Why Christianity is Evil

Christianity is evil, because its beliefs and practices do produce much sufferings (of course while never intending to do any evil, but rather as collateral damages, we may say), and distract well-intended people from searching for better or more efficient ways to do the good.

And also, because it defines holiness by conformity to their assumed characters of God which they describe as a stupid psychopath and bloody tyrant. Indeed, why do Christians claim to believe that God's characters include "justice" and "goodness", if by "justice" they mean cruelty (desire to send us all to hell for "our sins" that he let us no decent choice to avoid by the way He created us), and by "goodness" they mean injustice (punishing Somebody else instead of us and judging us on our faith rather than our deeds) ?
See more about God's characters
Also in this essay "Even if I did believe" :
"The thesis of this essay is that even if a God as described in the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship.
If I had undeniable proof of the existence of Yahweh (...), I still would not worship the bastard. My primary reason for not being a Christian (...) is that the Bible is a disgusting book describing the behavior of a god without the morality of the average high school student."

The Biblical God does everything to mean that he wants to be worshiped and wants people to remain sorts of sheep and children that cannot do anything on their own but remain under His close dependence and necessity to pray for anything, rather than to do any decently efficient good that would let us free and independent. And usually for terrible results.
All this in direct contradiction with other claims of the same doctrine, that God is also such a devout worshiper of our absolute freedom, that he'll prefer to let "us" (or rather the natural course of things) destroy the Earth in the name of His kindness and absolute respect of our freedom, rather than bring any assistance to stop the plague.

Here is Weinberg's view on Christianity.
"The prestige of religion seems today to derive from what people take to be its moral influence, rather than from what they may think has been its success in accounting for what we see in nature. Conversely, I have to admit that, although I really don't believe in a cosmic designer, the reason that I am taking the trouble to argue about it is that I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful.

This is much too big a question to be settled here. On one side, I could point out endless examples of the harm done by religious enthusiasm, through a long history of pogroms, crusades, and jihads. (...) On the other side, many admirers of religion would set countless examples of the good done by religion. For instance, in his recent book Imagined Worlds, the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson has emphasized the role of religious belief in the suppression of slavery.
(...)
Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament to defend the slave trade. Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery (...) she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "

(However I would not agree with him that religion is the only way for good people to do evil; I think this happens naturally in many ways, but only that religions, including Marxism, contribute to make these risks worse and more systematic)
Of course, most Christians will strongly disagree with such a judgement, have no clue what it can be based on, and claim it must be unjustified. Without trying to be exhaustive, let's give a few clues and references on the issue.

Christians are blind to the consequences of preaching the Gospel on people's lives. They claim that Jesus will change their life for the better, but this is a mere belief in the usefulness of their religion for people's lives or social sustainability through its morality standards, but this is just what they guess things should be if they were right, unsupported by any observational evidence. While some people have positive testimonies (genuine or just for being praised by other Christians ?), they will never want to understand or admit the devastating consequences it may produce as well, that is the Religious Trauma Syndrome.

Then, instead of admitting their fault in the trauma they caused to the people whose trust they (sincerely) abused by telling (holy) lies in God's name, they systematically reject the fault on their victims. So, behind their childish belief in the idea that they have a religion of forgiveness, the truth is that they make the innocent victims of their own wrong actions feel terribly guilty. Here is a testimony about this.

Earth: a gift from
        GodMost of Christianity promotes homophobia (which in particular led to the death of one of the founders of computer science)

Christianity deletes or at least direly underestimate the concern for the protection of the environment, that is our heritage from millions of years of evolution that is being irreversibly destroyed just now for the millions of years to come, with as an only justification (whenever they bother justifying themselves) their arbitrary belief that Jesus will soon come back and destroy the Earth with all its contents anyway.

Religion generates despise and social exclusion against those who dare have the misfortune to think sanely and rationally, treated as the enemies of God, guilty of "pride" or whatever. In the same way it can also make a trouble to the chances for serious people to find love, either in the same way (through social exclusion) or by denying the difficulty and taking too seriously the call for trust in God.

Christianity delayed the development of science in Europe for about a millennium (in the middle ages).

There are a number of Christian terrorist organizations: IRA, KKK, anti-abortion terrorism; and in the past, of course, crusades and killings of heretics and "witches".

More generally, here is a list of examples of wrong actions that Christianity generates.

Christians usually dismiss cases of wrong things done in the name of Christianity, as not Christian, just because, for them, Christianity is just about doing right things (but then, why isn't the Bible reduced to the simple command "Act good" ? what is the proof that its teachings aren't leading to do the wrong things, if its contents had to be revealed by God rather than logically and provably deduced from this simple command ?)

But, let us remember what was the motivation for what is currently seen as one of the most indefensible actions make by the Church long ago : crusades and burning "witches". Why did they do it ? Their argument was that they are burning people to save them from hell because, with their heresy or practices they would otherwise go to hell. So, Christians thought: if I were in their place, I would much prefer to be burnt this way for my salvation, rather than live and be doomed to hell.
So, Christians of that time were strictly following the golden rule: do to others what you would like others to do for you. They had no bad intention at all. They were just sincerely trying to follow God's will. You can accuse those crusaders of anything, but not of being bad in themselves, nor of refusing to obey God's will. And they had no way to guess that God's will was anything else than this.

This illustrates a very general point: that acting good is often not a matter of intention or of being good in oneself, but of having the right information on the world.
Still, most Christians remain blind to this.

A general problem that makes Christians do the wrong things and fail to understand and do the right things: their essentialism, mistaking the moral qualification of an action with its nature or intention, disregarding the context; their inability or refusal to understand the consequences of their actions. They make this systematic, by the following childish reasoning and set of more or less hidden, unquestioned assumptions:
  1. There is no point to try to understand anything about the world because it is trivial: holiness is a matter of simple-mindedness, so that the only way to the truth is the one of childishness and oversimplification
  2. For everybody, the right thing to do is trivial, given by God's will and directly put by Him under their eyes; or, it would be impossible for man to have any reliable clue about right or wrong unless it is dictated to him by God.
  3. There is no other possible cause or influence to human suffering, than the direct will by men to do the wrong thing; nothing can stop bad people from doing wrong things, as long as they remain the same in their hearts
  4. God is so generous that he will let bad people do their wrong actions
  5. The idea that any suffering could be caused by anything else than people's wrong intentions, or would be unnecessary with some given set of human bad intentions or imperfections, would be an intolerable blasphemy (suspicion that God did not create everything perfect with a perfect freedom for us to do and live exactly what we intend to), and must thus be rejected
  6. Ifever any well-intended people do something wrong, it does not matter and we should not think about it because these people and anybody they happened to hurt will go to heaven anyway. Or, if what they did was really wrong, then they were in fact bad people
  7. Thus, human suffering testifies that the world is full of big bad wolves, and all the problem is here
  8. Thus, the only good thing to do for the world is to try to change big bad wolves into sheep
  9. The one, only and efficient way to change big bad wolves into sheep is to pray for them and preach them the gospel
  10. The development of this exclusive obsession and crusade towards everybody being good in themselves, is the one and only way to be good in oneself;
  11. Any care outside the values of the heart and intentionality, would be evil (make people the enemies of moral values, or an intolerable insult to the people who focus on the heart and intentionality that would be accused of something else than their intentions, which is an inconceivable criticism); any claim to understand anything else about the world, any plan to help it in any other way, would mean hubris and a revolt against God's will;
  12. Such a pride is one of the main evils in the world.
But their blindness to the difference between intentions and the consequences of actions, is leading them to actions focused on good intentions that ignore their real consequences worse and worse (because, for them, intentions are all what matters to please God and reach heaven while complex rational understanding of other cause-to-effect relationships has no spiritual value), which worsens the ignored problem. How the hell can then God judge people who were led by previous false teachings, to "sincerely" dedicate their good will to spread these false teachings and do the wrong things (by mistaking them with the right things) and to make the world's sufferings worse and worse out of blindness and unconsciousness by/for making the navel of their own hearts holier and holier (more selfless in their self) ? What a terrible conundrum they are giving Him to handle in this way ! Only God knows how to cope with it :-( And if there is no God but just karma or whatever, the problem is the same: the question of right and wrong makes no more sense. Indeed what is a good action when good intentions produce bad consequences ? Maybe the bad consequences should be no more understood as coming from men, but from a natural disaster (the sociocultural force of memes) that controls humans actions like puppets.
So, religions save human responsibility with respect to suffering, by abandoning the world to a natural (cultural) disaster. Yeah right. Good or bad ? So, humans suffer more of the consequences of actions which are no more theirs (but those of the memes that control them) but will go to heaven anyway because their heart is purified. Wonderful.

So, Christianity (as well as many other religions and non-religions), misinterprets morality as an intrinsic character: as a matter of being rather than having (to be good in oneself, rather than to have done actions that have useful consequences on the well-being of others). It insists on principles but cannot operate correctly the application of these principles in concrete situations. What's the point of insisting on morality principles if their application turns out to be selfish (to the improvement of one's virtue and intentions) and failing to fulfil the object of those very intention (the well-being of others) ?

For example, one of the intended lessons of Christianity is to value love and sacrifice, give to the poor and respect the miserable. However in practice (like many others), Christians usually don't share love but mock and despise the poor in love. Their principle of self-sacrifice turns out to be reduced to empty words, failing to meet its practical chances of applications.

See also in links, in particular "Atheists and Anger"

Main page of Criticism of Evangelical Christianity


Up : Religion
Main site : Anti-spirituality