Really Hard Questions for Christians

One thing that makes Christians wrongly imagine that they have answers to all skeptical arguments and questions, is that they don't have the right list of most important questions. So, once they answered the weak problems (for some problems, they are satisfied to give a superficial answer without understanding how deep the problem is or how vain is their answer), they think they won.
But there are quite hard problems that still remain unaddressed, or not seriously addressed, and in fact, unanswerable for the defense of Christianity. (They could be used as a fast means to put a Christians in trouble during a debate.)

Many sites can easily be found listing questions to Christians.
(On the other hand, a christian asks questions and an atheist replies)
I also asked questions in a discussion on the Fatima miracles (including general questions as well)

Here are some of the questions or issues in Christianity which I find most challenging and which, in my experience, are never really answered (may require some more developments depending on answers):

Why is it that the overwhelming majority of google results on "questions for christians" and even more "questions for christianity" (which appears ahead as google phrase suggestion) are Christian web sites answering their own list of what they present as the main questions but without any kind of serious reason to think that this is anything else than their own fanciful list of naive questions which they decided to believe to be the main ones based on their own fanciful idea of the stupid non-christian, and because these questions are those they can most easily answer (just rhethorical questions following the order of their favorite apologetic teaching) ?

If you freely choose to believe that God wants you to freely choose to believe that He sent His only Son on Earth to die on the Cross to redeem your sins and testify to the world His desperate need and desire that you freely choose to believe that whoever does not accept to believe this is destined for eternal hell, then whose choice or doctrine do you think is this: yours or God's ? If you claim that God really wants this, then what do you think this very claim is based on, except on your own arbitrary choice to believe so, motivated by your desire to please/obey God, and/or not go to Hell (as if anyone desired to displease to God and/or to go to Hell) ? Or might that be the mere coward expression of your own desire to flee the responsibility of your own errors despite the lack of any objective justification for this kind of escape ?

Isn't it a double standard of judgement or rules when morally comparing God's actions with ours: the discrepancy between the absolute passivity of God and his assumed power, supposedly "to be nice" and "to let us free" but in ways that produce so much suffering and alienation in reality; while humans have the duty to intervene for stopping horrors and injustice, or do they (indeed, Christians are often so passive and just blaming actors for acting) ?

According to this article of a Christian news site, a pastor of a church in Lebanon reported: “...I heard people testify: ‘Thank God for the war in Syria; it brought us to Jesus.’”. Do you regard this as a wise view ?

Quesstions on prayer moved to a separate page.

Did you read about NDEs and the observation that most of it shows no difference that faith would make to what happens after life ? Do you reject such observations as misleading ?

What is faith ? How does faith differ from knowledge ? Is faith a bet, and if yes, against which given odds ? If there is no risk of being wrong then in which sense is it still faith rather than knowledge ? Is it a decision of deliberately taking the risk to follow a path which may as well be wrong ? But in this case, in the name of what do Christians give themselves the right to commit not only their own life but also jeopardize the lives of others by their bet, absolutely and unquestionably undertaking to make them feel ashamed to not follow the same possibly mistaken path ? Also, in the name of what are Christians so absolutely and unquestionably insulting against anyone announcing knowing the falsity of Christianity (having evidence against it), as if it was obviously ridiculous and logically impossible ? Indeed logically, if Christianity was true it would be irrefutable, but if you only have faith without evidence that Christianity is true then you hardly have anything more than baseless faith for your belief that nobody can have a refutation yet. For this you would have to have made an extensive search but the world is big, with so much existing text and even more personal experience and thoughts to back up the texts... which you cannot claim to already known or can you ? Did you even try to make a serious search for that ? But why do you then so violently refuse to make such a search any time the chance for it comes to stumble on you, by your way of making absolute, unquestionable fun of anyone announcing to know evidence against Christianity, instead of practicing curiosity towards it ?

How can faith be best described, with respect to the following syllogism:
  1. Whatever God says is true
  2. God says X (in particular : God dictated or inspired the Bible)
  3. Therefore X is true
Does faith mainly consist in : What does NON-FAITH mainly consist in, with respect to that syllogism ? In which positions do you imagine non-religious people and former Christians, who are the people actually rejecting faith, most usually standing with respect to that syllogism ?

Why did Christian apologists traditionally argued, and why, following them, many preachers still argue, by the martyrdom argument, of the form "I'm ready to die for my ideas therefore I'm right"? Can't people also, sometimes, sacrifice themselves for wrong causes as well (such as muslim extremists) ? Can't it also be sometimes an expression of arrogance of being rather dead than admitting being in error (in a world of turmoil, chaos etc) ? Do we really know how many people died for their faith and in which circumstances ? Couldn't they eventually happen to believe things by mistake in a world of imperfect information ? Considering that the Church killed much more heretics and "sorcerers" than Christians were ever killed, why can't we also use the martyrdom argument as a sign of truth of the views of heretics and "sorcerers" as well ?

The truth of Christianity is not a logical necessity, or is it ? Such as, there was a time before the time when Abraham is supposed to have lived, when all that story supposed to happen after this did not happen yet; if Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit after his resurrection, it means there was a time before where people lived without any trace of that Holy Spirit. Also there is a logical possibility for God to not intervene on Earth, thus letting all things happen as if there was no divine intervention. Then which empirical data can make a clear difference ? How would a world where Christianity would be wrong, but was still invented by mistake, differ from our world ? Would such differences in observations naturally stop people from believing this doctrine, and how ? Based on which observations "should" people there stop believing a Christian-like doctrine ? Is there any risk to fail to notice the problem and keep Christian faith by mistake anyway ? Now in this world, can some people face themselves similar observations to what should there lead them to the legitimate right and necessity to reject Christian faith ? Have you never faced anybody (non-christian or ex-christian) reporting witnessing life in that way where it would be actually wrong to believing in Jesus, and how did you respond to such people ? Do you still encourage them to keep their faith, or if they lost it, blame them for what you assume to be some mistake they made (as I so regularly hear Christians wrongly accuse me of mistake I actually never made) ? Now in the hypothetical world where Christianity was actually wrong, would anything stop any convinced Christians (not noticing the evidence of its falsity) from having the same dismissing attitude towards the witnesses of its falsity, so as to keep faith thriving anyway ?

What about losing one's faith: was all the previous effort towards God a pure waste ? Why invite people to convert if it can turn out to be a devastating waste of time like this ?
What proportion of Christians in the world are wrong Christians ? What is the difference between a true and a false Christians, and why do diverse Christians have so many mutually contradictory definitions for this ? What's the point of converting and giving one's life to God if it leaves so high risks to become a mere wrong Christian, with a worthless faith ? How might it not deserve to be called the epitone of extreme absolute dishonesty and perversity from the part of Christians and/or from the part of their Jesus, to first promise in God's name to those (like myself) coming to give Him their life with all their heart that Jesus saved them absolutely for eternity with no risk of failure on the basis of their faith and commitment to God, but then after this when they have doubts, experience the failure of faith in their life and deconvert, accuse them of going to hell and that the Jesus promise of salvation has never been for them because they never were true Christians in the first place - and there is absolutely no way to explain to a Christian and make him try to honestly listen for a minute (after I sacrificed my life for their ideology) no matter the reality, that my past dedication to Jesus was full and sincere ? How honest is the promise and request of a God requesting people to give Him their life with all promises of salvation and of finding Jesus in one's heart and true happiness and so on, since there actually is no way, after years of coming to do so with all one's heart, to avoid the risk of being later crually stabbed in the back by such foolish accusations of "having never been a true Christian" and thus dimissed and insulted like an evil bastard and a whimsical enemy of God who never seriously came to God, by the all the millions of other Christians who fill this planet and who I once so much respected and mistook as my brothers in the light of God, when it turns out that this commitment and total dedication was a terrible waste of my life and I dared to admit and try reporting it in the open (as if I had not been aready enough devastated and victim of extreme injustice and crualty from this Empire of Evil by the mere fact of all these years of waste in tries to run after God, study the Bible and see myself as sinner, humiliating my intelligence to shut up and wait for God, and then humiliated and devastated again by the discovery of having been so terribly mistaken by this so terribly foolish ideology which hijacked and jailed my mind and life in nonsense and destruction) ?

Where is the "good news" in the announcement that so many people will go to eternal hell ? If the positive effect of this "news" depends on the listener's trust in it, does it means any "news" should be trusted ? why this one ?
If there is no hell and all people go to heaven, then what was the Redemption for ? and what's the point of being Christian ?
Is there any fundamental difference between humans and animals (to make sense of the claim that only man was created as God's image) ? If yes, why is it that scientists could not find any meaningful and clear specific one ? If the difference has anything to do with intelligence, why is it that the Bible does not give any value to intelligence ?
Do animals have a life after death ? Do they need Jesus'sacrifice to be saved ? If no, why ? Are they without sin ? If they benefit Jesus'sacrifice, what happened to them in the many past million years ?

Do you consider yourself pretty much infallible in the reasonings from which you drew the conclusion that the Bible is from God (in the sense of, at least, a much more valuable reading than any other book), at least sufficiently infallible that it gives you a legitimate right to dismiss (refuse to care studying) any report of anyone coming to witness himself clear infallible evidence to the opposite conclusion (as I saw so many Christians reacting when I told them this report) ? For example, can the basis of your faith be expressed in the following terms : "I had a personally meeting with Jesus/God/whatever, this experience overwhelmed me with the clear evidence that this really was a clear contact with the Ultimate God with no possibility of mistake (such as a contact with a non-divine spirit which could lie or be mistaken), and from which I got a clear, explicit message of support to the truth of the Bible while I would have been equally ready to accept from God the opposite information" ? because while many Christian testimonies pointed to such a kind of "evidence" rather than anything of a more scientific style, I still do not remember one which was as clear as this in how serious and definite it claims the revelation to be. Or do you know any other Christian with a clear testimony of that kind ? But then what do you do with testimonies of that precise kind pointing to quite different conclusions such as this one ?

Which of the 3 members of the Trinity did you receive in your life and do you have a personal relationship with ?

Why is it that White Evangelical Christians largely voted Trump, while Evangelicals of color largely voted Clinton ? Would White Evangelicals and Evangelicals of color not have the same morality standards ? Are their concepts of right and wrong not grounded on the same God ? If the problem was that both candidates were equally bad, then how to explain that millions of Evangelical Christians, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, still all together didn't manage to find, select and promote a good candidate with chances to win US presidency ?

Should there be a minimum age to donate the tithe of one's income to the church ? If yes, how should this minimum be enforced ? If someone was Christian and donated to a church, but then deconverts, he surely now thinks of his donations, which he intended "for God", that he was actually swindled and that it isn't actually God's service which that church was doing and which his donations were used for. Shouldn't then the church give him back what he gave ? Why didn't churches ever care organizing things to ensure that ? And why not also pay him back for all the time he spent reading the Bible, praying and attending church services, bible studies and preachings, which turn out to have been a waste of time (a fact which Christians themselves strongly believe, by their way of then accusing him of being ignorant of their teaching every time he tries to raise an argument against them)?

Among these 3 horrors/evils
  1. Human sin (even when considering those of the nicest people on Earth, or who did the greatest deeds for the progress of civilization)
  2. Human suffering coming as material consequences of the action of sinners by the necessities of God's laws of physics which God (almost ?) never cares stopping by miracles
  3. God's judgement against sin, and the resulting punishment by eternal hell
which one is worse ? which one did Jesus come to stop and why ? with which success ?

If billions of people dedicated their life to having an intimate relationship with God (or at least hundreds of millions, if you prefer to excommuniate those with different ideas from yours), and this relationship made a fundamental difference on their life according to John's Gospel (chap. 14-16), how could it fail to produce overwhelming positive effects, forming solid proofs of this divine guidance ? (see also the above "evidence against theism"). Why is it that religions are better known to produce negative consequences (holy wars, conflicts with science, intolerance...), in such appearances that even God guiding His people cannot overturn ? Is there any conspiracy stronger than God here ? Are the benefits of obedience to God's will for oneself only, or for others too ? If for others too, then others should have noticed a difference, shouldn't they ? Why is it that this difference so often turns out to be negative (as described below) ?
Is there any rational evidence for Christianity, yes or no ?
  1. If yes, why do Christians keep saying it's a matter of faith, and why did so many clever and honest people reject these "evidences" ? Or is it because they are not honest ? Is their dishonesty motivated by their desire to go to eternal hell ?
  2. If no, why are Christians so always absolutely attached to their Christian worldview, never able to understand and address any other interpretation of the world ? Why do they so rarely take the serious step of wondering "what if it was really false ? How could I know it ?" even when they have "doubts" ?
In other words, why do Christians keep viewing faith as an absolutely free choice in a list of only one possible worldview ?

How could the original sin be called an act of free choice whose opportunity was given by God, without the full prior awareness of the possible consequences ? Was God unable to conceive a form of freedom to grant to man which was not a malicious poisoned gift ? Wasn't God the unfair malicious one here ?
When did the original sin happen: before or after man appeared on Earth ? Was the Earth without sin before humans emerged ? Where did it happen: with specific humans on Earth, or in some abstract spiritual realm only symbolized in the way told ?

If a story similar to the Gospel had been told before Jesus came on Earth, how could the listeners have felt that this Redemption did not yet happen, making it right for them to reject such a story despite hearing the same sort of invitation to convert as is now done ?
If there was no such a way, then how can we know that the Redemption did happen already ?

What is more valuable:
  1. to wastefully destroy one's own life in the name of one's goodness to others (holiness), or
  2. that the sufferings of others end ?
When Jesus values the small gift of the poor widow much more than the rich's abundant donations, the answer seems to be 1. However, when Christians hold Jesus as a model of holiness when he says to the paralyzed "Get up and walk", the answer seems to be 2. Is this a contradiction or a double standard ? How to reconcile this case of 2. in the actions of Jesus, with the observations of God's refusal to take calculated efficient actions for the sake of the world (as noticed above) ?

If you had the opportunity to save millions of people from injustice and suffering just by investing yourself in some work leading to this result, would you do it, or would you refuse just for the sake of your own humility (that you only want tasks that the Bible or the preachers say is God's will, or with benefits rigorously proportional to the goodness of your heart) and of the employment of God's goodness (to let the people the opportunity to pray God for help), as well as human (and especially Christian) charity work ? Or do you unquestionably assume it just can't be possible because you trust the divine revelation that human suffering cannot depend on anything else than human sin (and human choice) ? What if the problem was due to your own refusal to take the right decision to save millions, rather than their own respective faults ?
How do you explain that all the thousands of people, many of whom Christian, who got to know about my software project that would precisely lead to this result , and who were even generally convinced about it, never took any care to help or promote it (searching for programmers) ? Is it because solving many of the world's troubles (by the work of just few people for helping millions) would "not serve the glory of Jesus" as one Christian replied to me ?
Why is it that Christian faith (and more generally, religious and spiritual creeds) makes people generally more reluctant to seriously consider and study such possibilities of helping the world ? Is it because they don't want to make their life useful to the world ? Why do so many Christians prefer to directly oppose such projects by accusing their authors of pride, without trying to understand them ?

Did Exodus happen ? Are you aware of the archeological discoveries that proved the contrary (see above) ? Or do you just dismiss this as a conspiracy of human desires to disprove the Bible ? Otherwise, why did not Christians of previous centuries, seriously consider the possibility that this story was so fake ?

Why was the Bible so unclear about the difference between fact and allegory ?
Wherever the Hebrew Bible claims that God said something, did He really say it ? Did God change his mind since then ? If some of these words were not from God, why did God choose to let the message of His Son take its roots and heritage of divine authority in such a flawed religion, without even any warning against its aspects He never agreed with ? Were the Gospel writers and early Christian apologists aware about its flaws at all ?
Why is the Bible always so unclear about the difference between fact and allegory ?

Did the Jesus miracles happen (or which ones) ? Why was there an independent historical testimony of a solar eclipse during Jesus'death when other Christian historians see it clear that this event was added for the symbol according to the religious traditional mythologies of that time (see above) ?
What was the sense of the Christ's resurrection according to 1 Corinthians 15, if not that Christians of that time could not conceive any hope for a life after death as long as bodies remain in grave – a rather materialistic presupposition and motivation ?

Why does God let so many very sincere people follow wrong religions ? Why does He let anyone teach wrong things in His name, whether they are sincere or not ? Whenever someone is obsessed about giving their life to God and following His will, why does God's way of "respecting their freedom" consist in abandoning them in terrible mistakes ?

If the devil's conspiracy is responsible for blurring traces of the light of God in the world, making up imitations and challenging believers'faith by contrary appearances, are there any remaining reliable evidences of which is the right doctrine at all ? why do some Christians have no problem to consider the opinion of others and their respective strong foundations (eventually including miracles, changed lives) as a possible fruit of such a conspiracy of the devil (or of sin or illusion), but would never apply this suspicion to their own position ? where is their famous "humility" here ? Could they tolerate the possibility that their own religion is mistaken and God just abandoned them to their mistake ? What would be the problem there if religious orientations did in fact not matter for afterlife ? Why would God care to correct such relatively insignificant problems (temporary individual doctrinal mistakes) but leave the world to the much bigger rest of its sufferings ?

If the main criterion to distinguish between divine and diabolic revelation is the agreement with previous revelations, isn't this a sort of circular argument ? What about the Jewish argument that Christianity is incompatible with their previous revelations ?

Why did God choose to "give signs" of the divinity of Jesus by making miracles in secret, so as to not let any sane and honest person a chance to take seriously the claim that these miracles really happened (but rather as a way of letting them signs that they most probably did not happen) ? For example, even if we accepted the gospels on word, they claim that nobody saw Jesus'resurrection happening; and a virgin birth is no visible sign at all.
Is it because God hates sane and honest people and wants to lead them to the wrong conclusions so as to make up an excuse to condemn them ?
Or is God not responsible for this dire lack of reliable traces of what exactly happened (both by the choice of time and place, and by the decisions of Jesus himself) ?

What is the message of John 15:19-20, Matthew 12:25-32, if not a call for sectarianism, paranoia and conspiracy theories ? The object of conspiracy theories is to replace the explanation from simple chance, error and natural disorder (chaos), by the devil.
Let's try the argument : " If chaos drives out chaos, it is divided against itself. How then can its kingdom stand ?" Isn't Jesus telling fallacies ?

Why do the Gospels contain details that nobody could have witnessed ?
If the holy spirit guided the gospel writers, why do they disagree with each other ?

Why accept the Bible as God's word when most of its authors remain completely unknown and it neither contains any explicit revealed list of which books are divinely inspired ?

Why did Gospel writers quote non-existent verses of the OT (John 7:38 - Matthew 2:23) ?

Why do a number of Christians with whom I try to debate now accuse me (wrongly) of hating Christianity as pure irrational feelings, not checking them rationally enough, while when I was among them, the people who evangelized me and tried to guide me in Christ, when they saw me having some troubles, insisted I was too intelligent and took things too much with the head and not enough with the heart ?

Why is it that, a number of times, Christians I met insisted on their deep faith that our meeting occurred not just at random but by God's will for a greater purpose, but then shortly after this they were always the ones running away and refusing any further discussion as they discover that my convictions have stronger grounds than theirs, so that concretely they are those both disbelieving and preventing the possibilitity for our meeting to bring any fruit, not I ? Do they think this is my fault if I keep strong convictions and do not just patiently listen to their teaching as if I did not already know so well what is wrong with it ? Do they really think I shoud have a choice here when from my viewpoint there is absolutely none ?

Is God an utilitarist (measuring actions by their global long-term consequences rather than their direct form) ? God is often supposed to have greater plans than ours, so that, for example, displeasing us in the short term by refusing to fulfill a prayer is supposed to be justified by a greater plan for a greater good in the long term. However I have yet to see God see any further than His nose in a number of cases such as : daring to momentarily disturb a policeman to reveal him information about a criminal, leading to the small breach of freedom by the policeman against the criminal in order to preserve the well-being of the next possible victims of this criminal. As I guess there should exist many Christian policemen, why did God never reveal them any professional information during prayer ? Would it be a too selfish advantage for the policeman to get ? But if God never cares to correct/inform Christian policemen in such cases, why believe that He ever enlightens anyone better in theological matters (as if God had to care what we exactly believe), so why believe in any form of divine confirmation of the truth of the Gospel in the life of Christians ?

Why is God's field of competence/actions throughout His many interventions almost restricted to these 2 fields only : pure theology (evangelization, I'd say : pure bullshitology without any real object, indoctrination without any interest outside strict faith) and medicine, or is it ? Are these the 2 most important fields of concern in the world, determinants of all matters of good and evil, justice or misery ?

Why should we be amazed with God's healings, especially if we have not an illness likely to be healed that way ? Why should a healing be considered more amazing than God's silent help for not having got ill or accidents in the first place ? If God gives healing then who gave sickness at first ? Why didn't God design life so as to make the human body less vulnerable to disease or other troubles ?

I am ready to take the responsibility of my claims by committing to accept going to hell in case Christianity was true (as I know I'm not taking any risk here since it has no chance to be true). What about you : can you now commit on accepting to go to hell for eternity in case it would turn out that (there is an afterlife but) Christianity is wrong (not from God) and you were doing the wrong thing against God's will by preaching the Gospel, as it meant you were taking the name of God in vain, using His name to propagate some bullshit He never wanted, and spoiling people's life by misleading them and making them give their life to the wrong doctrine ? If you commit this, and then in case after death you discover that you lost your bet as Christianity was really wrong, can you then have the decency to abstain from trying to dismiss the validity of your commitment by any complaint that the game was unfair or the like, that you "could not know" and that God should have stopped you on the way in the name of your commitment for Him, when the concrete fact is that no decent excuse could protect you since there actually was plenty of available evidence of the falsity of Christianity which, in concrete terms, you stubbornly refused to inform yourself about by unjustly dismissing the witnesses of these evidences as evil people, sinners, enemies of God and not worth listening to, just because these witnesses did not look like the Jesus you decided to exclusively listen to ?

If God sometimes guides someone to one's love, why did He never guide anyone to inform someone else about where that latter person will find love ? Is the God guiding someone ignorant of anyone else's needs, tastes and existing matches but only knowing those of the person He is guiding or what ?

Why is it a form of wisdom and spirituality from the part of a Christian to love an homosexual (while homosexuality never made anyone do anything wrong, rather the opposite) but hate his homosexuality, but an act of crudeness and lack of spirituality from the part of an atheist upset about wrong behaviors of Christians visibly motivated by their religion, to love/excuse christians as people but blame their religion (Biblical doctrine), even while it is a proven scientific fact that homosexuality is innate (maybe genetic, anyway not separable from the person) while religious beliefs are obviously artificially given from culture ?

Why is the Church (the world community of Christians) as described that way by a Christian ? Why, on another topic, is it how I described there ? Why are things the way I described there while no Evangelic preacher noticed - and they still present themselves as speaking for the wisdom of God above human intelligence ? Why do to so many Christians hold William Lane Craig as a model of rationality while he clearly stands on a fundamentally anti-scientific, anti-rational (I would say obscurantist) ideology with actually zero remaining argument once the bullshit is removed ?

Why do the Gospels claim that, when Jesus was talking in parables, there was supposedly a positive correlation between Christian faith and the subtlety of the mind better able to grasp metaphors, i.e. the more subtle minds would have better chances than others to understand His spiritual message and follow Him...
... in practice leading Christians (I particularly remember one very scholar in Aquinas and other catholic literature and philosophy, but such attitudes may be widespread) to very stupidly and automatically pretend to explain the disagreement between us (any kind of disagreement, really) by that I would fail to "see things spiritually", but such dismissal of my view coming in a completely senseless, out-of-context manner while he actually never started understanding what I was talking about...
... but while I concretely observed the exactly opposite correlation to be the case. Namely, I observed Christians (and other religious people) to be much more often (than non-religious people) unable to grasp the sense of the metaphor which I developed in this text, despite the care I took to choose a metaphor which, as far as I could reasonably expect when I wrote it, could not fail being absolutely clear to any reader. In particular, why did one Christian student I met, who was studying both mathematics and philosophy (maybe graduate level, anyway beyond first year), who I invited to read this text, react to it by the following question: «Why do you call these «sins» ?» obliging me to try developing some exegesis of what I meant by this text ?

Why did Christians (preachers and lots of others) keep accusing me of having "freely chosen" to reject Christianity as if I had another option, regardless my testimony, what I know of myself, that it never was the way my deconversion happened ?

Why did almost all Christians I read or heard insist at least at some point on the idea of "not forcing" other people to believe, implicitly implying that this is a very crucial point of their personal faith, somehow suggesting how crucially different (implictly: how nicer) it makes them from some vague cloud of the fake rest of religious people, a vaguely invoked fake rest which even vaguely sounds to include a majority of other Christians, while I never ever in my whole life of thousands of observations saw any member of any religious movement whatsoever, make the opposite claim, that is, that faith would eventually need to be forced on someone ? How is that "value" of "not forcing" anything else than an excuse for that coward and dishonest behavior, that soldiers compliance to that strategy of global war and conspiracy of a world domination of nonsense, lies and obscurantism (active self-delusion followed by the active deception where oneself then "honestly" feels the need to teach one's own self-deception onto others), consisting in "attacking the weak" (ignorant people who are "open-minded", i.e. naive and intellectually defenseless against apologetical bullshit and fallacies) while "fleeing the strong" (those seen as "closed-minded" because they are "guilty of" having done their homework to get clear ideas of what they are talking about, thus clear understanding of why Christianity is wrong) under the excuse that "anyone must be let free of their own opinion") ? Where is the logic and honesty of claiming to know God, to have things to teach in God's name and to be on the path of divine light and wisdom, by "witnessing" that, "very honestly" from your part as far as you could hear of, things always happen in some ways and never in opposite ways, when your real behavior is to systematically refuse to learn any contrary available testimony and evidence that may be offered to you, from precisely the sources which are logically the only sources where such existing contrary evidence may be found, namely, refusing to learn anything from some sources for the very exact reason that such evidence was found there : exactly from the people who report having found such evidence because you want to "let them free of their opinion and request them to let you free of your opinions as well in return", since you see no point to "waste your time" more than few minutes for these people who you see as "closed-minded" as they are visibly not willing to shut up and religiously keep listening and saying amen to your bullshit, regardless that they actually can't "feel free" at all in these conditions, but rather deeply abused and betrayed, because they have already wasted and spoiled their whole life by having previously trusted and carefully followed teachings which were identical to yours ? Well, I do admit sometimes hearing some people put forward the "power of God", insisting that God comes as power instead of arguments. And I actually did feel a few times that "divine power" as I mentioned there (from "Radiating a powerful aura..."). By the way, how do you consider such a powerful face of God put forward by some ? Otherwise, what is the meaning of "freedom" if one of the offered options leads to hell ? How can that be a nice gift from God, and why do so many Christians keep having such a "positive attitude" towards what they (falsely) regards as a mere matter of personal choice just as free and futile as choosing the color of one's socks, that they find it right and nice (and they will even require the same of their oppenents) to end all discussion by this "just anyone's choice" attitude, while on the other hand they keep believing that any alternatives to their way are leading to hell ? If I had a child, I would not regard as a nice positive and responsible attitude to just let him freely go into a precipice if he seemed to be heading there. Does it make any sense to say that someone freely chooses an option that leads to hell : isn't it a trap against him, and then can he really have freely chosen this ? Isn't such a freedom a poisoned gift ? Why see any virtue in a God that offers this ?
As the first of the following two questions from there:

Freedom to choose is given to man by God. Man has two main choices: 1) accept the Love of God and, upon death, go to paradise for eternity, 2) Refuse God and, upon death, just die, be utterly damned. How is that freedom of choice when it is the same thing as a gun to your head?

Jesus said rich men don't go to Heaven easily and even implied that it wasn't possible. Why are so many people with money and property Christian if they are probably going to Hell?

Why are Christians talking to me so regularly divinely confident of having lots of things to teach me which they must put forward (like spammers) and they assume I need to shut up and listen patiently and carefully like it would be totally new things for me I never heard, while the reality is that I already heard all these things hundreds of times and already debunked in details in my many web pages, by answers which these Christians are visibly totally clueless about, but they visibly show no interest in ever making an effort to study and learn my now overwhelming excellent reasons (necessities) to see them as so hopelessly stupid, ridiculous in their claims of divine wisdom, and totally ignorant of the topics they claim to teach me about ? Why is it that in face of Christians, especially "authoritative" ones (I especially remember one time with a catholic priest), I find myself essentially "obliged" by their attitude to get angry, to speak loudly, to refuse listening to them, to forcefully interrupt them all the time and to force them to hear me for half an hour (thus to behave against them in all the ways they believe to be the most evil kinds of behavior on Earth, thus making me look like an evil bastard on the way) as the only possible method they concretely left me for the mere sake of explaining to them and getting them start grasping (instead of absurdly wasting the time of both of us with their endless flow of nonsense) the simple fact that they should not just quickly judge and dismiss all my research and testimony after just few minutes, while I come to witness having very seriously examined things for years and found overwhelming evidence disagreeing with Christianity (while they have no evidence on their side, be serious !!!). That such a report and testimony of mine should be respected at least hypothetically, in the sense that they have no logical right to confidently judge me as clearly an idiot and evil bastard and to dismiss as empty and fake the logical value of all the research of my life (which they actually have no clue of), for the mere crime of reporting my adventure and my confidence in the validity of my research, just because the 5 minutes of attention they decided to give me to try to sum up the research of my life did not suffice for me to debunk all the twisted brainwashing they went through life long and let them understand everything and convince them of the validity of all my reasons, (while Christians usually have infinite requirements on their opponents for having any right to negatively judge and speak about Christianity : to spend one's life reading the Bible multiple times, yes even while I did read the Bible and I report it, they still have faith I did'nt, so they keep dismissing me by claiming I should first read the Bible, then satisfy multiple further undefinable requirements, which it is always possible and automatic to blame someone of not satisfying regardless the facts....). As if the necessity of seriously studying an opposite view of a new kind (that oneself is not yet familiar with yet) from a serious intelligent person as prerequisite of judgement, or otherwise granting the respect and benefit of doubt to the possible validity someone's discoveries that took years of research and experience from that person but that you did not give more than 5 minutes to examine yourself, should not be an obvious necessity of moral and logical decency and basic human respect that everyone should have learned in primary school so as to save from that petty but very exhausting educational burden the honest and serious people (generally and in particular geniuses of science like me) with whom it would be needed.
Why do they regularly remain undisturbable in their confidence in knowing everything better than I no matter we are going through the clear demonstrable experience that I never committed any significant mistake I would have to modify in my positions and criticism of Christianity, while all their arguments, positions and accusations (speculations or calomnies) that they imagine my positions as based on this or that stupid mistakes, are demonstrably wrong and they visibly have to modify them all the time (replacing a false accusation once refuted by another false continuously not yet refuted since their imagination of what stupid mistake I might have committed is endless) ? Or why is it that when they are losing their confidence in their own infallibility to know everything better than I it is usually just the chance for them, still without ever feeling disturbed, to jump into another sort of pride : the pride of being superiorly humble and recognizing one's fallibility (implying : it is my crime if I do not recognize myself as making as many mistakes as they do) and of not being the right person to talk with - so as to make me guilty of not being talking to the experts instead, supposed to have got all the answers I must have said amen to ? And why do they then dare to confidently assume I failed to do it as I should just based on the fact it did not lead me to the conclusions they assume I must have reached then, no matter that I did actually check the "arguments" of all the most famous experts I could and found them equally hopelessly stupid, as their popularity as "experts" is visibly based on the supidity of people who mistake them as such since the public is totally unable to distinguish whether the "arguments" from supposed "experts" make any sense (have any rational strength) or not?

How honest is it to proclaim and spread testimonies that Jesus changes lives for the better, trying to let people assume that faith must be always good without risk to the contrary, but without having even priorly started searching for information on possible testimonies of people whose life has been harmed by Christian faith in case they would be also very important (harm either caused by having followed it oneself or by suffering the consequences from the behavior of others who did: see links "atheist and anger" and "psychological damages") ? How would you know if they are not important or frequent if you didn't start honestly searching for this information ? Why have I regularly been kicked out from churches the few times I still dared entering afer my deconversion and trying to share my testimony (of how faith contributed to destroy my life and what I found wrong with it after very careful examination), and carefully oriented to exclusively speak to the pastor who turned out to be an expert in the art of despising and refusing to listen and understand anything of what I would have to say, to not let anyone else in the church know anything of my testimony ? Why is it that the main time I remember speaking with an Evangelical Christian who did not despise me right from the start but seemed sympathetic and ready for long peaceful discussions, he promised to me that his church would be sympathetic and welcoming as well (and did not feel concerned with my reports of christian closed-mindedness), but then (as he was a barman and invited me to his bar), once I went to his bar, for a moment he got out and left me discussing with the pastor of his church (in presence of some young people from there), who then kicked me out of that bar 5 minutes later regarding me as an evil bastard (while the reality is that I am victim of Christianity which I tried to trust and follow too seriously) and making the young people of that church see me as such too, just because I disagreed with the relevance of the assumed logical character of his little favorite "reasoning" which was the exclusive thing he can ever accept to "discuss" (and only by strictly following it), and he regarded me as an idiot and impostor when I reported being an expert in logic, since he decided what logic must dictate (no matter that he is himself only pastor with no special competence in logic and math himself) ?

Why does the majority of Christians in the US finds it good in the name of "Christian morality", to support a Republican party which is climate change denialist, therefore one of the strongest forces of destruction of the ecosystem of our planet, further impoverishing many of the already poorest countries, and with serious consequences on biodiversity for the next millions of years ? Question for Christians who now deny the emergency regarding climate change: in case after 100 years from now it turns out that climate change is a disaster, so that the overwhelming consensus of Christians (as a defense of Christianity against any evil made in its name) will hold that today's Christians who denied this emergency were not true Christians, but only greedy people motivated in their denialism by the selfish interest of wasting the planet's resources, and not excusable since the overwhelming scientific evidence was actually already here and one had to be a really terrible moron to not see it, then will you see it right to go to hell as a false Christian for this reason ? And, in case the correct understanding of climate issues was not supposed to be a required qualification for "how to be a true Christian" in spite of the high stakes for the future of life on this planet, then, how to justify that churches are more likely to put the title of "mission for God" to the study of theology, how to be a "true Christians" and make as many other "true Christians" as possible, over the study of climate sciences which could help someone cast the right vote during presidential elections about it ?
Why did Christians never do, afaik, any sort of campaign to slow down the overpopulation of the planet, which is another of its main factors of destruction ? Is this not of any concerns in God's higher plans above the most common little concerns of stupid short-sighted whimsical humans ? And why did I instead once hear a Christian put forward, as something wonderful and that absolutely deserves worship, a report that God fulfilled prayers to give pregnancy to a couple that seemed sterile ?

Why did Christian churches neglect the campain against psychiatry, leaving Scientology take the forefront of that fight ?

What does it mean to say that salvation is a "free gift from God" (since "the price was paid by Jesus") when the effective fact is that anyone receiving it more or less necessarily happens to feel obliged to dedicate many hundreds of hours to things such as studying the Bible, praying, donating money to churches, conditioning one's mind to think in conformity to the teachings, and trying to evangelize others ? Are these things not a sort of real cost attached to this "free gift" ?

Why is it that, still now in 2016, for example as appears in http://christiananswers.net/ coming as 2nd google result on "hard questions to christians", Christians so often find as a good means to defend their ideology, to keep putting forward arguments trying to convince people into such an intersideral nonsense, such a fuckingly absurd, insane and absolutely, ridiculously indefensible view as the one that the Earth is actually flat young, that the Universe was created long after the light we get from the Omega Centauri cluster was actually emitted, and that all the overwhelming scientific evidence of its old age can be safely dismissed ? Are they promising that anyone coming to God with a sincere heart will receive from Him the grace of getting his mind so absolutely fucked up and brainwashed to mental death, to the point of denying all the most overwhelming evidence of reality so that he would even reject the now so clear fact of the age of the Earth ? Is it just because humans are fallible even in their tries to evangelize people ? When could Christians ever stop demonstrating the real equivalence, in their ideology, between justifying obvious insane nonsense as being God's wisdom above all intelligence so that humans cannot judge it, and justifying the same obvious insane nonsense as being caused by the natural mistakes of fallible humans that we should not judge because it is normal and right for humans to make mistakes and Jesus came to die for the forgiveness of all this, so that the only wrong thing would be to not understand and forgive ? If Jesus has any power on this planet, why doesn't he have the decency of coming to exterminate in lightnings or the like, all the fucking soldiers of intersideral nonsense who, no matter how sincere, actually found nothing better as the "sense of their life" than spending it to fuck up the world in His name, by their defense of the indefensible, with the effect of either turning the minds of people into such an infinite nonsense, or totally decredibilizing the Gospel in the eyes of the minority of sanely thinking people by associating it with such ?

Why is it that, while you proudly see it right if God cannot forgive anyone against his will so that whoever did not repent should obviously go to hell, you still pretend to see something wrong with me when I cannot calm down as you commit the double fault of awfully misjudging me whenever I try to report to you some hints of my testimony of my life and deconversion, and of still trying to harass me with your fucking religion and pressure me to re-convert, while you never started to apologize, neither for your evangelical harrassment and these awful misjudgements you cast to me, nor for all the huge damage which your fucking religion already caused to me from the beginning of time as I gave my life to it in the past; nor for your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the nevertheless objectively clear fact that this Christianity which harmed my life is the same which you follow and keep throwing into the face of people (therefore putting their life at risk of the same damage), nor for this particular case of misjudgment by which you accuse me of "confusing" both "versions" of Christianity which you so stupidly assume to be completely different while having actually zero clue of what I mean, and as if I ever was the kind of person who could ever have dared proclaiming such a "confusion" unless these "versions" where really identical and I really had overwhelming evidence of that fact.

To be continued later.

Comments on this list of answers to another list of questions

"you'll see just how much He does care for the earth and its people." is followed a bit later by "God usually seems to only permit true miracles when doing so is needed to bring people to faith" which proves that God actually does not care to really make anything objectively good in real life, he is only interested to make the little low pseudo-good which can be best used as a trick which is absolutely not aimed at making this life more decent but only focused on a completely different purpose: brainwashing, mental hijacking, zombifying people's minds into that fucking ideology which is fancifully supposed to "save their souls" but actually the only objectively real result is that it is fucking up all decency and meaningfulness of life on this planet. In the same line, see also another question, and also the only answer I got in my questions on the Fatima miracle; see also Greta Christina's "top one reason religion is harmful"

"Recall the Israelites as they wandered for 40 years." you never informed yourself on the scientific evidence that this is a mere tale did you ?

"After the flood the earth was one land mass, basically Pangaea" The fact is that the myth of the flood originates from around 2,000 BC. If ever such a story could be inspired from real events, the oldest imaginable source could be around 15,000 years ago, something like when, due to the end of the last glacial period, the melting of ice resulted in a rise of sea level which submerged some former areas of land and transformed them into seas. Pangea, on the other hand, started breaking apart some 175 million years ago, that is in the youth of the age of dinosaurs long before our last common ancestors with marsupials

"It also doesn't help that satan is more or less in charge of the world": I doubt Satan is in charge of the world since most things pretty well seem to conform to what is expectable as consequence of the raw laws of chance in the context of a world peopled by stupid humans developing their thought by themselves as we observe them. However, insofar as Satan might be in charge of something, it looks pretty much like he was more precisely in charge of designing the Bible, considering how fucked up are the consequences of humans dedicating themselves to trusting and following that stuff... why not ? why would christians be less vulnerable targets of diabolic nonsense than the rest of the world, since they are not even claiming to be more clever or serious than others ? Indeed Christianity (and Islam) was one of the main force which slowed down the progress of science which turned out to alleviate part of this suffering. If that does not indicate its diabolic origin, I cannot see what else might.

"God is interested in how we act and what we believe in while we are in this physical world. He is pleased by faith"...and so on, this is nothing more than what you have been brainwashed to assume to be God's whimsical preferences; and what is arbitrarily assumed to be God's whims then serves as a definition for morality. This is totally arbitrary axioms with no kind of actually meaningful considerations on how life actually goes, what "true fairness" should mean, what it should actually mean for a God to be "good" and "fair". This way in which many such axioms are passively and automatically swallowed by this horde of mindless zombies with their carefully flat electroencephalogram is anyway the needed condition for Christianity to reach a minumum of coherence and consensus between its members, giving the illusion of a common God source of all their ideas...

answers to "...he would be described as a tyrant" are just bullshit fallacies which Christians have been brainwashed into repeating while it makes no sense and is a ridiculously, diabolically false description of how things actually go in the life non-Christians and ex-Christians (as if they rebelled against God, which they don't or if they do they can have legitimate reasons to rebel against that evil tyrant which Christians worship as their God, as this picture of God actually turns out evil when combining Christian claims with some people's real experience). However there is indeed no way to explain this to a Christian since they never went themselves through this experience; if they did, they would not swallow that nonsense any longer. See my above description of how things are really going. " If you are a parent": as Christians remain such because they are lucky and they think their luck is a necessary gift from God, they are clueless about how evil a "parent" their God actually is in the life of some less lucky people.

"Our worship of God also includes a relationship" : wrong. The evidence that nobody on Earth got any information from any decent God is overwhelming, since otherwise consequences would be very different. Christians are only in "relationship" with their own faith.

"God is being "paid" only once for our sins... Or we can choose to accept Jesus' payment for our sins." that does not make any sense : whether Jesus paid for a particular person cannot be modified retroactively since it is supposed to have been done 2000 years ago

"the problem comes when we reject God's payment of sin and insist to pay it ourselves" : mentioning this as if any decent God should have the perversity of focusing on this issue as if it could be decently paid attention to in guise of main issue in matters of morality, and more precisely, as if this totally arbitrary criterion coming from nowhere, that assumed little perverse obsession of that little God, of precisely expecting from all people that very strange and peculiar attitude of "accepting the price to be paid by someone else" ignoring any other consideration, as the condition for salvation, is an evil nonsense. See my comment there. Ifever a God is perverse enough to stick to such absurd criteria in judging people and sending them either to heaven or hell then anyway for moral reasons I refuse to be corrupted into following the stated condition to go to heaven, I will have the courage to go to hell instead and I will still dare to have faith that this can only be a small evil God, not the real God, and that a really worthy God must exist beyond him to send that little god himself to hell and finally restore a decent and completely decent justice afterwards.

"God allows us the choice to pay our own way, which is an eternity in torment in Hell" Bullshit. An honest gift of freedom requires to state the full conditions (consequences) of the choice and to make these conditions credible. But the biblical doctrine is not credible at all, especially the claim that the price of our faults would be an eternity of torment in hell, is obviously ridiculous bullshit invented by insane people to threaten the people and oblige them to keep faith disregarding the evidence, therefore explaining how such an insanity could be spread and have won the world while ignoring all evidence against it (such as the evidence from NDE that many people can find bliss in the afterlife independenly of their creeds), thus making is success no sign of credibility at all. No sane God can trap people and punish them of an eternity of hell just for not believing that obvious bullshit. No fault can meaningfully deserve an eternity of torment without good reasons, such as that it first concretely created an infinity of damage, which is usually not the case. But if there are good reasons to deserve an eternity of torment then there logically cannot be also any good reason for anyone to care offering a way out.

"In the past, when people have seen been close to God in a fallen state, they couldn't handle it. The Israelites had just this opportunity..." this is bullshit tales. If a true God ever contacted us like a really decent God, it would look extremely different, resulting in very different human reactions, than what is dreamed of in the bullshit tales usually inspired by the christian ideology.

"because many Christians are probably luke-warm in their faith walk, and not committed to God. Churchianity, anyone? " The gift of the holy spirit and divine guidance is supposed to be free and for all people, who (no matter that it is supposed to be free), are actually committing a lot of energy into that stuff. Still they are regularly accused of not being committed enough, so that all the commitment that is actually made is often, like here, regarded from a Christian viewpoint as being globally about 0% of what is actually needed. I think, a God who makes such violent accusations of fakeness to people who give a lot of energy for Him after they tried to trust His wonderful promises, is quite a evil swindler, isn't He ? If an ideology does not work when applied to real people, is it the fault of the people who are not fit for the ideology, or the fault of the ideology which is not well designed to actually work on real people ? God supposedly had all the power to inspire a book as He thought would work best when people sincerely care to read and apply it. If it does not work, that's His fault, not the fault of the people reading and following it. But if it is not supposed to work, maybe because nothing would work on real people anyway, then God should have warned about it right from the start to not make us waste our energy for nothing.
By the way, every Christian usually assumes to be himself an exception to the overall fakeness in the large mass of the rest of Christians. Maybe because he is more humble than them...

I stop here. I am fed up with such stupidity.

And another one

found there
"I'm right with the atheists in that most Christians are pretty stupid. " Well that seems to be one of the most widespread consensus among Christians... as soon as it is about the rest of Christians except oneself (plus so many sheep who insist on their own stupidity and that I'm absolutely insane to try talking to them, my guilt is to not be going to exclusively talk to the shepherd instead who must surely have all the answers - regardless that I already talked to the shepherds and found them stupid as well). Beware the risk being yourself in that majority.
"Why won't God heal amputees?" - "Who's to say healing them is the right thing?" well if only the question was why does not God heal all amputees, we might indeed wonder if it might be the right thing to not be healed for the case of those not healed, though in that case the lack of falsifiability in such a claim, as long as no observable correlate could be found with an explainable relation between this observable correlate and the idea of "staying amputed being a good thing" would render it useless and worthy of the greatest doubts like any unfalsifiable claim. However we are not in this case since we are speaking about why none of amputees is ever healed, which is a condition with rather well-identified material causes. Therefore such an explanation may easily be challenged, for example, by the following thought experiment. Imagine I suddenly decide to amputate you, for example if I was an agent operating in some extreme islamic ruled part of the world and you were arrested for some "crime" for this law for which a decision of amputation would apply. Once I amputate you, the chances are that God won't heal you of this, since He never does it in such cases. Then does my action of amputating you, suddenly automatically results in making it a good thing for you to stay amputated all your life, for the reasons you have just proudly put forward ? In such conditions, the very idea of difference between right and wrong becomes empty doesn't it ? Or, if you seriously believe that amputating someone really makes it a good thing for him to stay amputed all his life, why didn't you put this good news into practice by amputating yourself already ?
"Because most religious people do what they're told." but how can they do otherwise in lack of a verifiable source of information on what God really says/wants ? And if, despite all their very devote and committed prayers for God to guide them and reveal His correct truth to them, God refuses to cure them from the illness of not having grasped the correct meaning of His message by providing a clear revelation of the correct info instead, may it be because the domination of these wrong ideologies are actually part of a great divine plan ? Who's to say that correcting them would be the right thing ? By the way, see there.

Another one

full of bullshit
"how can you explain the faithfulness of the disciples to the testimony of the resurrection even in the face of their own deaths?"
There is no evidence for the real existence of the "disciples", and if ever some were real the precise content of their reports and feelings. The gospels seem to have been fancifully written long after the "disciples" died, and were only fancifully attributed to imaginary disciples.
"They died as martyrs" Today, many people "die as martyrs" as well, still this is no evidence they are right.
"why did 500 people say they saw Him alive" one person wrote a text claiming the existence of such 500 people, but this is no evidence for the existence of these 500 people. Nothing is there to ensure that the circumstances of this writing and reproducing of this text happened in conditions that would ensure its destruction in case it was a mere fancy or a lie. It was made in ancient times, copying was a difficult task, and the means to investigate on such issues were even harder. It could have started to be famous and begging for verification only long after the time such people were supposed to be living, which made any checking impossible.
"how can you explain the inability of the first century skeptics to deal with the resurrection with an alternative explanation? All the power of Rome and of the religious establishment in Jerusalem was geared to stop the Christian faith. All they had to do was to dig up the grave and to present the corpse. They didn't." that is lots of assumptions on the possible circumstances of the stuff. There is no reason to assume that at that time, the question of how to stop the Christian faith was formulated in such terms. If the Jesus story was all made up, there was no grave to dig in the first place to try proving anything. And proofs don't matter for Christians anyway. No matter the proof, the main Christian answer at these times was to exterminate all people with a different opinion.
"his closest friends were an extraordinary compulsive group of liars." No, they did not think they were lying, they were only writing tales which they found inspiring in order to convey a spiritual message, while the material details of what could really happen did not matter in their sense.

"these are some of the principal ones that could become intellectual roadblocks to those who are truly seeking to know the truth about God" Bullshit
"All other religions are diametrically opposed to Christianity on the most crucial question: "Who is Jesus Christ?""
Every religion can have its own "most crucial question" on which it can be opposed to all others. There is no objective reason to see this particular question as the most crucial, especially as it rather seems to be a question on a mere fictional character, and even if there was a particular real person the stories were inspired from, he couldn't even have been called "Jesus Christ" in his lifetime anyway, especially as the word "Christ" comes from the Greek, which does not seem to have been the language spoken at that time and place. What if the most crucial question was "Who is Superman" ?

One question with an answer I find unsatisfactory
Main texts:

Criticism of Evangelical Christianity

Religion