What if everyone stopped believing in god?

Sent in by Geoff

As I'm sitting here at 1:06 a.m. in the morning, something occurred to me: What if everyone stopped believing in gods?

No, really. What if everyone everywhere just gave up Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., etc. Would a god still exist?

If it's as Christians say, and everyone really knows deep down that God exists, then regardless of whether or not anyone believes or disbelieves in God, HIS existence should still be obvious to everyone, right?

But it's not obvious to everyone, so religionists evangelize and evangelize and evangelize and evangelize...

Christians, when pushing their dogma, always point to nature as proof for a creator. But does beauty in nature really show anything except for the fact that nature is beautiful? How many people can honestly say with a straight face that when they look at a beautiful flower they think to themselves, "This must have been made by the Judeo-Christian god, who in the beginning made two people and a snake, but ironically the snake HE put there compelled the women to eat a piece of magic fruit, which plunged everyone into eternal depravity and separation from God, and the only way out of this is situation is to telepathically accept his human son into my heart, the son that HE had to sacrifice on a stick in order to find it in HIS heart to forgive us."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that without people constantly proclaiming a god's existence, would God cease to exist?

It's obvious to me that GOD is a phony story of epic proportions. If there were no god believers, there would be no god. End of story.



liniasmax said...

Hey Geoff, It's good to know I'm not the only one plagued by thoughts in the middle of the night. Simply put, you are right. The Gospel is...well...stupid. I believe that we've all read an apologist say that the Judeo-Christian story is so bizarre that it couldn't have possibly been made up - it could only be from God. And we wonder why reason doesn't prevail, and is indeed frowned upon. When you're making it up as you go, anything goes.


Anonymous said...

Yes, Geoff. I agree. Christians have foolishly attempted to "prove" the existence of God. We can't. It's not possible. Neither can I prove the existence of a whole bunch of other metaphysics like "love", "justice", "honesty". The motives of all acts can be questioned. Is it "love" or just "enlightened self interest"? Who the hell knows? Who the hell cares?

But you care, else why would you write about such an abstract as whether "God" exists apart from a belief that he exists? So, why do you care? What the hell difference does it make? It must make a difference or you wouldn't care. You concerned that so many people waste their time worshipping such idiocy? Does it bother you if they waste their time playing golf or watching football? You care. But why is yet to be known.

SpaceMonk said...

Thanks Geoff. I like to make that point to christians myself. They quote Paul as saying nature testifies to the existence of a god. Maybe, but it can't testify to the whole necessity of salvation, from Adam's sin to Jesus resurrection, etc.

Anyway, if people stopped believing God still wouldn't exist... ;)

Anonymous said...

Geoff, I asked the same question to a xtian friend of mine. But her answer was that "god" was going to always exist even if there were only ONE person in the whole world that believes in him/her/it.

I just don't understand xtian logic. They (xtians) are even more superstitious than primitive men who believed that to appease "god" they had barbecue an innocent animal or a human.

Dave Van Allen said...

I can't answer for Geoff, but I would venture to guess that if god-believers weren't constantly insisting that everyone is obligated to accept and follow and cheer for their particular version of their favorite religious team, no one would give a rat's ass about it one way or the other.

My observation is that it is the confrontational, aggressive evangelism; the continual fomenting of idiotic threats of everlasting damnation to anyone who refuses to believe in lunatic myths; attempts to pass religiously motivated legislation on everyone; and loudly whining about the need to include archaic, creationist superstition in science education comprise some of the reasons to "care." No one is complaining about the Amish, for instance, because the Amish aren't trying to make the rest of the world conform to their 19th Century worldview.

TheJaytheist said...

"..Amish aren't trying to make the rest of the world conform to their 19th Century worldview."

Hey Dave,

If you've ever crested a hill at fifty m.p.h., only to slam on the brakes to keep from ramming their little 19th century bit 'O worldview, you might change your mind about that. For a second at least.

"Christians, when pushing their dogma, always point to(the beauty in) nature as proof for a creator."

I would say that most christians look at the "beauty" that is held by the majority of people and not at the "ugly" or unpopular forms of beauty. It is the subjectivity of beauty that makes that argument worthless.

A snake may be ugly to some and pretty to others. It's all subjective.

I have yet to hear one christian say they see evidence for a creator when they look at maggots eating the carcass of a childs dead cat.

Dave Van Allen said...

I live in Amish country, so I have had the experience you're talking about. However, I've also had that experience with bicyclists and motorcyclists, playing children, tractors, and pedestrians. I hardly think sharing the road with other than automobiles is analogous to trying to force others to accept a worldview, but I suppose I know what you mean.

Anonymous said...

When you ask xtians, what their god is, they give you all kind of answers, “god is nature, god is everything, etc.” Then when you ask them why they worship nature (remember that they say god is nature), they tell you they don’t worship nature because that is an abominable thing to do in god’s eyes (their bible says that he/she/it is a jealous god.) When you tell them that there is no evidence that a “god” exists, they tell you that god is the air they breathe. What a tremendous contradiction! When you classify “living and non-living things," air is one of the things that goes under the non-living things category. Therefore, that means that their god does not have a brain to think, to speak, to create, to eat or to do the things that a living thing does. Why can't they accept that the whole concept of a "god" is simply a myth from the imagination of primitive men.

Anonymous said...

Oh webmaster, I want to thank you for touching up my grammar and punctuation...as you may know, its hard to be articulate so late at night ;)

clair said...

Hi everyone. Last week there was a beautiful rainbow visible to my place of buisness, in western NC. One of my co-workers started talking about the fact that God promised with the rainbow to never flood the earth again. She stated then, that she knew that it would not rain, because that is his way of telling us. It started raining in less than ten minutes. We are experiencing a drought, so we needed the 20 minutes of rain. You would think that would make her hush. But then I had to listen to yet another sermon on why God must really be angry with us to cause this extreme dry season, then on to why God is allowing California to burn up (sin), Katrina(sin)and here(sin). Then as someone passed by the window, commented "how can anyone call themselves an atheist, and look at such a rainbow". I took a breath to open my smart-ass mouth and start losing my job. I bit my lip and left the room before launching into a speech about prisms, water molecules, second-grade science. Working closely with these people sometimes gives me a headache, but it pays the bills. Would it be beautiful to a christian for my family and I to starve because I'm not a believer? To some, it most assuredly would.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Unfortunately, if everyone stopped believing in a god, they'd still believe in concepts that harm. I think it would be pretty hard to get people to stop believing in "us" and "them," or "countries" or "America." These are the concepts that make gods.

Anonymous said...

This is similar to a discussion I have regularly with my christian family. When I was leaving Christianity, I was reading all sorts of literature questioning the existence of god and I came across this quote by Douglas Adams: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" What an amazing thought! When I tell people that I don't believe in God, often they say "So, you don't believe in miracles." Anyone that knows much about me and my life knows that I have had many miracles happen that have saved my daughters and my life, so that question is almost expected. My response is this: Of course I believe in miracles. It is much more miraculous for me to understand that things happen in nature on their own without manipulation from some "man behind the curtain" than to believe that they are orchestrated by an all powerful control freak. Now that I have given up the superstition of God, nature is much more amazing than it ever was before.

And Geoff, if everyone would give up this idea of God, wouldn't that solve most of the violent wars and conflicts in the world? I believe that we would actually be on our way to a "utopian" society, if we could eliminate the barrier that "God" has created.


Matt said...

If people stopped reading your blog would you cease to exist? But if I came back here day after day and kept finding new articles that were in a specific language, with grammar, etc I would have reason to think there was someone, somewhere typing them and not that they were magically being generated or here by accident.

Does that answer part of your question?

Dave Van Allen said...


If everyone stopped reading this blog I'd still be here.

However, I'd be glad to meet you in person and validate my existence to you, should that be necessary for you accept that I exist, especially if that would help you avoid everlasting torture in my pit of eternal horror that I made.

But, since I am not threatening you with damnation and non-stop torture throughout all time, you're ever so welcome to doubt my existence. In fact, I won't even be a little bit upset by your skepticism.

Think about it, but don't think about it too hard, or you might find yourself needing to look for a new job.

Matt said...

Thank you for the reply. Funny that you should mention that it would be nice for God to come down here and say hi. Christians believe that God did come and mankind got to know him in person. His name is Jesus. Many of those people were willing to die for the belief that it was true. Even when he lived some accepted him and some rejected him. It goes to show that even if he came again today some would still reject him even though he might heal people and raise the dead. Even those who rejected him never denied that his miracles were real and even accepted that his power probably came from God.

Dave Van Allen said...


I'm 49 and spent 30 years of my life as a fully devoted "True Christian™." You might want to read my anti-testimonial.

I say that to help you understand that I've heard it all before. And, since this is a site geared toward ex-Christians, it is reasonable to assume we've all heard it all before.

Your legends are not evidence of a god speaking to anyone. Your legends are evidence that people create legends -- legends that are believed and repeated and that grow into religious movements.

Oh, and Benny Hinn claims to have all kinds of magical powers from god. And many people believe in him with all their hearts, minds and souls. So I suppose you are right: if a magician were to show up on the scene, many people would be duped by his antics and many people would be skeptical. I'd be among the skeptics. You'd be amond the duped.

Anonymous said...

Matt said:
"Even those who rejected him never denied that his miracles were real and even accepted that his power probably came from God"

Such a bold statement, Matt.
I wonder how you support this statement?
Where are the secular writers of those days who 'rejected' Jesus but still saw his miracles as legit, hmmm?

I have an idea as to why we don't see any writings from outside your bible that fit this bold statement of yours.

Did it ever dawn on you, that the sole reason you don't read of anyone denying his miracle making capability, is because when humans make-up-stories (that later become legends), they make the hero FIT the theme of the story they wish to sell us.

Putting aside that you have zero proof your Jesus really existed, here we have an audience to your Jesus miracles, where the majority were totally uneducated.
i.e. 90% of folks back then in the area of your God son's travels, could NOT READ or WRITE.

How difficult would it have been to perform magic tricks (or con-artist tricks) and get the undivided attention of the mostly uneducated and poor, if not desperate folks?

If the 12+ wandering disciples (who didn't seem to have jobs) and their hero Jesus, didn't bother to write down a single word this magician jesus spoke to the multitudes, then perhaps their real jobs were as Prop-Men and "assistants" to help pull off these magic tricks, as they wandered town to town.

So given no one seemed to be writing down anything at the time this hero Jesus was ALIVE, then who amongst the mostly illiterate would have written down that he was nothing more than a jobless trickster, in the towns he wandered through?

Now after your Jesus was 'gone', folks who never laid eye's upon this son of god person decided to write down story after story, with each new story version adding a bit more detail to embellish his greatness.
Do you think these writers, who's main purpose was to create a fictional hero to worship, would have pointed us to secular writers of those days who might have seen-though this son of god's magic tricks?
They would have ignored any and all people that saw Jesus as a trickster, just as any devoted follower today of a popular xtian leader, would never talk about the skeletons kept in this leader's closet.

So I'm rejecting your statement on two grounds.

1. The writers or your bible stories had an agenda and would never allow any counter-proof of his miracles to be inserted into their stories, as they wanted folks to believe in your Jesus, so why would they show the other side of this god coin.

2. Alas, this whole argument is academic, as you have no proof your son-of-god ever walked this earth and had multitudes of followers, nor is there ANY evidence outside your storybook that this god-on-earth ever performed a single true miracle, let alone us having writings from those days of some who believed his miracles were real and that he "probably came from God" but still "rejected" him anyway.

You have a very LONG LONG way to go Matt, to offer even circumstantial evidence, to prove your case here to anyone and the only folks who would agree are the xtians who wish to FEEL your truths are of reality.

I'm sure I can speak for most hear when I say to you Matt, SHOW US THE PROOF of your statement here.

I'll be waiting and waiting and waiting some more, I bet.

ATF (who is still waiting for proof of any miracle from current days to)

Matt said...


I don't go for the whole Benny Hinn deal. If he could really do that he should spend his time in the hospitals.

Let me address atheisttoothfairy. Feel free to delete my posts if you like, it's your blog and not mine.


Thanks for the thought provoking statements. Of course the early Christians had an agenda. John even states his agenda in John 20:31 - that Jesus did many miracles and he writes about them to help others believe it is true.
Does it invalidate something because it was written with an agenda? If it does then we can just ignore your comments as well. Right?

Let me point out a couple of things that you missed.
1 - The disciples had jobs. Many left those jobs to travel with Jesus.
2 - I have no proof that Jesus existed? I don't have a birth certificate if that is what you mean. However, the existence of an actual historic man named Jesus in the first century who was crucified under Pilate, etc is nearly universally accepted. The disagreement is normally over who he was and not whether or not he existed.

3 - Uneducated masses - If my memory is correct and I can try to find the data on this the best estimates of illiteracy are not nearly that high. I will have to check on that one. Even if it is true, does that mean we cannot accept anything as historically accurate that was written prior to say 1500 because people were uneducated? Paul and Luke were highly educated. Matthew, as a Roman tax collector, probably had a decent education. John, Peter and the rest of the fishermen may not have faired so well with their education. But it was not uncommon in their time and culture to receive some education when they were young.

4 - you stated that the gospels were not from eyewitnesses. That is not entirely true. All of the gospels were either written by an eyewitness or by someone who was writing when eyewitnesses were still alive/consulted eyewitnesses.

Matthew was an eyewitness and died as a martyr.
Mark was not an eyewitness and died as a martyr. He most likely got the story from Peter who by tradition spent time with Mark.
Luke was not an eyewitness. He did traveled with Paul and others who were eyewitnesses of Jesus. He states in the beginning of his gospel that he did research to write his gospel by finding those who were there and getting the story. It is also pretty clear that he had the gospel of Mark in front of him.
John was an eyewitness and he died for his faith in Christ.

It is obvious that counter claims do not lie in the gospels themselves. What is remarkable is that there is contemporary literature that acknowledges his existence but makes no dispute of his power. If he was a phony and a magician with a whole following, wouldn't there be some literature disputing this? If he never lived wouldn't someone back then have written down it was all a hoax? But no one did. My point is there were people alive who had a counter agenda to Christians and they wrote down ZERO to deny his existence or his miraculous powers.

I hope that helps a little.

Dave Van Allen said...

First of all, I'm not Geoff. I’m also not Atheist Tooth Fairy. You obviously haven’t really examined any of this site at all, or that would have been plain.

Secondly, you said, "The existence of an actual historic man named Jesus in the first century who was crucified under Pilate, etc is nearly universally accepted."

That's simply not true. See Jesus Never Existed.

Regardless of whether or not Paul Bunyan actually existed or not, the superhuman legends associated with him are plainly false. Wouldn't you agree? Surely you don't believe Joseph Smith really had magic glasses and gold plates, do you? However, if you were to talk to a believing Mormon, he might say something similar to you about "universally accepted."

Universally accepted. That’s an interesting topic. In my studies of history, I found that it was once universally accepted that bleeding someone was therapeutic. I also remember that a geocentric earth was once universally accepted. In fact, there have been many, many things that were universally accepted only to later be found false. Universally accepted doesn’t mean much.

”The disciples had jobs. Many left those jobs to travel with Jesus.”

Really? And you know this because… Oh, I know. You know this because anonymously written documents that were circulating many decades after these supposedly magical events make reference to disciples with jobs. Got it.

No one knows who wrote any of the scrolls that ended up in the New Testament, except for several that are “universally accepted” to be authored by Paul. Paul was apparently educated, but the masses were not. None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. You’ve been lied to on that one. I suggest you take an hour or so and watch the video presentation available on this site by Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus. Then, you might want to read his book: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

As far as the so-called martyrdom of the supposed original disciples, there is no documented record of any of it. All of the stories are legendary.

Matt said...

I just noticed the "Sent in by Geoff" thing. Sorry about that.

People believing bleeding is good is not on the same category as believing a man existed or not. If it was just in the gospels you could contest it as biased but it is not. Jesus shows up in other non-Christian accounts as well. I guess you could just claim that Christians came back around and changed the words later to include Jesus or something like that. You can shoot holes in anything 2000 years old if you try hard enough. That is why ultimately it is going to take some faith.

No matter how you cut it, it comes down to a matter of faith. That is between you and God. There will never be enough evidence to please some people on just about anything.

I am also very well informed on what people said about the gospels for the first couple of hundred years AD and there is a good consensus on who wrote what. Some of it as not as clear as other parts but on the whole it is pretty good.

And no, I don't believe Smith found any golden tablets. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether you exist, I exist or God exists.

Matt said...

And by the way, I never said you were atheisttoothfairy. :)

SEO said...

Yep Matt,

I like a bit o’ evidence…untold hours of study...one thing building on the other….just the highlights….Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Steno, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, Einstein.

In the opened-face of the evidence your god, as he stands is cruelly absent. Other than a book - pissed all over by man - he has left his mark no where.

Richard Dawkins said it the best: “The universe observed has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

You’ve had 500 years for your god or any god to show itself in the underlining of this universe. (It could have started wtih a geocentric theory).

To dismiss the evidence and to go on faith is intellectually retard.

fjell said...

Matt said: "There will never be enough evidence to please some people on just about anything."

Exactly, the way that the very sight of galaxies millions of light years away ought to be a pretty fair indication of the minimum age of the universe. It takes something as mind-numbing as religion to convince people to suspend their common sense.


TheJaytheist said...

SEO and fjell, well put!

Matt said...

When did I express my views on the age of the universe?

If anything written with an agenda is to be thrown out, I guess talking about anything with anyone is pretty much useless as all of us are coming to this conversation with agendas.

Have a great day.

Dave Van Allen said...


You said, "Let me address atheisttoothfairy. Feel free to delete my posts if you like, it's your blog and not mine."

Atheisttoothfairy participates here, but it is not within his power to delete posts, as he is not the technical owner. So, that is why it appeared to me you were calling me atheisttoothfairy. :-')

Anonymous said...

Matt said...
>"Of course the early Christians had an agenda. John even states his agenda in John 20:31 - that Jesus did many miracles and he writes about them to help others believe it is true.
Does it invalidate something because it was written with an agenda? If it does then we can just ignore your comments as well. Right?"

I think you missed my point Matt.

If one's 'agenda' is to deceive folks by making up a fictitious story about some Son-of-God walking on this earth, performing miracles, having a vast following, then dying and being brought back to life by the 'other' god, then surely one needs to make sure the story seems truthful.

Inserting such versus in the story (such as the one you speak about), are there to reassure the non-critical reader that the story is legit, much as the urban-legends we see in chain-emails also try to seem legit by providing the same type of assurances to the reader.
Such assurances would SEEM to offer confirmation of the story's validity, but in fact are only there to suck-in the reader and squelch any passing doubts they might have.

Think about what you are using to prove to me that the bible's agenda is worthy and valid.
If I wanted to suck-in more followers, it would make sense to put in versus about miracles and saying something like... "I'm telling everyone about these miracles so they can also believe to" etc..

If I asked you to sign over a blank check to me, would you sign it?
I doubt you would, for you have no reason to trust my agenda.

What if I said to you that god told me that you need to trust my agenda with your blank check, and I even showed you a letter from god to that effect?
The letter is even signed "CREATOR GOD YAWEH", in fancy official looking embossing.
Now would you sign that check over to me?
Why not Matt?

Yes indeed I have an agenda here.
My agenda is to make xtians like you, **THINK** for yourselves, and by doing so, have you seek proof for your blind faith, instead of just going with your FEELINGS and some lame apologetics.
You would be wise to question EVERYTHING you are told to believe, and yes, that would include anything anyone here would tell you also. The idea here is to use your BRAIN to discover what makes rational sense and stop believing in something because it makes you feel good or offers false assurances for some afterlife in heaven.

That said, I'm not out to start some fantastic legend, or even gather up a huge religious following, nor am I looking to control the human population, or offer them pie-in-sky rewards if they behave or worship some god I make up on a whim.

You should greatly ponder what the agenda might have been for the bible writers, if what they wrote down was nothing but falsehoods or just came from deluded and/or drugged minds.
What if your beliefs are unfounded and you discover like us ex-xtians have, that it's all been a huge LIE and there is no proof to a thinking mind that these stories are anymore than stories; that later became legends.

>1 - The disciples had jobs. Many left those jobs to travel with Jesus

I didn't mean to imply they didn't have jobs before they met this jesus, but that they were jobless while with him.
One thing is for sure, none of them could have been very good scribes if not one of them could bother writing down all the important stuff your jesus was saying for the three years while they were roaming around together.
One would think we'd see versus where jesus was telling someone to write something down for posterity, but I can't recall even one time jesus did this sort of thing...WHY NOT?

What I do want to know is how jesus and all these jobless disciples managed to buy food and clothing. Did your jesus just snap his fingers and presto....food suddenly appeared at every meal time, along with fresh clothing for the day?
Did he also use the snap-finger technique to make shelter appear to sleep in or did they beg for shelter in each town they entered.

In all the time jesus spent with these 12 men, surely they had plenty of time to talk while traveling all over, so why didn't anyone bother to write down things about his life that the bible is silent about. We know next to nothing about the time between his birth and when he was 12 and then nothing again from age 12 until age 30.
Surely he must have talked to these 12 men about those years, as they surely would have asked him about it during all the down-time they had together, right.

Why do we know so little about his father and mother. I would think most son's would tell stories about their parents, especially if their mom was a virgin when they were born.
The lack of information about his life should be a huge CLUE to a thinking mind, don't ya think Matt?

>I have no proof that Jesus existed? I don't have a birth certificate if that is what you mean. However, the existence of an actual historic man named Jesus in the first century who was crucified under Pilate, etc is nearly universally accepted. The disagreement is normally over who he was and not whether or not he existed.

I think the webmaster gave you a link that you would be WISE to read on this matter!!
FYI....If you read about this Pilate in secular history, you'll find the story about him and your Jesus just does NOT wash; as told by your bible book.
There is PLENTY wrong with the whole jesus story in your bible when compared to secular history...not to mention plenty in the OT as well that doesn't 'jive' either.
But don't bother reading anything outside your bible, because it might 'injure' your beliefs with the taste of reality and we can't have that, right Matt.

>Paul and Luke were highly educated. Matthew, as a Roman tax collector, probably had a decent education.

If this is true Matt, then there is NO EXCUSE as to why they didn't write what jesus said as it was happening....i.e. in real-time.
Surely the magical jesus could have provided them the materials to write his words down on, no?

The rest of your comments can be answered by the website you were already referred to, as well as several other sites, I might point out.

You have a HUGE HUGE job on your hands Matt, if you wish to try and prove your Jesus existed, especially one that had huge followings and performed great miracles, because there is NO HISTORY outside your bible to confirm any of this about any man named jesus back then.
It's virtually impossible for someone to be so very popular as your bible says your Jesus was, to go unnoticed by the historians of those days.
Someone with his claim-to-fame should have volumes written about his life, and yet, it's all strangely missing.
Perhaps the Devil burned all those records?

The silence from secular history of your Jesus Christ is quite DEAFENING, indeed !!!
That silence ALONE should be enough proof to the thinking mind that this story is nothing but a fable that became a legend in short order.
It's on the same order as legends like Hercules and Jupiter and the many other SUN GOD's that came before your sun god showed up.

ATF (who understands that FEELINGS are addictive and hard to let go of, when one is subjected to the reality of the world)

P.S to the WEBMASTER......

.:webmaster:. wrote:
"Atheisttoothfairy participates here, but it is not within his power to delete posts, as he is not the technical owner"
Ahhh shucks webmaster...You surely have ... 'Cut me to the quick'

Tell ya what though...I'll give you a buck for every wisdom tooth a xtian here donates to you.
I would think they would have little use for ummm, 'wisdom' teeth anyway [grin]

Dave Van Allen said...

@ATF: :-')

Matt said...

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do. Thanks for the link.

I am always willing to learn more and find out where someone is coming from. I am also open to the truth. Can you give me two more pieces of information?

1 - The story of Pilate that doesn't jive with the Bible

2 - A reference to any piece of history of someone living within a generation of Jesus who denied his miracles actually happened. I am not talking about a Christian reference - as you say of course those would have an agenda. Show me any reference. I would like to know where it is at so I can read it for myself.

If it was all just a shame, by your logic that people should have written all this down in real time, surely someone wrote something down disputing the reality of the miracles, right?

Matt said...

Should have been spelled "sham"

Dave Van Allen said...


The scientific method didn't exist 2,000 years ago. There are virtually no contemporary refutations of any of the myths of old. There are doubters and mockers of most of the old myths, but no scientifically critical refutations such as we might expect today. That just isn't the way people thought back then. It was a superstitious, magically thinking time. Even today, millions of people believe in the magical stories of Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Big Foot, UFOs, a plethora of ridiculous unsupported urban legends, etc.

Perhaps this will help: Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)

Face it, people believe weird things. If and when you are willing to critically analyze why you are able to so easily dismiss the unfounded myths of other cultures, then you will understand why others can so easily dismiss the fantastic, evidence-lacking claims of the Jesus cult.

Dave Van Allen said...


Also see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Paperback).

Also of interest is The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000) and Luke and Josephus (2000).

Anonymous said...

For Matt:
Here's a few links about Pontius Pilate and the trial of Jesus.

I also included some links that talk about the problems with Jesus, as portrayed in your bible accounts etc..









Matt said...


Anonymous said...


I was reading an article today by one of my favorite great 'thinkers', Robert G. Ingersoll.

This lengthy article by Ingersoll is on the topic of Superstition and was written way back in 1898.
But don't let the fact that it was written so long ago deter you from accepting his solid arguments, as most still apply to today's world we live in.

Within the article, he cites many reasons why superstitions have created many man-made myths, including Jesus, Satan and even witches, and why such superstitions throughout time have wreaked havoc upon humanity etc..


You'll need to sit back for awhile with this long article, but it's worth the time invested, and if his arguments don't get you questioning the validity of your bible, then nothing probably will.

ATF (who loved the line Ingersoll wrote, "If the Devil does not exist, the Christian creeds all crumble")

Cousin Ricky said...

Matt wrote: “If it was all just a sham, by your logic that people should have written all this down in real time, surely someone wrote something down disputing the reality of the miracles, right?”

Not if there were no miracles, no disciples, no real-time writings, and no Jesus to dispute.

Anonymous said...

I hope someone wrote down that Matt isn't a cross-dresser today; else everyone is going to have to entertain the possibility for the next few thousand years, that Matt is a cross-dresser, until proof can be offered otherwise.

In a few thousand years, of course, someone will ask where all the documentation is to support the fact that Matt really wasn't a cross-dresser, and well, the lack of evidence - will prove that Matt is indeed a cross-dresser today.

So, Matt, are you wearing silk, lace, or hose? I like this pattern of thinking you have, highly imaginative, and anything is possible - do you wear garters also?

Kwaemon said...

What if everyone stopped believing in god?

The religious workers who do the living with religious teaching will have to find a new job.

Matt said...

I guess we can just say anything that happened before we were personally there to verify it just didn't happen. If you want to take that track it may be kind of ridiculous but at least it is consistent. If you do appeal to history to try to disprove Jesus existed, you can't play the "that didn't happen because we cannot verify your piece of information" card.

I would get into the "Matt is not a cross-dresser" debate but none of you are here to actually verify it so by your logic, that I have an agenda, etc, why would you believe me anyway?

Dave Van Allen said...

Matt said, "I guess we can just say anything that happened before we were personally there to verify it just didn't happen."

If what you mean by "anything" includes reports of floating ax heads, flying fiery chariots, the earth stopping in its rotation long enough to win a bloody battle, talking donkeys, talking bushes, talking snakes, virgin births, walking on water, un-dead zombie-gods levitating into outer space, etc., etc., etc... Well, based on things I learned in elementary and junior high school, stories with elements of magic that disregard the physical laws of nature are found in the myths, legends and fantasy section of the library.

History, I've noticed, generally doesn't include quite such colorfully embellished flights of fancy.

Did you even scan any of the information in those links, Matt? Or do you think you've "arrived" and have no need of learning more since attending Bible school?

boomSLANG said...

Matt: I guess we can just say anything that happened before we were personally there to verify it just didn't happen.

Interestingly, you are perfectly free to do just that---although, it might make getting through school a little more challenging. But regardless, ask yourself---why have you never been asked such questions as, "Hey, do you believe in Abraham Lincoln?"..or, "Hey, do you believe the Monitor fought the Merrimac?"...? Why?... because those things are commonly accepted as having an referent in objective reality. Notwithstanding, as mentioned, you are still perfectly free to reject those ideas; those ideas are NOT being offered conditionally. In other words, you will not suffer bodily harm for the denial of those ideas, which, when compared to religion dogma, the latter is most certainly offered conditionally. Furthermore, there are no supernatural claims attached to either the life of Abe Lincoln, or the Battle of Hampton Roads---no spooks, no gouls, no talking vegetation..... no "strings attached". Do you see the difference now?

Anonymous said...

Matt: "I guess we can just say anything that happened before we were personally there to verify it just didn't happen."

Oh, come on now play fair. We can say that something "didn't happen", as easy as we can say something "did happen".

Now, how does one prove that Matt doesn't wear garters? Is it an automatic tie between, he does, and he doesn't?

Well, without a personal journal, newspaper clippings, or picture ads in playgirl, etc, many would say, there is just no evidence to believe that Matt actually does wear garters.

However, if one has "faith", well, then its not only possible that Matt wears garters, but many may just go ahead and just add that he wears Holy Garters given to him by a god.

Anonymous said...

"Christians, when pushing their dogma, always point to(the beauty in) nature as proof for a creator."

Maybe we should ask a butterfly or a flower. Maybe they can testify that proof.

Sounds stupid doesn't it?

What most christians claim sounds stupid also.

Pageviews this week: