Most Christians have a superiority complex

I would like to clarify a few things before proceeding with this blog post:

1.  In this context, by "Christian" I'm referring to actual practicing believers, those who actually deeply believe in Christianity and the Bible, and who practice it very regularly, even daily, in prayers, in thoughts, in "conversations with God", in Bible study, in participation with other believers, in regularly (at least weekly) attending sermons and church events and so on. For the most part this does not include people who are "nominally Christians", who might perhaps classify themselves as Christian, but who live pretty much 100% a secular life, with perhaps at most attending some church service once or twice a year (most often during Christmas.)
2. Even among the practicing believers there's a great variety in personalities, thoughts and attitudes, so this does not apply necessarily to all of them (thus the use of the word "most" in the title of this post.)
3. I am speaking from personal experience, as I myself felt this and saw clear signs of others feeling the same.

One of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity, in most of its denominations, is humility: In fact, arrogance is often considered a sin, or at a very minimum inappropriate behavior for a good Christian believer. According to this belief, we are all sinful, we are all flawed, we are all the lowest of the low in the eyes of God, and the only way we can be redeemed of own sinful nature is by the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. Most denominations even strongly assert that there's nothing we can personally do, no actions, no works, that would redeem us, and that the only way we can be redeemed is by God's grace, nothing else.

This, of course, means that Christians should never consider themselves to be somehow better or superior to other people, fellow human beings, even non-believers. Christians may have been saved by the grace of God, but that does not make them "better" or "superior" to others: They are still lowly sinners, the lowest of the low, and they should be aware of this and show humility about it. All the glory goes to God, not to yourself, for being saved. We are all on the same boat, together, believers and non-believers, there are no "first class" and "second class" decks on this boat: We are all equal in the eyes of God, and we must always remember that. Never allow God having shown mercy and grace to you to go to your head, and start believing that you are somehow "better" and "superior" to non-believers.

I would say that most Christians would agree with this sentiment, at least in general.

Yet, in actual reality, particularly in certain denominations, this is not the case. I have personally experienced this, and clearly seen the same on others, by how they talked about "the world" and non-believers, and what their attitudes were.

Even though outwardly they will claim humility and would agree with the above sentiment, they can't help but feel some sense of superiority, feeling above "the world", the non-believers, the "unsaved", even if they would never admit it out loud.

As an example, there are tons and tons of secular songs, poems and works of literature and performing arts that talk about love, how beautiful love is, how pure it is, how positive it is. Yet, many of these Christians can't help but to have an attitude that non-believers cannot know what "true" love is, that they can only know a lower "worldly" love. They may have (at some level) the attitude that non-believers might think they understand what true love is, but they are just deluded, and they don't really know, they can't really know, because they have not experienced the grace of God, and thus what true love is. These believers may think that even the romantic love felt by two Christian spouses for each other is superior to that felt by a non-believer couple.

It's not, at least not usually, that they outright denigrate or dismiss "worldly" love, but they still have this attitude that it's somehow "lesser" because the non-believers think that they know what true love is, but they actually don't. Although there are probably some Christians who do not concede even this much, and probably think that "worldly" love among non-believers is corrupted and worthless and perhaps even sinful if not outright satanic. That only true saved Christians are able to feel actual true pure love that emanates from God himself, rather than the corrupted version that emanates from "the world".

It's difficult to express the attitude, but in many cases it is a sense of superiority, a sense of "only we, the true believers, know what actual love is, unlike all the non-believers who don't really."

And while "love" is one of the most prominent examples of this kind of superiority thinking, it's not the only one. There are many others, usually related to what's considered good, such as compassion, empathy, charity and other forms of good towards others.

I know this feeling because I did feel it myself at one point, for this exact reason. And I clearly could see others feeling the same, based on how they talked about the subject. In retrospect, it's a rather arrogant attitude, which is rather ironic. 

The more I study the subject, the more convinced I have become Jesus never existed

I have written several blog posts about the arguments for (and thus against) the historicity of Jesus:

• A critical view on the historicity of Jesus
• Did a historic Jesus exist?
• Did a historic Jesus exist? Addendum
• Short-form list of arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus

In that second post I express the opinion that my answer to the question is "a weak yes", in other words, it's somewhat probable that a person did exist who the narrative of Jesus is based on. Sure, 99% of the things attributed to him may be completely fictitious, but it's likely that the person himself did exist (even if he was pretty much nothing like what's described in the scriptures.)

Over the years, however, I have slowly but surely changed my opinion. Slowly but surely my answer has changed to "almost certainly no".

Many atheists express the sentiment that they were once believers but they became atheists after actually studying the Bible in detail, and Christianity in general.

In this case what happened is very similar: The more I have studied this subject, and the more arguments for the historicity of Jesus I have read and seen, the more convinced I have become that, in fact, he never existed and is completely fictitious, no different from other fictitious figures like King Arthur, or Väinämöinen (from the Finnish epic Kalevala).

And I'm not here just talking about watching some random videos made by some random nobodies who aren't really experts in the subject and are merely parroting arguments they have heard (and often even doing so very poorly). I have watched many videos and read many articles written by serious Christian (and some non-Christian) scholars and historian academics who approach the subject in an extremely academic, professional and almost neutral manner, giving serious historical and academic arguments for the historicity of Jesus, arguing why the sources are actually reliable, and so on.

The irony is that the more competent, credible and academic the person is, and the more serious and academic his arguments are, the more it has convinced me of the opposite. Some random youtuber who clearly is not an academic and knows very little about the subject and is just poorly parroting random arguments he has heard? I just dismiss that as inconsequential and not convincing in either direction. However, the more serious, distinguished, credible and competent the academic is, and the "stronger" and well-presented his arguments are, ironically it only makes me even more convinced that Jesus never even existed.

Why? Because of how incredibly weak those arguments are, when you really get down to it and seriously consider them. Even the strongest, most credible and most serious arguments I have ever seen are astonishingly weak and don't hold up to scrutiny. (For a summary of such arguments and why they don't hold up to scrutiny see the fourth post I linked above.)

And that's the key: If even the biggest, most famous and most competent serious academics and historians out there can only present arguments this weak, it just tells me that there actually is no evidence that Jesus actually existed. If he actually did, surely there would be stronger and more credible arguments than what they present? Even their absolutely "best" and "strongest" arguments are laughably weak, which is very telling.

This is why the more I have listened to them, the more I have become convinced of the opposite. 

This skepticism of Jesus's historicity actually shouldn't be as controversial as many (even some skeptics and secular historians) seem to think. Most secular (and in fact even a few Christian) historians and scholars have serious doubts about the historicity of the vast majority of biblical figures. Most such scholars seriously doubt that biblical figures like Adam, Moses, Abraham, Elijah, and most of the other biblical figures ever existed, and are most likely completely fictitious. Opinions may be more divided about figures like King Solomon and King David (with a somewhat prevalent view that, perhaps, their stories are very loosely based on real people), but even then there's doubt about them too.

Jesus is no different.

It is most certain that nothing of what's claimed in the Gospels, particularly about the things he did, are any more true than the miracles attributed to Moses or Elijah. Even by the most charitable secular interpretation of the Gospels possible, probably 95 to 99% of what is claimed in there about the man is completely fictitious and made up.

However, given the sheer lack of contemporary and other evidence for his very existence, I would pump up that figure to 100%.

We have literally more evidence for the historicity of the pirate Blackbeard than we have of Jesus. And that's saying something. 

Do American fundamentalists even take the eucharist seriously?

I'm not the kind of skeptic atheist who constantly and aggressively attacks religion, particularly Christianity, just for the sake of it. I like to consider myself more reasonable, academic and rational than that. And that means being able to analyze religion, such as Christianity, on its own terms, from its own perspective. Even if I don't believe it, I still consider myself capable of understanding its beliefs and tenets, and kind of putting myself in the shoes of a serious educated Christian, and examine the religion from a Christian perspective. It's the same kind of thing as approaching the Bible seriously and academically as a work of historic literature and a source of human history and culture, even if you don't believe any of the supernatural (nor most of the historical) claims made in it.

In this case I would like to momentarily put my "Christian hat" on, and examine one of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity, and that would be the sacrament of the Eucharist, ie. Holy Communion.

There are literally tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity with wildly different interpretations of their religion, but one thing that the vast majority of them (with perhaps only the exception of a few extremely small and fringe cults) agree with are the two most fundamental sacraments: Baptism and Eucharist. Some denominations believe in more sacraments (for example Catholicism has seven), but most of them agree at least on these two. They could be considered the two most important and fundamental sacraments of Christianity as a whole, spanning the vast majority of denominations.

Of course that doesn't mean that all denominations believe the same things about the sacraments themselves.

More particularly, Catholicism believes something about the Eucharist that the vast majority of other denominations do not. Particularly, the Catholic catechism believes in the doctrine of "transubstantiation", which means that when the priest blesses the bread and wine used in the Holy Communion, they become literally the body and blood of Christ. Not figuratively, not symbolically, but literally.

(This does not mean, even according to Catholic doctrine, that the physical matter, the atoms and molecules, that the bread and wine consists of changes. The molecular structure remains the same, the composition remains the same, the taste and physical properties remain the same, but the nature of the bread and the wine is literally changed at a metaphysical level. Again, not figuratively or symbolically, but literally. One could say that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ by definition, in the literal sense. In the eyes of God, and by God's divine intervention, the bread and wine are the literal physical body and blood of Christ, even if the molecules themselves don't change.)

Most other denominations, even the major ones, do not agree with this. Their interpretation is that Jesus was being metaphorical, and that the bread and wine are considered his body and blood in the symbolic sense, not the literal sense. (In the same way that Jesus being "the Lamb of God" is a metaphor and does not mean that Jesus was a literal sheep, the bread and wine are metaphorically, not literally, his body and blood.) In God's eyes it's the symbolic gesture that matters.

Even then, most denominations still consider the Eucharist a sacred event, a sacred act to be performed and approached with the utmost respect, one of the holiest rituals that Christians engage in, an act established and commanded by God's Son himself, as an act of grace and remembrance.

Some denominations, in fact, consider it so holy and sacred that their members only participate in it once, just like is the case with baptism. Indeed, in the same way as baptism is a one-time event symbolizing the person being "reborn" into Christianity, the Holy Communion is considered a similar one-time event, an act of unification with Jesus, the Savior.

Other denominations do not restrict it to be a one-time event, but still consider it so sacred and holy that it's restricted to the major holidays, sometimes even just once a year (obviously to the Passover, which is when Jesus himself established it.) A common doctrine in these denominations is that doing it too often trivializes the act, makes it more mundane and common, and mars its sacred holy quality.

Yet, other denominations, even major ones (including Catholicism) do not have such restrictions and very typically organize Holy Communion at least weekly (usually on Sundays, or Saturdays in the case of some of them), sometimes even more than once a week.

The Bible itself does not mention any restrictions, not even in passing, so in that sense this is not directly forbidden. However, from a Christian perspective one cannot help but to consider that those denominations have a point who posit that organizing it too often devalues it and makes it more mundane and trivial, even though it's supposed to be one of the most sacred and holiest acts of all of Christianity, a sacrament that should be approached with utmost respect and veneration, not something trivial done weekly or even more often.

Then we have some certain fundamentalist Christian denominations, especially some of those most prevalent in the United States.

In the same way as the vast majority of denominations agree on the two sacraments, most of them also agree that the drink used during the Eucharist should be wine, because that's what Jesus used. The bread should be actual bread, not something else, and the wine should be wine, not something else.

Not these certain fundamentalist Christian denominations. You see, some of them teach that alcohol is one of the greatest sins in existence, and preach 100% absolutism. Not a single drop of alcohol, ever, under any circumstance. They have an absolute hard-core stance on this, in the same way as they have towards extramarital sex: Absolutely no alcohol, ever, period, end of discussion. Alcohol is evil and Christians must avoid it like the plague.

There are a few Christian denominations that have similar attitudes towards alcohol, but make an exception with the Eucharist (usually the only exception they make). Not these certain fundamentalist denominations, though. To them, even the Eucharist is not an exception: No alcohol ever, period!

So they substitute it with non-alcoholic grape juice. In fact, most of these denominations outright teach that Jesus himself used non-fermented grape juice during the Last Supper (and anywhere else in the Bible where "wine" is mentioned as being used by believers). They claim that the word used for "wine" in the Bible means non-alcoholic grape juice. All biblical scholars, experts on the languages and culture of the time, and Jewish scholars and rabbis disagree on this, but these fundamentalist denominations don't care. They ignore all that disagreement and assert that their interpretation is the only correct one.

Moreover, and most egregiously, their entire approach to Holy Communion is the exact opposite to those denominations who restrict it to just once a year (or even once per lifetime): In many of these denominations the Eucharist is exactly what those other denominations don't want it to be: It's trivial, it's common, it's mostly performative, it's approached extremely lightly, often several times a week. To them it's like just a small quick prayer or blessing a meal. Something to be done routinely and casually, without much thought or veneration.

In fact, and I kid you not, there are some denominations in the United States where the entire Eucharist has been literally industrialized. I'm not exaggerating. This is a real product that's industrially produced and sold there:

What is it? I'm not even making it up: It's an industrially produced plastic cup with a lid that contains a bit of grape juice and a piece of bread under the lid. This is literally something that some of those American fundamentalist Christian denominations are using for the Eucharist. You open the lid, eat the small piece of bread, and drink the grape juice. That's your "Holy Communion".

There are ex-members who consider this a complete mockery of the holy sacrament, even to the point of being sacrilegious. And it's hard to disagree with them, even from a secular academic perspective.

If we keep our "Christian hat" on for a bit longer, it does indeed feel like completely ridiculous. One of the most important, most sacred, holiest, most important rituals of the entire religion, reduced to an industrialized product, fabricated in some factory somewhere and sold as a commercial product, to be casually consumed at a moment's notice.

One would think that if fundamentalist Christians truly believe in their Holy Scriptures and their teachings, they would not denigrate one of their holiest rituals, established by Jesus himself, like this. It's a complete travesty.

One of the strangest instincts of "rapture" believers

From time to time the same age-old story happens once again: Some preacher or whoever once again predicts that the famous "rapture" will happen in such-and-such date, he gets a varying amount of followers who totally believe him, then the date arrives and nothing happens. No rapture.

The reactions to the inevitable failure vary. In almost every single case, with only very few exceptions, the preacher will then go with the classic excuse of "oops, I actually got the date wrong, in fact it will happen in such-and-such date instead", and only a fraction of his former believers will go with it. The others will be disappointed from the first time and move on.

There is, however, one particular reaction that's common to some of those believers (before the eventual predicted date arrives) which is rather incomprehensible: When they are utterly convinced that the "rapture" is arriving in a few months or weeks, and thus the end of the world, they go ahead and sell their property.

In one recent example some man sold his work truck because he believed in such a rapture prediction, and after the date arrived and went without incident, he reported how he was now out of job because he had sold his truck and lost his job.

What he didn't explain (and what pretty much none of the people doing similar things) is why he sold his property away. What for?

This seems to be a strange instinct among some of these believers: When they think they won't be needing their property anymore, they will sell it. Often not even just give it away, but sell it.

They never seem to stop to think: "Why? What for?"

They seriously believe that they won't have any use for the property because the end of the world is coming (and depending on the branch of Christianity, essentially Hell on Earth for the people left behind). So why would they think that somebody else would have a use for that property either? Why sell it?

Maybe the idea is that they will sell all their property and use the money to go on a lavish vacation before the end? Except that that doesn't sound logical either: These are usually extremely fundamentalist Christians who believe that engaging in such self-indulgence, particularly that soon before the second coming of Christ, is sinful. They strongly believe they should be spending that time praying, studying the Bible and preaching to others, not engaging in self-indulgence and sinful behavior.

Maybe they think that selling off all of their property shows commitment? That it's some kind of act of faith? That it's showing to God how strongly they believe in him and that he is going to rapture them?

If that's so, one could ask: Are you so insecure in your faith that you need to show it off to God, to make sure that he doesn't leave you behind? (Also: If that's so, why sell your property? What exactly do you need the money for? Do you think you are taking the money with you to Heaven?) 

God's (alleged) omnipotency raises a lot of questions

Most Christians really love their "omni" words when describing God: Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omniwhatever... Yet, at the same time they very rarely if ever stop to think how this clashes with a lot of the Biblical narrative.

In a lot of cases when God acts in a non-omnipotent non-omniscient manner in the biblical stories, the go-to excuse by many Christians is the typical "free will" argument or, sometimes, that God is teaching humanity some kind of lesson. However, in many cases even those excuses don't really hold up to scrutiny.

As an example, why exactly did an omnipotent God, who could have just willed Adam into existence out of absolutely nothing, have to use dust (or mud depending on the translation) to create him? Why did he create him out of dust rather than just willing him into existence? To be poetic about it?

In the story, when Adam was alone in Eden, God noticed that he was feeling lonely, so he brought animals (which he also created from the ground for an even more inexplicable reason, according to the text) to him to keep him company. Yet, Adam was still feeling lonely, so according to the story God took one of his ribs and created a woman as a companion.

If this were interpreted as highly poetic and metaphorical, then fine. And in fact, a few Christian denominations actually do exactly that. However, the vast majority of denominations officially declare the story to be literally true and exactly what happened, to the letter.

So an omniscient God didn't predict from the get-go that his creation would feel lonely and give him a companion from the very start? And the same omniscient God didn't predict that animals wouldn't be enough for this? Only after a bit of trial and error he came up with such a wild idea as creating a second person to keep him company? The omniscient omnipotent creator of the universe who knows everything?

And how did he create this second person? Did he create her out of nothing, as he could have (according to the Christian view that he is absolutely omnipotent and can do whatever he wants)? Did he create her out of the dust of the ground, like he did with Adam and all the animals, according to the story? Nope, for some inexplicable reason he had to take a rib out of Adam and create the other person out of it? Why?

Again, if this were a highly figurative metaphor not to be interpreted literally, then fine, but the majority of Christianity interprets it literally and claims that this is exactly what happened. And no "free will" argument makes sense here.

By far the most common interpretation of the Bible is that only Adam and Eve were created, the entirety of the rest of humanity are their descendants. And the vast majority of Christianity believes this as being literally the case, not just metaphorically. Even putting aside the question of incest, there's the question of genetic degradation, which happens extremely fast if siblings procreate. Thus, Christian apologists have needed to come up with wild (and extremely unscientific) theories about how genetic degradation didn't happen in the beginning somehow.

Why not just as well, since the story remains completely silent about it and doesn't make statements one way or the other, interpret it such that God created an entire population of humans from dirt, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people at once? There's nothing in the narrative that would contradict this (and, in fact, the narrative, even if we took it literally, indirectly supports this, as Cain and Abel were clearly in a world that was already so populated that Cain could go ahead and not only find a wife but moreover found an entire city.)

And, of course, the flood narrative also raises similar questions. If God wanted to destroy humanity and start over (let's just skip discussing about how an omnipotent omniscient God couldn't do it right the first time), why not just wish them out of existence? Why go through the trouble of the physically impossible boat carrying a physically impossible amount of animals, floating on a physically impossible amount of water for a year? Why would an omnipotent God need to go through all this charade?

If we went though the Bible, the list of such incoherent details would be enormous.

And it all stems from that one single claim that God is "omnipotent" and can do anything he wants without any limits whatsoever. 

One of the most braindead arguments (some) apologists present

Tim Allen, the famous actor, once said this in an interview:

"My older daughter is an atheist, and I said, well, philosophically there's an irony there too, because atheists don't believe in God. Well, there has to be a God to not believe in."

Some other Christian apologists sometimes present, in essence, this same argument, although they often don't say it so succinctly and in such a distilled manner, and instead try to dress up and masquerade it in a big amount of fancy words and complex arguments.

The distilled version that Tim Allen spouted immediately reveals the main problem with it: The fact that you could use the same argument to argue for the existence of anything. And that includes other non-Christian gods.

"You don't believe in Shiva? Well, there has to be a Shiva to not believe in."

"You don't believe in Allah? Well, there has to be an Allah to not believe in."

"You don't believe in magic unicorns? Well, there have to be magic unicorns to not believe in."

"You don't believe in bigfoot?" Well, there has to be a bigfoot to not believe in."

The funny thing is that Tim Allen clearly said it as if it was a big "gotcha!" moment for his daughter (and for all the atheists watching) that shut her up so effectively that she had no response.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say, Tim. 

The conversion of Alex O'Connor is a bit incomprehensible

Alex O'Connor was a quite long time atheist and skeptic who was active on YouTube, commenting and debating on the topic of religion, atheism and skepticism.

He has always been characterized as being extraordinarily calm, understanding and eloquent, always approaching these topics and these debates respectfully and in good faith, always trying to fully understand and acknowledge what the opposing arguments are, and what the other person in a debate is saying, without any judgment, without any distortions, without any unjustified assumptions, without any straw-manning, always understanding and acknowledging the argument, and giving a calm rational reasonable full response to it. I don't remember him ever saying anything belittling, disparaging, mocking or insulting to anybody, and always approached every person in an extremely respectful and amicable manner, and in good faith.

In other words, he always was pretty much the nicest skeptic debater out there. Someone who wanted to discuss these topics in a warm approachable manner with zero hostility or animosity, avoiding at all costs the other person feeling insulted, belittled or disrespected.

He became such a notorious "friendly skeptic" that he even got to have live debates with several big-name Christian apologists, like William Lane Craig.

Some time ago, however, for one reason or another he stopped being an atheist and became a deist, perhaps even an outright theist (although not a Christian.)

I honestly cannot comprehend why.

You can see a video where he explains a few of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God (or at least some kind of "god") here.

Not to belittle him, but his number one argument is not rational. Or, perhaps more precisely, he is jumping to a completely unjustified, and thus irrational, conclusion from the argument.

His number one argument is a form of "first cause" argument, although slightly different: Rather than arguing that the universe must have a "first cause" for its existence, he does so in another axis: He argues that every single thing is dependent on something else, usually a more fundamental thing. Something having the properties it does is caused by something more fundamental allowing it to have those properties. And that more fundamental phenomenon itself will have an even more fundamental underlying cause allowing it to exist, and so on. If we follow this chain all the way down we must inevitably end up in the most fundamental phenomenon that allows everything to be like it is, that allows everything to exist.

Even putting aside the subsequent conclusions for a bit, that notion is in itself not something that can be taken for granted. One of its biggest flaws is that it assumes one single fundamental phenomenon that allows everything in the universe to exist and be like it is. He dismisses the possibility of there being more than one independent phenomena, ie. that don't depend on each other, being at the "bottom" of this vertical causal chain, perhaps allowing separate things to exist as they are, or doing so for the same things in conjunction.

It also disregards the possibility of mutual dependence of two or more of these "most fundamental" phenomena. In other words, phenomenon A depends on phenomenon B, and vice-versa, and they together then allow everything else to exist.

Anyway, that's just a side point, not the main objection I have. The main objection is, rather obviously, that from "there must be a most-fundamental cause for everything to exist as it does" to "that something is (some kind of) God".

It's that jump in logic that I categorically do not accept, and it genuinely baffles my mind why he does.

Even if there is some "most-fundamental cause" that allows everything to exist as it is, there is no reason or justification to apply the label of "God" to it. That's because that name (with or without a capital G) carries a huge amount of assumptions and baggage with it, and labeling something unknown with it automatically applies all those assumptions and baggage to that unknown.

This "most fundamental cause", if one exists, could well be just a completely mindless natural phenomenon, just like electric charge or gravity.

In other words, it's disingenuous to apply the label of "God" to such an unknown. It is pretty much a perfect example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam (or, perhaps a bit more precisely, "assigning characteristics to an unknown (in a completely unjustified manner)".)

Outright becoming a theist, or even just a deist, because of this is irrational. Starting to believe in some kind of "higher power" that some religions (like Christianity) get at least half-right (as he states in the video), is completely unjustified. It's just not rational nor reasonable. You are assigning theistic characteristics to something we know nothing about.

And that's assuming that this "most fundamental cause" even exists in the first place, which in itself is not a self-evident fact.

I genuinely have a hard time understanding how a skeptic of the caliber of Alex O'Connor cannot comprehend this.

(I really have to wonder if the King of Sophistry himself, ie. William Lane Craig, somehow managed to mess up his thinking. Advanced sophistry can be a powerful tool against the unwary. Could it possibly be that, somewhat ironically, Alex was being a bit too "nice" and giving WLC's arguments a bit too much thought and respect, and this somehow messed up his thinking to the point of becoming irrational?)

The idea of Jesus being punished on your behalf is completely asinine

One of the core tenets and talking points of (most of) Christianity is that Jesus became a human and was punished on your behalf, for your sins. That he carried the burden, he received the punishment so that you could be saved. That instead of you being punished for your sins, he took it on himself instead, to save you from eternal damnation, the consequence of sin.

This is often depicted as a form of "sacrificing oneself to save others", like if Jesus did the ultimate sacrifice to give humanity the opportunity to be saved from certain damnation. The ultimate form of altruism, the ultimate form of self-sacrifice in order to help others.

However, this entire idea is not just a completely perverse form of "justice", it's outright asinine.

When we get down to it, as many of these Christian apologists and preachers explain it, it's like a weird form of "karma": It's as if every crime, every evil deed, has to be "counter-balanced" with a corresponding punishment.

Because you have sinned, there has to be some punishment. Apparently it's just how it is. Apparently it's just not possible to forgive and forget your sins, your evil deeds: They must be compensated with punishment.

Ok, fine: Every crime, every evil deed, requires a punishment. Perhaps a bit harsh (because the punishment is not proportional to the severity of the crime), but it makes sense. But that's not the egregious part about it. Apparently, it doesn't matter who that punishment is done to, as long as there is some punishment. Apparently it doesn't matter if the punishment is done to a completely innocent third-party who was in no way involved in your crimes: As long as someone is punished for your crimes, that's enough.

They literally talk as if crimes go to one container, and the punishments for those crimes go to another, and the delicate balance between the two has to always be maintained. And punishments don't need to be just and fair: As long as the punishment is done, doesn't matter who it's done to, that counts.

Thus, innocent people being punished for the crimes of the guilty brings balance to the system and absolves the guilty.

Rather obviously this is a completely perverted form of justice. But worse than that, it indeed seems to allude to some form of "karma", where evil deeds accumulate and "punishment" must be done to counter-balance them. Which makes no sense.

And the funny thing is that this is, from a logical point of view, completely unnecessary: The belief that "if you truly repent for your sins, truly feel regret for them, and you truly make a complete 180 and decide on not doing anything like that anymore, God will forgive you and absolve you from your crimes" would be enough and completely logical. The part where God's Son needs to come to Earth as a human and be punished for your crimes in order to make this deal possible could be completely skipped and removed from the formula, and it would only make the entire thing more logical, not less. Sure, there might still be some discussion to be had about what kind of justice system this is, but at least the most egregious part of it would have been removed, ie. the part where there just has to be a punishment and, most egregiously, an innocent person can be punished on your behalf.

Be careful with "shotgun" and "rapid-fire" arguments

Oftentimes when a skeptic has a discussion with someone, not even necessarily a Christian / religious person, but also for example with a conspiracy theorist, that other person may engage in "shotgun argumentation" and "rapid-fire argumentation", and this is something that many skeptics fail to stop, even though they really should.

"Shotgun argumentation" is when tons and tons of tiny claims are presented all at once, in rapid succession, defending or attacking some position. There are two main reasons for such a tactic:

1. Just the sheer amount of arguments may make the claims more credible. After all, if only two or three arguments are presented, then that might not convince many people, but present twenty or thirty, and suddenly you have a much weightier argument! After all, there's an "overwhelming amount" of arguments and "evidence" for the position, so clearly there's something legit going on.
2. The other distinct advantage of this tactic is that when you present dozens and dozens of arguments, the chances that the skeptic will not have a proper answer to at least one of them increases dramatically. Thus, you can present argument after argument after argument, rapidly moving from one to the next (ie. "rapid-fire argumentation"), and immediately when you arrive at one that the skeptic has no immediate good answer for you can immediately jump to the opportunity: "See? You have no answer! I win!"

When skeptics engage in conversation with such religious people or conspiracy theorists, they should really stop that kind of argumentation on its tracks.

If the other person just starts making argument after argument after argument in quick succession, by the third or fourth one, when it has become clear that he is just going to spout a flood of dozens of such arguments, the skeptic should just stop it: "Wait, wait. Instead of doing this whole shotgun-argumentation thingie, how about we discuss one argument at a time? Just present me with one argument and we can discuss it."

The other, closely related type of argumentation is one where the other person does indeed present an argument, allow the skeptic to answer it... but then immediately moves to the next argument without even acknowledging the answer. The goal is simple: Go through argument after argument until he stumbles across one that the skeptic has no good answer to, and then declare victory.

As a skeptic, don't just allow that to happen: After you have properly answered the very first argument, if the other person immediately jumps to another, don't allow him. "Wait, before we move to something else, do you accept my answer or do you have some objection to it? If you don't accept my answer, what is the problem in it?" Just don't simply allow the other person to move on until he has either acknowledged the validity of your answer, or clearly demonstrated that he is figuratively putting his fingers in his ears and doesn't want to even listen to nor acknowledge any answers.

In some cases you may even be able to flip the entire situation on its head this way. In other words, rather than you being overwhelmed by a barrage of arguments and getting stumped by one of them, it may well be the believer / conspiracy theorist who gets stumped because he is just unable to acknowledge the validity of your answers, and you are not letting him proceed without doing that, or presenting a valid response. The rapid-fire shotgun argumentation tactic doesn't work if you don't allow it. 

"Questions atheists can't answer" is a dumb argument

One of the most common forms of Christian argumentation, which you can find tons and tons of examples on websites and video sharing platforms, uses the form "X questions atheists can't answer".

For some reason many Christians and Christian apologists believe that not only is this a completely legit form of argumentation but that it is, in fact, some of the strongest proofs of God's existence (and, obviously, that it's the God of Christianity described in the Bible.)

Yet, it's one of the dumbest forms of argumentation. That's because it's a direct textbook example of straightforward argumentum ad ignorantiam, ie. argument from ignorance.

("Ignorance" in the name of the fallacy does not refer to the person making the argument being ignorant. It refers to "not knowing (something)". In other words, it's an argument of the form "if you don't know (this thing), then my claims are true.")

It doesn't even matter if those questions can actually be answered or not. Even putting aside that question, even assuming that those question legitimately cannot be answered, that "atheists" indeed "can't answer" those questions, that means absolutely nothing.

Your position doesn't somehow become valid because someone doesn't know the answer to some question. It doesn't even matter what the question is.

As an example, even if someone can't answer the question "where did the Universe come from?" that doesn't somehow make the assertion of "God did it" any more legit. It merely means that that person doesn't know the answer to that question.

The idea behind the argument is genuinely strange. It's like an answer, any answer, somehow becomes valid if others can't give an alternative answer. "If you can't give me an answer of your own, then my answer is correct." That's, rather obviously, not how it works, at any level.

There are still open questions in science, that's certain. However, the correct approach to studying those questions and trying to find out their answers is not to just jump to a completely asinine "God must have done it!" Even if some questions genuinely have no answer, that doesn't somehow justify religious beliefs. It simply means that we don't know.

(By the way, this is something that too few skeptics point out when presented these "questions they can't answer". They fall into the trap of trying to answer those questions. The problem with doing that is that it inadvertently legitimates the underlying argument, in other words, that if the skeptic indeed can't answer the questions then it somehow gives credibility to the God claim. Skeptics shouldn't start answering any questions without first making it clear that it doesn't matter if they can answer them or not. It's not a valid form of argumentation. It's an argumentative fallacy.) 

Papal infallibility

One big mistake that many people do when they try to argue against eg. a religious or scientific position, is that they completely fail to research and understand what exactly that position actually is, so that they can give a valid objection to it. A lot of times people just assume something about the position and object to it based on those assumptions. When those assumptions are wildly incorrect, this becomes in essence an inadvertent straw-man argument (the main difference to an actual straw-man argument being that the subject matter is not being deliberately and knowingly distorted in bad faith.)

There are countless examples of this that one could list with regard to creationist arguments against the theory of evolution. However, sometimes skeptics also inadvertently engage in this same mistake when trying to argue against religion, or Christianity, or a particular Christian denomination or teaching.

One of the most commonly misunderstood and often-criticized and even mocked Catholic teachings is that of Papal Infallibility.

I have myself seen first-hand someone say in all seriousness (ie. clearly not joking) the archetypal argument of the form "if the Pope is infallible, why doesn't he play the lottery? We'll see how 'infallible' he is."

This is a complete misunderstanding and research failure of what Papal Infallibility actually is, what the Catholic Church actually teaches about it, ie. what the official doctrine is.

It's not a good idea to argue against a position you have completely misunderstood. Even if inadvertently, that just becomes a full-on straw-man argument, and it's not very constructive nor useful.

Catholic doctrine does not teach that the Pope is always infallible, without error, without mistakes, without false statements, not even without sin. Official Catholic doctrine does teach that even the Pope himself is as much a sinner as anybody else, and is capable of committing sin (for which he does need to seek forgiveness and absolution), and is very much not always correct and infallible.

What the official Catholic doctrine teaches is that when the Pope makes a particular type of official declaration ex cathedra (ie. essentially "officially from his position as the Pope") that pertains to Church doctrine, then that declaration is to be considered from God himself, and thus infallible. This kind of proclamation uses a very particular context and wording, and is very unambiguously stated as such an official Papal proclamation, for the purposes of establishing Church doctrine and catechism.

Things that the Pope says otherwise, during interviews, during conversations, even outright during sermons and mass, is not this kind of infallible ex cathedra proclamation.

Also, the vast, vast majority of people have absolutely no idea how many such proclamations Catholic Popes have given.

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, ever since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was officially established in Church canon in 1870, it has been only used once. That's it. One single time.

There have been Catholic scholars and bishops who have attempted to retroactively assign official infallibility to statements made by popes prior to 1870, but there is no officially accepted list, only allegations. After the canonization of Papal infallibility in 1870 there has been only one such officially recognized "infallible" proclamation, made in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

That being said, even approaching the subject matter with absolute understanding and accuracy, the whole concept is not without criticism.

Take that "infallible" 1950 Papal official proclamation for instance: Pius XII officially declared that the virgin Mary directly ascended to heaven, ie. experienced a so-called assumption (ie. was directly taken to heaven, in her spiritual body, at the moment of death, exactly like happened to Jesus according to the doctrine.)

One could ask: If that's true, why did it take almost two thousand years for God to suddenly reveal this truth? And why now?

Doesn't make much sense. It sounds a lot more plausible that Pius XII just wanted to make that common belief "official" and thus just declared it officially, in order to canonize it and make it an indisputable fact.

Same goes with the canonization of the concept of papal infallibility in itself: Only in 1870? Why did it take so long? Was God withholding this information for some reason? Why did he suddenly decide in 1870 to reveal such a fundamental doctrine?

The story of Moses on Mount Sinai is incongruent

One of the most archetypal and beloved stories of the Old Testament happens after Moses has led his people out of their captivity in Egypt, when they camp at the foot of Mount Sinai, and Moses ascends to the mountain in order to receive a big bunch of commandments (including the ten famous ones) directly from God himself.

In Christianity this is considered one of the key moments of not just the Biblical narrative, but the entirety of the religion, not just because of the Ten Commandments having been given to Moses (according to the narrative), but the overall significance of the event. It is also the immediate precursor of another key event in the story that happens at the end of it, ie. the infamous Golden Calf incident (one of the most referenced and painted of all Biblical events.) The entire story is full of memorable key events that shapes the entire Old Testament narrative.

This event is often narrated in sermons, Christian events (such as youth camps), and studied in Bible study groups. Christians marvel at the events, and the sheer power of God that's described in the text.

However, not many Christians ever stop to think about some of the most incongruent details of the story. These details are (for the most part) not incongruent within this particular portion of the text, but they are highly incongruent with the overall Christian theology and narrative.

Some of the incongruities in the story include:

1) In the story, God physically descends on top of the mountain. The text (Exodus 19:16-18) says:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently.

This raises a question: If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, why does he need to physically descend on top of a mountain in order to personally meet with Moses, and what's with the light and smoke show?

It is implied (and in fact outright stated later) that God needs to surround himself in very thick clouds so that the people cannot see him, as directly seeing him would mean instantaneous death. And, thus, God needs to hide himself in the cloud to protect the people. It's also implied in the text above that he is so immensely powerful that his mere physical presence causes fire, lightning and violent trembling of the ground.

More curiously, this is literally the only place in the entire Bible where God is described like this, and does something like this, and is stated to need to "hide" himself in this manner to protect people from seeing him and immediately dying. Quite notably, there are other places where it is said that God personally visits someone without such a light, smoke and ground tremor show (the clearest and most prominent example of this being when God, personally, appeared to Abraham. Not through a messenger, but literally in person.)

One of the biggest problems with this story is that heavily and quite directly implies less-than-omnipotence from God: According to this particular story, if he appears in physical form somewhere, he cannot contain himself, his own power, and thus needs to cover his physical form with thick clouds so that his immense power does not destroy everybody who sees him directly.

Christian apologists usually rationalize this by claiming that it's just symbolic: God doesn't actually have the need to physically hide himself or else everybody who sees him dies. He did it here just to indicate his presence to the people and cause awe and reverence to them, and to stop them from rushing to climb the mountain.

However, there's nothing in the text that indicates this. There is no portion of the text that explains that God only did this for show, or to deter people from approaching, or anything of the sort. Most Christians love to claim that they only interpret the Bible literally, just what it says and nothing more, yet time and again they insert their own personal interpretations into the text, they constantly "read between the lines" things that aren't said there. 

2) In the same vein, at one point Moses asks God if he could see him. What follows is consistent with the above narrative, but makes it even more incongruent with Christian theology in general.

God tells Moses that he cannot show his face because that would cause Moses immediately to die (Exodus 33:19-20):

And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Again: How come an omnipotent God cannot show his face to a human, or else the human will die?

Instead, God goes through this asinine routine where Moses hides behind a rock, God covers him with his hand (apparently god has hands), and then quickly passes by and allows Moses to see a glimpse of his back.

There's nothing in the text that would indicate this to be somehow metaphorical or figurative. It is quite clear from the text that the author literally meant that God himself was literally and physically present there, he literally has hands, a backside and a face, Moses literally hid behind a rock that had a cleft through which Moses could peek through, and God literally covered him with his hand, uncovering him only briefly while physically passing by with his literal back turned towards him.

Nothing in the text indicates this being something metaphorical, or a dream, or something like that. There's nothing indicating that this is some kind of symbolism. It's narrated as being exactly what physically happened, and that it was literally required for Moses to survive.

So it once again raises the question: Why would an omnipotent omnipresent God need these theatrics?

Christian apologists try to rationalize and explain this away, but the text itself is quite clear: It is what literally physically happened, there was no other way, and it was necessary. There's no indication that God was just showing off or doing some kind of symbolic demonstration to teach a lesson or something. It is written as if it was absolutely necessary to do it like that.

And also this, quite notably, is literally the only place in the entire Bible where this kind of thing is described. Nowhere else.

3) When the infamous Golden Calf incident happens, Moses quite famously destroys the two tablets that he had, containing the original Ten Commandments (given in Exodus 20, and it's implied that also a big bunch of other commandments were written on the tablets), and after the incident has been dealt with, Moses ascends to the mountain once again, and the text quite explicitly says (Exodus 34:1):

The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.”

The fact that these new tablets contained the famous Ten Commandments is extremely explicitly and unambiguously stated after them having been listed in that chapter, in Exodus 34:27-28:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

It couldn't be clearer than that. These are not just some random new commandments. These are the Ten Commandments, using "the words that were on the first tablets".

The problem?

The ten commandments listed between the first and 27th verses are completely different from the first Ten Commandments (the first set being the famous ones). A few of the commandments are somewhat similar to the first ones, using different wording, but the majority of them are completely different.

This is not denied by biblical scholars and most theologians, who call the first set the "Ethical Decalogue" and this second set the "Ritual Decalogue". However, the vast majority of Christian believers just ignore this contradiction.

In fact, the vast majority of Christians don't even know about this second set. There are literally people who have been avid practicing Christians for several decades who have never encountered this nor know about it. When they encounter it for the first time, they are invariably surprised. I'm not even kidding. (The most common reaction is to keep ignoring it, shoving it aside with a thought that there must be an explanation to it that they simply haven't heard.)

(Note: One could say that there's a contradiction in that chapter in that it starts with "I (ie. God) will write on them (ie. the tablets)", and ends with "Write (ie. you, Moses) down these words". However, since I'm not an expert in Hebrew, particularly not ancient Hebrew, I don't know if that first expression can actually mean effectively the same as "I will dictate" rather than "I will write". An ancient Hebrew expert would be more competent to comment on that.) 

The actual explanation, particularly to the two first points above, is that this is most likely yet again one of those independent orally transmitted myths that at some point got incorporated into the Jewish mythology and texts.

Taking into account the details of the story, and how incongruent and contradictory it is compared to the rest of Jewish and Christian theology, it's quite clear that it was most likely a myth from another religion, or some kind of "pseudo-Jewish" myth floating around (similarly to how the myth that people become angels is widespread, even though no Christian denomination actually teaches this), which was then reworded a bit and incorporated into the Jewish canon, either by directly adapting and writing it into the scripture, or it being first adapted and told as an oral myth as part of the Jewish religion and then later written down.

Giving Kenneth Copeland the benefit of the doubt

Kenneth Copeland is one of the most hated and reviled American megachurch pastors. He is one of those "prosperity gospel" evangelical pastors who have become immensely successful and rich by preaching this form of exploitative theology. He is, indeed, a multi-millionaire who flies in his own private luxury jets and lives in multi-million-dollar mansions, not because he is the CEO of some huge company but because of donation money given to him by his followers. (And that's one of the key things that make "prosperity gospel" pastors so hated: They become super-rich without actually contributing anything to the economy or to society. They just get loads of money without helping produce or improve anything. They are, essentially, super-succcesful freeloaders.)

It doesn't exactly help that he just looks evil. Most pastors try to make themselves look as presentable and as sympathetic as possible, but not Ken. He seems to revel in his "evil villain" look.

Unsurprisingly, people just love to write articles and create videos deriding the guy. Most of the criticism is quite valid and deserved.

However, there's one very commonly cited criticism that I myself am not so sure is so legit.

In some Christian TV program he talked about why he always flew in private jets rather than commercial airplanes, and he said that the people in those airplanes are "demons". Or at least that's what the critics often like to claim.

Here's the exact quote of what he says in that interview:

"He used to fly airlines, but it got to the point where it was agitating him spiritually. He had become famous and they were wanting him to pray for them and all that. You can't manage that today. This dope filled world. You get in an airplane, you get in a long tube with a bunch of demons. And it's deadly."

In a later on-the-street interview by the show Inside Edition he was asked by the reporter if he believed that human beings are demons, and he responded very strongly:

"No, I do not! And don't you ever say I did!"

Of course most critics just think that he's lying and trying to deny what he said. However, I myself am willing to give him more of the benefit of the doubt in this particular case.

In that original interview he said that passenger airplanes are full of demons. He did not say that the people themselves are the demons. Evangelical Christians believe that the fallen angels who sided with Lucifer and were kicked out of Heaven are the demons, and angels are not people. They believe that these angels may roam the Earth and try to influence people, but they very clearly believe that angels are angels (even if fallen), and people are people, and they are two completely different things.

Some Christians may believe that people may get possessed by demons, but this varies from denomination to denomination. I have not researched the exact theology that Copeland believes in and preaches, but it may well be that he does believe that fallen angels, ie. "demons", can either fully possess, or at a very minimum influence a person so strongly that they can directly affect their behavior and thoughts (this is a relatively common belief among many American evangelical Christians.)

Either way, it doesn't really matter: American evangelical Christians, which also likely includes Kenneth Copeland, do not believe that people themselves are demons, or become demons, or anything of the sort. They can believe that demons "hover around" certain people that they have "possessed" or at least heavily influencing, and these bad spirits can be sensed by particularly sensitive Christians.

I consider it highly likely that when Copeland said "you get in a long tube with a bunch of demons", he was referring to evil spirits, ie. fallen angels, ie. "demons", to be there alongside the people, a bit like stalking them (and that sufficiently sensitive believers can sense them and be distraught by them). I highly doubt he meant that the people themselves are the demons. He was not calling the people themselves "demons".

Like or hate the guy, I don't think it's very constructive to deliberately misinterpret what he means when he speaks. 

Why did ALL non-avian dinosaurs go extint, but not all reptiles?

Quite famously dinosaurs were the dominant clade on Earth for over 150 million years, which for animal species is a very, very long time (for example hominids have "only" existed for about 6 million years, apes even less than that, humans even less). Also quite famously not only did all non-avian dinosaurs go extinct, but they all did so in a quite short period of time in a single mass extinction event. (And yes, they did indeed go extinct surprisingly quickly all at once. In mere years, perhaps even less. It was absolutely catastrophic and devastating.)

A curious mind could ask: How come all of the thousands and thousands non-avian dinosaur species that existed 65 million years ago went extinct, while many reptile species survived (alongside many mammal species, etc)? This completely regardless of dinosaur type, size, eating habits, etc.

Many people often throw the guess that it was because of their sheer size, but they forget that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of dinosaur species that were very small, the size of a dog, some even the size of a chicken. Why did all of them go extinct too, while much bigger reptiles (such as crocodiles) survived? Likewise they went extinct regardless of whether they were carnivorous, herbivorous or omnivorous. It was definitely not about their size nor their diet.

Many conspiracy theorists, some young-earth creationists, and many other wackos, use this apparent paradox to claim that dinosaurs didn't actually exist, or similar silly theories (rather than actually trying to find out the reason.)

But it is indeed curious: Why did all of them (except the avian ones) go extinct? Every single species of dinosaur, without fail. This, while at the same time, many species of reptiles survived. How come the extinction event was this thorough but selective?

As you might surmise, the answer lies in how dinosaurs were different from other reptiles (and eg. mammals). While they are cladistically classified as "reptiles" that doesn't mean that they were identical to other reptiles.

While the full set of reasons why they went extinct is quite large and varied, ie. it was a combination of many things, their physical characteristics, their physiology, was a very crucial one. The characteristics that made them different from other reptiles (especially those that survived).

You see, most reptiles are cold-blooded, while dinosaurs (all of them) were mesothermic. They also quite crucially had a much higher metabolism rate than most other reptiles. (And this is, in fact, why so many dinosaur species were so incredibly fast-running apex predators, especially many of the theropod species.)

This meant, among other things, that they needed significantly more food than their non-dinosaur reptile cousins (most of which could go literally weeks without eating anything). And this is one of the crucial key characteristics that made them different from most other reptiles.

In a way, dinosaurs were extremely adapted and specialized for the Mesozoic environment: They were big, they were fast, they were strong, they were apex predators, they were capable of defending themselves (even if herbivorous). They were the pinnacles of the Mesozoic era. The top tier.

The problem with this is that this strength was also their weakness: The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event suddenly, completely and radically changed the environment in a way that made it completely unsuitable for the highly-specialized dinosaurs. Suddenly their fast metabolism became a liability rather than an asset. Suddenly their need for a constant supply of food became a deadly defect rather than a strength.

Of course this isn't the only reason why they suddenly became incapable of surviving in the changed environment (another one is that regardless of their fast metabolism, their reproduction cycle was really slow, which was also a liability after the extinction event), but it was one of the most crucial ones.

This explains why they all died, while many other reptiles survived: Those other reptiles had slower metabolisms, were cold-blooded, and did not require such a constant supply of food to survive. They also usually reproduced much faster.

From the dinosaurs, only birds survived, but that's because they could compensate their now-weaknesses with their unique ability of flight (and small size, feathers, and a relatively fast reproductive cycle).

The question of why all non-avian dinosaurs went extinct all of a sudden is actually a very interesting one. Too bad that many conspiracy theorists don't care. 

The Shroud of Turin is ridiculously and obviously fake

I find it a bit curious how seriously so many people, even many atheists and skeptics, take the Shroud of Turin. Obviously most skeptics don't believe that it represents the body of Jesus himself and instead it originates from the Middle Ages (with carbon dating putting it somewhere in the 1300's, give or take), but they still don't seem to have much problem or skepticism in believing that it's likely a real impression of a real body (although, to be fair, there are also those who believe that it's just a hand-made painting and nothing more.)

It's actually a bit unbelievable how many people believe that it's the actual real impression of a real human body, given how obviously fake it is.

As a side note (and somewhat unrelated to how obviously fake it is), the vast, vast majority of people don't even know what the entire cloth looks like and how the impressions are placed on it. The entire original cloth looks like this:

If it was covering a body, it would mean that the body was laying on top of it on one half, and then it was folded over his head on top of him, like a blanket.

Most people think that the shroud was actually wrapping the body, but it's quite obvious that it wasn't. Even if it was covering a real body, it was just laying flat on a surface, like a sheet, with the body on top of it, and the upper half folded over to cover it, like a blanket. The shroud was not wrapping the body.

This is, rather obviously, not under dispute, as it's extremely obvious from the shroud. It's just curious how few people know and understand this, and instead assume that the cloth was wrapping the body tightly.

Likewise few people are wondering what exactly are the human-shaped stains made of. They rather obviously assume it's blood, but they don't stop to think how unrealistic that is. It would mean that the body would have been completely covered, from head to toe, all of it, in fresh blood, at least fresh enough to permanently stain the cloth.

Believers in the authenticity of the cloth, and Jesus himself, never stop to think how impossible that is. According to the scriptures Jesus was kept on the cross after his death for several hours at minimum. Blood coagulates quite quickly and doesn't stay fresh for that long.

Also, at which point was this cloth used? Most people assume that it was probably used to wrap Jesus's body in the tomb. They forget that according to the narrative his body was washed before putting it in the tomb. Thus, even if we were to entertain the idea that this was used to wrap the body of the real Jesus, at which point did this happen? It would have been several hours after his death, after he had been taken down and his body transported somewhere else.

Analysis of the stain appear to strongly suggest that, at a very minimum, the original stains were enhanced and expanded using a mixture of red ochre and a gelatin medium, which was a common paint in the Middle Ages. While some experts dispute this, I think that it's pretty much certain.

But none of this makes the shroud "ridiculously and obviously fake". Even if it's from the medieval period rather than two thousand years ago, it could still be genuine in the sense that it was used to cover the real body of someone.

Let's examine more closely why it's ridiculously and obviously fake. In particular, let's examine the face:

This is a picture of the stains on the original cloth, and a digitally enhanced version of its negative, which emphasizes the details in the original.

Am I seriously expected to believe that a cloth placed on top of someone's face, said face covered in something (supposedly blood), is going to leave that many intricate details on the cloth? Eyelids perfectly lined, the sides of the nose perfectly lined and shaded, lips, moustache perfectly delineated, eyebrows and forehead perfectly shaded, cheeks perfectly delineated and shaded, and somehow long hair (apparently also soaked in blood?) leaving just the perfect impression on the cloth, all the way from the top of the head to the tips near the neck, not spread out, apparently not affected by gravity, no gaps, nothing? Are you seriously telling me that even the eyelashes of the closed eyes left a distinct impression in the cloth? That the gap between the bottom of the eyelids and the cheeks got so perfectly impressed into the cloth?

Also note the differences in shading, in how dark the stains are. The digitally enhanced image emphasizes this, but if you examine the original closely, you can see the different shades of darker and lighter areas there as well. Am I seriously supposed to believe that a cloth placed on top of a face (apparently soaked in blood for some reason) is going to leave these differently-shaded stains on the cloth, with for example the cheeks gently fading from darker to lighter, as if the face had been illuminated from above? Am I seriously supposed to believe that the nose has just the perfect shading, as if it had been illuminated from above and slightly from the right? Am I seriously supposed to believe that the underside of the eyebrows are perfectly shaded as if the face had been illuminated from above?

This is so obviously painted by hand that it isn't even funny.

The rest of the body isn't much better, although the face is the epitome of how obviously fake this is, because of all the minute tiny details that would absolutely not be that detailed if it had just been a sheet of cloth placed on top of a face covered in blood. You can even see individual fingers, and parts of the body that would not have been touched by the cloth if it had just been placed on top of it.

There are many other problems that can be pointed out as well, such as for example the curious fact that even though the entire body was supposedly covered in blood, there are literally zero signs of this blood dripping to the back part of the cloth. Apparently all this fresh blood, so fresh that it could paint the cloth, did not flow and drip to the part of the cloth that was under the body.

Curiously and funnily, the fact that the shroud includes the part that was under the body is a clear testament that the body was quite clearly not soaked in blood, or any other substance that would flow and drip onto that section that was supposedly under the body.

It is very likely that someone deliberately created the cloth. It might have been a deliberate hoax, or it might have been for genuine purposes, like a so-called death mask (assuming it was created from a real body and not a statue). It's quite clear that whoever created it painted the body with some paint and then put the cloth on top of it and pressed it against it in order to create the impressions, and then extremely likely retouched the end result to enhance the details.

Either way, it should be extremely obvious that it was a deliberate painting, even if it was based on a real body, not just a cloth placed on top of a dead body that just somehow miraculously happened to get such a perfect impression of the body.

And, rather obviously, given that it is quite clearly either a "death mask" of sorts, or some kind of deliberate hoax, it cannot be from the body of Jesus (assuming he even existed in the first place.) 

"Objective" vs "subjective" morality

Many Christian apologists argue that God's statutes (laid out in the Bible, of course) are "objective morality" and thus universally true and perfect, and they argue against "subjective morality" pretty much considering it ethically abhorrent (because, according to them, it would justify people doing whatever evil they want.)

There are many things wrong with this argument, and their very definitions of these concepts. Here are the two major ones:

Firstly, they don't seem to understand what "objective" means. When they talk about "objective morality" in this context, they seem to think that "objective" is something similar to a law of physics: In other words, something that's an absolute and inherent immutable feature of our reality, and is so completely regardless of us, something that would be true even if we (or any living being whatsoever) existed at all. A bit like the law of gravitation, or the law of electric charge: These exist in this universe completely regardless of anything, and are hard immutable characteristics of it, ie. they are laws of physics.

That's not what "objective" means. If you look at any dictionary definition, in this context "objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."

In other words, an "objective moral" is not something that's an inherent part of the properties of this universe that exists independently of us and is always identically the same everywhere at all times regardless of anything. It's simply a moral that's not based on feelings, emotions and biased interpretations, but instead it's arguably based on unbiased interpretation of hard facts.

The thing is: Two different incompatible sets of morals can both be "objective", and there is no contradiction in this. "Objective" does not mean "universal", in other words, inherently and by necessity exactly the same for everybody, regardless of anything. "Objective" means that it's based on unbiased interpretation of facts rather than the result of personal feelings and subjective interpretations. Different things can be factually true for different cultures, for example based on their geographical location, geographic features, the environment, the local culture, and the history of the culture. For example, it can be factually true that the place suffers from yearly floods, and this may shape the moral code of the people living there. In a completely different place it may be factually true that they suffer from regular drought, and this also shapes the moral code of the people living there, and these two moral codes may be different and in some ways even incompatible, because they apply to that particular people in that particular place. Both can be a fully objective set of morals without any subjectivity: It's just that those morals are dictated by different facts caused by the different circumstances.

"Objective morality" is not by necessity universal, the exact same everywhere regardless of anything. Different (and even incompatible) sets of morals can both be "objective" at the same time. There is no contradiction here.

Secondly, these Christian apologists always contrast the two options at their most extreme: In other words, their argument is that either there is a strict set of objective morality that's universal, strict, immutable and the same for everybody, or alternatively there's "subjective morality" which, according to them, means that anybody can do whatever they want without any limits whatsoever. That's it. Those are the two only options. There's nothing in between.

This is a false dichotomy.

Morality does not work that way. In actual reality there are degrees of objectiveness / subjectiveness when it comes to ethics and morality. It's a gradation. It's not a situation where there are only two possibilities and, particularly, those two options are the absolute extremes and nothing else.

This is the reason why, for example, most laws in most countries dictate a range of possible punishments for crimes. While "guilty" vs "not guilty" may be a true dichotomy when it comes to the legal system, the punishment if found guilty is usually a gradation, with minimum and maximum sentences. The actual sentence is chosen according to the severity of the crime. In other words, how wrong and harmful the action was. It may have been objectively wrong, but its severity may vary. There aren't only two extreme options: Either let the accused to free, or always inflict maximum punishment.

"Objective morality", as these Christians wrongly define it, would require only those two options to be viable: Either not guilty, or maximum punishment. Nothing in between.

Even in non-legal settings morality is a gradation, not just a dichotomy of two extremes. There are always degrees of how "right" or "wrong" something is. For example pushing someone may be very wrong in some circumstances, a bit reproachable but not completely despicable in others, and completely acceptable and even a good action in others (for example if it saves someone's life.) Context always matters.

And yes, there is a lot of morality that's up to subjective feelings and interpretations. It can be considered highly improper to exhibit bad manners and bad behavior in certain situations, but how "wrong" it is, that's often up to personal opinion and customs. There are genuinely things where the "wrongness" of some action is very much up to personal opinion and personal preferences, and thus being highly subjective.

With most actions, however, the degree of "objectiveness" of how "wrong" they are is much more of a gradation. The "wrongness" of some actions are more up to opinion, with other actions it's more objective, and there are enough things that humans can do to fill up the entire line from one end to the other. The line where actions become so wrong that even laws have to be passed to criminalize them is, perhaps ironically, a mix of objectivity and, to certain degree, also subjectivity, depending a bit on the local culture and customs. And that is, as mentioned before, where the severity of the punishment kicks in, with "minimum" and "maximum" sentences that can vary quite wildly.

The "Kent Hovind"-style challenge

Kent Hovind has for several decades been rather infamous for not only being a Christian young-earth creationist activist, who has made an entire video series of presentations about his wacky theories as well as making thousands of YouTube videos where he repeats the same things over and over, but more prominently because of his egregiously smug and condescending attitude towards "atheists" and anybody who disagrees with him.

Say what you like about apologists like William Lane Craig (who is the King of Sophistry, to the extreme degree), Ken Ham and others like them, at least they know how to maintain a modicum of politeness and good manners, regardless of how wrong what they say may be. Not Kent Hovind: He is extremely smug, condescending and egregiously patronizing when talking about "atheists" and their arguments. So very Christian of him.

Anyway, he is also somewhat famous for his "evolution challenge": At least in the past (I don't know if currently) he promised to pay 10 thousand dollars (or whatever the sum was) to anybody who can give him any "proof of evolution".

This challenge is very easy and safe for him to present. That's because it has two main problems:

Firstly, a bit of a more minor problem is that he has never specified (and quite deliberately so) the conditions for the "proofs" presented to him. He has never explained what he will accept as valid "proof" and what he won't.

The problem with this is that it leaves the judging of the validity of the presented proof completely open, up to the whims of whoever is judging, with no clearly defined parameters under which such a proof will be considered valid. It will be completely up to the whims of whoever is judging.

Which brings up to the second and absolutely major problem in the challenge:

Who will be judging whether a presented "proof" is valid, and thus earns the 10 thousand dollars? Well, what do you know, Kent Hovind himself, of course.

Indeed, he himself is the only and sole person judging the validity of the presented "proof", and his word is the final verdict, regardless of anything. Thus, he simply has to reject the proof, regardless of what it is, and what do you know, he doesn't need to pay. That's it. It's that simple. He doesn't even need to present any counter-argument or explain why he is rejecting the proof: He can simply reject it, and he doesn't have to pay, under his own self-imposed rules of the "challenge".

And, indeed, he has a stock answer to almost every single "proof" presented to him, which he almost always gives as a stock response: "That's not evolution."

It doesn't matter what the presented proof is, he just has to answer "that's not evolution", and he doesn't need to pay. Under his perspective the "challenge" was once again lost by the "evolutionist". Obviously he can then go ahead and boast about how his "challenge" has never been broken, and how "nobody can present a single proof of evolution." Which he does constantly.

Of course he never talks about the fact that he himself is the only and sole judge deciding whether his "challenge" has been broken or not.

Unsurprisingly, he is not the only one engaging in this exact type of easy and safe "challenge". Many other creationists, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and other such people have also presented the exact same "challenge": Provide proof that their claims are false and you earn X thousand dollars. Problem is, of course, that it's the issuer of the challenge who all alone will be the sole judge of whether the proof is valid or not. Thus, the challenge is very safe to issue: The challenger will never have to pay up because he can just dismiss any proof presented to him.

And then he can go ahead and boast about how nobody can prove he is wrong and nobody has ever won the challenge. 

Why the Manhattan "eruv" wire makes no sense

Orthodox Judaism has a huge amount of rules that are not directly found in the Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible (ie. "Old Testament").

As an example: In Orthodox Judaism you must make absolutely certain that you never, ever mix meat and milk. Not even a single molecule must be mixed. The strongest adherents of Judaism go so far as having divided their kitchen into two parts, where nothing crosses the line from one part to the other: Cookware, utensils, dishes, raw ingredients... Each half has its own set of them, and they must never, ever cross to the other side. Even the not-so-strong adherents will have at least some measures to make sure that no molecule of milk ever touches a molecule of meat by, at a minimum, never using the two ingredients at the same time and judiciously washing all cookware, utensils and dishes in between (although most prefer to just have two separate sets of them.)

Nothing like this is mandated in the Hebrew Bible, though (nor are there any mentions or examples of people doing anything like this). In fact, there is no commandment against eating meat and milk at the same time. Not even goat meat and goat milk at the same time. The only thing that's prohibited is boiling goat in its mother's milk. (This is a rather strange commandment, and some have hypothesized that it's actually metaphorical, and the people of the time would have understood what it actually meant. However, that's not important in this blog post.)

So if the prohibition is so specific, why go to such lengths and create a huge amount of rules that seem completely overblown and extreme?

The basic idea is that all these additional rules and mandates are there to protect a person from accidentally breaking a commandment. Rabbis themselves call this "building a fence around the commandments": In other words, follow rules that keep you as far as possible from even accidentally breaking a commandment. After all, if you have milk and meat in the same dinner, there is the remote possibility that the meat happens to contain goat and the milk happens to be from its mother, and if the meat is hot, it may end up being "boiled" in that milk, no matter how briefly. No matter how extraordinarily remote that possibility may be, it's better to err on the side of caution: Don't let even the remote chance become reality!

In other words, all these extra rules have the principle of "it's better to keep as far away from the line (of breaking a commandment) as possible, than to take any chances." No measure is too extreme to protect you from accidentally crossing that line. If using separate kitchen utensils protects you from even accidental breaking of the law, it's well worth it.

And, of course, this is only one example of literally thousands.

Naturally what can and can't be done has sparked endless debates among Jewish scholars and Rabbis over the centuries.

One of the topics that has sparked probably the most amount of discussion is what counts as "work", which is forbidden from being done on the Sabbath?

Obviously doing anything related to your job is clearly "work". But can something else also be considered such? What about doing chores at home, such as repairing something that's broken? Is that "work" that's forbidden during Sabbath? Again: Better to err on the side of caution and consider it such. Thus, you cannot repair anything during the Sabbath.

This "protective fence" around the prohibition of doing "work" during the Sabbath can sometimes go to rather ridiculous extremes. For example, a very common interpretation is that just switching on a light is "work", and thus shouldn't be done during a Sabbath. (The train of thought is that historically lighting up something required starting a fire, which can be quite exerting and requires tools and skill. Clearly it's work! Not so much different than eg. repairing something. Thus lighting a fire during Sabbath is best avoided. The modern equivalent is flipping a light switch to turn on the lights: Same thing, just a more modern version. Thus, once again, better to err on the side of caution: You shouldn't be switching lights during Sabbath.)

Carrying heavy loads, even if it's just inside your home, is also quite clearly considered work, as it's physically exerting, and it goes against the principle of the Sabbath being a day of rest.

But what about carrying very lightweight things? Can you carry your keys in a pocket, for example? Is that work or not? What if you have to carry something lightweight due to necessity, such as bringing food to a sick family member? Is that work?

After much deliberation the scholars and Rabbis came to the decision that carrying relatively light weights is allowed during the Sabbath, but only in your home. You must not carry anything further than that.

Of course the next question became: What exactly constitutes "your home"? Is it just the space confined inside walls? What about a patio, or a garden? Are you allowed to exit the door of your house carrying something?

A concession was made: Your property is your home, and that can include not just the house but also the immediate land around it, such as a patio or a garden.

However, in order to know where exactly the line is, it was decided that every Orthodox Jew who owns a home with property around it should clearly mark where the line is that must not be crossed while carrying something. This is marked with a so-called "eruv", which is a wire or string for this exact purpose: It marks the limits of the area where you can carry light loads, and must not be crossed.

And this is where the "abuse" of this allowance started happening. For example, if the properties of two neighbors were side-by-side, some of them would use a joint "eruv" wire that went around both properties, allowing them to carry stuff from one home to the other. After all, they didn't need to cross the line because the line was surrounding the joint property.

What if a third neighbor wanted to join the party? Well, extend the "eruv" to cover his property as well! Now all three could travel to any of the other two homes, carrying stuff, as no wire was being crossed.

And, thus, we get to the absolutely ridiculous end point of all this gameplay: The "Manhattan eruv wire". Which is an "eruv" wire that surrounds a good chunk of Manhattan. An absolutely humongous area.

Orthodox Jews who live within this area take this to mean that they can carry stuff within that huge area without worry. Which, rather obviously, goes against the original idea of limiting this area as much as possible.

In light of the other stuff about the "kosher" rules, which are designed to keep the faithful as protected as possible from breaking any commandments, going to absolute extremes to make sure of that, this ridiculous "Manhattan eruv" is certainly going to an absolute extreme... in the opposite direction! In other words, towards the line of what constitutes breaking the Sabbath and what doesn't. It's the exact opposite of the idea of keeping oneself as far as possible from breaching that line.

Which is why it just doesn't make any sense.