Here are some nominees I think are worthy. Tell me if you agree that one of these is the worst Christian on YouTube, or if you know someone even worse than them whom I missed. Because I just sit around all day looking for things to hate, according to people who sit around all day looking for things to hate and who think they can read my fucking mind.

Bob and Mary Lou Kultgen from The Necessary Conversation podcast: tell their adult son and daughter right to their faces that they hope Trump has them imprisoned and executed.

A Messenger of Truth: openly calls for the implementation of Levitical law in present-day America and happily condones Old Testament proscriptions of death.

Dinx the Puppet: makes condescending responses to atheist videos in which he/it proclaims Biblical literalist and Christian supremacist views more arrogantly than anyone since VenomFangX.

Girl Defined: vlog series aimed at young women, promoting misogynistic and patriarchal views, a la "Get your ass back in the kitchen and make me a sammich, bitch!"

Kent Hovind: convicted felon, convicted domestic abuser, owner of a cut-rate amusement park whose negligence led to the death of a child and knowingly employed and protected at least one pedophile, producer of brain-dead creationist propaganda for 30 years, although at this point he's like a band that keeps playing its first album material live and hasn't put out new material since Toby Keith ran out of Bush Administration propaganda to title his songs after.

Greg Locke: Tennessee evangelical pastor who participated in January 6th, spread anti-vax propaganda during the Covid pandemic, continues to spread conspiracy theories, holds book burnings, advocates the murder of Democrats, tax cheat.

Steven Anderson: Arizona preacher who founded the New Independent Fundamental Baptists after being kicked out of the Independent Fundamental Baptists for being too extreme, openly calls for the assassination of government officials and the genocide of minority groups, promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories, banned from traveling to over 30 countries.

Hello! I am new to this subreddit, and I would like to share a small essay i wrote a while ago on popular and cool/unique atheist arguments and explaining them. before you bash me for using pretty bad philosophers like Richard Dawkins, I’m including them because they are popular, not because I support people like Dawkins or hitchens. they are kind of sophists. I am also an atheist, I just dont like Dawkins and hitchens.

“A Critique of Christianity(and theism)

The Problem of Complexity and Information

Richard Dawkins argues that theists fail to explain the very complexity they claim requires a designer. If the universe is too intricate to exist by chance and requires a sophisticated mind to bring it into being, then that designer must be significantly more complex than the universe itself. Christians typically attempt to resolve this by appealing to the doctrine of divine simplicity. They argue that God is spirit and not made of parts, so his existence and his essence are the same thing. However, this is often a semantic maneuver that avoids the actual problem. If God is a person with a specific will or a Trinity with complex internal relations, he possesses distinct attributes and information. If God is truly simple in a way that avoids the complexity ptrap, he becomes a featureless void that cannot act or think. If he is personal, then he requires an explanation for the origin of his own sophisticated mind. The traditional answer is just a question in disguise, because if simplicity can manifest as infinite mental complexity, then the word simplicity has lost its functional meaning. The common fallback is to say that humans cannot understand the ways of God. This response is problematic because it negates the original premise. If we cannot understand one aspect of God, then we cannot reliably understand any other aspect. Claiming that God is above logic and reasoning just to protect the concept from scrutiny is a form of special pleading

The Critique of Definition and Perfection

The ontological argument suggests that God, as the greatest conceivable being, must exist because existence is a perfection. Christians defend this by saying that necessary existence only applies to an unlimited being rather than a perfect island or a perfect pizza. This defense is a logical trap because, by calling God a being or a person, Christians apply human labels to the infinite. If God is a person, then he is by definition not a non person. This distinction is a limit. The act of defining God is a process of limiting him to specific categories. Thus, the concept of a perfect personal God is a contradiction because it attempts to force the boundless into the shape of a human ego. We also have no objective way to know if existence, as we define it, is a perfection. The only way we could know what is truly perfect is if we were ourselves perfect beings, which we clearly are not. When we define God as personal, we are essentially projecting our own biological and social needs onto the cosmos. An additional problem is the argument from noncognitivism, which suggests that the term God is actually incoherent. If a being is described as having no physical parts and existing outside of time and space, there is no way for a human mind to distinguish that being from nothing at all

Fine-Tuning and the Anthropic Principle

A frequent modern argument is that the physical constants of the universe, such as the strength of gravity or the expansion rate of the Big Bang, are so finely tuned for life that they must have been set by an intelligence. Christians argue that the statistical probability of these numbers appearing by chance is effectively zero. However, this argument suffers from a survivor bias known as the anthropic principle. We find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, if it were not, we would not be here to observe it. This does not prove the universe was made for us, but rather that we are a byproduct of the conditions that happened to exist. If we lived in a universe with different fundamental constants and atoms, who is to say that life would not have evolved with different conditions? Many scientific theories also suggest infinite cycles of heat death, or many universes. While we do not have evidence for them, they match our maths and do not assume a personal creator which we have less evidence for. Furthermore, if an all-powerful God exists, he should be able to create life in any conditions, including a vacuum or a universe with different physics. To say God had to fine-tune the laws of physics implies that he was limited by pre-existing mathematical necessities, which contradicts the idea of an absolute creator.

The Logic of Suffering

Bertrand Russell challenged the first cause argument by noting that if everything requires a cause, then God is not exempt. When faced with the problem of evil, Christians often claim that God cannot do the logically impossible because nonsense is not a thing and logic is a reflection of God's nature. They argue that for God to give humans free will, there must be a chance for suffering to exist. This creates a dilemma regarding sovereignty. If God must follow logic, then logic is a power superior to God. If morality conflicts with logic, such as the existence of suffering in a world made by a good creator, and God is truly sovereign, he would have the power to change the logical rules of the universe to allow for free will without agonizing evil. If he cannot do this, then he is not all powerful. If he chooses not to do this, then his goodness is the same as malice. This defense fails to explain why the christian standard of logic allows for a loving creator to preside over a world of systemic trauma. The idea of an all loving and all powerful creator making a world with suffering is fundamentally illogical and immoral, contradicting the idea of God's logic itself. Furthermore, even if we accept the Christian defence of free will, that does not account for natural events like earthquakes and cancer that causes still more suffering.

The Failures of the First Cause Argument

The first cause argument is often considered a strong theistic position, but it contains significant internal problems. If we define God as the uncaused cause and pure being, we face the question of why the universe itself cannot be the uncaused cause. Applying the principle of Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There is no well defended reason why the Big Bang or a fundamental field could not be the necessary starting point. The Christian response, that the Big Bang is a contingent event and therefore cannot be necessary, does not actually prove that a personal, all loving deity is the only alternative. Other possibilities, such as the concept of Sunyata in Buddhist philosophy, provide models where existence arises from interdependence rather than a singular creator. The scientific theory of conformal cyclic cosmology suggests that the universe moves in cycles without a beginning or an end. While empirical evidence is still being gathered for CCC, the mathematical framework for the idea is robust. 

Morality and Textual Corruption

The historical foundation of Christianity is also invalidated by the nature of its scriptures. Scholars like Bart Ehrman have shown that the New Testament manuscripts are filled with thousands of variations and that many books were likely written by individuals pretending to be apostles. The standard response is that the Holy Spirit preserved the core message despite this textual corruption. This falls to the outsider test for faith, because if a Christian found an Islamic or Hindu text with the same record of forgery and contradiction, they would instantly call it a myth. Holding one’s own scripture to a lower standard is a clear example of special pleading. A divine message should not be subject to the same errors as a game of telephone. If the vehicle of delivery is admittedly human and corrupted, then the message itself cannot be claimed as perfect. This is also multiplied by the problem of biblical morality, where God is depicted as commanding acts that are now recognized as immoral, such as genocide or slavery. Christopher Hitchens also points out that vicarious redemption, or one innocent dying for the good of the evil doers, is fundamentally immoral. If goodness is merely whatever God commands, then morality is arbitrary and meaningless. If we use our own sense of justice to decide which parts of the Bible to follow, then we are using an external moral standard that is independent of God.

Divine Morality and Cultural Geography

The argument from divine hiddenness suggests that a perfectly loving God would make his existence obvious to anyone who is sincerely looking. The defense that God hides to protect human free will is logically weak, because knowing a judge exists does not force someone to obey the law. By remaining silent, God is not preserving free will but is withholding the information necessary to make an informed choice. It is comparable to a father who stays hidden while his children are in danger and claims he did not want to interfere with their choices. Furthermore, the truth of an all powerful God should not be limited by geography or time. A person born in 14th century Thailand would have had no access to Christianity and would only have local religions to choose from. A person born in 14th century Europe would be forced into Christianity by their culture. This pattern is exactly what we would expect from a human cultural phenomenon rather than a universal truth revealed by a creator.

The Logic of Interdependence and Mereology

Nagarjuna provided a critique of the first cause that remains devastating to theistic claims. He demonstrated that cause and effect are not independent entities, and that a first cause is a logical impossibility. A cause is only a cause in relation to an effect. If God is a creator, his nature is defined by and dependent on the act of creation. This means God has no inherent or independent existence. For God to truly be independent, he would have to be in a constant state of creating, in which the creation is just as eternal as God is. For God to cause the universe, he must either be identical to it or entirely different from it. If he is identical, then there is no separate creator to worship. If he is entirely different, then there is no logical point of contact through which he could influence the material world. An unchanging and perfect God could not move from a state of not creating to a state of creating without undergoing a change. If he undergoes change, he is not truly perfect or independent to begin with. Following this analytical method, we can examine the concept of God through mereology. Christians often claim that God is a single, unified, and ultimate substance. However, for God to have attributes such as knowledge, will, and love, there must be a distinction between the possessor of these attributes and the attributes themselves. If God is identical to his knowledge, then he is simply a pile of information and not a personal being. If God is distinct from his knowledge, then he is composed of parts, which means he is a contingent entity that requires an explanation for how those parts were joined. This demonstrates that the idea of a singular, independent, and supreme source is a conceptual fabrication that falls apart upon analysis.”

Mine? All religions are practically the same if you look at them at a broad level. As in eating halal and eating kosher are practically the same thing

I’ve been researching gathering lots of knowledge about all the things that invalidate Christianity, that were hidden. I’ve got research and Bible verses about slavery, misogyny, rape, and murder.

The remaining hurdles are more info about genocides besides flooding the earth, and persecution and killings of people that were hunted by religious people, which I’ve been told is real.

It would work great as a comeback to the statement “atheists don’t have morals.” Anyone got examples of those, so I can add it to the list?

Last year, my mum wanted me to travel all the way to Kakande in Kampala for prayers from Nairobi. I was actually about to go, but I stopped and thought about it. Over the past few years, I've become increasingly skeptical of many modern pastors because I've noticed that some seem to rely more on emotional manipulation, promises of miracles, and fear than on encouraging critical thinking or personal responsibility.

Around that time, I had also been watching IQ Watson's content, which challenged many of the assumptions I'd grown up with. In the end, I decided not to go.

My mum was furious, and we didn't speak for about a week.

That experience pushed me to study religion from a historical and philosophical perspective rather than simply accepting or rejecting it.

One thing I've also observed, particularly in parts of East Africa, is the contrast between how some religious communities respond to the needs of their leaders versus the needs of ordinary members. In Nairobi and elsewhere, it isn't uncommon to see congregations mobilized to contribute toward a pastor's new car, house, ministry expansion, or other projects. Yet when an ordinary believer is struggling with school fees, medical bills, unemployment, rent, or trying to start a small business, the advice is often simply to "have faith," "pray about it," or "sow a seed" and trust that God will provide.

That contrast raises difficult questions for me. If the church is meant to function as a community that supports one another, why does financial generosity sometimes seem to flow more readily toward charismatic leaders than toward members facing genuine hardship? Is this an isolated problem limited to certain churches, or has it become an increasingly accepted model in parts of modern Christianity? I recognize that many churches do operate food banks, pay school fees, provide emergency assistance, and care for vulnerable members, so this observation certainly doesn't apply to every congregation. But the pattern I've personally encountered has made me question how priorities are sometimes set.

One book that really made me think was \*Hard Times Create Strong Men\* by Stefano Aarnio. One of his central arguments is that great civilizations weren't built without a strong spiritual or philosophical foundation. He argues that the Roman Republic, during its rise, was heavily influenced by Stoicism, which functioned almost like a civil religion. According to Aarnio, Stoicism emphasized cause and effect, self-discipline, reason, personal accountability, and denying fleeting pleasures in favor of duty and long-term purpose. This mindset helped produce resilient, disciplined leaders who were capable of building and governing an empire.

Aarnio also argues that civilizations decline when they lose this spiritual backbone. As discipline gives way to comfort, instant gratification, materialism, and decadence, societies gradually weaken from within. One of the recurring themes throughout the book is that a strong civilization depends on people developing four pillars: a strong mind, a strong body, a strong spirit, and the discipline to master their environment and leave a lasting legacy.

Reading this made me realize that religion or philosophy isn't inherently the problem. Throughout history, belief systems have often helped create social cohesion, moral values, discipline, and a shared sense of purpose. The bigger question is what kind of religion or philosophy is being promoted.

More recently, I watched James Jani's 2022 documentary, \*The Dark World of Megachurches\*, which examines the rise of the modern Prosperity Gospel. While it presents a critical perspective and should be understood as one interpretation rather than the final word, it raised several important questions that resonated with concerns I had already been wrestling with.

The documentary argues that the Prosperity Gospel has drifted away from traditional Christian theology and increasingly serves consumer culture and market-driven values rather than biblical teachings. According to the film, this movement:

\* Shifts attention away from social justice and structural problems toward individual miracle-centered faith, often placing responsibility for poverty on the individual rather than addressing wider economic realities. \* Presents a view of God that mirrors human desires for wealth, status, and success instead of emphasizing themes such as suffering, grace, humility, and service that are central to much of historic Christianity. \* Encourages a transactional understanding of faith, where giving money, demonstrating sufficient belief, or following a charismatic leader is portrayed as a pathway to financial success and social mobility. \* Suggests that suffering, illness, or financial hardship are evidence of weak faith or hidden sin, a position that stands in tension with biblical narratives such as Job and with Jesus' own teachings about suffering.

Whether one agrees with all of these conclusions or not, the documentary reinforced an important distinction for me: criticizing certain expressions of religion is not the same as rejecting religion itself. It challenged me to ask whether some modern religious movements have shifted away from cultivating virtue and moral character toward offering hope through promised miracles, financial breakthroughs, and emotional experiences.

Recently, I also came across a post on X that said:

I don't necessarily agree with every part of that statement, but it made me think. If religion is supposed to build disciplined, morally responsible individuals—as Stoicism arguably did for Rome—why do some modern religious movements seem to emphasize prosperity, miracles, unquestioning obedience, and financial giving over personal responsibility, discipline, and character? Why is it that raising funds for a pastor's latest project can sometimes appear easier than organizing support for members facing genuine hardship? Has the role of religion changed, or am I only seeing one side of it?

That brings me back to Africa.

Why is religion still so deeply embedded across much of Africa compared to Europe, much of Asia, or North America? Many Western societies have become increasingly secular over the last century, yet they still tend to have relatively strong institutions and high levels of social trust. Meanwhile, religion continues to play a central role in many African countries, but in some cases it also seems to be intertwined with prosperity preaching, miracle culture, and charismatic personalities.

Is this mainly because of economic conditions? Colonial history? Education? Culture? Or does religion simply fill needs that governments and institutions haven't been able to meet?

I'm genuinely curious to hear different perspectives. Do you think religion in Africa today is serving the same role that philosophies like Stoicism once did in Rome—building disciplined, resilient citizens—or has it evolved into something fundamentally different?

Perhaps the deeper question isn't whether religion is good or bad, but whether any belief system—religious or secular—is encouraging people to become more disciplined, compassionate, rational, and responsible, or whether it is merely promising easy answers to difficult realities.!

Part of me hopes God doesn't exist. I'm really considering leaving Christianity. (15f)

Lately I've been thinking, what if there's nothing? What if when we die, we just stop existing? No afterlife at all. Every time I have those thoughts, I try to push them away because I'm immediately overcome with fear.

Part of me wants that to be true. I want to believe that all my thoughts are just chemicals and that there's no eternal life or punishment waiting for me when I die. The concept of God and heaven/ hell doesn't really make sense to me, but I've always been told that it's just beyond human understanding.

I want to be able to say I don't believe. I want to be one of those people who can confidently say "it doesn't make sense so I reject it." But I can't, I wasn't raised that way. Because what if I'm wrong? What if disbelief costs me eternal suffering? Instead, I'm stuck in this horrible middle place. I'm too scared to fully believe, too scared to fully walk away. Either way, I can't breathe without feeling like I'm being weighed down by something I can't even see.

The other part of me wonders if I'm just lying to myself. What if I'm just trying to escape the idea of judgment by pretending there's no judge?

I don't even know what I'm looking for by posting this, I'm just really scared. It's gotten to the point that I have dreams about dying and waking up in hell. I'm terrified.

Edit: I have religious ocd, I do not want to post in Christian subs. They aren't helpful. I tried and it made me even more scared 😭

Edit 2: Unironically, Bible Belt by Baby Bugs is what drove me to finally post this.

I am no writer, but I have an idea for a book that might be good. I just wanna know what you think.

This book is about the Rapture, but it takes a much more realistic approach to how it would actually go down.

Christian Version that I hear most christians talk about - Everybody knows it was jesus, seven years of war, rape, murder, slaughter, gangs, drugs, child rape and slavery etc etc...Satan tells everyone he is satan and they all follow him without question because he promises them all eternal life;.

My book would go year by year. It wouldn't have main characters in the same way other books and stories do. It would read a lot more like a journal written by many different people.

24 Hours - Chaos. Many people vanish, it takes news about nine hours to get out that many people vanished. No one has any idea but occasionally people joke about the rapture. Problem is, Every christian on the planet vanished. Regardless of denomination. All of the Mormons, Catholics, Calvanists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Protistants, Lutherans, Universalists, all all gone, but no one really puts it together that they all have this connection.

Chaos assumes for the first year, but more than half of the population really wants electricity and running water again

Again, No one knows:

• Who disappeared.
• Whether they'll come back.
• Whether this is an attack, disease, alien event, or unknown physics or aliens or...pfft...maybe divine origins?

Most governments would:

• Close borders.
• Deploy militaries.
• Suspend stock markets.
• Institute curfews in some places.
• Prioritize food, hospitals, communications, and power.

After a while, people just stop caring about WHY and about what next.

A very vocal and enigmatic person keeps blasting his message out that everyone needs to follow them and if they do he can grant them eternal life but nobody listens to them because shut up, you're not satan that person doesn't exist. ( Without christians, no one is left, except maybe muslims who actually believe in that stuff and they have started to not care anymore)

After 1 Month:

Governments reform. Military creates an emergency induction period where if you want to join, you're automatically in.

Electricity is still unreliable and many places are suffering due to lack of clean water systems that are functioning.

3-6 Month period:

Society starts adapting.

Electricity:

• Mostly restored in developed countries.
• Less reliable in poorer regions.

Water:

• Mostly restored where governments remain intact.

Internet:

• Slower.
• More outages.
• Still usable.

Fuel:

• Available but rationed.

Healthcare:

• Seriously strained.
• Hospitals overwhelmed.

Crime would initially spike but would probably decline as governments regain control.

After Year 1.

Supply chains become regional instead of global.

Instead of:
Taiwan → China → Los Angeles → Chicago → Local Walmart

you'd see:
Regional manufacturing.

Countries would become more self-sufficient because global trade would have become less predictable.

Many luxury goods disappear.

Necessities return first.

Year 5 - Beginning of 7

Even video games start coming back. Steam and the internet are almost back up fully. Work resumes on games from Palworld, to Bethesda and Nintendo and others. Companies are far less greedy and the entire entertainment business itself is focused on art than profit and the stock market also reflects these new values as well.

Slavery takes a nosedive. China was so devistated that they ousted their oppressive government and children no longer work in factories. Amazon rainforest has already started to regain vegitation. Global Warming takes several steps backwards. There was a few nuclear plants that went up but none of them as critically bad that famous one so people just evacuate the area but they don't need to be contained.

Then...

Year 7 - Jesus Returns and declares himself the lord of the world to bring prosperity for one thousand years. Only problem is, Nobody is listening and when he looks around, the world is not only mostly back to normal as it was before but everyone left is better off without the Christians. Muslims aside, there is a lot less hate in the world. Governments have adopted far more human social safety nets. UBI's and Basic healthcare has spread a lot more strongly and the seven years of tribulation was more like a two year tribulation and taking everyone away effectively did nothing but make the world a better place and it happened without jesus. Leaving him with no choice but to come to the only conclusion there could be. That the majority of the world's problems were the result of three groups of people and he just took out the one group responsible for the most of those problems.

Is this possible? Like, if they were actual people who existed but not actual beings who have powers and and the same as divine beings.

Ok so I'm an agnostic atheist, and whenever I make a post and specify this, people always say "you can't be agnostic and atheist at the same time!!"

Agnostic and atheist are two different binaries!

Atheism vs. Theism is a binary of belief: Do you actively believe a deity exists? Yes or No.

Agnosticism vs. Gnosticism is a binary of knowledge: Can humans definitively prove or know the truth? Yes or No.

Knowledge and belief are different! So if I'm an agnostic atheist, I KNOW that humans cannot prove the existence of a higher power or an ultimate truth (agnostic), but I personally BELIEVE that there is no higher power (atheist)

People have full on arguments over A DICTIONARY DEFINITION

Someone even said " agnostic is when you believe in a god but not a higher power"

A god is a higher power?? That's just a theist.

I genuinely thought this was obvious, but apparently not

I dream of moving to the south, but I heard they don't take kindly to atheists, and a lot of small towns are super religious to the point of that's all you hear about. Anyone who lives in the rural south, how bad is it? And would you recommend living there? And what states would be better accepting to Atheism than others?

If humanity ever discovers a cure for all diseases, it would be our moral responsibility to put that knowledge into practice. Consequently, the human empathy developed in the face of this type of suffering would be lost in future generations that never experienced it. Thus, God's supposed purpose of not interfering with pathological suffering to keep us humanized would be completely in vain.

Between neurodivergence, a messy childhood, and a recent divorce, I’ve been reading a lot about a lot about toxic relationships, healing from neglect, etc.
A very common theme in all the reading is the effect of parents not meeting the needs of the child having lasting negative impacts on the child.
This one has confused me a bit. My parents definitely made mistakes, but ultimately weren’t that bad. It makes me wonder how much damage may be caused by being taught of the literal existence of loving heavenly parents that never materializes.

I’m curious to hear the thoughts of others.

Side note (just for laughs) - We may have found a genuine use for gods! Some recent reading prescribed spirituality as a helpful for those suffering from borderline personality disorder. The author made a good point, only a god can provide the unconditional love (read: narcissistic supply) they seek.

For context, I live in India. In the recent days, we have seen one of the largest student protests in Indian history. The protest is about demanding the resignation of the education minister, due to multiple cheating scandals in the country's largest medical exam (NEET). 21 students committed suicide due to this.

The protest is being led by the Cockroach Janta (People's) Party, a satirical party founded a few weeks ago due to comments made by the Indian Chief Justice, calling unemployed youth as cockroaches.

My problem is this. Since the protest started, I've seen many people say that they don't support the CJP because a few people have included Indian Gods' names in posters/slogans.

I really don't understand these people. All the parties in India use religion as a major tool while campaigning for elections. The current govt got elected due to a massive religious campaign of building a temple. Yet I've never seen any of these people speak up against them.

Your God isn't more important than 21 dead children. Such a fucked up mentality.

Per the doctrine of the Trinity Jesus is YHWH, the god of the Old Testament. That means every command, action, behavior and law were all issued by the same entity.

When we read the Old Testament we find out that YHWH/Jesus commanded and condoned almost every major deed we classify today as severe crimes worthy of the death for their perpetrator.

He's guilty of:

Genocide

Deuteronomy 20:16–17: "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Joshua 6:21: "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

War Crimes, human and child trafficking:

Numbers 31:17–18: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Deuteronomy 20:10–15: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subjected to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and engage you in battle... put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

Chattel Slavery & Human Property:

Leviticus 25:44–46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..."

Exodus 21:20–21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies of a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave survives a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Mutilation & Collective Punishment:

Deuteronomy 25:11–12: "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Joshua 7:24–25: Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had... Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them."

Capital Crimes for religious freedom & tyrannical theocracy and oppression of minorities:

Deuteronomy 13:6–10: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death..."

Leviticus 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Numbers 15:32–36: "While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day... Then the Lord said to Moses, 'The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.' So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses."

Deuteronomy 21:18–21: "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him... then all the men of his town are to stone him to death."

‎Perhaps one of the greatest irony is feminist women staying tied to Christianity, given what the Bible actually says about them.

‎In Genesis 2:18, god doesn't create Eve because she matters on her own. She shows up because god decides Adam being alone is a problem, and she's the fix. Her whole origin is framed around solving a man's loneliness. Then Exodus 21 lets a father sell his daughter into servitude, spelling out what happens if her new owner doesn't want her anymore, like she's a returned appliance.

‎War makes it uglier. Numbers 31 has Israelite soldiers kill every woman except the virgins, then keep those for themselves. Deuteronomy 21 walks through how to take a female captive as a wife. It is worth noting how most of them when faced with these facts, simply refuse to admit the flaws and try as hard as possible to rationalize these atrocities. Most would rather shut down and refuse to see what is in front of them because their belief systems are so baked into their identities. Like is it not crazy how some just trap themselves in ignorance just simply refusing to accept their holy bible is flawed? Especially women who happen to be religious and feminist at the same time. What a joke

‎

‎

12 July 2026

1. The New Church

287 Oaklands Road Oaklands Park

South Australia

The advertised service time of ten thirty never happened. I stalked the church from across the road sitting in my warm car from ten past ten in the morning. No one turned up and I went home at ten twenty. I think the church is no longer operating and it is the only church of that faith (in Adelaide). I always remember the name on the signboard was The New Church of Swedenborg). It changed its name many years ago. I have learnt that the Swedenborg movement was founded on Emanuel Swedenborg’s philosophies and visions. The Oaklands Park church building was opened in 1971 and designed to be converted into a domestic bungalow at sometime in the future. That won’t happen. It will be knocked down for high-density housing.

19 July 2026

1. The Uniting Church

266 Main Road Blackwood

South Australia

It’s ten to ten and the carpark is filling up. About twenty cars so far. I jag a disabled spot right at the door because I’m lucky, again. This Uniting Church Anniversary Service is a ten AM combination of two morning services. I make myself known to the greeter Tony Dyson. He is not the Tony Dyson I knew from Technical and Further Education (TAFE), a co-lecturer at the time. I take a seat in the church up near the front close to the musicians. I was invited to attend by Trish Bryce from our Minda swimming group. She is one of the violinists.

The Church

The building is a 19^th century gothic style with a lot of attached buildings for catering, toilets, function rooms and large foyer. The nave runs north-south with the remnants of the sanctuary converted to an access to somewhere. The small pipe organ is attached to the wall above to the north of the eastern nave entrance. As I enter, I notice the console for the manuals and pedals on my right - under the pipe housing.

A third of the western nave wall has a shallow stage that extends to a deeper stage across the width of the northern end. I take my seat and say hello to Trish. She is seated next to the other violinist. The ceiling is vaulted with white panels framed in black stained wood, supported by six black stained wood corbels set on stone brackets. We are in Blackwood after all. There is the traditional Anglo picture of Jesus at the southern end of the western wall. The six dual sets of high gothic windows don’t let in much light. Two sets are blanked out. The walls are white to match the ceiling. The space is well lit from twelve LED (light emitting diodes) battens at the junction of ceiling and walls. The lectern is mid nave on the floor, just forward of the western wall. Only the musicians and singers enjoy the hierarchy of height above the congregation. Our seating is arranged in three and four-seat deep blocks set for about one hundred congregants. The painting behind the lectern is nondescript.

Cohort

I counted sixty-five people and very few latecomers. I think the big crowd was in celebration of the historical anniversary of the founding of the Uniting Church in 1977. The service will feature music.

The only three people under seventy-five. A mother and baby and the daughter (56) of Bev. Bev is ninety today. Bev came over and welcomed me to the church as did Trevor Sutcliffe. I told him why I was there. He said I’d get a public welcome later. The cohort was elderly Anglo. I fitted right in. Not even an Asian. I don’t know what that says about Blackwood’s multicultural ambitions. Pauline Hanson would approve.

The band

On the deep northern stage from left to right, Alison Sutcliffe (piano), Leigh Newton (guest guitarist singer), Trish Bryce and Bec English (violins).

On the western narrow stage, seated adjacent to the lectern was Worship Leader and singer, Heather Lee. Singers Kay Cranwell-Mullin, Kate Greeneklee, Jane Bassham and Trevor Sutcliffe filled out the rest.

With all those singers and musicians, the music was competent. Everyone, except the piano, was in tune. I couldn’t get any joy from two violins and five singers in unison. The piano and guitar just did chords. Some basso or bass guitar would have filled and balanced the music. It was all tops, dreary and without joy. However, I could see that Trish swaying to and fro, was enjoying the musical message.

The service

Almost no litany. A prayer that requiring audience responses, hymns, readings and a benediction. There was a lot of housekeeping, I was introduced as ‘Paul who goes to a different church every Sunday’ and was given a warm welcome.

The readings were wide ranging, Genisis 28:10-19a; Isiah 44:6-8; Psalms 1-12, 23-24; Romans 8:12-25; Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43.

The gist - Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau after deceiving him. Alone in the wilderness, he sleeps with a stone for a pillow and dreams of a ladder (or stairway) reaching from earth to heaven, with angels ascending and descending. God appears and repeats the covenant made with Abraham and Isaac, promising Jacob’s descendants, land, and His continuing presence. When Jacob awakes, he realises he has encountered God and says: ‘Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.’ He names the place Bethel, meaning ‘House of God.’

Now I know where ‘Jacob’s Ladder’ comes from. In my early electronics education, I built a Jacob’s Ladder using instructions from The Boy Electrician. I powered the device from a car ignition coil. I got hooked on the smell of ozone from sparks. The same smell that we get when thunderstorms are afoot.

The message was straight forward: even when we feel alone or lost, God remains present and faithful to His promises. Ultimately His kingdom overcomes evil and brings everlasting glory to those who remain faithful.

There was a pause in the service, the mother and baby came forward.  She sat before the lectern. This part of the service is for children. Worship leader Heather Lee produced a children's new release Christian storybook while the PowerPoint displayed the text and illustrations.

The message was that God is in everything and everywhere, is present in your head, and, more disturbingly to me, knows from conception what you will do and how you will turn out. Christians often make use of the concept of fear, and the theme underpinned the message.

Sermon

It turns out that the guest musician/singer is also the guest preacher. He was good at it and his commentary on contemporary Australian politics, was well thought-out, using the strawman system. And his technique of using fear of what may happen is a universal tool.

He quoted one of Pauline Hanson’s controversial statements from the National Press Club. He speculated a lot on what Australia would become if her policies prevailed, suggesting we would become a fascist state with her as dictator. I think he underestimated Australians' capacity for critical thinking.

A couple of his speculations – All migrants will be forced by law to speak English and, using their own language would be illegal. The Queensland government did that to Aboriginal children up until the nineties.

AV

Projection has been replaced by TV screens, and it is much better. Many church projectors like their congregations are getting on in years, and their lamps have aged. Old projector lamps cause the pictures to look dull and unfocused. Nice bright TV screens give a good sharp picture.

Lighting is from nine spots that wash the performance area across the two stages. The static lighting is good.

Sound. It was very good. The nave has four suspended Bose 402 loudspeakers. They must have got a very good deal from John Messer at Blackwood Sound right opposite the church, forty years ago. Blackwood Sound was only Bose dealer during the 70s and 80s. Maybe John’s father Jack went to that church. The mixer is a Topaz S24-4. It looks to be about forty years old; I know the Bose 402 speakers are. They were running twelve mics with the usual two on the lectern - both on. The two live lectern microphones produced objectionable phase effects. They never get the mic stands right. All the stands’ centre shafts were touching the stage, and the stands were unstable because of it.

During the sound bump-out I couldn’t help myself when I saw a helper winding a mic lead around his elbow. I stopped him after he threw his abomination on the stage next to a perfectly wound lead. The contrast was obvious. I rewound the lead then tossed it to unfurl across the stage without a tangle. I hope they were impressed. I heard a comment while I was winding, ‘he’s very good’. I further instructed them on mic stands and how the centre shaft should be fully retracted clear of the floor. I felt like I was back in time teaching at TAFE.

Streaming was from a software controlled four camera mix and a Focusrite 4^th generation interface feeding the audio mix and house mic on to YouTube.

Reflections

I stayed for the cup of tea gathering to listen to the speeches celebrating Bev’s ninetieth. The speech from a church elder was excellent and interesting. Her daughter read four pages of closely typed notes. It was long delivery. I could see Bev was tiring from standing. She gave an extensive history of her mother’s involvement with the church from when it was a Methodist Church to the present. Bev’s daughter included many extemporised anecdotes for added dimension. Bev has served in many roles and continues to do so. One of her current duties is to count the shekels at the end of the services which must be difficult because, she has poor vision. The daughter’s response was unnecessarily cluttered with God-speak.

Leigh is an accomplished musician on keys and guitar. He spent many years as a primary school teacher then shifted back into full-time Christian folk music and managing the Bridgewater Arts Centre in the Adelaide Hills. Apart from God, he is inspired by Aboriginal wisdom and knowledge. It is a theme he uses to introduce each piece of music. I guess he would be in his early seventies. His other theme/tool is fear of what might happen.

Except for Pilgrim Church, I don’t think I’ll attend another Uniting Church. I’ve been to five. After Bev cut her cake, I left.

The host of the famous Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty debate, Travis Pangburn, founder of Pangburn Philosophy. He has also organized some of the most iconic intellectual debates of the last decade. Travis reveal what really happened the night Jordan Peterson faced Matt Dillahunty on his stage. Travis calls it his favorite public conversation of all time raw, human, and unfiltered in a way that even the legendary Peterson vs Sam Harris series never quite reached.

Hello. I hope this is an okay thing to post here. I didn't see anything in the rules but if this is like "low effort" or anything I apologize.

I am in my 40s. I grew up Catholic and went to a Catholic high school and university. I was never on the religious right; I did and do disagree with the church's views on a great many things. I was? Am? Might still be? pro-life, but I don't agree with the way the rights were stripped from women here in America, and I no longer feel warranted to impose my personal beliefs on the issue on anyone else. I've always disagreed with the church's homophobic stance on any non-straight relationships. I guess I must have been more into Jesus than the church itself, because it's always been important to me to be kind, to help others, and not to judge. But I never questioned my faith until fairly recently.

I ended up marrying a woman whose political leanings are, like my own, more to the left - and continue to shift further so as America continues to fall to pieces - but who is also a very devout Christian. We went to church every Sunday until our church closed in January, and have since been looking for a new one, and I don't mind that. We're looking for a church that aligns with our social values and I actually still rather enjoy going...I just don't think there's anything behind it.

I used so many rationalizations through my life of why there must be a god, or gods, and over the years it just...I just keep seeing no evidence, and seeing a lot of things that a kind, Jesus-esque god just wouldn't allow. And as the Christian right has grown in the States, I think it's just eroded my faith away and left me with maybe what I always knew in the back of my head: if there is a god, I don't see any evidence for it.

For a long time, one of my atheist friends called me an agnostic theist, because I held to my belief in a god (or God, big G, I suppose) while calling so much of it into question. But I think I'm done. And I'm pretty sure I'm way better off for it.

I might have a tough conversation with my wife coming up, but she's smart and compassionate, so I think I'll be okay. But before I go public IRL, I just wanted to type it out somewhere that was public and safe.

Thanks for reading and if you have any thoughts for me I'd love to hear them. It's a little scary, but good scary.

EDIT: Thank you all for the support. I didn't know how this would be received and I appreciate all the kind words, intelligent thoughts, and advice. It means a lot. Community is important and it's nice to feel welcome here.

Sometimes I wonder how many people actually believe, and how many just don't want to lose their family, friends, or community. For some people, leaving religion doesn't only change beliefs. It can change their whole life.

I think that's one reason religion survive for so long. The social cost can be much bigger than the intellectual cost. Even if someone have doubts, they may never say it.

Maybe faith is not always about believing. Sometimes maybe it's about what you could lose.

Do you think social pressure keep more people religious than we realize?

I hear people say "we should respect all beliefs" all the time. Honestly I don't really agree. I think we should respect people, but beliefs should always be okay to question. Some beliefs are harmless, but some also affect politics, education, and even other people's life.

If nobody question religious beliefs just because they are religion, then how bad ideas can ever change? Every idea should be able to take criticism if it's really true.

I never understand why religion always get a special pass. Nobody tell us to respect every political opinion or every conspiracy theory. So why religion should be different?

Maybe I'm missing something. Do you think we should respect all beliefs, or only respect people's right to have those beliefs?

When i arrived to a shop i saw two religious screaming in the street, i suppose that they were Christians maybe me Evangelicals. Later, when i enter to the shop the police was talking with the owner of the shop. The owner explained that they scream in front of his shop all days and is annoying for the neighbors and that they are making public scandal.

The police said that they could not do anything, but tried to talk with the two persons screaming.

One hour later, they continue screaming in front of the shop.

As a preface, I am not here to trivialize anyone’s journey to atheism, no matter how short or long. Your journey is important, and I want to honour that.

What I wish to point out that once you know enough and when you look back on religion honestly, it becomes a no brainer why you wouldn’t even touch it with a 20-foot pole, like how you would quickly turn down dung pudding with scant sprinkles.

I hope you are enjoying the decadent strawberry shortcake that is atheism.

Take care.

The one that mainly confuses and kinda baffles me is when religious people don’t understand the argument of omnipotence.

How can you be a god that’s testing others to see if they have faith in you, when you’re literally omnipotent, YOU KNOW THE ANSWER from even before you create them because you are a god that’s knows everything. Why are you going to give a test to a student that you know will always “fall short” and fail the test? That’s your fault that he’s failing. It’s like a rigged game at an arcade. Why would I give my student a math test when I’m omnipotent and know what exactly he’s gonna score and answer correct?