There’s one question I’ve never heard asked as part of an inquiry into Christianity: Why was Jesus’ sacrifice considered to be so significant?

Let’s examine some facts.

1. He came here to die, and knew it was going to happen.
2. He knew it wouldn’t be permanent.
3. He isn’t dead.

You keep using the word “sacrifice”. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

So we have someone who’s basically a god, who knows he came here to die (but only for three days) after which he’d live forever.

You may be thinking that he was separated from God at the time, and that he was just a man, and that he felt pain and fear and disconnection.

But that’s not quite true. He knew he was going to live forever. He knew he was God. He knew “dying” wasn’t death at all, since he’s actually the creator of the universe and could simply regenerate himself, make 1,000 more universes if he wanted to, have 1,000 more sons if he wanted to, etc. Every single so-called obstacle was self-imposed.

“He gave his only begotten son.” Explain that to me. Explain how an omnipotent entity cannot simply create 10,000 more sons, or suns, or multiverses. He can change light to dark, change Coke to Pepsi, destroy the totality of existence as easily as he created it–whatever.

So the idea of him losing his only son, especially when he created the world in which it would happen, and then created the exact situation in which it would play out, all the while knowing exactly how it would play out, seems to not only take the sting out of it but reduces it to being ridiculous.

Remember that it was just him in the beginning. No universe, no planets, no Earth, no trees, no snakes, no evil–nothing. No people suffering. No people sad because they didn’t have happiness. Nothing. And into that world God injected all the pieces for this horrible existence to play out–exactly as he knew it would. That’s somewhere between careless and sickening, depending on how you look at it.

Some like to say that you can’t have good without evil. What kind of fourth-grader logic is that? There was nothing. No suffering. No people to suffer. Just God. It is not a moral act to create a species in which the vast majority of people who have ever lived will choose incorrectly and suffer an eternity of hell–when you have the option to 1) not create that world, or 2) create a different one where that’s not the case.

The free will argument (that he gave free will, so it’s on us) is beyond ludicrous. In the first case you can’t give someone true free will if you know all the variables that will affect their decisions. Not only do you know them, but you assembled them–atom by atom. If you go with, “He didn’t know every variable and every option”, then now he’s a horribly irresponsible and arguably evil entity that just gave a child a sawed off shotgun and an owners manual (but only some people got the manual, and only in a language that a small portion of the world speaks).

Anyway, that’s the setup. Then the claim is that he injects his only son (which he should be able to make more of) into this mix, so that he can die, so he can rescue the people he hand-made (atom by atom), from nothing (he also invented the atoms). Only the only son won’t actually die, he’ll actually live forever.

Oh, and the son is actually him. They’re the same person. Yeah.

But let’s say it’s all true. Granted. Good. Let’s say Jesus was actually scared when they came for him, and of course nobody doubts that being crucified would be excruciatingly painful.

But he knew he’d be back. He knew he’d live forever.

Let’s compare that with countless common soldiers and parents that have chosen endless suffering and torture rather than give up a loved one. How about the numerous protesters who have lit themselves on fire to make a political point? And do you not think that dozens or hundreds of people have been literally been crucified (just like Jesus) because they failed to sell out a friend, a family member, or a lover?

How is Jesus’ sacrifice considered so special when things like it have been done by thousands of regular humans who weren’t actually Gods who knew they’d live forever?

Precisely nothing about this story makes sense. It’s 2012. Grow the fuck up.

::

This is the perhaps the best single pitch against religious belief that I’ve ever seen, and I plan on capturing it in argument form at some point, along with related gems from other greats over time.

People who care about these things need to have these reasons available, and to be able to produce them and expand on them when asked. Otherwise the objection to religion appears to be purely anger-driven and confrontational without purpose.

Secular people: please consider learning these arguments. Religious people: please consider understanding these arguments, and preparing your best reasons for opposing them so that we may move the conversation forward.

“I think one of the things we’ve seen happen, and Dennett talks about this in Breaking the Spell, and then he talks about this again in his little article, “Preachers who are not believers,” that people of faith and people who use faith as a process to know the world think that the fact that they use this process to know the world, this is actually a moral issue for them. They think that this way of thinking—I’m hesitant to use the word ‘reasoning’—this way of thinking about the world makes them better people. It imbues upon them a certain characteristic, a quality. A moral quality. Using this way of thinking is a value. And that somehow that value makes them a good person or a better person or more just or a more humble or noble person…. So many people fall for this idea that if somebody says that they are a person of faith, then somehow that means they must be a good person, or a decent person, or a kind person. When in fact that’s not true. It’s just a process of reasoning that will lead one away from the truth.”

From Dr. Peter Boghossian.

EDIT: This is now one of my favorite essays of all time — up there with “What I Believe” by Bertrand Russell.

One of the most commonly held debates between non-believers is that of whether someone is agnostic or atheist. The problem is that both terms have, in addition to their various, actual definitions, a number of associations that go along with them, and this generally injects confusion into the discussions.

What I wanted to do then was build a simple argument for why most agnostics should in fact consider themselves atheists. It goes like so:

1. The definition of atheism is someone who does not believe in a God or gods.¹ [OAD, see below]
   
   
2. You don’t believe in God or gods. [Your own claim]
   
   
3. Therefore, you are an atheist. [Deduction]

Or, in a simpler form: “If you don’t actively believe in God/gods, then you’re an atheist.” It doesn’t matter if you’re not sure about them NOT existing, but if you yourself don’t believe then you’re an atheist according to this argument.

Keep in mind that this argument, while strictly valid for this definition is not necessarily sound because there are multiple definitions for atheist. This makes the argument valid but unsound for other definitions which give a strong form, such as “The belief that there are no Gods.”

In short, if the definition of atheism entails a lack of belief, most agnostics are atheists. If it entails a belief in the lack of God/gods, then they aren’t.

Also, this argument doesn’t account for whether one would want to be considered an atheist — apart from whether they actually are one — as that’s something completely separate. ::

Notes

¹The Oxford American Dictionary lists as its only definition of atheism, the “disbelief in the existence of God or gods.” Disbelief is defined by The Oxford American Dictionary as, “inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.”