Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Primacy Revisited

A nod to Francois Tremblay for bringing this study to my attention.

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.


The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."


Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.


“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

This matches up exactly with what I have said in previous posts here, here, here, and here. The evidence is on my side, and it keeps piling up.

The verdict is in: We are far better off without any religious beliefs, without any belief in god(s), and without any afterlife belief.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Your Friendly Neighborhood Exorcist

The Vatican's Rome University is looking to recruit new exorcists in the fight against demonic possession. Included in the article is this little sentence:

Students also attend classes in psychology so that priests can distinguish between "real cases" of satanic possession and illnesses such as schizophrenia.

And that's good, because we would hate to have yet another case in which a schizophrenic nutcase sought religious assistance instead of medical assistance, therefore resulting in the deaths of either themselves, or nearby innocents, like their children. Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, or Anneliese Michel (whose story served as inspiration for the recent movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose") come to mind.

Apparently the Vatican still thinks demonic possession is a big problem. That's funny, because I couldn't find any Government statistics on demonic possession anywhere (anywhere outside the Vatican website, that is). First I ran a search for "demonic possession" over at, the United States Government web portal. I found nothing relevant, just some stuff about drug possession, which is hardly the same thing. Why isn't the United States Government tracking this serious issue? Maybe the United States Government is in cahoots with the demons? Maybe the United States Government is itself possessed? Or is it possible that the theory of demonic possession is just as legitimate as Phrenology?

My quest for Government statistics on demonic possession had experienced a small setback, but it was by no means over. I figured my next best place to look would be at the Europa website, which calls itself the "Gateway to the European Union." The European Union currently represents twenty-five European nations that have served as the traditional and historical backbone of superstitious afterlife-belief (mostly of the Christian variety) for over a thousand years. Surely they would be intelligent enough to track vital demon possession statistics! I ran a search, and surprisingly got these results:

Your search on "demonic possession" matched 0 of 2051163 documents

Zero results out of two million, fifty one thousand, one hundred and sixty three documents? Well this certainly doesn't solve my problem! All it does is increase the extreme nature of my two possible explanations: Either there is a really, really big conspiracy of demonic possession that stretches across the Atlantic, or the Vatican is full of monster-in-the-closet, afraid-of-their-own-shadow, retards.

Finally I decided to search the official Vatican Website itself. I entered my search phrase, again "demonic possession," and I found six hundred and eighty eight results! They were mostly relevant results too, unlike the irrelevant drug possession results that Firstgov gave me. But what does this say? Well, it says we can at least know that the Vatican believes their own shit.

If the Vatican thinks that demonic possession warrants a call for new exorcists, then obviously they think it’s a significant problem in the world. And if the Vatican is a sovereign nation-state, then shouldn't other Vatican-friendly governments be tracking this kind of phenomena as well? Shouldn't the US and the EU be cooperating in detecting and fighting demonic possession? Shouldn't the US and EU at least release some information, or maybe pass legislation, on what constitutes demonic possession so that their citizens can be informed of the facts?

Or, is it just possible in some crazy way, that the Vatican doesn't have any evidence to back up its apparent view that demonic possession is a real phenomena? I think that if the Vatican does properly diagnose who is demonically possessed and who is just nuts, they won't need any exorcists ever again. It is clear that all these recent cases had religion serve as an impediment to proper treatment, and if medical care was administered instead of religious voodoo, these people (and their children) would still be alive.

If the only difference between a case of schizophrenia and a victim of demonic possession is an aversion to religious objects and speaking in funny tongues, then I'm afraid that many more Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, and Anneliese Michel cases will pop up in the future.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Aaron Kinney @ The Atheist Hour: Aftermath

My guest appearance on Gene Cook’s radio show, The Atheist Hour, has just finished. I appreciate Gene having me on his show, I appreciate the questions that the callers had, and I enjoyed the dialogue. I would definitely be open to being on Gene’s show again if he ever wanted to bring me back. I feel that the dialogue was positive, constructive, and that there was ample mutual respect between everyone who participated. I really enjoyed the show, and I hope that the listeners also got some understanding of my atheistic worldview.

My thoughts on the show: I think I made a good point about the sacrifice of Jesus, how it (and all sacrifice) is morally wrong, and how two wrongs don’t make a right. In other words, having an innocent person such as Jesus or a six-year-old girl serve punishment for the crimes of another, especially by being killed on a cross, is never right. I conceded to Gene that a parent might want to sacrifice himself in favor of their child being punished for a crime, but I noted, and maintain, that it would not be just in either case, and any impartial observer (like the rest of society) would surely not agree that justice has been served when a parent serves the punishment of a murdering child, allowing the child to walk the streets free and forgiven.

Undoubtedly, the Hitler reference was brought up. While the kind Christian caller Dustin said that my moral position and arguments were a breath of fresh air (thanks!), he insisted that I could not get from an objective observation of reality (like Hitler’s genocidal campaign) and determine that it is against objective moral values.

I kept coming back to the value of life, and I think that’s what all these questions were reducible to: Why, as an atheist, should I value life? After the mid-show break, I stated that the question of “why should I value life?” was just as much a problem for a Christian as it is for an atheist in that there is no more reason to follow God’s word than there is to follow natural law based on reality and causality. Gene is a good radio host, and is good at making it seem like he adequately answered my question, but he only managed to push the question back one level, and I tried to point that out as well. Allow me to paraphrase:

Aaron: Why do you value life?
Gene: Because God tells us to.
Aaron: But you’re only pushing the question back one level. Why do you care if God tells you to?
Gene: Because he says that life is good and following his rules is good.
Aaron: But why do you want to follow his rules?
Gene: Because of the punishment he has in store for us if we don’t.
Aaron: But why do you care if you get punished? Why do you avoid punishment?
(From here the question will repeatedly get pushed back unless the Christian admits that they want to follow God’s rule for the same reason I want to follow objective values based on natural law: we both innately want to sustain our consciousnesses and allow them to thrive due to our evolutionary programming).

I think it’s clear by now that the problem they claim belongs to my worldview (that I can’t account for objective values) actually is a problem for their worldview! During the entire show I didn’t hear a sufficient answer for my question: Why does the Christian want to follow God’s rule and avoid punishment from God? Their only answer is to push it back one level.

Now as for me accounting for my values, I was able to mention evolutionary programming, and I said that an “ought” may not even have to come into the picture, because life itself (the definition of life that transcends any given species) wants to sustain, spread, and thrive. Therefore my worldview can account for objective values because of the evolutionary programming. In some ways, it might even be considered a materialistic, evolutionary “presupposition,” and if this is true, then it would be obvious that the Christians are borrowing from my worldview (the evolutionary programming) to justify their desire to value life, God’s law, and not getting cast into hell when they die.

Now remember folks, this was Gene’s show, and Gene is a pastor. That means that I’m on the Christian turf. I will not be getting the last word here, and I didn’t. Gene ended the show with a strawman, and it was basically along the lines of “an atheist can’t account for values or the desire to live, but a Christian can through God’s word, through his love for us, and through the desire to follow his rules.” But as you can all see, I have just demonstrated that it is the materialistic atheist who can account for the desire to live, and it is the Christian who “borrows capital” from the materialistic atheist’s worldview by using their built-in evolutionary programming every time they say that it’s a good thing to follow God’s law and avoid his wrath.

If anyone wants a copy of the show, register for free at Gene’s website Unchained Radio within the next week as it will be available for free download for a week. Alternatively, you can request it from me here in the comments section, and I will see what I can do. If anyone comments about the show, or criticisms of my arguments, etc… Feel free to post them here!

Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the MP3.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Aaron Kinney @ the Atheist Hour

This coming Sunday, September 18th, at 6:00pm Pacific Standard Time, I will be making a guest appearance on Pastor Gene Cook’s show The Atheist Hour at Unchained Radio. I think you have to register at the site to be able to listen to the show live, and don’t put registration off to the last minute. I attempted to register but haven’t received the confirmation email yet. So if anyone has any problems listening to the show on Sunday, post a comment here and I will give you a link you can download it from.

Derek Sansone’s appearance last week was interesting. I was unable to activate my registration and listen to the show live, so I had to have a friend provide me with a copy of the show. Derek is a moral relativist (something that I’m not) and I think the Christians enjoyed attacking him on that issue, themselves being oblivious to the fact that they are also moral relativists!

Hopefully I will get a chance to plug the Hellbound Allee show and my two blogs, as well as adequately defend and explain my materialist/objective morality/atheist worldview.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Geek Proves Atheist Wrong

This afternoon, I received an email from Jeffrey Czerniak. I promptly wrote him a reply. Both emails are reprinted below. First Jeffrey's email in blockquotes and italics, then my reply in just blockquotes (to help differentiate between emails). If you haven't already read my previous blog entry, Museum of Geeks, I suggest you do so before reading this post or either email.

Well, let me start out by saying that I really like your blog, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't. I linked to you back when you were just starting out (see, and I read your first couple of entries with great interest. I liked the way you framed belief in the afterlife as a devaluation of earthly life.

Thus, I was saddened to see that you make me sound like a douche on your website. "Museum of Idiots" is the title of a They Might Be Giants song, and it was meant to refer to idiots like Rudolph. I did not read the entry I linked to, but it was because I was laughing so hard at the title, I didn't think the article could top it in terms of entertainment value.

So yeah, I like your blog, my post was not meant to be taken ironically (for once), and I hope you can at least post this email so I can have my say.

P.S. I've detailed my rationale before for not having comments on In short, I hope that people will comment on my blogposts; I just don't want to pay the bandwidth charges to host their opinions. That's why I have trackbacks, so that people can write their own blogposts and link back to mine.

P.P.S. Another reason I don't have comments is that I don't want to be sued. See the following websites for a disturbing trend:


Now for my reply:

Hey Jeffrey!

Thank you for replying to me so quickly. Let me give you a little bit of a story. I’ll try to make it quick.

I found your blog linked to mine through technocrati. When I first read your post, it seemed crystal clear to me that you were making fun of my blog. I also acquired the immediate *hunch* that you didn’t actually READ my blog. I was going to ignore your post but then I got an idea that I could use it on my blog to make a point about evidence and conclusions by 1) questioning whether you made a judgment on my blog by only reading the title, and 2) if I got a reply from you, I thought I could use it as "evidence" that would either confirm or correct my guesses about your post.

Well, halfway through composing my blog post, I started to second-guess my first analysis of your post. I re-read your post and thought that maybe you weren’t making fun of me but were complimenting me. After all, you DO have Jesus' General linked from your blog page :) But the title of your blog post "Museum of Idiots" made me think that there was like a 75-80% chance you were insulting my blog. I thought you might have been a religious liberal and didn’t take kindly to my blog content, politics aside. I figured that a compliment was a long shot (I did had a "They Might Be Giants" CD in the past, I never looked at the case and am unfamiliar with actual song titles; I only know the songs by their number on the CD so I didn’t get understand your post title). So halfway through writing the blog entry I decided to admit that I wasn't sure and I wanted to suspend judgment until I got more evidence. I also decided to email you and see what you had to say. Now that I re-read my blog post, I realize there is an implied tone to the blog entry even though I thought I was suspending judgment and creating a good scenario/lesson about evidence.

I am going to make a new post tonight. I’m gonna post your email and say that I jumped a bit to conclusions, despite my proclamation of "reserving judgment." I am then of course going to make a point about evidence and perception and everything.

By the way, my comment about blogs not having comments was actually NOT directed at you (strange as it may seem) but was more directed at Paul Manata, Hashishan Prophet, and others who have wacky religious blogs that don’t allow comments. After recent posts by Manata regarding evolution and atheist philosopher Michael Martin, I got real steamed that he didn’t have comments on his blog anymore (and deleted the comments I had previously posted).

Sorry for making you sound like a douche. I do hope that you understand that the post you made was a little vague as to whether you were making a compliment or an insult, and that I did ponder at some length as to its true intentions. Expect a new post on my blog about this within a couple hours. Feel free to post on my comments as well and tell me what you think, even if it’s about your dissatisfaction with my post. The only comments I delete are spam :)

Aaron Kinney

I said it in my email and I'll say it again now. Jeffrey, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, which I did do to a large degree, even though I claimed that I would reserve judgment until I got more evidence. It is quite obvious in the tone of my previous post that I was leaning towards the wrong conclusion, that I treated Jeffrey harshly, and that I did it based on insufficient evidence.

Look at that, everyone. Even atheists that claim to be rational and impartial can come to incorrect conclusions. I am definitely no exception. Since man has been able to think, he has thought wrong about things. We used to think the Earth was flat. We used to think that everything in the universe revolved around our planet. We used to think that women determined the gender of offspring. And unfortunately, most of us still think that an immaterial afterlife, usually governed by an immaterial God, exists! These afterlife and God beliefs come from a time when we believed all these silly things about astronomy and offspring.

It's time for theists, pro-afterlifers, and other superstitious people to accept the evidence and admit that they are wrong. The only way anyone can improve their knowledge about anything is to admit that evidence trumps faith or preconception, even if it’s their own faith or preconception. Some of us are able to swallow our pride, admit that we thought wrong, and learn from our mistakes. I was able to back when I lost my faith, and I'm able to now when Jeffrey shows me that I had the wrong idea about him.

If God or Jesus or Ganesh or some other deity reveals itself to me, I will again admit I was wrong. But there's the rub: I'm asking for evidence, and it's all about faith to them.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Museum of Geeks

In between receiving bogus email addresses from females, blogger Jeffrey Czerniak at made a post entitled Museum of Idiots which featured a post from my blog. The post from my blog that he featured is Rudolph the Redneck Christian Terrorist. It's one of my favorite posts because of its clever title (LOL).

Well, Mr. Czerniak doesn't seem to think so. He says that he doesn't need to read my blog post because of its clever title. Awesome! But I think that the title of his post, "Museum of Idiots," is much more clever. At this point I can't tell if he is criticizing my blog or not. His entry title has the word "idiot" in it, but he refers to my blog as "super-clever" and his links section has blogs like Jesus' General and Panda’s Thumb. Hmmmmmmmmm.

While I did like the title I chose, I didn't think that it was so clever as to convey the entire meaning of the actual post: That convicted Olympics and abortion clinic bomber Eric Robert Rudolph is a Christian that terrorized and murdered his fellow Americans for religious reasons.

On second thought, I wonder if he actually read the post? Maybe he really did just make a judgment by the title alone! I wrote him an email, asking him if he read the post and if the title actually conveyed the message sufficiently. I hope reviewers of my blog would at least be kind enough to read my blog before making a judgment on it. Come to think of it, I hope that all the human beings on this planet are thoughtful enough to examine the contents of any claim or piece of information before judging it. The fact that people don't do this often enough is the reason why activist atheists like myself even exist! Hey, I didn't reject the Bible before I read it, and I'm suspending judgment on Jeffrey's love/hate of my blog until I get more evidence. Look at that, we all learned something about critical thought!

By the way, I'd like to take this moment to say that I don't like it when blogs don't have any place to put comments. At least have one comments-open post a week. Who's with me on that one?

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Derek Sansone @ the Atheist Hour

On Sunday, September 11th (!), at 6pm, Derek Sansone will be appearing on The Atheist Hour, hosted by Pastor Gene Cook. It is an hour long show of discussion between an atheist (this week, Derek) and a Christian (Gene). The show also takes callers.

If you're interested at all in the battle of ideas between Christians and atheists, you should tune in to the show.

P.S. I will be appearing on the same show one week later, on September 18th.

(Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.)

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Kristian Katrina Konfusion

Pro-afterlifers around the world are pretty consistent in their views on Katrina. They all agree that it is a calamity; a sorrowful event; a bad thing. As I stated in my previous Katrina-related post, A Hurricane of Hypocrisy, it makes no sense for all the pro-afterlifers of different faiths to consistently view this hurricane as a calamity. And in today’s post, I am going to take a look at the dead, the survivors, and the pro-afterlifers (of the Christian variety) that mourn them.

Christians mourn those who died at the hand of Katrina. Christians tell the survivors of Katrina that they are lucky that God spared them. Funny view to take considering that the dead (according to Christians) are now in that blissful place known as haven for all eternity, while the survivors are facing disease, dehydration, starvation, displacement, and financial ruin. To be fair, maybe not all the dead are in heaven, but the Christian ones are at least, and New Orleans was most likely more Christian than the 85% national average for America.

Assuming that the Christian worldview is correct, it can be decisively said that the deceased are now much better off than the survivors! The deceased are hanging out with Jesus, now free from pain and suffering and sorrow for all eternity. But the survivors are literally swimming in pain, suffering, and sorrow for at least a few more months, if not years. Why do the Christians mourn the dead and consider the survivors lucky?

The Christians mourn the dead as if they were actually dead (as in really dead with no afterlife or continuation of consciousness past death)! A true death, without the continuation of consciousness, would be the only thing that could justify the degree of mourning that these Christians display for the deceased.

It looks very similar to a stolen concept fallacy to me. It’s as if they subconsciously know that death = death, and does not result in some kind of life-after-death (which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one). Consciously of course, the Christians do not realize this, nor would they agree with my statements.

I imagine that a Christian would answer that they are actually mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence. That would be fair, but it would also be very narrow-minded. It would have to ask them “Well, aren’t you happy that the deceased is now in eternal bliss? Shouldn’t you be happy for them? Who are you crying for, yourself or the deceased?”

Clearly, the Christian who argues that they are mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence would automatically be conceding that they aren’t crying for the deceased, but crying for themselves. And that, my friends, would also be an admission by the Christians that they are actually mourning the survivors of the hurricane more than they are mourning the deceased. Whoops!
Either way, the Christian would prove me right: that mourning the (Christian) deceased makes no sense.

So let’s wrap up:

1. Christians mourning the deceased more than the survivors makes no sense.
2. Christians mourn the deceased as if they knew (subconsciously?) that the deceased were really, truly dead.
3. If they are mourning the deceased’s departure from Earthly life rather than their ascension to heaven, then they are actually mourning for themselves (and the survivors) instead of the deceased.

There are no theists in foxholes.

Friday, September 02, 2005

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology has written an argument against Christian Theology. I have agreed to publish his essay on my blog. I thought it would be fun to take a temporary departure from anti-afterlife arguments and publish a friend's anti-Christian essay. Those who know me, know that my favorite religious punching bag is Christianity. So enjoy Libertariandefender's essay, and trust that I will continue with more anti-afterlife posts in the near future.

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology

I. *Representative* Scientific Objections to The Bible:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?
2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?
3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language? How was this physiologically possible?

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km².
1. Stipulating that, how did Moses and the Israelites pass through it? After all, it was substantial enough to deluge Pharaoh's army.
2. If the sea was parted, how precisely was that done?

C. Jesus' resurrection.

1. How did Jesus rise from the dead, and walk around good as new, when after dozens of hours of being dead, he would be brain dead, with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells? It should be noted that brain death is irreversible in every instance. It cannot be turned back. It is permanent.

D. Noah's Ark.

1. How is it possible to hold all the world’s species in an ark with the dimensions specified? There are possibly up to 100 million animal species alone.
2. How is it possible to feed these millions of animals?
3. How did specific species and classes of animals become trapped on different continents? For example, most marsupials are only found in Australia. If the Noah’s Ark story were true, then we should expect a more homogeneous converge of species.
4. Why didn't many aquatic ecosystems die off from the massive change in salinity?
5. Why didn't many modern plants die out, as they should have?

Note: One may not cite "miracles" to explain any of these phenomena until the concept of "miracles" is shown to have a scrap of merit.

For Reference on Miracles:

II. Science's Take on Theism/Design/Creation/Divine Guidance:

A. Pervasive Atheism Among Eminent Scientists.
Information is from

In a survey of National Academy of Science scientists, 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. It should be noted that the NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States.

"Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

From these figures, we can conclude: 93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Science are in fact agnostic or atheists. Indeed, looking at a chart that includes figures from earlier in the 20th century, one can only come to the conclusion that top scientists are more atheistic than ever before.

Expanded percentages (among "greater" scientists):

Belief in personal God 1914/ 1933/ 1998
Personal belief 27.7/ 15/ 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7/ 68/ 72.2
Doubt/agnosticism 20.9/ 17/ 20.8

B. Illogic of Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent Designer.
This is by Steven Pinker, Psychology professor at Harvard University, and appeared in Time magazine:

"Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows."

C. Lack of Scientific Support for Creationism.

"...Taking into account only [scientists] working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief that they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates."

Note: The scientific community's opinion, in itself, does not constitute proof of anything. However, equivalency arguments, comparing scientific opinion to general public opinion, are transparently fallacious. One need only ask oneself how many people on a busy street corner have any idea what "homologous structures" are.

III. Objections to the Bible's Accuracy, Historicity, Connection to Reality:

A. Archaeological Fallibility.

Many times, Christians will falsely claim that archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible. They continue that the Bible's historical account has many times been substantiated by new archaeological information. Those are untruths.

"Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.

If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.

Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:

The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.

The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people.

There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all."

B. The Bible is Teeming With Errors/Contradictions.

"There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant. These include factual errors, for example:

Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.

Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.

1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

and Contradictions:

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus' lineage.

Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.

1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.

The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection. For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.

Matthew 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas's death.

Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.

Romans 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith versus deeds.

Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited."

C. Genesis' Incorrect Timeline.
Supposedly "infallible" Genesis has the natural timeline totally wrong.

"The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man."

"The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants."

IV. Logical Objections to Blind Theism (a.k.a. Debunking Pascal's Wager):

A. There is no point in believing in a God, even if one does exist, when one knows nothing about this deity's nature or expectations. For example, God could be benevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be benevolent and not care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and not care about one's actions. Saying "I follow the Christian faith just in case God exists" is utterly nonsensical. That would be like somebody saying, "I follow the Satanist faith just in case a malevolent God exists." With limitless plausible possibilities, there is no way one can "be on the safe side" in terms of not offending God. And thus, Pascal's Wager is a loser.

V. Moral Objections to the Christian Conception of God:

A. God's apparent bloodlust.
I'll quote the Scripture:

Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." (The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people.)
So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
Exodus 11 (1-6)

Rather than doing something to the Pharaoh for refusing to let the Israelites go free, God chose to murder every firstborn son in Egypt. What did the poor slave girl do to warrant her firstborn son being murdered? Did the slave girl set the Pharaoh's policies? Did the slave girl's firstborn son set the Pharaoh's policies? Punishing children for the immoral society into which they were born is simultaneously cowardly and cruel. Worshipping the God of Exodus is worshipping a God who apparently engaged in casual infanticide. It is amazing to think that God, who presumably has a totally unlimited pool of options, decided the very best option in this situation was to engage in infanticide.