


Not only are we born Atheists, but some (in fact most) also are born to be victims.

– Victims of religious parents who want nothing more than to infect their kids with the same mental illness that they are infected with and are oblivious to.
So are we born Atheists?

– YES!

Is Atheism a “faith”?

– NO!

Is religion nothing more than child indoctrination unless brainwashed when older, by having an emotional vulnerablity exploited by being in that state mind that religious people can brainwash them?


Attack The Source (The Right Source)

What really drives me crazy is that when I see Atheists debating religious believers, they are wasting time on the wrong issues.

The brainwashing issues are simply not addressed.

I’m saying that because without the brainwashing there is no belief in Jesus, or christianity in the first place.

– I can’t help it if Atheist philosophers are too stupid to see that I’m attacking the source of the religious disease, which is the brainwashing.

Attack the source (the right source)

– Apologists and philosophers are expecting me to simply just attack the symptoms (Jesus, or intelligent design) but whether they like it, or not I’m going to attack the SOURCE.

– Compare christianity and all religion to AIDS.

> Would you rather attack the symptoms of AIDS, or attack the disease itself? Exactly.

-Since religious believers are the brainwashed ones I can’t expect them to behave rationally, or say anything trustworthy either. (Not presupposing and I explain more as you read more)

– Afterall, if apologists didn’t lie and mislead then they wouldn’t be able to do apologetics.

This is the simple reality:

– There is no evidence of any religion, especially christianity.

– Religious believers will say there is evidence but when you ask to see it, then it isn’t evidence of anything.

– Religion only exists because of brainwashing.

– Brainwashing to religion consists of the following 2 reasons:

1) Child indoctrination

Which consists of some or more of the following:

> Parents religion

> Country

> Household

> Majority religion

> Media of that country

> Teachers and social influences

2) Being expoited by a religion when being caught in a state of emotional vulnerability while as an adult, to various types of circumstances.

> Called “being born again”

> This can be caused by repetition abd being forcefed religion that projects and creates a vulnerability in the person.

> Religions prey (not pray) upon the vulnerable people who are lost and confused and they are taken advantage of by the state they are in.

> This is what happens when people create cults from scratch and find emotionally vulnerable and confused people who delude themselves into thinking they see “signs”.

Why is there no reason other than brainwashing?

Here’s why:

– The argument of intelligent design has nothing to do with any religion and only an argument for “deism”.

– Since a “god” existing cannot be either proven or disproven that does not count as brainwashing, since it’s just a simple belief and nothing more that doesn’t influence their life, nor would they be indoctrinating anyone with that belief.

– When the belief in god is connected to a religion though, then it becomes brainwashing.

> Then it becomes a disease that is pushed onto others.

– Nothing about any religion makes any sense and no religion has any evidence.

– The only way to believe a religion that makes no sense, has no evidence and is no different than any other religion that has no evidence and makes no sense, is because of brainwashing.

– Even if a god did exist (hypothetically) there is nothing that connects, or is evidence of, connecting that god with any religion, or religious figure, or myth.

> There is nothing to say that any god would care, or feel compelled to offer afterlives, or care what anybody did with their sexlives since “the god” would have supposedly created them the way it wanted in the first place.

(I just realized that some of what I mention above is mentioned by Richard Carrier here):


Apologists and philosophers have suggested that saying “religion is brainwashing and the only reason religion exists” is not an argument because it goes both ways (as in Atheists can be brainwashed to religion too).

– If a parent raises their kids with naturalism, science and only what can be seen, heard, or scientifically explained and theorized, then how is that brainwashing if the parent is simply raising the child with things known to be actually real and don’t require faith?

– A religious person cannot say that an Atheist parent is brainwashing their child by not raising the child to the religious person’s religion, when the same reasoning can be said about why the child is not being raised to all the other religions that the religious person doesn’t believe.

> None of the religions have evidence of being true.

> The Atheist parent is simply raising a child without subjecting them to things without evidence.

> The same as teaching a child about Howard Stern (who is real) or the Easter bunny (not real).

So I will finish with these last few notes and points regarding what is important in debating religious believers such as christians:

– Whether or not you believe religion is a problem, or not, the only reason it does exist is because of brainwashing.

– If you don’t think religion is a problem then what are you wasting your time debating and arguing with religious believers for if you aren’t going to expose the source?

> This is the equivalent to keeping the Iraq war going because you want to make money from the war, but could end the war at any time.

– If religious people of any religion cannot give evidence of anything to show that their religion could be believed by anything but brainwashing, then there is no other alternative but that the religious believer has been brainwashed. SIMPLE

– We know people are child indoctrinated and brainwashed as adults to reject and deny evidence and truth from myth and delusion and all religious people fall into that category.

So the bottom line is that if people are debating religious believers and not exposing the brainwashing, then they are just wasting everyone’s time and ARE NOT ATTACKING OR EXPOSING THE TRUTH!

Why Atheists Should Be Angry

So I have this reputation of being an angry Atheist. Some try to mock me for this and portray this as a bad thing and maybe even a bad person.

This is of course laughable to say “that being an angry Atheist is a bad thing”. I even had someone call me “a hateful prick” once. How silly.

So let’s list some of the things I’m angry about….

1) People are scamming people of billions of dollars a year for a lie in order to make themselves rich.

– This disgusts me and I’m angry about it.

– Why wouldn’t I be when this affects the world, affects friends and family that I know and makes sociopath scumbags rich?

– To say it is wrong to be hateful about this is ridiculous.

– This actually defines me as being a moral and caring human being by saying this and should be how people view this.
2) I am angry that religious apologists attempt to deflect everything that exposes their religion as a lie.

– It’s obvious that that is all they are doing is deflecting.

– They know they are deflecting yet insist on insulting peoples intelligence.

– They know they have no argument and do anything and everything to deflect and pretend that they aren’t.

– This simply means that I am straightforward and tell people that I don’t agree with them jerking me around and why shouldn’t I be angry about this?

– This simply tells people that I don’t like my time wasted and if someone is deliberately wasting your time then why shouldn’t I be angry and annoyed.
3) I don’t like being lied to over and over about obvious lies.

– Who shouldn’t be angry about being lied to over and over and like I mentioned earlier “jerked around”?

– When I repeatedly ask for evidence for example, of Jesus and they say the following:

> “The evidence for Jesus is overwhelming” (Nope, there is nothing).

> “The majority of biblical scholars and historians agree that Jesus existed” (evidence? Other than Paul saying 20 years later that he knew the brother of his imaginary friend in outer space).

> “Jesus died for your sins, what more evidence do you need?” (This of course means nothing).

– Why shouldn’t everybody be angry that there are these religious predators trying to delude people by lying to them?
4) I see the incredible amount of evidence of child indocrination and the fact that it is the parents who are responsible.

– The evidence for this is overwhelming and if you don’t agree then just ask and I will gladly send you many many articles on brainwashing and child indoctrination.

– Religious child indoctrination is child abuse and I feel being angry about child abuse is justified.

> The fact that people don’t realize that this is child abuse makes me even angrier.

> The fact that it’s THE PARENTS who are abusing the children by child indoctrinating them makes me go completely mental and foaming at the mouth with anger.

– Why shouldn’t I be angry that billions of children are being abused and billions of parents are the ones doing it?

– Why shouldn’t I be angry that children are being psychologically scarred and damaged by something that is without a doubt the most evil thing on the planet?
5) People are being brainwashed when older because they were exploited while being caught in a state of being emotionally vulnerable.

– I am angry that people are becoming victims of a lie.

> This lie is what will make people abuse their children by child indoctrinating them.

> This lie is what deludes people into hating people with bigotry.

> This lie starts wars and justifies them.

> This lie divides peoples and families.

> This lie causes people to not fear death because they think they have another life.

> This lie is destroying the planet itself because it is anti-science.

> This lie scams people out of billions.

> This lie is a complete waste of peoples time.

> This lie is what has set back society over a 1000 years technologically.

– I am angry that people are completely blind to this in the same way that I would be angry if people were poisoning other people with small doses of poison and everyone thought it was okay.

> It’s not okay to poison peoples minds with a harmful mental disease that destroys the planet and innocent lives without people even realizing it.
6) This is the 21st century and supernatural delusion and the harmful effects of supernatural delusion are everywhere.

– There are still human sacrifices.

– Woman are treated like inferior beings and willingly agreeing and doing so.

– Homosexuals are oppressed and killed.

– Atheists are oppressed and killed.

– People believe in ghosts, demons, possessions and curses.

– People are deluded into fearing things that don’t exist.

– People actually would kill other people because they think that a god wants them to and there are billions of people throughout existence who would do so.

– This all makes me very angry.
7) Atheists who defend religion and religious belief.

– This is unacceptable and Atheists are supposed to be the smart ones.

– To say that religion benefits people and is harmless simply shows a lack of intelligence and reality.

> There are multiple ways to help people and help the world without being religious.

> People don’t need religion to be good and don’t need to have a religious community of friends as a social circle.

– To give religious people such as apologists credibility in any way is truly maddening.

> Apologists are misleading, manipulative, deceiving liars and they know they are.

> Apologists have an agenda to mislead, manipulate and deceive and by giving them credibility Atheists are simply helping them do so.

– Atheists who defend religion are as much of a problem as religion itself.

> They blind other Atheists into not thinking religion is a problem.

> They blind other Atheists into thinking that religion is harmless.

> They convince other Atheists that the Atheists who speakout against religion should be ignored and don’t know what they’re talking about.

– Tigers telling tigers that it’s okay to let hunters shoot them and to destroy the jungle makes no sense.

– I am justified in being angry when I see people who are supposed to know better, telling other people who know better, not to know better.

So yes I am an angry Atheist and yes I get a little out of control sometimes.

Being angry aswell as passionate, simply because you care about other people and the world itself, is never a bad thing, nor should it ever be.

Passionate angry people who care are bound to get out of control sometimes.

Excuse me for caring.

The Genetic Fallacy FALLACY

So I often have had the annoying “genetic fallacy” thrown in my face over the past few years on Twitter by christians who simply used it to dismiss certain things that they have no argument, or defense against.

So how do they do this?

Well I will list several points.

1) When I remind them that most religious believers are only religious to that religion because they were child indoctrinated to that particular religion that they presently have believed since birth.

a) This is true that most believers are simply programmed to cling to that religion and deflect anything that contradicts it.

b) This can’t be denied and just because there are a small number of people who escape religious belief, or even changed religions for various reasons doesn’t change the fact that religious child indoctrination is most likely the reason for someone being a certain religion.

c) Where someone was born has an incredible influence on what religion they are.

– This can’t be denied.

d) The 2 factors of child indoctrination and where they were born, or lived does determine what religion you are and most of the time.

2) They will say “that all these are a genetic fallacy and can be ignored and disregarded”.

– So this of course is nothing but a deflection and does not discount the issue of it being true.

– This is simply a way of not dealing with the cold hard truth.
3) This does not change the fact that there is no evidence for any religion being real and nothing about any religion that makes any sense.

– The only way people can actially believe things without evidence and that make no sense are because of these:

> Child indoctrination

> Being caught in an emotional state of vulnerability that is exploited by a particular religion that is geographically convenient, or that they have deluded themself to as being “a sign”

4) If people weren’t child indoctrinated and weren’t forcefed religion, but simply given the information at 18 and were able to rationally evaluate religion then religion would simply fade away.

– This is undeniable.

– This is the cold hard truth that religious believers do not want to have to admit.

– This is the cold hard truth that religious believers cannot defend.

– The only defense is simply not dealing with it at all and hope that it goes away.

5) Religious believers know at heart that brainwashing, location and child indoctrination exposes their religion as both a fraud and a lie.

– The cognitive dissonance is too much to deal with.

– They can’t deal with the fact that their entire religion is nothing but a lie and they have been stupid enough to believe it, or gullibly mislead.

– They can’t deal with the fact that the people they look up to, respect and taught them everything they know about religion, were wrong, deluded, brainwashed and that billions of other people throughout history aswell.


Now I am NOT a philosopher and to be perfectly honest until 2 years ago I didn’t even know what philosophy was.

– Though I am now in school and working like crazy to study science, psychology, biology and yes… philosophy, I still fail completely to see how the genetic fallacy can be used to defend brainwashing and child indoctrination (I won’t lie and say that going back to school hasn’t been a challenge due to me being in my late forties, but I’m trying and doing ok).

– Even worse than this I’ve had philosophy Atheists backing this up and defending the religious believers by going along with “the genetic fallacy”. This was truly mind-blowing to me.

So I began to question my own sanity,

– I mean we’re talking some serious self reflection here.

> Was I going insane?

> Was I insane?

> How is it that what these Atheist “philosophers” who apparently had educations and undeniable math skills and educational acheivements that generally could only be aquired by someone who was “intelligent”, be saying this “genetic fallacy” defended religion and that it was “valid”?

> Using the genetic fallacy with what I just said immediately above doesn’t even make sense because it discounts it as “irrelevant” when I say the statement “all well educated philosopher Atheists know what they’re talking about” is (I can only assume) a “genetic fallacy”.

Either way I have still found nothing that contradicts what I have evidence of to be TRUE, not a “belief”, but true. This is something I have sat and put a great deal of thought into. Well… kinda like a philosopher.

This brings up some interesting questions I’ve thought of:

– Could I be just not seeing something that just seems to have slipped past my radar?

– Is there some kind of “cognitive bias” that I am unaware of that makes me blind to what I am trying to understand about the “genetic fallacy” and how it defends religion?

> If there is, then what is it?

– Have I lost my mind and that is why the answer is in front of my face but I don’t see it?

> Has my sanity slipped?

> Has all the hours of not sleeping, then doing all my writing and seeing all the religious attrocities truly knocked me off my rocker and I don’t know?

> How do I know if I am crazy?

> Has my anger issues and disgust for religion made me insane and made me unable to see reality either accurately, or clearly, or both?

> Does the fact that I actually ask myself these questions mean that I’m NOT crazy, or the fact that I have to ask myself these questions in the first place mean that I am kinda kooky, or even full blown psychotic?

– Are the douchbag religious philosophers and the Atheist philosophers who defend religion just as stupid and insane as I think they are?

– Well the evidence of the religious philosophers being insane and dishonest is overwhelming, but the Atheists?

> Aren’t the Atheist philosophers supposed to be the smart ones?

> Then why are the majority of Atheist philosophers against me on most issues I talk about if they do in fact have education and have acheived “official” skills in a genuine field of study and program?

– Are all these Atheists who defend religion wrong?

> Wouldn’t the odds be completely astromical?

>> Unlikely, but is it impossible?

– Is philosophy wrong, but I just happen to see that the genetic fallacy is not a defense for religion for some unexplained and undetermined reason?

> Am I no different than Giordano Bruno with what I see, but other people can’t?

> Does even considering the slightest possibility of this above possibility prove me crazy?

> Is it crazy?

So what are my biggest pieces of evidence that I might be possibly wrong?

1) Well first off would be Richard Carrier.

– I respect him and find him brilliant and he is a philosopher who makes a lot of sense.

> Well to be honest I don’t entirely understand most of what he says.

> I do have trouble following most of what he says, or even applying it to any problem, or application.

> I have to rewind and reread several times, but I do eventually get the drift.

> What I admire about him is his actual knowledge of science and history and brilliant memory combined with his collection of well researched facts.

– He talks about philosophy a lot though and swears by it and he is one of religions greatest opponents.

> However I do find that he does so using actual facts and knowledge as opposed to philosophy and word play, or at least that is all I see.

– He also attacks other mythicists for what he sees as wrong information, which isn’t really defending religion, but exposing bad information.

– I’ve even seen him attack Bart Ehrman for the “genetic fallacy” using philosophy and being very clear about it and making his point justifiably and agreeably clear. Undeniable.

– My guess is that Carrier would also dislike me on a personal level for what I do say about philosophy being useless in the fight against religion a lot, since many philosophers do, but oh well.

– Carrier did give me a lot to think about and self reflect, but at present I am still in the dark regarding answers to my problems of what I call “The genetic fallacy FALLACY”.

1) The fact that I have Atheist philosophers telling me I’m wrong.

> Though they seem genuinely stupid, the fact can’t be denied that they are still defending religion with this “genetic fallacy”.

> It can’t help but give me pause.

So what are the still unknown problems that I have with the genetic fallacy?

– What do I need answers for?

– What do I need answered?

Well let’s go through them….

– How do I counter the “genetic fallacy” to stop religious philosophers from deflecting like cowards when I address brainwashing, child indoctrination and locational upbringing?

– How could I possibly be actually wrong when religion only really does exist because of brainwashing, child indoctrination and locational upbringing?

> As Richard Dawkins also probably would have thought if he watched this response William Lame Craig used regarding some of the same issues I bring up:

– How does simply giving the question a fallacy name make the issues “irrelevant” when they are in fact true?

– Is there something I’m missing?

– How can things be true, be the entire cause of the problem, be what needs to be answered and still be simply dismissed and not addressed by calling them a name?

– Why should I not naturally be foaming at the mouth insane when Atheists come along and condescendingly defend religious believers who use the genetic fallacy to dismiss and deflect the ugly truth about religion?

How is this any different than saying that if a highly contagious ebola plague sufferer threw up on you then you would probably die because the fatality rate is 80%

– Then saying that throwing up on someone who is highly contagious with ebola plague won’t kill you because it’s a genetic fallacy?

Because 20% of people who contract ebola live and survive, then we shouldn’t address throwing up on someone by someone who has ebola as being a cause of dying from ebola.

– Would this be wrong, or not?

So thus far this is what I am still stuck with:

– Religion only exists because of child indoctrination.

> Despite people saying this is a genetic fallacy, it is undeniably true.

– Religion is simply a matter in undeniably most cases of where that person was born, whether it is a country, a community, a town, or a particular household.

> Despite people saying this can just be ignored because this is a “genetic fallacy”.

– Religion is believed to be true without evidence and can only be believed if someone is child indoctrinated, or brainwashed when older by whatever religion is geographically convenient, or just convenient.

> Despite people saying this can be ignored because it’s a “genetic fallacy”.

– Religious believers and apologists merely use this as a cowardly and convenient deflection for something they know they have no defense against (that they are brainwashed to a lie that has no evidence or truth).

> The “genetic fallacy” is a “get out of jail free card” so they don’t have to admit the truth.

– Atheist philosophers who give lying, deflective, time-wasting, manipulative apologists credibility, are part of the problem if they don’t call them out for it and are as much of a problem as religion itself, even if they are unable to see it.

So that is my take on brainwashing, child indoctrination, religious location and the despicable genetic fallacy FALLACY!

“Using the genetic fallacy to deflect and not have to address the undeniable truth”

Brainwashing And The Experts

Well as someone who was once brainwashed to religion and also experienced other types of brainwashing, I thought I was a good voice for people to hear regarding my own personal experiences about myself and personal observations regarding other peoples religious brainwashing.

Here are some good ones that I wrote:

How Atheists aren’t brainwashed

Religion IS brainwashing

Indoctrinated indoctrinaters indoctrinating indoctrination

Why nobody tells you you’re brainwashed to your religion

It’s no conspiracy theory religion is brainwashing. IT’S FACT!

However well I thought that I put them together though, many religious readers simply dismissed it due to my lack of any scientific credentials.

Though I did put this article out:

The definition of brainwashing and how it fits religion:

Yet it still wasn’t taken seriously, again due to my lack of credentials in the psychological field. Though I am doing my best to enter school and get experience in this now that I’ve been inspired to do so, but it’s a long road.

A certain annoying christian pressed me on this recently and confronted me with some things, which in all honesty was helpful and exposed some things that I found to be very useful. It was helpful because it exposed the fact that what the christian had shown me was nonsense and yet it was the best that they could do. It also helped show me the references and links that show how religion truly is nothing more than BRAINWASHING!

There are of course two specific forms of brainwashing and they are:

– Child indoctrination

– Being brainwashed when older by being caught in a state of emotional vulnerability.

So let’s examine what the christian had sent me that was supposed to show me how being religious is not brainwashing.

The christian went to Wikipedia and sent me this definition:

Wikipedia offers us this: “Mind control (also known as brainwashing,coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) is a theoretical indoctrination process which results in “an impairment of autonomy, an inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations. In this context, brainwashing refers to the involuntary reeducation of basic beliefs and values”[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual’s sense of control over their ownthinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.”

– Now the christian who sent that from the following link then implied that brainwashing was only a theory:

– However the christian was merely cherry picking off of the Wikipedia page and ignored the many links and references that confirm how religion and child indoctrination are quite real, so I found the wikipedia submission he gave quite laughable and as I said “helpful” to me.

– So let’s do as I said and examine the same page and see what we can find just regarding brainwashing to religion itself:

From Wikipedia we can get some references.

Oh here’s a good one:

“Philip Zimbardo discusses mind control as “the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes”,[29] and he suggests that any human being is susceptible to such manipulation.[30] ”

Let’s checkout Dr. Zimbardo:

Let’s see what [29] says about what Dr. Zimbardo says:
“Zimbardo, Philip G. (November 2002). “Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric?”. Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved 2008-12-30. “Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles. Conformity, compliance, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, guilt and fear arousal, modeling and identification are some of the staple social influence ingredients well studied in psychological experiments and field studies. In some combinations, they create a powerful crucible of extreme mental and behavioral manipulation when synthesized with several other real-world factors, such as charismatic, authoritarian leaders, dominant ideologies, social isolation, physical debilitation, induced phobias, and extreme threats or promised rewards that are typically deceptively orchestrated, over an extended time period in settings where they are applied intensively. A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill ‘invented enemies,’ and engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money—and even their lives—for ‘the cause.”

For the full article:

– Sounds pretty damning if you compare it to religion and see exactly where religion fits in.

– Well that really was a good one for proving my point, so let’s bring up more of Dr. Zimbardo’s work on this.
Here’s a great article on brainwashing in regards to “cults” that he did that supports everything that I say:

– If you’ve read what Dr. Zimbardo says you can see that when he says “cults” he is giving examples of simple “religion” and the things that draw people into them.

Like this:

“Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited or seduced into doing–under the right or wrong conditions. The majority of ‘normal, average, intelligent’ individuals can be led to engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self destructive actions that are contrary to their values or personality–when manipulated situational conditions exert their power over individual dispositions.”

– When agents modify and alter perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes.

> This would be religious people pushing religion on people and convincing them that it’s true.

> Religion is pushed on people even though it makes no sense and has no evidence.

> Victims of religious brainwashing refuse to see that there is no difference of their religion and all other religions that they don’t believe in and make no sense to them.

> Part of their brainwashing causes them to refuse to see.

– A process that involves a set of basic social psychological principles.

“Conformity, compliance, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, guilt and fear arousal, modeling and identification.”

Conformity- When everyone is just so force fed religion and they see religion everywhere and believed by everyone, they find it unlikely that so many people are deceived and lied to.

> They find it highly unlikely that people they trust and respect and think are highly intelligent could possibly be wrong and are in denial that they could be.

Compliance- People just go with the flow and refuse to question anything, or even question themselves.

Persuasion- People are fed colorful lies from people they trust and encouraged to deny truth and reassured to believe things without evidence that make no sense.

Guilt- As I said before, religion makes people think they are broken and in need of fixing.

> It makes people think they have an imaginary disease and need an imaginary cure.

> It attempts to say that there is even such a thing as a “sin” even though there is no logical reason that even if a god did exist that it would care what anyone did.

> There is afterall no such thing as “sin”, there is only RIGHT or WRONG as determined by socially evolved standards and definitions.

> It attempts to say that even though there is shown to be no truth to the bible at all and nothing about the bible makes any sense, that a nonsensical psychopath named Yahweh and a hippi rabbi are the same person and are loving and have made a list of things they don’t want you to do, like masturbate and be gay.

> Religion attempts to make us ashamed of ourselves because of how we are born and because it wants people to believe an omnipotent sky being will convict us of “thought crime”.

Social isolation- This is what Christians keeps refering to, but in a way haven’t realized, because they keep refering to “isolation”.

> If people are “socially isolated” with religion by making them feel like outcasts from their friends, family, community and even their country, then that will have a strong influence on people and will not only affect their judgement, but make them too subconciously afraid to even test their faith.

Dominant ideologies- Things like hating gays and hating yourself if you are gay can become a mutual and harmful ideology brought on by religion.

Fear- Religions push fears onto people whether they are already child indoctrinated or not.

>Religion causes people to be talked into the idea that invisible beings with no evidence and who make no sense have nothing better to do than punish and torture people for ridiculous things that they would have no reason to care about.

> Religion forces the “better safe than sorry schtik” on people who really are simply taking peoples words and not taking the time to research and don’t know how.

> Again I recommend the Michael Sherlock book “I am Christ” for a full grasp on how christianity really is based on nothing but a lie. Michael really breaks everything down.

The promised rewards- Christianity is just full of those promised rewards that religious people become psychologically addicted to.

> Religious people become so psychologically addicted to their promised rewards that they become completely mentally dependent on believing the lies so much that to merely entertain the idea to them that they are lies becomes mentally painful and extremely uncomfortable.

> This type of mental pain and uncomfortability relgious people feel when you tell them anything about their religion being a lie and their imaginary rewards being untrue is called “cognitive dissonance” (as many already know).

– As I dug even deeper I found some other things that the wikipedia page linked me to.

From this:

“Other scholars disagree with this consensus amongst sociologists of religion. Benjamin Zablocki asserts that it’s obvious that brainwashing occurs, at least to any objective observer; and that it isn’t “a process that is directly observable.”[38] The “real sociological issue”, Zabloki states, is whether “brainwashing occurs frequently enough to be considered an important social problem”.[39] Zablocki disagrees with scholars like Richardson, stating that Richardson’s observation is flawed.[40] According to Zablocki, Richardson misunderstands brainwashing, conceiving of it as a recruiting process, instead of a retaining process.[40] So although Richardson’s data are correct, Zablocki states, properly understood, brainwashing does not imply that NRMs will have a notable success in recruitment; so the criticism is inapt.[40] Additionally, Zablocki attempts to debunk the other criticisms Richardson, et al., apply to brainwashing: if Zablocki is correct, there’s a plethora of evidence in favor of the claim that some NRMs brainwash some of their members.[40] Perhaps most notably, Zablocki says, the sheer number of former cult leaders and ex-members who attest to brainwashing in interviews (performed in accordance with guidelines of the National Institute of Mental Health and National Science Foundation) is too large to be a result of anything other than a genuine phenomenon.[41] ”

Benjamin Zablocki:

“Zablocki heads the Sociology department at Rutgers. He has published widely on the sociology of religion.[1][2][3]
Zablocki is a fervent supporter of what he calls ‘the brainwashing hypothesis’. The question is not whether brainwashing exists, he asserts, but to what extent.[4]”

Margaret Singer

– WOW! The woman certainly had credentials and seems that she dedicated her life to things of psychological research, including several different forms of BRAINWASHING.

– She even had an award named after her a year after she died.

– So let’s take a look at what happened with Margaret Singer’s research about religious brainwashing….

Well that’s interesting.

– Says how her work was attacked and criticized because people in religious power didn’t want the TRUTH exposed.

– Not surprising that there were death threats and that religious people would stoop so low as to hide the TRUTH from the public.

– Just shows again how religion has no limits to how evil it can be and the measures it’s followers will go in order to maintain it’s control.

– Ben Zablocki agrees with the fact.
“Zablocki further alleges that brainwashing has been unfairly “blacklisted” from the academic journals of sociology of religion. Such blacklisters, Zablocki asserts, receive lavish funding from alleged cults and engage in “corrupt” practices.[4]”

Now if you’ve read the above and the links involved in it, I will show you that the 3 BIGGEST examples of brainwashing are the 3 BIGGEST apologists there is right now.

William Lane Craig
Lee Strobel
Jim Warner Wallace

– All 3 were brainwashed.

> All 3 are long term.

> All 3 were “born again” or “saved” as they refer to themselves.

> “Born again” is another way of saying “new identity” for themselves.

> Last I checked, all 3 of them thought of themselves completely different after as though they were different people afterward.

> Last I checked, all 3 of them aren’t changing anytime soon.

> The only way this isn’t true about them is if they know it’s all a scam and are just happy with the vast amounts of money they make and they laugh at how easy it is and at how stupid people really are.

> It’s one or the other, they’re brainwashed, or scam artists.

– If the person is in a state of being emotionally vulnerable when older, then whatever is available at the time and convenient in the form of a religion would be the “brainwasher”.

– As in Lee Strobel’s case and also Jim Wallace’s case, they attended church regularly as Atheists and through repetition and conditioning they gradually had those emotional vulnerabilities formed.

– Once someone has an emotional vulnerability formed then they are officially “victims” who cling to the delusion that they use as a mental self defense.

So what are the main forms of religious brainwashing again?

Brainwashing is…

– Child indoctrination and mental conditioning to deny the truth and are things drilled into children’s heads since birth, or very very young.

– If someone is caught in a state of emotional vulnerability, then religion can exploit that vulnerability by convincing the person of things that aren’t real, but also by convincing them (without evidence) that certain things are not true.

– By convincing people that fake evidence is true and by exploiting them, by abusing people’s trust and deceiving them, by the time they find out that certain things are lies, they will have been too absorbed in the religion that they won’t listen to reason anyway.

– This is why people will embrace the religion they were presented, because that was the religion they were exposed to when emotionally vulnerable.

– If religion didn’t make people feel worthless and afraid then it wouldn’t exist.

– If religion didn’t make people feel worthless and afraid then people wouldn’t be vulnerable.

– If the religious victims weren’t feeling worthless, afraid and weren’t vulnerable then they wouldn’t allow themselves to believe the nonsense that they are exposed to that makes no sense and has no truth.

– If people weren’t exposed to the religion that they have the most influence and exposure to while vulnerable, or child indoctrinated, then they would simply have to find inner strength.

– Religion destroys inner strength.

– Religion causes people to be slaves of a lie.

– Religion causes people to not be able to deal with the truth and makes them mentally unable to deal with the fact that they have been lied to, are living a lie and the people they trusted have lied to them.

Religion is after all just making people fear things that aren’t real, which really is brainwashing….

> Fear of hell.

> Fear of God.

> Fear of Jesus.

> Fear of Satan.

> Fear of not going to heaven.

> Fear of no “rewards” in the afterlife.

> Fear of not having an afterlife.

> Fear of bad things happening to friends and family.

– The many over 40,000 sects of christianity in the world fear the above very much.

– Fear is everything to belief and without fear there is no motivation to believe.

The christian tries suggesting to me that a couple of examples of cult members like the Manson Family, The Peoples Temple (Jonestown) and the Branch Davidian were “seeking” and “allowed” themselves to be influenced.”

– They then tried saying that this was not brainwashing because it’s what they wanted.

– What they forget is the fact that they would have been perfect prey for the church if they had of gotten to them first.

> Maybe the westborough baptist church.

> Maybe some mormons.

> Maybe some jehovah’s witnesses.

> Maybe the klu klux klan.

> Maybe just your plain old evolution denying, science denying, Earth is only 6000 years old types of church.

> Maybe just one that handles poisonous snakes..

So let’s look at more expert views of how religious brainwashing can victimize the unsuspecting….

“Meanwhile, in Influence, Science and Practice, social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie and facilitate healthy human social interactions. He states that common social rules can be used to prey upon the unwary. Using categories, he offers specific examples of both mild and extreme mind control (both one on one and in groups), notes the conditions under which each social rule is most easily exploited for false ends, and offers suggestions on how to resist such methods.[33]”

– Religious brainwashing most definitely takes advantage of the “lost” and confused though since they are obviously easier to influence.
People who take advantage and corrupt these people are predators afterall.

As Kathleen Taylor explains in her book “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control”

She explains that repetition is an integral part of brainwashing techniques because connections between neurons become stronger when exposed to incoming signals of frequency and intensity.[10]

– This shows as a good example how Lee Strobel and Jim Wallace got converted against their will.
However they had the illusion that they were willingly converting themselves.

– As for William Lane Craig we can only guess as he simply says “he doesn’t need evidence and only needs his religious experience.”


Here’s how easy it is to brainwash the seekers and people who want to be brainwashed.,32068,971515233001_2075202,00.html”

– The points proven by this movie are these:

> How easy it is to seduce others into a state of “spirituality”.

> How easy it is to seduce people into believing in a supernatural connection with something, or somebody.

> How the gullible are so easy to manipulate into believing someone is a prophet.

> How someone doing exactly what the film maker did 2000 years ago could have easily started a religion of his own.

– These points above show exactly how easy it is to brainwash people who are looking to be brainwashed.

– The director was showing how easy it is to mislead people.

– If he did want to brainwash people he easily could have, in fact many people WERE.

– They were deluded into following Kumare and believing in him.

– They believed in his lies (that he was a prophet) Yes I am aware of his honesty that he wasn’t a prophet.

– They believed he was divine somehow.

– They believed he was a “prophet”.

– They were brainwashed.

– Just like people believed that Jesus was divine and a prophet and that belief evolved into “God”.

– Just like Christians and muslims and all other religions are brainwashed.

Here’s a different 5 minute youtube vid talking about the film:

– He says in this clip that he had Jesus in mind when he made the film and also says he wanted to show the absurdity of religious leaders.

– A woman even calls him divine in the movie.

So let’s go through it again:

– Believed a lie and thought Kumare was “divine” or supernatural.(brainwashing)

– Thought of Kumare as a religious leader which would mean he was the leader of a religion. (brainwashing)

– If people follow a religious leader then they follow a religion also. (brainwashing)

– The religion wasn’t real, but people followed it and Kumare and based their lives around him, so they were brainwashed to both Kumare and his religion. (brainwashing)

– It is undeniable that Ghandi (the film maker) had fooled and brainwashed them with Kumare and if he had wanted to he could have easily completely taken advantage of thousands of people.

– He simply took advantage of something that many people desperately look for which is “a need to believe in the supernatural”.

– This is of course one of many emotional vulnerabilities that are exploited.

– This need to believe is what Kumare exploited and showed the world how truly easy it was.

Also we know for a fact that child indoctrination is brainwashing and nothing else.

This is completely undeniable that this is brainwashing and completely unavoidable that this is true that this is evil and a complete violation.”

– What scientific evidence is necessary that I didn’t show?

> The kids were fed a belief since they were very very young that they were discouraged from not believing.

> They were subjected to fear and threat of punishment for not believing.

> They were fed the belief that there was a great reward, which of course is a lie, has no evidence and is just something used to control them.

> The kids were fed the same lie that their parents were fed and mentally conditioned to not know any different and psychologically rewired to ignore evidence against that belief.

> This IS child indoctrination, just like the definitions say.

– They CLEARLY SAY how raising a child into believing a religion and programming their beliefs into them is CHILD INDOCTRINATION.

– They CLEARLY say how child indoctrination is BRAINWASHING.

No Atheism is not indoctrination, just like Atheism is not a religion, or a belief.

Let’s compare….

– Just like Atheism is not a religion, or a belief, but the lack of a religion, or belief.

– Atheist parents are not indoctrinating their kids to anything because they are only showing children things that are scientific and observable, or they just leave children to figure things out for themselves.

– Just like christians don’t indoctrinate their kids to other people’s religions, just their own and Atheists just so happen to not indoctrinate kids to ANY religions.

– Atheism is simply the fact that we do not believe in any gods, or religions because there is no evidence to believe ANY religions, so why would we?

– List all the reasons a christian doesn’t believe mormonism, or islam and I will use those exact same reasons to say why I don’t believe christianity.

– Atheism is simply the NEUTRAL position and the same reasons that a christian wouldn’t push scientology on a child and raise them that way are the same reasons Atheists don’t push ANY religions on kids.

– Christians have no evidence any religion is true and can’t say how ANY religion makes any sense.

– If a kid asks their parent “why are there rainbows?” an Atheist parent says “I don’t know” or tells them the reason, or looks it up on wikipedia…..

– A christian parent will then pull out the bible and quote Genesis chapter 9 and tell them “God created rainbows to remind us of the flood and that he won’t kill everyone in a flood ever again”.

– But won’t tell them that the story is just a rip off of the way older story “The Epic of Gilgamesh”.

– An Atheist parent isn’t indoctrinating their kids with evolution for the following reasons….

> Evolution isn’t indoctrination, it’s sound PROVEN science.

> If an Atheist doesn’t know something they say “I don’t know”.

> What we do know is that no religion makes any sense and there is no evidence for any religion being true, so WHY would we tell them anything that is the equivalent of “magic did it”?

> Not infecting kids with lies without evidence that make no sense is the same as not infecting them with a mental illness that affects their judgement.

> Someone who dies to please a god however, IS brainwashed.

> Someone who kills themself because they think that a god wants them to, is brainwashed.

> Someone who thinks that killing themself will get them a reward and that when they die they really aren’t dying, is brainwashed.

> Killing yourself for a mythical being that you have been child indoctrinated or conditioned when older to believe in IS brainwashing and if you don’t believe that then you’re either brainwashed yourself, or an idiot!

– These kids are brainwashed to be child martyrs:

And if you can’t watch this clip and see that it is brainwashing then I really can’t say anything else other than how much you disgust me with how stupid you are.


Christianity is a clear example of brainwashing from all the expert research that professionals have done.

– There is no sane or rational reason that christianity can be believed unless someone is brainwashed and christians have simply been brainwashed to just dismiss the evidence.

– The gospels have shown to be fiction in every sense.

– The outside sources of Jesus have all been shown to be fake, parrotted hearsay, or not talking about Jesus at all.

– The sources of Paul that were written by possibly him, do not talk about him knowing Jesus’ brother, but “brothers” in the christian sense.

– All references of Paul about Jesus were from scripture, revelation, or talking with Jesus in outer space.

– There is no difference between Paul and Davd Koresh really and Christians don’t think Koresh was divine, or anything of the sort.


So there you have it!

– I gave you experts who did professional scientific research and experiments.

> The experts weren’t biased and misleading, but simply DOING THEIR JOB!

> Some of these experts said that there are religious people in power who are pulling strings and working against them from showing this research and evidence.

– I gave you examples.

– I gave you videos.

– I gave you comparisons

– I gave you links.

– I gave you undeniable facts.

– I gave you the truth.

– I gave religious people things to self reflect and think about.

– I gave Atheists who defend religion and say religious people aren’t brainwashed a good dose of reality also.

No I’m not an expert, but I am trying to be and am making it my life’s work to show it and doing my best to become one.

– It’s a simple matter of pointing out the undeniable and showing some of the things that are difficult to prove, but showing the people who are able.



What I believe

So I know that other Atheists have the same experience I do.

The experience where we get wannabe “God Warriors” who think that they’re actually making a point by keep saying that Atheists have “a belief”.

This is of course a complete NON-POINT and nothing but them wasting our time.

There are of course several reasons they do this:

– They really have no argument.

– They want to make us second guess ourselves and make us think we don’t know why we’re Atheists.

– They actually believe that science and actual facts require “faith”.

– They think that somehow making us second guess ourselves will make us not notice how there is no evidence of their religion being true.


Now the fact is of course that Atheists have no beliefs IN RELIGIONS OR GODS.

“Atheism” isn’t a religion but “the lack of a religion”.

“Atheists” don’t have a “belief” in gods, we have a “lack of belief in gods”.
Now do I have any “beliefs” BECAUSE of my non-belief in a religion?

Let’s see….

– Well I do believe in “humanism”.

> But that is mostly because I’m a good person.

> There could be psychpath Atheists (and psychopath religious people) who aren’t humanists.

– I believe in giving to lots of charities.

> There are a lot of Atheists (and religious people) who don’t give to charities.
So really there is nothing that my Atheism CAUSES me to have in regards to a “belief”.
Now as to what has been said about my “belief” that “I think that all religion is brainwashing”.

– No, because other Atheists attack me constantly for saying that, even though they are wrong and have to start looking at the evidence.


Now there are many things I do believe, but they are not because of faith, they are simply how I feel and I will list a few.

– I believe people should be treated equal.

– I believe homosexuals are no different than anyone else and deserve to be happy.

– I believe that homosexuals are victims of bigotry and targets of religion and victims of horrible abuse and despicable portrayel in society and it must stop.

– I believe that religion is destroying society and the world and needs to be erased by educating people into the knowledge that all religions are lies.

– I believe that child indoctrination of religion is child abuse and they shouldn’t be allowed to subject children to religion til they are 18.

– I believe that evolution is true.

– I believe abiogenesis is true.

– I believe there is no afterlife.

– I believe that we need to spread into outer space and that religion is crippling us from advancing scientifically and mentally.

– I believe that if there were no religions then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

– I believe that millions of people throughout history have died because of human sacrifices to gods and millions have died because they simply had a different religion.

– I believe that millions have died throughout history due to blasphemy laws and still do.

– I believe in helping other people and that people need to focus on making the world a better place.

– I believe that the world would be better off without churches and that all the money given to collection plates would be better of going to charities that actually help the world.

– I believe that if it were not for religion then we would be about 1000 years more advanced than we are now.

– I believe that we would have every disease cured and people would have actually acheived immortality through science.

– I believe that religion lowers people’s intelligence and makes people devolve intellectually because religion makes people believe things without evidence and stop thinking.

– I believe that religion is used to con millions of people and sucker them into giving their money away to make people rich.

– I believe that people would be much happier in the world in general if they gave up their religion and were not co-dependent on a lie.

– I believe that religious apologists are predators who pray on peoples fears.

– I believe that anyone who is actually religious is a victim.

– I believe that religious people can’t face the truth that they have lived a lie and are simply cowards who can’t deal with the reality that they have been fooled and so have many people they looked up to and respected.

– I believe that religion makes good people do bad things because they have been brainwashed to be unable to see reality.

– I believe that religion is a disease and social parasite.

– I believe that most people who are millionaires because of religion don’t even believe their religion, nor is it required that they do.

– I believe that apologists are all misleading, dishonest liars and they know they are.

– I believe that people don’t need religion to be good people they just need certain factors in their life.

– I believe that all religions are corrupt and are the most harmful and evil thing on the planet.


Now let’s go the other route and talk about a few things that religious people believe that are BECAUSE of their religion that are WRONG and some are even despicable.

– They believe that they should give 10% of their money to the church.

– They believe in killing gay people, or at least treating them like scum.

– They believe in child marriage.

– They believe in murder, or public torture for showing women’s hair or face, or body.

– They believe it’s wrong to teach that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.

– They believe that birth control is wrong.

– They believe people who are not their same religion should be killed.

– They believe that doctors and medical treatment are unnecessay and faith healing is all you need.

– They believe that this life they have isn’t important because they have another one coming.

– They believe things without evidence and lie to themselves that they do have evidence.

– They believe all the different thousands of religions are wrong and theirs is the right one.

– They believe that god wants them to blow themselves up in order to kill others who are not their religion.

– They believe men are superior to women and lower forms of life than them.

– They believe masturbating is a sin against god.

– They believe that they are being telepathically judged by god.

– They believe god wants them
to commit mass genoocide.

– They believe god wants them to sacrifice animals.

– They believe god wants them to have a fasting.

– They believe sex is a sin.

– They believe there are such things as sins, rather than simply “right”, or “wrong” created through socially evolved conditions.

– They believe simply not believing in gods is a crime and in some countries it’s a jail sentence, public torture, or a death sentence.

– They believe that people who are Atheists can not be good people.

– They believe god is against blood transfusions or giving blood.

– They believe in magic underwear.

– They believe the Earth is flat.

– They believe in demon possessions.

– Torturous afterlives.
Yeah I think I like my beliefs a lot better

I Am Christ by Michael Sherlock

This is easily one of the best books on christianity and faith that I’ve ever read. EASILY. This is my very first book review, but after having read it thoroughly I knew I had to write a review on it.

If a christian truly doesn’t completely want their faith shattered then they definitely shouldn’t read it, but that would simply mean that they are too cowardly to face the truth.

I knew I had to write a review on it because of how I think it really should be a mandatory read and read by EVERYONE! For any who might be familiar with my blog and what I say, then they know how I feel about religions such as christianity.

The book explains everything you need to know about christianity and so much more. When I say “much more” I mean what mental dependency religion causes that allow it to still exist in this day and age and other factors that allow religion to still exist aswell.

Michael Sherlock does a superb job of taking christianity and going directly to it’s roots and exposing it’s histories and evidence thoroughly and what makes it tick.

As someone myself who attempts to dig deep into thought and expose the right questions to ask religious people, I really admire Sherlock’s gift of exposing the right questions that people need to ask religious people and what religious people need to ask themselves.

I Am Christ exposes the true harm of religious belief and makes it so that nobody can deny what Is shown to be undeniable about belief and the harm of belief.

The book really does have it all. As I myself discovered when reading the book. This being the fact that as an Atheist myself who is completely aware that there is no evidence supporting christianity, I had no idea so much evidence existed that so thoroughly exposed christianity as untrue and how this knowledge has slipped through society’s cognitive fingers.

Michael Sherlock cuts no corners here and takes christianity as far as it can go with science, facts and figures. The science is there. The history is there and the undeniable facts are there.

For any Athest who truly wants to challenge a christian believer, or for any christian believer who wants to challenge Sherlock’s book and give themself bragging rights for debunking his book, then they know what they have to do…. unless they are afraid.

So thorough is I Am Christ that there really is a lot to take in. Once you start reading you really can’t stop and you just get mentally overloaded with amazing thought after amazing thought and fascinating history and science after even more fascinating history and science.

Cheers Mr. Sherlock 👍

Same Old Religious Nonsense

I mention this a lot in several of my writings but let’s make this specific to get the point across here:

Mormonism, Islam and the over 40,000 different sects of christianity all really demonstrate how each other are all not real.

How do we do this? Well we hold each of them to the same standards as the ones we don’t believe. (Yes I know I’m not saying anything new and that there are videos such as the ones made by Richard Carrier that talk about this).

Let’s start off with MORMONISM:

1) The angel Moroni gives the golden plates to Joseph Smith (then takes them away after he has successfully translated them and leaves).

2) Joseph Smith takes the golden plates and makes the “book of mormon”.

3) Creates a cult that evolved into a religion with 15 million members.

For more on mormonism:

– Now we all know that this is ridiculous and makes no sense (especially the part about God living on another planet and Jesus and thousands of Israelites living in North America long before Columbus arrived).

– Who would believe this is true?

> Mormons SWEAR that it’s true and the mere possibility to them that it isn’t true is just absurd.
Next up…. Islam:

1) The angel Gabriel writes the koran for Mohammed, or tells Mohammed what to write (yes I forgot which one it is but it doesn’t really matter).

2) After 20 years the koran is written even though it is said that Mohammed was illiterate (even though he came from a wealthy family and should have been able to read).

– Mohammed even flew back and forth to heaven on a winged horse and even split the moon in half.

3) Over a billion people on Earth believe this to be true.

– Who would believe this is true?

– Muslims swear that it’s true and will even kill you in some countries for saying that it isn’t.

1) Jesus appeared to Paul the apostle in outer space shortly after Jesus was supposedly crucified and Jesus told him things and Paul then found verses in the hebrew bible that were supposed to give messages.

– Paul was said to have talked to those who knew Jesus such as Jesus’ brother James.

(Paul was writing about the christian term “brother” meaning “follower of Jesus”).

2) Then 20 years later Paul writes his letters we call Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, 1st Thessolonians, Galatians, Philippians and Philemon.

– Dozens of letters are claimed to have been written by Paul but were shown to be forgeries in the new testament and taken out.

– 11 of Paul’s letters that ARE in the new testament are said to be confirmed forgeries (including Acts).

– The 4 gospels are said by scholars to be based completely off of hearsay 35-65 years later and there is no evidence anything in the gospels ever even happened.

As explained:

– There are even forgeries within the gospels.

3) Who believes this story is true?

– Christians swear that Paul had visions and voices of Jesus and that the whole Jesus story was written about in his letters….

> 20 years later….

> That doesn’t mention countless details of the future written gospels.

As shown here:

– So bottom line is that christians believe Jesus existed because Paul’s imaginary friend who talked to him in outer space told him stuff.

– There is no evidence of Jesus other than the letters of Paul…. none…. nothing.


So people of their particular religion find it unlikely that the creator of their religion could simply be making things up and things escalated.

– However, they don’t believe the other stories and believe them to be fabricated nonsense.

– Clearly if the other religons are fabricated nonsense and have millions of followers then this is evidence that pulling off a huge mass fooling of religion is clearly possible and clearly not hard.

– If the religious believer doesn’t believe the other religions and they have just as much evidence as their religion (which is none) and there is no evidence or record of anything supernatural ever happening EVER, then they can’t tell themselves that they have not been tricked.

Let’s compare:

1) Joseph Smith was the creator of mormonism and everything is based off of what he claimed which was that the angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the golden plates and Joe copied the plates and Moroni took the plates away after and went back to heaven.

– Smith used the plates to create the book of mormon, which are what the mormon religion is based on.

2) Paul was the creator of christianity and everything is based off of what he claimed, which was that Jesus was executed and he told him things in visions and Jesus talked to him from outer space.

– Which Paul wrote 20 years later in his epistles, which are what the new testament is really based on and the christianity religion.

3) Mohammed was the creator of islam and he claimed that the angel Gabriel helped Mohammed write for several years and create a holy book (roughly).

– Mohammed and Gabriel wrote the koran over a 20 year period for which the islamic religion is based on.
Notice anything similar

A) Magical divine being:

Moroni = Gabriel = Jesus

B) Claimed sources:

Golden plates = Magically written koran = Paul’s epistles

C) Creator religious book:

Book of mormon = Koran = New Testament

D) Prophet who claimed things:

Joseph Smith = Mohammed = Paul


Now what is the same:

– All based on hebrew bible backstory

– All indoctrinate children into believing.

– All have no evidence of their divine sources.

– All have no evidence of their divine being existing.

– All have millions of members that believe their religion to absolutely be the right religion.
Yep, same old, same old.

So the bottom line is that in order for religious believers to prove that their religion is true and not delusional, they have to prove the other religions false also.

– Of course evidence of their own religion being true wouldn’t hurt either.
Yes I know I’m not saying anything new and that there are a few vids on this, but more people need to be aware of this comparison and need to put some thought into it.

Here are some that address this:

Richard Carrier talks about it here on the 10 minute mark:


Evidence Of Jesus Is Meaningless TWO

So after posting my original article “Evidence of Jesus Is Meaningless” I received plenty of feedback and arguments from one particular christian who challenged what it said in it several ways.

Although the arguments mentioned by the christian were ridiculous and rather a waste of time, it did occur to me that I might aswell put the information gathered while answering the desperate and delusional christian all together for a second article with much better information to show how all EVIDENCE OF JESUS IS MEANINGLESS.

Afterall, if that was the best that a christian could do and they threw everything they could at me, then I would be crazy not to put all the counter arguments together, so hopefully some other Atheists don’t have to go through all that and can just simply send them my article to make a point.

So here we go….

So it occured to me that there were a few sites that show how the “evidence” for Jesus in the 1st century were meaningless, but not as many of the ridiculous pieces as christians present.

So I thought it would be useful and helpful to expose the meaninglessness and dishonesty of what christians were trying to pass off as “evidence of Jesus” all together, since christians will often throw these ridiculous little time wasters at us.
So let’s go through a list of claimed “evidence” of Jesus then and expose the meaninglessness.

1) SUETONIUS 69-122 AD

In “I Claudius” it is written:

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

Also another from Nero 16 which is supposed to be talking about 64 AD (remember that Suetonius wasn’t born til 69 AD) only mentions “christians”.

“”During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.”

a) “Chresto” not “Christo” which is what it should have been, simply meant “slaves”, or “useful”.

b) I Claudius wasn’t written until 110 AD.

c) Nero 16 in The Twelve Caesars wasn’t published until 121 AD.

d) These are still written in 2nd century only and not the 1st.

e) Still based entirely on parrotted christian hearsay about what brainwashed christians believed.

f) Claudius reigned from 41-54 AD

– Wasn’t emperor when Jesus was supposedly crucified then.

– Even if Claudius happened to be alive at the time of Jesus death in 30-33AD, Suetonius still only makes a reference to nothing that can be proven was a reference to Jesus, but of CHRISTIANS which Suetonius describes as lowly immoral vermin basically.

– 64 years later this was written about the event and about a meaningless verse talkng about a bunch of people that both Nero and Suetonius thought of as idiots and lowlifes (the christians he referenced).

g) 80 years after Jesus supposedly died.

– Time is a factor and anyone who tries to say that it isn’t is lying, grasping at straws and showing how desperate they are.

– Even 5 years without evidence, or eyewitnesses for anything happening and based on hearsay, makes something completely meaningless as evidence.

– The more time goes by without eyewitness sources or any evidence that backs it up, is not only unreasonable, illogical and insane for someone to say “time is irrelevant”, but an insult to whoever they are saying it to’s intelligence.

– Think of someone testifying in a court for a murder and they didn’t know the victim, they weren’t there and didn’t know any more details than what they heard on the news.

2) THALLUS in 52 AD was said to have written a reference to the blackout eclipse that happened when Jesus was killed.

a) This blackening of the sky is the same as the dead walking into town and rising from the grave, they never happened.

b) This is just another example of nonsense that was copied from Mark and then to Matthew and Luke.

c) The gospel of John doesn’t mention the eclipse, just Matthew, Mark and Luke.

– The Thallus reference is the only outside source from the bible that speaks of the eclipse.

– The gospels are completely unreliable as history, or anything else but fiction.

As Bart Ehrman says:

As Richard Carrier also explains:

– The gospel of John doesn’t mention the sky going black, but more importantly is the fact that Paul never mentions it either.

– Josephus never references either any of Thallus’ work or anything about the eclipse, or the walking dead.

d) This record of the work of Thallus is nothing but a retelling done almost 200 years later of Sextus Julius Africanus.

e) This makes the work completely non-credible.

f) Also, even if there was an eclipse of some kind within a few years of 33 AD is only evidence that there was an eclipse.

g) This is supposed to be like Joshua 10 in the old testament where the sun stands still (which is impossible) however a solar eclipse if it did happen would just mean that there was a solar eclipse. So what?

h) As it stands this is a meaningless reference from someone who claims to have read someone else’s work, which we have to take his word for.

i) Sextus, who claimed this reference of Thallus, was a christian who’s life was dedicated to christianity full time (motive of lying and fabrication).

– It could even have been forged by the famous forger Eusebius who is famous for lying and forging.

j) The fact that Thallus wasn’t a christian is irrelevant, but the fact that he was quoted by multiple christians and we have to take their word hundreds of years after the fact IS relevant.


For an amazingly detailed breakdown of the reference from Thallus please read historian Richard Carrier’s brief essay on Thallus:

Then his more detailed essay on Thallus:
3) PHLEGON who was claimed to have written several works mentioning Jesus in the 2nd century.

a) Phlegon’s works were written over a 100 years after Jesus’s supposed death.

b) There is no evidence of any of Pheglon’s work and it’s only mention is something that is only referred to by the folllowing devout and also non-credible christians:

[1]- Sextus Juilius Africanus (200 years after Jesus supposedly died)

[2]- Origen (200 years after Jesus supposedly died)

[3]- Eusebius (300 years after Jesus supposedly died)

Probably one of the biggest reasons christianity even exists at all because he is said to be christianity’s master forger.

[4]- Saint. Jerome (300 years after Jesus supposedly died)

[5]- Philipon (500 years after Jesus supposedly died)

c) Again the same thing as with Tallus, Phlegon’s work is only supported by christians who’s life consisted of being brainwashed and worshipping Jesus.

– This is no different than this era’s gigantic biblical fraud Ron Wyatt.

d) 200-500 years later and being nothing more than a claim of someone else’s claim makes this claim completely meaningless, untrustworthy, unreliable, biased, unproven.

e) This is of course just another example of the church CLAIMING something absurd and lying for it’s self serving purposes.

f) Typical misleading dishonesty often shown by today’s apologists.

– They try to pass their OPINION off as fact.

– They know people will only hear what they want.

– They know people will convince themselves over the most ridiculous things that make no logical sense.

– The sources referencing Phlegon are untrustworthy basing it on where the sources come from.

g) If anyone dare say anything remotely resembling how it’s unfair to dismiss christian sources repeating hearsay from someone else’s hearsay, please remind them of the following:

– The 11 entire books in the new testament are confirmed forgeries:

– The enormous number of books taken out of the bible because they were forgeries called “the apocrypha”:

Yes “apocryphal” means “dubious authenticity”

– The multiple forgeries IN the gospels themselves added later by scribes:

John 5:4
John 5:7
John 8:7
John 8:11
Luke 24:12
Luke 22:20
Luke 22:44
Luke 24:51
Mark 16:9-20

– The entire old testament that is disproved by modern science and history.

– We have Eusebius the “Godfather of the church” as a confirmed forger:

– The fact that when it all comes down to it the very last thing that believers cling to is “that Paul knew his imaginary friend in outer space’s brother”.

So yes we have very good reason to not trust christian sources and no reason why we should.

– And if anyone should happen to say this is a “genetic fallacy” and makes this argument invalid, well they can say that if it makes them feel better, but it still doesn’t hide the fact that the people they get their information from are nothing but lying manipulative forgers with an agenda to dishonestly mislead.

– As Richard Carrier explains in the same article that he explains and debunks Thallus, he also does with Phlegon.

4) MARA BAR-SERAPION in (sometime written between 73 AD-200 AD apparently wrote a letter from prison to his son and apologists attempt to claim that Jesus was mentioned in it.

This is completely ridiculous and absolutely misleading why anyone would use this as evidence.

a) Doesn’t mention Jesus by name.

b) Mentions Socrates and Pythagoras, but not Jesus (Yehoshuah, then Iesous since he didn’t get the name Jesus until the 16th century by the church).

c) Was 40 years later from when Jesus was supposedly killed.

d) How would Jesus even be considered a king?

– Jesus was only documented in the new testament which is a political tool that is completely non-historical.

– Jesus was only documented in a book that is based on nothing but hearsay, by people who never knew him, couldn’t have known him and never claimed to know him.

– Since when are cult leaders kings?

– How if someone is a “king” do they get put to death like a mosquito?

As Bart Ehrman himself explains:

e) The fact of the time frame of Socrates and Pythagoras are 5th century and 6th century B.C (which are in the same paragraph as the “wise jewish king” reference.

– So Mara Bar-Seropian could easily have been referring to someone else in the past 600 years, or more.

– Again, no name was mentioned.

f) There hadn’t been a Jewish king in over 600 years since Mara Bar-Seropian had supposedly wrote that letter to his son and mentioned “the wise king”.

– All records of jewish kings were lost and all the jewish kings mentioned in the old testament have no records outside to even prove they existed.

– This means that that particular actual king could have hypothetically existed.

g) Since he was making reference to people who were already in that time area, then he could of been refering to someone who was actually a Jewish king.

– This would in no way be Jesus.

h) In Mara Bar-Serapion’s letter he says that the Jews executed their wise King.

– Isn’t it funny then that the Romans executed Jesus and NOT the Jews?

i) As it turns out though even if he were referencing Jesus it would just be HEARSAY and nothing else.

j) It could have been written anywhere from 73 AD-200 AD

– As shown:

5) LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA 125-200 AD wrote a satire which he basically calls the christians “morons” but in different words.

a) Was written over a 100 years after Jesus’s supposed death.

b) Was talking about brainwashed christians, not Jesus.

c) Lucian wasn’t even born til 125 AD.

d) Proves there were brainwashed christians 100 years after the date of Jesus’ supposed death.

– There was proof of people who were brainwashed to believe in Zeus, Odin, Allah and Charles Manson being God.

– What christians believe in Zeus, Odin, Allah and Charles Manson being God?

– These people believe these guys are Jesus:

And yes Charles Manson:

e) Now if any brainwashed religious individual should bring up that “time isn’t an argument and isn’t an issue” let me remind you of a few things:

Lucian was born several years after the time Jesus was supposed to be killed. 92 years AFTER Jesus supposedly died.

– Lucian wasn’t there.

– Lucian never knew Jesus.

– Everything he knew about Jesus was simply hearsay that he heard from christians over 130 years later, not 100, but 130 years later when he wrote the satire.

– This is no different than mormons talking about Joseph Smith’s golden plates 130 years later in 1950 to people and someone writing a TV show talking about how stupid they thought that mormons are.

> This is not evidence that Smith actually did get golden plates from the angel Moroni.

f) Now if there are people stupid enough to say that “Lucian could have had some unknown information we aren’t aware of about Jesus”.

Let me remind you….

– They clearly missed the part about Lucian not believing anything about christianity, or Jesus.

– Lucian is simply describing “christians” and mocking them (it isn’t that hard to do and christians make it really easy).

– In the same story Lucian talks about Zeus and Hercules, but I don’t see christians jumping on that and saying that this is evidence for Zeus and Hercules, which is another religion we call “Greek mythology”.

– Not only did Lucian think that christians were idiots, but considered believing in christiany “a sin against the greek gods” in his satire.

– AGAIN, Lucian is talking about CHRISTIANITY the same way Monty Python made fun of christianity in “Life Of Brian”. That movie is no more evidence of Jesus than Lucian’s satire.

– We have people claiming to have seen the Lochness Monster in multiple sightings, so if Lucian wrote a satire about people that saw the Lochness monster , does that mean we are supposed to take that as evidence of the Lochness monster?

g) Now should anybody show you the exact passage and start screaming that “it’s not talking about christianity, it’s talking about Jesus”….

“Here’s the Lucian quote in question:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. … You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Specifically about this part;

“Christians…Worship a man, to this day…and was crucified on that account.” “…and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”

– Remind them of the following:

> He’s talking about what a bunch of people believed who he thought were both delusional and stupid and nothing more.

> The christians (that he thought were idiots) believed in a non-existent leader who has no evidence that he existed.

> That leader that he’s talking about is something that was common christian hearsay that everyone was aware of what the kooky christians believed.

> This is no different than the common knowledge CHRISTIANS have today about what the kooky mormans believe about Moroni was said to have visited Joseph Smith and given him golden plates.

g) Should they say something stupid like this…

“Unless we witness an event or know a person ourselves, all we know of historical events and people of history is from what others tell us. And yes, when it comes to ancient history, we have fewer and fewer people to rely upon than we do today, which is exactly why historians go to such lengths to study a text from history and not just ignore it because it wasn’t written the day of an event.”

– Point out that they are saying that we should just believe everything we hear? This is all they are saying.

– Ask them why then they don’t believe in Zeus, Shiva, Allah, Mithros, Odin, mormonism, or scientology?

> Then remind them that they weren’t there.

6) TACITUS 56-117 AD was a Roman historian and in 115 AD wrote something in one of his many writings which mentions how stupid and crazy he thought christians were, mentions “Christus” and talks about Pontius Pilot killing Jesus.

The passage is called Annals, in book 15, chapter 44.

– Annals, was a 16 book work, however books “7-10 and parts of books 5, 6, 11 and 16 are missing. Book 6 ends with the death of Tiberius and books 7–12 presumably covered the reigns of Caligula and Claudius.”

Here it is:

“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

a) This only has Tacitus talking about the superstition that christians believed, NOTHING ELSE, so basically just more repeating of common christian hearsay that everyone was aware of.

b) When speaks of Pontius Pilot, Tacitus is simply repeating THE CLAIM that christians made, that’s it.

c) If he actually had documented verification of the execution then he would have also verified Jesus NAME, whatever that was.

d) Tacitus merely repeats that they followed “Christus” from what Tacitus was told by common christian hearsay.

– “Christus” means “messiah”, or “anointed one”.

– This just means that “they followed some guy”.

– It’s still a 2nd century claim that is based on hearsay 82 years later from the time of Jesus’s supposed death, by someone simply repeating a people’s delusion and nothing else.

– This is no different than simply restating what Mormons believed over 150 years ago.

– Do christians believe any of the claims that mormons made about Joseph Smith?

> Doubtful

e) Said to be a forgery by some scholars since it wasn’t even discovered til the 14th century.

> Here are some really good arguments for it being a forgery:

f) Even if it wasn’t a forgery it is still just parotted hearsay and nothing else.

g) If a christian should tell you that “scholars like Bart Ehrman think it’s genuine and based it’s based on information that Tacitus had access to, then do tell them they should read Bart’s book “Did Jesus Exist?” where he clearly says that Tacitus got his info of this section he wrote from “christian hearsay”.

– Should the person say that “Bart Ehrman believes Jesus was historical”.

Remind them of the following:

> Bart Ehrman bases his evidence for Jesus off of Paul’s writings because Paul supposedly knew Jesus’ brothers and knew certain things.

> Then remind them that Paul called followers of Jesus “brother” and Paul got all his info from Jesus in outer space and from old testament scripture (so basically his imaginary friend).

As Richard Carrier explains:

Here’s another good one:

7) PLINY THE YOUNGER 61-113 AD wrote a letter to the Emperor and mentioned christians.

Look under XCVI, XCVII and XCVIII for the specific letter:

Or just look hear:

– This really is mind-blowing that anybody would use this as evidence, but being dishonestly misleading really is what apologetics is all about isn’t it?

– Again, people just want to hear what they want to hear and the people who use these evidences have been told for years why these claims are meaningless, but they insist on using them anyways. Surprise surprise. Shame.

Okay back to Pliny The Younger….

– Here’s the big argument christians have right here from this piece of the exchange Pliny had with Emperor Trajan:

“A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go.”

(The letters and exchange were quite larger than this above piece and there were multiple mentions of “christians” and “christ”)

a) He never wrote these letters til 110-112 AD.

– This is 79 years later from when Jesus was claimed to have been killed.

– Not even in the 1st century.

b) Pliny the younger wasn’t born til almost 30 years AFTER Jesus’s supposed death!

c) Pliny was talking about CHRISTIANS!

d) He’s not talking about Jesus.

– Pliny doesn’t mention “Jesus”.

– When he mentions “Christ” he’s talking about the HEARSAY that was common knowledge that all christians blabbed about.

> This is no different than talking about Harry Potter at a Harry Potter convention.

> He doesn’t talk about Jesus the man that he knew because of evidence, or that he knew existed, just the “christ” which is the equivalent to someone talking about Big Bird’s imaginary friend Snuffy.

– He isn’t giving us details of Jesus’ life, or saying he was there when he died and saw anything supernatural like even a miracle Jesus was said to have done.

– So we have proof that Pliny was aware that there were brainwashed people, who thought that this Christ character killed himself, to save them from himself, because he was going to kill them, unless he was killed first, because he loved them so much that he wanted to kill them.

e) As explained here about why Pliny’s letter is suspicious:

– Is possible that the letter is a forgery anyways.

– Could even have been written in the 15th century.

f) Should a christian attempt to waste your time by saying that “there is significance because Pliny was a hostile witness, not a christian and had no agenda to mislead”…..

Tell them:

– Pliny’s talking about what a bunch of morons christians are and their silly belief in their imaginary friend.

– Jesus was claimed to have died 30 years before Pliny was born and which there is no evidence of existing.

– This is no different than if someone today documented about themselves “They think people who are obsessed with Pokemon are idiots and hate anything to do with Pokemon”.

> Does not make actual Pokemon real.

g) We have evidence people believed in other gods.

– Because we know that people believed in greek gods and many countless others DOES NOT prove that the greek gods existed.

– Christians are quite aware that Hercules and Zeus were not gods even though we know that people believed in them.

– We also know that people worshipped Osiris who evolved into Serapis and for a 1000 years they worshipped him.

8) CELSUS 177 AD Explained simply what he had believed that Jesus was a bastard child and that he learned magic from the Egyptians and tried to pass himself off as a god.

Mind-blowing that people would use this as evidence, it really is.

a) He’s only talking about the religion of christianity and how he didn’t believe it and that he was offering what to him was a plausible and actual truth of what he thought REALLY happened, not what the religion claimed.

b) This was over 130 years after Jesus’s supposed death was claimed to have happened.

c) This is not an eyewitness account of anything.

d) 130 years later only AGAIN proves that there were crazy brainwashed people named “christians” but nothing else.

e) This says Jesus was a bastard child, not verifying anything about being born a virgin.

– The virgin birth story was just something inserted into The Book Of Matthew and made up when copied from The Book Of Mark, which it has been confirmed to have been copied by.

As already shown…

– Should any christian attempt to criticize you for using the bible as a reference to debunk the bible by mentioning the virgin birth….

> Remind them that they are just wasting your time and that they knew what you meant (that both references about Jesus by Celsus and the bible are ridiculous).

> Remind them that you don’t believe either one and that you don’t believe Jesus was a sorcerer either and neither do they.

f) Celsus was a christianity critic and thought christianity was ridiculous.

g) If the christian throws the fact that what Celsus wrote has the name “Jesus” in it (if some of the points you make is that Jesus didn’t get the name ‘Jesus’ til the 16th century)…..

Remind them:

– This is a translation.

– This isn’t within the 1st century.

– This is still a story that says Jesus was a bastard, but had a deadbeat dad.

-This is still a story where Jesus was a wizard and that there were other wizards and that the christian doesn’t believe the Celsus story either.

– That since they don’t believe the story from Celsus is true either that they really are wasting your time bringing it up.

9) TITUS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 37-101 AD was said to have written about Jewish history in 93-94 AD in Antiquities of the Jews” and makes references to Jesus in a section of it now called “The Testimonium Flavium”.

This ridiculous claim of evidence of Jesus is one that probably is the one most referenced to by christians.

a) Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, or christianity and was simply referencing the religion and Hebrew scriptures.

– Josephus was an orthodox Jew.

b) This wasn’t written til 94 BC which was 61 years after Jesus supposedly died.

c) Also that scholars have confirmed the Josephus Jesus references to have been forgeries that were inserted over 250 years later.

– Assumed to be Eusebius who did the forgeries.

– As Richard Carrier explains:

d) The Jesus references should have been throughout all of Josephus’ works if Jesus existed, so why wasn’t he?

– The evidence of Josephus’s work regarding Jesus being forged is overwhelming, with countless reasons why it IS FORGED!

e) Christianity’s greatest piece of evidence of Jesus is actually christianity’s greatest evidence how it is nothing but, fraud, lying, deception and brainwashing.

f) If Josephus was writing about Jesus it doesn’t mean that he thought Jesus existed.

– Did Josephus know Jesus? No.

– Could Josephus provide anything that even remotely passes as evidence? No.

– Was everything Josephus saying, that wasn’t overly said to be a forgery, just simple hearsay? Yes.

g) When Josephus REFERENCED Heracles was he showing EVIDENCE Heracles existed, or referencing?

– He didn’t believe Heracles existed either.

– Christians don’t believe Heracles existed.

– So what is the problem?

h) Why did Josephus make no reference to his own father mentioning Jesus if Jesus was to have existed?

– Josephus’ father would have known about Jesus wouldn’t he?

– Nope. No reference of even his father mentioning Jesus.

i) So funny that in Josephus’ writings there was barely anything said about Jesus (the christ) but many words were said about these other Jesus’.

– “He made mention of approximately twenty different people, all with the name Jesus, and that some of these characters included; Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander and many others”. (From Michael Sherlock’s Forging the Historical Jesus- The Jesus Fraud).

j) As I said before though for multiple reasons Josephus is definitely not evidence for Jesus’ existence but merely evidence for the following:

– Evidence of the desperation of christians.

– Evidence of the dishonesty of christians.

– Evidence that christians will say anything.

– Evidence that if christians didn’t lie, mislead and deceive people then they couldn’t do apologetics at all.

– Evidence that christianity is nothing but a waste of time.

10) JEWISH TALMUD 400-1200 AD

a) Is written hundreds of years later than when Jesus supposedly died.

b) The entire history of Jesus is completely inaccurate than the NT version.

– Was sentenced to be stoned to death.

– Was hung instead.

– Was sentenced for sorcery, not blasphemy.

– Was executed by Jews, not Romans.

– Wasn’t even written about depicted in the same century as the NT.

– Many many other reasons.


So there you have it.

– Links.

– Reasons why the “evidence” is not evidence.

– Reasons why all the sources are completely meaningless.

Reminding people that if any apologist submits these “pieces of evidence of Jesus” to you, that THEY KNOW they are lying and are aware of all these points I have brought up.

If someone isn’t an apologist and presents these to you then they probably just haven’t researched them and are simply victims of deception and brainwashing.

– Do make them aware.

– If you don’t then they will keep on spreading the lies and brainwash others.

– Show them the truth by showing the lies.

Reminding everyone again how meaningless the evidence of the gospels really is.

Now finally, let’s talk about the actual truth….

There really is no evidence that Jesus wasn’t completely fabricated.

You’ll repeatedly hear people say “no serious schlolar of the Jesus myth is taken seriously and believes that Jesus didn’t exist”.

a) They’re are many historians and biblical scholars who say that Jesus did not have any evidence he existed.

b) There are many biblical scholars and historians who say that Jesus did not exist.

c) There are historical biblical scholars who will tell you straight up that they know of several other biblical scholars who simply are too fearful of their careers to tell the truth that they know Jesus did not exist.

– As Hector Avalos will tell you:

4 minute 30 second mark- Talks about how many scholars simply do not think that people can handle the truth about the bible and Jesus being made up and INVENTED.

19 minute mark-Talks about how few openly Atheist biblical scholars there are and how biblical scholars know full well that there is no archaeological evidence for any of the bible, but hide the truth.

Hector Avalos is professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and the author or editor of six books on Biblical studies and religion.
So this is the final bit of truth that people can not accept:

– There is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible.

– There is no evidence of Jesus in the bible.

– Scholars are afraid to speak the truth and with good reason.

– Paul is not evidence of Jesus.

– Paul is no different than Joseph Smith and Mohammed

> Paul had visions of Jesus in outer space and wrote about what he said 20 years later.

> Mohammed had the angel Gabriel tell him what to write in the koran over a 20 year period.

> Joseph Smith had the angel Moroni give him the golden plates from which he translated and copied the book of mormon.

– Each one of the above stories is no more believable than the other, but are believed by millions.

– Coincidentally the people who believe in these SPECIFIC characters and stories are the ones who were child indoctrinated to specifically those characters and that specific story and RELIGION.

– If they became religious, or switched religions when older it is because they were in an emotionally vulnerable state and were exploited by that specific religion.

Let me make it easy for you:


Some more debunking links I found along the way to check out:

Your welcome 🙂