I’ve been thinking about something lately: Christian salvation. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians said, “For by grace are ye saved and through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” The way this has been explained to me is that salvation is something that comes by grace, through faith, and not something anyone earns. In Evangelical circles, this kind of grace is described as unmerited favor. Unmerited: Not earned. Less

When Christians show up on this site, it is usually to argue. Rather than present positive evidence for their beliefs, they choose instead to throw out what I call side arguments on a variety of topics. These side arguments are not necessarily meant to show that Christianity is true, but they are meant to show that non-belief is an untenable worldview. Instead of presenting any positive evidence for the existence of a God, a Jesus, angels, devils, etc., they’ll attack from different angles. The following is not meant as a comprehensive covering of all the possible apologetic directions Christians are in the habit of taking, but just a few of my favorite. Less

Hello, you’re listening to the Ex-Christian Monologues, a podcast from ExChristian.Net. I’m Dave, and today’s date is April 24, 2006. Today I want to talk a little bit about Christianity’s historic relationship with witchcraft. This is part one of a three-part podcast. Part One draws heavily on the History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff and the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Schaff’s classic work is in the public domain and freely available on the Internet. Most primitive cultures attributed witches with the power to supernaturally injure crops, animals, health, and possessions. Many ancient cultures created laws to punish the offense. As in other cultures, the ancient Hebrews condemned witchcraft, as expressed in the Mosaic Law (Deut 18:10 & Exodus 22:18). Following in Judaism’s footsteps, the early Christian Church believed in and condemned witchcraft Acts 19:19, Acts 8:9. (Click here for Moree examples). Belief in witchcraft never disappeared, but it wasn’t always severely persecuted. The Synod of Reisbach in 799, for example, formally mandated penance as a punishment for women convicted of witchcraft, but prohibited any capital punishment. For a time the official rhetoric of the Church even tried to tone down belief in magic or witchcraft, labeling it as either false superstition or delusion. For centuries Christianity had taught that God was in HIS heaven, far removed from human society. The Church encouraged people to be content with their miserable, medieval lot in life. Poverty and sickness were considered gifts of God that helped people remain holy by focusing their minds away from this world and on to the next. Physical pleasures should be shunned — this life was to be endured, but not necessarily enjoyed. Common people weren’t easily convinced to meekly adopt this philosophy — many hung on tenaciously to a belief in magic. They thought magic could empower them to deal with the some harsh realities of their lives. Belief in magic, instead of subsiding, actually grew. Some so-called heretical groups, and some well meaning churchmen, doubted that witchcraft was anything more than illusions of the Devil. Most were convinced that witchcraft was a real power, fueled by the denizens of hell. Witches were reportedly transporting people through the air and holding meetings, or sabbats, where they indulged in lust-filled orgies with demons. Mention is given to these activities in the The Bishop’s Canon, which appeared first in the 10th century and was later incorporated by Franciscus Gratianus, a lawyer from Bologna, in his collection of canon law in 1150. Women confessed to flying through the air, but Gratianus considered the women delusional. English author, diplomat and bishop of Chartres John of Salisbury, felt the stories illusions propagated by the Devil. But, his contemporaries, such as Englishman Walter Map, reported that the wild orgies were real, with the Devil appearing on the scene in the form of a tom-cat. According to Philip Schaff, the daughter of a count was carried through the air every night, one night even escaping the arms a Franciscan monk who tried to hold her back. In 1275, a woman of Toulouse, under torture, confessed she had indulged in sexual intercourse with a demon for many years and had given birth to a part wolf, part serpent, monster. She added that she sustained the creature by feeding murdered children to it. Pope after pope called upon the Inquisition to root out and punish witches alongside the heretics they were already persecuting. Pope Gregory IX issued a bull in 1231 invoking the use of civil punishment against witchcraft. Dominican theologians spread the belief that incubi and succubi were mating with people—a belief that was rooted in Augustine’s “City of God,” xv23., as well as in the Genesis account of angels mating with humans. In 1233, Pope Gregory IX asserted that the Devil was making appearances in the forms of a toad, a pallid ghost and a black cat. His papal bull, the “Vox Rama,” shockingly and graphically detailed what was taking place during witch’s satanic, sexual orgies, and with the stroke of his pen launched an official, large-scale persecution of witches. In 1274, Thomas Aquinas supported the claims that humans were cohabitation with demons, and even declared that old women could inject an evil essence into young people with just a glance. I suppose that’s where the evil eye myth was born. Jean Gerson, the leading theologian of his age, said it was heresy and impious to doubt the practice of witchcraft, and Pope Eugenius IV spoke in detail about those who made pacts with demons and sacrificed to them. Among all the papal and other documents on witchcraft, perhaps the place of pre-eminence is held by the papal bull, Summis desiderantes issued by Innocent VIII in 1484. The pontiff wrote, “…by their incantations, charms, and conjurings… they cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth… and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover, they deny with sacrilegious lips the faith… at the risk of their own souls, to the insult of the divine majesty and to the pernicious example and scandal of multitudes.” Witchcraft was now classified a heretical cult. Not only that, but it was considered heretical to not believe in the power of the Devil. The punishments against witchcraft were carefully laid out, as well as the methods for detecting and trying witches. The hitherto sporadic cases of witchcraft were now to be viewed as a cohesive group that had been marshaled together by Satan to attack and destroy Christianity. In view of this calamitous assault on Christ, the pope commissioned Henrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, educated Dominicans who occupied high positions at the University of Cologne, to systematically bring witches to trial and punishment. They carried out their assignment with a vengeance. ref Pope Innocent’s immediate successors followed his lead and anyone who opposed the repressive measures could be considered in league with the witches. In the case of Venice, the entire state was threatened by Leo X if it did not obey the Inquisition in apprehending witches. Venice bowed to the Pope’s threat, and within a year Venice had sentenced 70 witches to the flames. The Witches Hammer, the Malleus maleficarum, is the most important and nefarious legacy the world has on witchcraft. Published in 1486, it was written by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger. Their book is divided into three parts: the first proves the existence of witchcraft; the second sets forth the forms in which it manifested itself; the third describes the rules for its detection and prosecution. It states that the world in the last quarter of the 15th century was more given over to the devil than in any preceding age. It appeals to the Scriptures, the teachings of the Church and especially to Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for support. Witches and sorcerers are described as meeting at weekly sabbats and do the devil homage by kissing his ass. Satan appears among them as a tom-cat, goat, dog, bull or black man while demons of both sexes swarm at the meetings. During these sabbats, baptism and the Eucharist are ridiculed and the cross trampled upon. After an abundant feast the lights are extinguished and at the devil’s command of “Mix, mix,” the participants celebrate with a lewd orgy. The devil, however, is a strict disciplinarian and applies the whip to errant members. Further, the book states that witches are supposedly transported through the air, they kill unbaptized children, and later they eat them. There is a very frequent mention of sexual intercourse. To quote: “…it is common to all of them to practice carnal copulation with devils.” Interestingly, there are two full chapters devoted to this topic alone. For evidence of the reality of their charges, the authors cite their own extensive experience and declare that, in 48 cases of witches brought before them and burnt, all the victims confessed to having practiced abominable whoredoms for between 10 to 30 years. Among the precautions which the book prescribed against being bewitched, are the Lord’s Prayer, the cross, holy water and salt, and the Church formulas of exorcism. It also adds that inner grace is a preservative. The directions for the prosecution of witches, given in the third part of the treatise, are set forth in great detail. Public rumor was a sufficient cause for an indictment. The accused were to be subjected to the indignity of having the hair shaved off from their bodies, especially the more secret parts, lest perchance some imp or charm might be hidden there. Careful rules were given to the inquisitors for preserving themselves against being bewitched. If someone too zealously defended the witch, then that was taken as evidence that he was himself under the same influence. One of the devices for exposing guilt was a sheet of paper the length of Christ’s body inscribed with the seven words of the cross. This was to be bound on the witch’s body at the time of the mass, and then the ordeal of torture was applied. This measure almost invariably brought forth a confession of guilt. The ordeal of the red-hot iron was also recommended, but it was to be used with caution, as it was the trick of demons to cover the hands of witches with a salve made from a vegetable essence which kept them from being burnt. Such a case supposedly happened in Constance, the woman being able to carry the glowing iron six paces and thus going free. The Witches Hammer was printed in many editions. It was issued 13 times before 1520 and 16 more times from 1574–1669. That concludes part one of a three part series on Christianity’s fascination with witchcraft. You’ve been listening to the Ex-Christian Monologues, a podcast from ExChristian.Net. Ref: Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge | History of the Christian Church | The Malleus Maleficarum Less

Hello, I’m Dave, and you’re listening to the ExChristian Monologues for April 9, 2006. Today’s podcast is entitled: “The Meaning of Life.” Christianity brags that it holds the ultimate meaning and purpose for human life. It states most emphatically that the whole purpose of the human experience is to enjoy God and glorify Him forever. It boldly claims that any and all activity outside of the narrow path is worldly, of the devil, and ultimately worthless. While finding a valuable meaning for an individual life is something most people desire, to accuse all who reject the claims of Christianity to be living worthless lives, is arrogantly rude, and historically it’s been destructive. In 540 A.D. Christianity was given a unique opportunity to demonstrate the power of its worldview. Soon after the bubonic plague struck Byzantium that year, striking down 10,000 people a day until 100 million lives had been lost, the Roman Empire was destroyed. Christianity benefited immensely from the pandemic as droves of terrified people flocked into the Church. Christianity castigated secular medicine for failing to cure the plague. The Church subsequently declared all secular medicine heretical. For the next ten centuries, blood-letting, herbal remedies and prayer became the treatments of choice for every ailment. With medical advancement at a standstill, millions died, perhaps as many from the treatment as the malady. Developments in science and technology were abandoned. Extensive aqueduct and plumbing systems created by earlier generations disappeared. Since the sinful flesh was to be despised, even washing was discouraged. Disease of ever type ran rampant as hygiene and sanitation was forgotten. The vast network of roads that enabled transportation and communication fell into disrepair and remained that way until the 19th century. Ref Book burning became commonplace. In the sixth century B.C.E., Pythagoras had already suggested that the Earth revolved around the Sun. By the third century B.C.E., Aristarchus had outlined heliocentricity while Eratosthenes had measured the circumference of the Earth. Hipparchus had invented longitude and latitude. After the onset of the Christian Dark Ages, it wouldn’t be until the 1500’s that Copernicus would reintroduce the forgotten theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. When Galileo attempted to promote the theory, he was tried by the Inquisition in Rome for heresy. It’s untrue to assume only the Roman Catholic Church condemned heliocentricity, Calvin and Luther, the founders of the Protestant Reformation, also harshly condemned the idea, insisting that as it contradicted the Scriptures, it was therefore false. Even as early as the fourth century St. Augustine had written, ”It is impossible there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the Earth, since no such race is recorded in Scripture among the descendents of Adam.” Historical research was nonexistent and what history there was, was rewritten to conform to the Bible. Modern archeology has proven that human history far exceeds 6000 years, but until very recent years, nearly all English Bibles placed a date on Genesis 1:1 at 4004 B.C. We now know that well before 4000 B.C., rich cultures already existed with well developed art,agriculture, architecture, city-planning, dance, drama, trade, writing, law, and even a few forms of democratic government. History is replete with significant forward development followed by major setbacks. While Christianity claims to have gradually lifted humanity out of dark ignorance of a dark pre-Christian world, the truth is opposite. The longest and darkest setback in the progression of western civilization lies at the feet of Christianity. Ignorance was crowned king when the great libraries in Alexandria in were burned in 391. Ancient academies were closed and education for anyone outside the clergy ended. The Fourth Council of Carthage, in canon 16, permits only Bishops to read the books of heretics in a time of need.. Jerome, a Church Father in the fourth century, reportedly rejoiced that the classical authors were being forgotten. St. John Chrysostom, a preeminent Greek Father of the Church said, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the Earth.” Whether medicine, art, science, history, music, reading, writing or math, everything was to be brought into conformity with the accepted doctrines of Christianity. The laity and the priest craft were kept ignorant of any ideas outside of a religiously Christian framework. Even the monasteries, filled with educated monkish scribes, were consigned to only preserving works of religious devotion. All other types of literature were consigned to oblivion, hidden away or destroyed, considered at best meaningless works of the flesh, or at worst distractions to lead astray the pious. Worldly writings were thought more suited for the flames, as their authors were destined for hell. Every thought was to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. I know that in my own life, while a youth, I believed there was no greater purpose in life than learning about, and serving, my Lord. I believed the Rapture would occur any day, and nothing could take priority over saving the lost. Prior to my conversion I was an A student, but in the following years I spurned secular academics and neglected my studies in exchange for what I considered more worthy, eternal pursuits. In my mind, higher learning and high paying jobs were vain. Temporal pursuits, I thought, were not worthy of an eternal resident of heaven. So what about purpose? While immersion in a religion may bring about a feeling of purpose, it is a false purpose, one that ultimately hampers all human creative expression and growth. Without religion, or belief in a God that is directing history, it becomes immediately apparent that our species and our lives are fragile, subject to being snuffed out without much notice by the rest of the Universe. Our sun and our planet are obviously not eternal, and our survival as a species is fraught with uncertainties. Great monsters, called dinosaurs, ruled this planet for an impossibly long time before extinction took them away. Without some god to guarantee our survival, extinction is a very real possibility for us. Without a promise of personal survival in some heaven, the only real immorality we can hope to achieve is through our children and grandchildren – the generations of humanity that follow in our footsteps. Pursuing personal enlightenment through religion may provide an appearance of purpose, but it is ultimately a selfish pursuit. Personal religion is about my salvation, my god, my jeweled crown, my holiness, my Bible, my prayer time, my church, my group, my denomination, my experience, my, my, my, my, my. I would say that a far higher purpose – a better purpose – than mindless obedience to religion, would be a life devoted to making the world a better place to live for all of us. By striving to better our neighborhoods, our communities, our nations, and our world, we have a better chance of ensuring a good future for everyone. Ultimately we each make and choose our own purpose. Jesus does not have a plan for my life; I have a plan for my life. It falls to me to take responsibility for my own life and bring my plan to pass. This has been the podcast of ExChristian.Net for April 9, 2006. Less

Hello, I’m Dave, the webmaster of ExChristian.Net and you’re listening to the Ex-Christian Monologues for April 3, 2006. The topic for this podcast is “Good and Evil.” What is good and what is evil? Where do we get our definition of good and evil? What is the source of our understanding of morality, and how do we decide what is moral vs. what is immoral? Christians claim that without the commandments of God, there is no standard to determine good from evil – morality from immorality. Without the Bible, Christians say, everyone would do what was right in their own eyes, meaning there would be moral anarchy. Supposedly, without God’s mind on the subjects of good and evil, Hitler can be considered every bit as moral as Gandhi. Morality apart from God, it is insisted, would be subject to being decided by majority opinion. And, as we all know, majority opinion frequently changes. Disobeying God’s commands, according to the writer of 1 John, chapter 3, verse 4, is the definition of sin, the definition of evil. Okay, if disobeying God’s commands defines evil, then suppose God commanded that lying, stealing and murder were now moral obligations? Would lying, stealing and murder then become good? Would the failure to lie, steal, and murder then become sin? Suppose God ordered slaughter, genocide, and bloodshed – would those actions become good and the disobedience of His order be considered evil? It’s immaterial to this discussion as to whether God would ever, or has ever, ordered lying, stealing, murder, or genocide. The point is, if He ordered these things, would these actions become moral, and would the failure to obey the commands be immoral? If God commanded genocide, would genocide be good? Is genocide, under any circumstances, the right thing to do? Christians insist that good is defined by what God commands, whereas my premise is that good is defined independently from any god. If there is no definition of good apart from God’s commands, then we have a real problem. How can we be sure that God, or what He commands, is good? We have to have an idea of what defines “good” before we can point out that quality in God, or decide that God even fits the definition of good. If God is the definition of good, then we have no information on what good means. If God does not answer to any standard, and whatever he does or commands defines good, then the word good, when applied to God, is meaningless. Everything is potentially good, or potentially evil, depending on the whims of God. To identify “God’s goodness” we need to have some standard outside of God in order to differentiate his goodness from his other attributes. Without some way to segregate his goodness from his other qualities, we might confuse his power, or possibly his omniscience, with his goodness. Example: If I am trying to purchase white paint, I need to know what white means. I need a point of reference, a way to compare between things. Without a prior understanding of the color white, there would be no way for me to identify the correct color – I might come home with blue paint. I think we’d all agree that the word paint does not in any way define the meaning of the word white. How about this example: If every time you see me, I tell you I am fat, yet each time you see me my weight has fluctuated up or down by 100 or more pounds, then the word fat, when I use it to describe myself, has no meaning. If I weigh 150lbs, or 300lbs, and I always call myself fat, then if I’m on the phone and tell you I’m fat, the word gives you no information. If good has no definition outside of “God’s commands” then the word good has no meaning when used to describe God, because good is whatever God commands, regardless of what those commands might be. Nearly everyone agrees that genocide, murder, theft, lying, etc. are wrong, but they are either immoral because God says so they are inherently immoral independent of God’s commands. If those things are immoral independent of God’s commands, then moral standards do not originate from God, and God himself finds he must answer to that standard. If someone insists that God wouldn’t command atrocities, or murder, etc., because of his nature, his justice, or his love, we still run into the same problem. We still have a god answering to a standard outside of him, something defined as justice or love. If God defines love and justice, then again, we have more meaningless words. Another argument is that our own moral judgment is fallen and therefore inadequate to determine right from wrong without God. But if our moral judgment is so unreliable, then how can we rely on it to determine that what God commands is good? I am convinced that the foundational definition and understanding of good and evil – morality, if you will – is independent of the commands of any god. For the most part, people throughout history, regardless of culture or religion, have agreed that lying, stealing, murder, and so on are generally wrong. However, the finer details of what defines moral vs. immoral behavior does change with the times. Just a few years ago, many good Christians didn’t dance, play cards, wear shorts, or show bare skin at the beach. Now, few Christians see these things as sin. Not long ago in America, slavery was defended as moral by a huge block of Christians. It required a war to decide the issue, and now few would consider a return to slavery as morally desirable. Interestingly, the Bible has been used to support the positions of both sides of these, and many other discussions. I don’t believe basic foundational morality is defined by majority opinion, but neither do I believe that morality is defined by the commands of a god. When I was a Christian I believed that turning the other cheek was a command of God. Yet, even then I knew that if someone threatened the physical well being of my family, I’d have no compunction in defending their safety. If someone entered my home uninvited, brandishing a weapon, I’d feel no guilt in putting a bullet through the invader’s heart, and society would likely have judged me guiltless. I believe that a better explanation of the origins of our moral sense is rooted in the primal needs of our species. We are social creatures, who band together in family, tribes, and nations. We crave security and safety. We desire survival for ourselves and for our children. The societal rules and laws we’ve developed over the centuries, the ones that have stood the test of time, find their originations in fulfilling these basic human needs. Good must be identifiable apart from the commands of a god, or good has no meaning. Therefore, a god is not necessary for defining good and evil. You’ve been listening to the ExChristain Monologues, a podcast from ExChristian.Net. Less

Welcome to the ex-Christian monologues, a podcast from the webmaster of exchristian.net. I’m Dave, the webmaster, and it’s March 26, 2006. Here’s a comment someone posted on ExChristian.Net just this morning: “May I ask you a question?” writes the poster. “How are you so sure that there is no god. I think I understand well the position of agnostics. But I am curious about your conviction of no god. Anybody tell me?” It is both frustrating and fascinating the number of times I’ve seen this question. The people asking are usually sincere, or appear sincere – they believe they are asking a pretty good question, one the requires a pretty good answer. Some people think that by simply asking that question, or some variation of it, that they’ve made a good point, or proven something. Another version of the “how can you be sure there is no god” question, would be: “what is your evidence that there is no god?” Okay, let’s consider this for a bit. Here’s a statement: There is a god. Here’s another statement: There is no god. On the face of it, many people see these two statements as almost two sides of the same coin. What I mean by that is that Christians generally see these two statements: There is a god, vs. There is no god, as equal. But are they really equal? Let’s create a scene here. I’m no longer a Christian and I’m talking to a Christian friend. My Christian friend states there is a god and I deny that there is a god. Surprised by my denial, he asks me for my evidence that there is no god. I ask him for his evidence that there is a god and he shakes his head, asking again for my evidence that there is no god. We seem to be at an impasse. Then he waves his arms dramatically and proclaims, “Look at the world we live in, the complexity and variety of life, the beauty of creation, the majesty of the heavens. That is evidence of my god.” I look around, and I have to admit, his description is apt. Life is wonderful and so is the rest of the Universe. I have to agree with him on that. What I deny is that the existence of the Universe gives incontrovertible evidence of a god, or that a god played a role in creating the Universe. My friend and I share a few common beliefs. We both believe life is grand and that the Universe exists, and is magnificent. Now my friend wants to add another belief to this list, a belief in a god. Now, I freely admit, I don’t know where the Universe came from, if it came from anywhere. I don’t know why our planet appears beautiful to my eyes, or how life can be so complex. I don’t know – I admit it. My Christian friend has offered an explanation for the existence of these things – things we can both agree are quite remarkable. Now, this is where the in breakdown in our conversation starts – right here. My friend is the one offering an explanation for why the Universe exists and why it is the way it is. I am not offering an explanation; I’m claiming ignorance on these points. He is claiming authoritative knowledge. Now, when someone claims to know the reasons for something, it’s proper to expect some justification from them before accepting the explanation. Let me put it another way. Someone could state that the Earth is being held in space and spun by giant invisible spirits. Now, before anyone would be expected to accept that belief, they would be well within their rights to ask for some evidence that supports the belief. I agree that the world is hanging on nothing and spinning. I might not know how the Earth could possibly hang in space and spin, but I don’t believe invisible ghosts on steroids are pushing it in a steady rotation. I might not even have a better explanation than a “ghost theory,” but I still deny that such a thing is true. It falls to the person who claims to have the explanation to provide the supporting evidence. It doesn’t fall to me to provide evidence as to why I don’t believe in the ghostly world turners. All I need do is state that the evidence presented by the “spirit theorists” is unconvincing. I need not provide evidence as to why I deny the explanation; I simply deny that the evidence presented is sufficient for me to accept and believe. Let’s consider another example. A man’s windshield is smashed and he accuses his neighbor of the crime. The neighbor denies having done it, and asks for the accuser’s evidence. The accuser replies with, “Where is YOUR evidence that you didn’t commit the crime?” I can hear it already! “That’s not the same thing.” Isn’t it? Let’s see, the two neighbors agree that there is a smashed windshield. The owner of the car has a belief. He believes his neighbor is responsible for the crime. He thinks the smashed windshield is enough evidence to prove his neighbor’s responsibility in the matter. He offers no evidence for the crime except that there is a smashed windshield and his belief. Everyone can agree there is a smashed windshield, but one person has stated a belief, an explanation for smashed windshield. Similarly, my Christian neighbor and I agree there is a Universe, but he has offered his belief, his explanation for the Universe. As with the windshield, it falls to the person making the explanation to provide evidence supporting the explanation. Should the windshield case ever come before a judge, the accuser will need to present evidence supporting his allegation – his belief – first that he has a neighbor and secondly that his neighbor sabotaged his property. The accused will need to present nothing, except maybe to show that the evidence is insufficient to prove his guilt. Okay, suppose I say I’ve designed wings that when strapped on my arms, will make me fly. My friends deny that I’ve made such a thing. It falls to me to prove my assertion; it doesn’t fall to my friends to prove their lack of faith. How about I tell you I was taken into a UFO where I had nice chat over tea with Bigfoot. Would you believe me? If not, why not? Any reasonable person would expect me to provide some solid evidence before believing that Sasquatch and I are acquaintances who occasionally have lunch with Extraterrestrials. Skeptics would be justified in saying “I don’t think so.” It wouldn’t fall to the skeptic to give evidence for his or her lack of belief in my little story, no matter how much I believed it myself. Still, I can hear the Christian voices, “Prove there is no god! See, you can’t prove it! Therefore, God exists!” The demand for disproof can never lead anywhere. I can say “there is good evidence that a god does not exist.” Then I could challenge the Christian to prove that my evidence doesn’t exist. The Christian could counter with “There is evidence that your evidence doesn’t exist – prove that there is no evidence disproving your evidence.” The discussion quickly gets confusing, and silly, and goes absolutely nowhere. Now if the Christian could offer some evidence that his or her god exists, then a fruitful discussion might ensue. I don’t believe in Bigfoot, fairies, ghosts that like to play spin-the-world, or Zeus. Until some solid evidence is presented supporting a belief in these things, I can say with much confidence that none of these things exist, except in stories and in the imaginations of some people. I need not PROVE that Bigfoot, fairies, world lifting spirits, or the gods on Mt Olympus don’t exist. It falls to those who state any of these things DO exist to provide the evidence supporting their beliefs. In a similar fashion, I can claim that the Christian God does not exist. There is simply insufficient evidence supporting the existence of a god. Pointing to the Universe as evidence of Christianity’s god, is much like pointing at the smashed windshield as evidence that the neighbor smashed it. In the story there is a smashed windshield, and how it happened is a mystery. Evidence must be presented showing that the neighbor was indeed responsible for smashing the windshield. Likewise, there is a Universe, and its genesis is frankly, a mystery. Now it’s time to see the evidence that supports the Christian’s accusation that the Christian god is responsible for the Universe. Less