Part IV : Explaining and refuting religions

(Part I - Part II - Part III)

Myths of Miracles

To develop a scientific viewpoint on miracles, we first need to split them into 2 categories : the miracles that happened, and those that didn't happen (and correctly sort the most famous examples into these).

Antiquity was full of mythologies, telling about creation stories, of miracles and incarnated gods.
It is natural, as people like to tell each other about wonderful stories, which seem much more important to them than ordinary ones. And, in quite hard contexts (low education level, low technologies, bad organization systems, bad transportation means, bad communication means, no internet available), they had no decent means to verify or refute the truth of stories that were told to them. So, myths could easily propagate, not easily be contradicted, and ifever at some time and place a myth was contradicted, people there would just shut up about it while it would keep propagating in other places.

They spread in many places all over the world. India is especially full of old stories of incarnated gods.
Stories evolved, inspired each other, generating new versions and mixtures of versions.
Myths of life-death-rebirth deities and virgin births were all over the place. The reign of Alexander the Great more than 3 centuries BC spanned far to the East and generated exchanges between religious traditions on large distances, thus including Buddhism.

Consider the story which officially serves as the root of today's most dominant religions: the Hebrew bible. It contains plenty of accounts of miracles, claimed to have happened many times during the history of the Jewish people. But these miracles suddenly stop occurring near the end of the story (the same time when the Jews are suddenly irreversibly becoming faithful to their God). Then, what happens when miracles finally stop occuring ? Then comes the reign of Josias. What happens during the reign of Josias ? You can read it in 2 Cronicles 34, or in 2 Kings 22 and 23. This is the account of the true creation of Judaism, and the circumstances how all these stories were made up, collected, put together and arranged into a seemingly consistent whole, out of inspirations from diverse older sources.

Now in recent times, archeological research was finally conducted without the forceful desire to prove the validity of the Biblical story. This research, conducted by Israel Finkelstein and others, happened to establish the evidence that the real story is very, very different from what the Bible says; and how did the Bible itself happen to be written. Namely, that there was no historical Exodus, nor any historical Moses (whose birth legend borrows from the birth story of Sargon of Akkad). The Egyptian empire was so large at the "time of Moses" that it included the land of Canaan. Hebrews emerged from a lower social class of Canaanites who managed to free themselves from the domination they were under. The full story of how things happened, as established by recent archeological findings, can be read for example in the book The Bible Unearthed (a good synthesis, whose main lines are now well-established, even if other archeologists may disagree on some details).

How easy it is in such conditions to claim having had many fulfilled prophecies, when both the act of prophecy and the claim of its historical fulfillment are in fact invented long after they presumably happened.

The implications of this discovery cannot be underestimated, as more than half of today's world population belong to religions heavily founded on the Hebrew bible (that they include in their sacred texts and crucially draw from it their claims of divine authority, or at least had to do so at their initial development), which they hold as historically rather accurate, at least concerning the reality of the Exodus and Moses as a historical figure.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee for this to make any significant difference to the popularity of these religions in the near future, as
Many things can be said (and can be found in many Web sites) about what's wrong with the Bible, either in terms of accuracy, consistency or morality.
Let us just make a few remarks (among countless possible other remarks)

When the Church opposed heliocentrism (in the Galileo trial), one of the arguments was the story in the Hebrew bible telling a miracle where the sun went back its way in the sky so as to make one day longer.

Not only the contents of the Gospels are probably all made up (there is no independent confirmation for the Jesus story), but they contain a completely distorted interpretation of the Hebrew Bible that do not resist scrutiny, so that careful Jews have no problem to refute claims of competing religion supposedly based on their Bible, especially Christian missionaries claims that Jesus would be the expected Messiah.

Christians of the first century believed that the end of the world was near, so that not all of them would die before it happened. Still now, based on the Revelation text, many Christians expect a new coming of Jesus that would mark the end of this world (an extremely miraculous change, for a 2000 years of reign of Jesus, followed by a total destruction of the universe). But what can be the sense of this "hope" and "good news" as the universe is billions years old, life miserably crawled on Earth without any help from God for millions of years, and just suddenly now is starting to open up to much more interesting possibilities (in terms of decent living conditions and meaningful progress towards knowledge, culture and so on) ???

The viewpoint of Jehovah's witnesses, in all its absurdity, still carries the following genuine remark that other Christians seem to ignore: in its beginning, Christianity was a quite materialistic religion. Indeed as expressed in 1 Corinthians 15, the reason why it was so important for the first Christians to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, is to serve as a first case and promise for the bodily resurrection of all people. And why did they need to believe this ? It is because they could not find any hope for a life after death as long as their body would remain in the grave ! They claim that these bodies are sleeping and waiting to be miraculously revived some time later. In other words, they could not make any difference between the soul and the body.

But, if life was only about bodily life, then we would only be machines (sorts of robots). Are we ? But if, on the other hand, the deep nature of consciousness is immaterial, then the connection to our body is temporary and with no fundamental value. A body is nothing else than an assembly of atoms in some specific order.
Quantum theory even explicitly proves that particles cannot be individually identified beyond their type: an exchange of 2 particles of the same type (2 electrons, or 2 atoms with the same numbers of protons and neutrons) does not modify the state of a physical system - and indeed, most of the atoms that make up our bodies are continuously replaced many times during our life. Thus if we could make an exact copy of a body by putting together other atoms in the same order as in the first body, this would somehow be another occurrence of the same body. Thus if ever the first body was destroyed while the second was still "empty" of soul, then the soul that was in the first body that is destroyed would just need to move to the second body in order to continue life normally. But then, if ever after death we still need to come back to an earthly life, why take an old, dead and scrapped body and expect some miracle to put back its atoms in some workable order ? Reincarnation to a fresh new fetus would be such a more interesting choice.
Thus, how silly is the Christian dogma of a bodily resurrection; and also their dogmatic denial of all possibility of reincarnation. This denial might have seemed like a defensible view in the context of some past culture which had not given any serious thought about the difference between mind and body, about a possibility of life out of the body, or of reincarnation, and where NDE testimonies suggesting reincarnation were not well-known either. But it is so pitiful to see them endorse the heritage of this past dire lack of understanding, in their way of regarding it as a divine revelation. See also the difficulties interpreting Jesus'Ascension.

What about other miracles ? For anyone who knows physics, it is clear that some miracles are totally unrealistic. Such a judgement is not, as stupid religious fanatics would assume, merely based on some arbitrary dogma that the "laws of physics" would have divine status over God, and cannot be broken because we saw them unbroken until now; to which they would reply that God is higher that our ideas on the laws of physics. It's much more subtle than this.
Can God make 2+2 equal to 5 ? Can He draw a square with 2 edges and 3 vertices ? So, there are some ideas that are impossible because of self-contradiction. People would naively assume that laws of physics are all of a different type, that their violation would be conceivable, and God could violate them in a miracle.
In fact, it depends on which laws. The known laws of physics are of different types, and once we know them and try to figure out that God would decide to break them, it clearly appears that some of them would be harder to break than others.
In particular, we know from general relativity (describing gravitation as an effect of the curvature of space-time) that the conservation of mass (or energy, which is the same), is absolutely unbreakable, as it comes as a theorem of geometry: once assumed that the equation of general relativity (relation between mass and the space-time curvature) is valid before and after a miracle, we can get as a geometrical theorem (by trying to glue together the space-time of before and after the miracle) that the conservation of mass still necessarily holds during the miracle too.
But one of Jesus's miracles claims to contradict this: the multiplication of fish and bread.
Naive people may imagine that if we have a little mass of food, then some miracle may expand this mass to let it feed more people, and leave more rests than the starting mass. In fact, this is absolutely impossible, as what it says requires to break the mass conservation, which we know can't be broken even by God. If we really want to force a possibility to get the claimed result, the best hypothesis would be to take some dark matter, which flows around invisibly, and transform it into ordinary matter. But, from the viewpoint of the laws of physics, this would be a very violent operation, much more violent than the explosion of a nuclear bomb. First, the little piece of food "used" at the start would be of absolutely no help, either as a model or a generator, for supplementary atoms to appear and form more food.
Second, for such a violent miracle, it is very surprising to not have observed any strong side effect.
Third, if really God had such a power, then it would be so pitiful to waste it just for fulfilling such a little need that could have been satisfied by much easier means (such as attracting a flock of birds and making them fall already roasted on the ground). There would have been so much more wonderful things to do with just a very tiny fraction of this power, such as creating thousands of living species much more wonderfully designed than those currently living on Earth (including some that would wonderfully replace humans), by writing down their DNA from scratch - if only God had enough proper imagination to know which are the desirable DNA codes.

Some Christians may react to this by saying: in these miracles, God's goal was to give a spiritual message, so as to be understood by the people of that time, disregarding any troubles with the laws of physics that are nothing to Him, in ways that those people would not have understood.
Well... to make a comparison, it's just like saying: the reason why Jesus went through a wall here rather than use the open door just a few steps aside to reach that place, is that people were not aware of the fact there was a wall here and an open door there, so that they would not have understood why he would go that way; his way through the wall was useful for the spiritual message he wanted to provide.
Hum...

But another problem is that the story and teachings of Jesus are not even original, as they have many things in common with those of Buddha as well as other myths of that time - starting with the very idea that a divine person may come as a human incarnation, which was commonplace in India.
See Jesus Christ in comparative mythology.
The Gospel writers claims of prophecy of the Jesus life in the Hebrew Bible are wrong (and refuted by jews). For example, the Hebrew Bible never announced any virgin birth: the word in Isaiah meant "young lady", which was misinterpreted, falsely translated to "virgin" in the Greek version of the Bible which Christians took as their reference. Anyway, even possible similarities between the story of Jesus and the Hebrew bible cannot prove anything, as nothing can prevent the details of Jesus life to have been invented just for resembling excepts of Hebrew scriptures interpreted as prophecies.

Problem: if God did such miracles with His unique Son sent on Earth, why would so many details of the story have remained enclosed in the fruits of human imagination, as had been expressed by previous myths ? Is this the expression of a unique revelation and the trace of wonderful miracles by God above all human thought, as Christians want to depict things ?

Christians usually see as irrelevant the observation of similarities between Jesus (and Christianity) and the other myths and religions of that time, because:
1) There is no strict identity between stories. Yes but no myth is strictly identical to another myth either, yet many myths are vaguely inspired from other myths, so that this is not really a difference.
2) In their view, Jesus came to give us revelations from God and thus had no reason to have taken his inspiration from these other myths; such similarities would be a mere coincidence. Admittedly, there is no direct proof that the Gospels and other Christian traditions were not created from scratch, in the same way as there is no direct proof that the Earth and the Universe were not created from scratch by God 6,000 year ago with all these numerous fossils and images of faraway stars and galaxies (so far that their light cannot have been emitted by physical objects less than 6,000 years ago), just made to mislead us into believing in a much older universe.
However, these miracles were supposedly made by God for serving as a sign of the divinity of Jesus, rather than for being a source of ridicule and discredit.
Admittedly, the effect is different depending on the educational level of the listener. To the uneducated, claims of miracles can be received as a sign of divine authority no matter other circumstances.
But for educated people who had the chance to know about such similarities, this is a source of discredit, for the following reason.
Between two worldviews (whether the Jesus story is of a genuine incarnation of the Son of God or a myth), the argumentative power of an observation is defined by ratio of probabilities for the observed fact inside each worldview. In the Christian worldview, such a similarity between the Jesus life and other myths is a possibility but a very unlikely coincidence, (probability close to zero). But in a non-Christian view (Jesus myth hypothesis), such similarities are very much expected (probability close to 1). Thus the precise details of life, teachings and miracles of Jesus seem to be designed by God for the discredit of His own message.
All this seems very consistent with the Jesus teachings telling that intelligence and education have no value in the eyes of God, and even that God prefers people who choose to give up all use of intelligence in their approach to God. Thus, both sides may finally feel reinforced by these observations....

But let us hear the following explanation given in a TV debate in May 25, 2006, by Frederic Lenoir, philosopher and sociologist of religions (famous French writer, on a personal spiritual path mixing aspects of Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, Buddhism and philosophy), to defend the authenticity of the Gospels against alternative stories, as the Da Vinci Code story was having its fame at that time:

"We must delve into the mindset of antiquity for which the interests of historical truth was not the same as ours, and we have many texts of the Ancients where what matters is to get the message no matter (we do not care) if it's exactly what was said by the character who is credited with this message. For example, St John's Gospel is very clearly a Gospel that wants to convey a theological message, ... who was Jesus and show he is the incarnate Word, with no necessary care for the accuracy of all his words, and that's why we know most of the Gospels were not actually written by their alleged authors. A gospel was attributed to that character because he was a close disciple of Jesus, but basically it was written by Christian groups, communities who wanted to convey a message ... and despite all this, the 4 canonical Gospels are still likely to be those closest to historical reality ...
[Unlike the writer of Iliad and Odyssey] the claim of the writers of the Gospels is to say: here is what Jesus said, here is what he did, even if they take some liberties with history. And then you realize that there is a mixture in the Gospels, of claims and historical events that have most probably occurred, although it is unclear exactly how (otherwise Christianity would have had none of the success it had if there had not been a man named Jesus who overturned a number of disciples at one point), but at the same time we can see, which historians of religions can spot very well, there are a number of entirely mythical events, for example, when the Gospel of Matthew says that during Jesus death there was a large solar eclipse (...)
It is a myth found in all religions during a major event, the birth or death of a founder of religion, we are always told that there is a solar eclipse, but (based on ephemeris) we know that there was no solar eclipse at the death of Jesus in Palestine (...) there was a large solar eclipse in November, but we know he died at Easter, this is one of the only things we are sure of, so we know there never was a solar eclipse in Easter, so we know it's a legendary event that was written to show that Jesus was an exceptional character, and like all great exceptional characters the whole Cosmos paid tribute to him when he died.
"

But when I tried a little before to argue with a devout Catholic about the historicity of the Gospels, he pointed me to a big article copied here. Problems:
  1. while it does all its best to provide the strongest possible favorable feeling to the historical truth of the Gospels, the best way it found to do so was to develop justifications for God's dire inability (or unwillingness?) to manage the circumstances of His son's unique and so crucial visit on the Earth so as to ensure any decent dose of credible confirmations to the reality of those miracles, which precisely are so extraordinary that they explode all the limits of decent credibility (while the only official purpose of these miracles was precisely to provide credibility to Jesus'claim to be the Son of God)....
  2. Of its very few instances of claimed independent confirmations, is the one (from a Christian apologist's quotation of disappeared documents) of the Sun's eclipse at the time of Jesus'death during full moon.

Speaking in tongues ?

Scientific studies have been made on the speaking in tongues, concluding that "this turns out to be only a facade of language", with no well-defined meaning : "One individual's ecstatic speech was tape recorded and played back separately to many individuals who sincerely and devoutly believed that they had received the gift of interpreting tongues. Their interpretations were quite inconsistent."

Possibly real miracles : a moral assessment

Diverse miracles have been reported by diverse people at diverse times, in ways that seem credible (somehow).
My point here won't be to claim or argue for any factual categorization of the reports listed below, as genuinely supernatural, or misinterpretations of natural phenomena, or pure inventions.

Instead, my point will be to check the moral value (or other value) of the "spiritual teachings" that these miracles seem to support; to observe that this value is close to zero, and therefore to dismiss these miracles as deserving no care, and anyway no admiration, even if they were real; thus rejecting as pointless the very question whether these miracles are real or not.

The Fatima miracle

Among the few email conversations I happened to have with Christians in reply to my web pages criticizing Christianity, one of the debaters has put forward the Fatima miracles. His messages (summer 2010) contained a incredible number of misspellings (in French, as he is not native French), only one which will be reproduced in the below English translation (a bit shortened because it was quite long) (his messages in blue, mine in black):


Hello I read a little your site. No doubt you are intelligent with a great logic, considering your math abilities, but (there is a but) your intelligence leaves me unsatisfied, someone intelligent should understand something: for all thing there exists, matter and energy, there must be a beginning, and for a creation to happen there needs a creator that created everything. So yes we may think there is one or more divine entities or a creator god, one thing is sure we are not a fruit of chance, existence is not a chance. You see it suffices to be logical, no need to write pages and pages to make an analysis.
If god exists, which religion should we believe this is a good question lol
As for me I advise you to wonder about the catholic religion and all its mysteries that science could never prove, people with stigmata, yes yes it really exists and nowadays some exist (I advise you to wonder about padre pio)
Statuses of the Lady crying, you bet scientists looked for the trick without finding it, then the appearances of our Lady, especially of Fatima in Portugal, with this famous miracle on October 13, 1917 in front of over 70,000 people that all witness the same thing, pictures and articles exist of this event.
And miraculous healings in Lourdes exist, there were 65 acknowledged, without mentioning those that did not ask to be acknowledged. Just a big faith is needed to have a miracle.
I know well there is much injustice, but don't forget the devil exists, exorcist priests really exist, they don't work for nothing, evil that is man who created it with the help of the devil, not god, god loves us and lets us free to do what we like, he just asks us to believe and trust him

in the other life there will be a justice for all, as our life on earth is a mere trial to be worthy of entering god's kingdom heaven hell, but to enter heaven one must be cleaned of all sins, this is why there is purgatory to get clean of our crap, so some spend there minutes and others centuries

God is not happy of us, this is sure someday he will make us feel his anger, also if we notice well the percentage of natural disasters increases from year to year and for this there is a text called Revelation by John, we are at the door of this event

it suffices to study the Lady's appearances of Fatima, Garabandal, Akita, to understand that until 1 or 2 3 4 5 years we are at the dawn of a great event.

this is pure and hard logic, if there is one above, he will say stop sometime for our crap abortion war prostitution homoxexuality, and moreover nobody believes anything anymore, and everybody fucks with everybody we do all the opposite of what he wants

First you contradict yourself, considering me both intelligent and stupid. Where is your pure and hard logic there ?

You think I did not consider those things ? seriously ?
Thus what do you claim to bring me ?
Do you really think you know better than me what is "pure and hard logic" and which things are so ?
See texts I wrote about Christian logic [not translated yet] and about miracles
Thanks for no more bothering me with ridiculous claims to teach me how to think with such childish lessons.

Hello
Pure and hard logic is simply what we manage to understand, and when we can't anymore, then it becomes mystery
I am intelligent, surely less than you in some fields but I had mark 19 in math on my scientific Bachelor degree

Is the universe definite or indefinite ? we know that the big bang theory is no more a theory it is the explanation of the creation of the universe, we know with present technology that the universe is expanding so it is getting bigger so it is definite.
Is the time that passes definite or indefinite ? with big bang theory we know there was a beginning at t=0 and the end of this time scale is our present so yes the time scale is definite it started at the creation and ends at the present time.
I invite you to reply one question
Is existence an accident ? (the existence of our world in 4 dimensions, space with 3 dimensions and time with 1 dimension)
Answer me by yes or no with only about 10 lines
But I don't take you for stupid, but I did not like what you tell about religion, you are mocking religion
Religion is a hope for some, and for others a lie, I have my convictions, this is why I ask you to answer whether existence is an accident yes or no

As for me I cannot prove you this, I lost my mother and at that very time I made a dream while I did not expect her death. For me there is indeed something that cannot be explained, but I'm sure, there does exist something beyond, thus science has limits, and can never explain everything. I'd be happy to confront my ideas with you, so is existence an accident ?
Truth cannot be chosen, it forces itself, and when one refuses to believe it one becomes unbeliever even if one is intelligent.

I am not the one mocking religion. It is religion that is somehow ridiculous. Why should I be guilty to have found the truth on the troubles of something (should I recall you) I previously joined ?
If religion is ridiculous, is it my fault ?
If I mock religion (or Christians), then I mock myself, as I was Christian before. Thus things are more subtle.
What is your goal ? To force your truth to me ? Can you revise your positions ? I am not mocking. I just care for the truth. Thus I must develop explanations that religions are false. Do you call this mocking ? Can you consider that you may be wrong and that religions may indeed be wrong ? or is it an impossibility of the discourse ?
I can't consider to be wrong either. But it is a matter of truth, not of moral value of mocking or not mocking.

Sorry but if we start with this question just for finally reaching the truth of Catholicism, we can't get through in less than 10,000 messages, and I have no time. Anyway the question "is existence an accident" is very fuzzy and undefined. We can't seriously specify the question in less than a few pages, not to mention the try to answer. But it does not matter, such a "question" and similar ones are but a game of sophisms by which, from confusion to confusion, you manage to convince yourself of the truth of your religion, and to not understand how it is possible to think otherwise. It's not serious. You should first learn to really think, but I cannot help you. I have enough troubles

[next message:]

Well OK.

If you insist to talk and you think you know the subject of religion better than I, then I accept to talk.
But, let's be logical : I'll be the one asking questions, and you'll have to answer. Are you ready ?


I'm ready.
I only defend the catholic religion, which is a religion of love hope and peace even if in the past this religion was ill represented by its leaders.
so of course I'm ready to answer your questions but I can't promise to answer at once. If you are not in hurry you can ask questions and I'll be happy to answer them as accurately as possible.


So here are some questions.
As I understand you, you believe in the existence of hell:
Is the existence of hell the fruit of an accident, or of a creation ?
If hell is the fruit of a creation, who is its creator ? for which purpose ?

Are there people who will be in hell eternally ? for which sins ?
Or if it is by choice, is it a true choice ? Can one really choose hell ? If hell is eternal (or if hell or purgatory is very long), would not this question of the origin of hell, be worth consideration independently of our life, which is comparably unsignificant ?

If God exists, which religion should trisomics believe ?

Which religion did God want humans 10,000 ago to believe ? If the answer "none" was then acceptable for the will of God, why is it no more so now ? Is it by chance ? Logically, if all men are similar, the fact that I am myself and you are yourself, that prehistorical humans were prehistorical, that Muslims are Muslims and atheists are atheists, is that all a fruit of chance ?
If the abortion of trisomics is a murder, why are they still so much different from other men that God does not require them to have a Catholic faith ?

What about animals (apes, dolphins...), does God require them to have faith ? Why should one make a fundamental difference for this between humans and animals ? As you accept the big bang, do you accept evolution, where humans progressively evolve from the same ancestors as animals ? Don't animals also have a soul and a life after death ? then why would not they also need to have faith ?

Imagine someone born in a Muslim country, nobody preached him the gospel, but only the Koran. He thinks: it is not by chance that I am taught the Kuran. And modern science was written in the Koran (yes, I heard some Muslims claim this with no doubt that Kuran is proved by science). This should not be an accident either.
Where are the mistakes here ? As there are miracles in many religions (link above), why consider this as a proof for Catholicism and not of other religions or divisions of Christianity (such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals that witness so many miracles) ?

If there was the Galileo trial and the death penalty for Giordano Bruno by the Church, is it a fruit of chance ?
If the strongest opposition to the scientific discoveries on the origins of the world are the Christian churches, including the Catholic Church before 1961, and the main motivation to the opponents of evolution (or: to the big bang theory, and the resulting age of the universe) still nowadays (quite powerful in the USA), is Christian faith and the Bible, by people who sincerely claim to know Jesus personally, is it a matter of accident ?

Is it an accident if Muslims are Muslims, if Buddhists are Buddhists and if atheists are atheists, or is it the fruit of a higher will, and which one ?
If it is the fruit of everyone's human will : can men have the deliberate will to lead themselves to mistake, even while they are deeply sincerely and devoutly searching for God ? Is God unable to reveal the truth to anyone seeks it sincerely ? or do people who follow other religions, not sincerely seek the truth ?

How can one religion be more true than another ? Is God describable by stories, icons or rituals, so that some may be more similar to God than others ?
If faith is a means for the service of the end that is to have a miracle, then would miracles be an end in themselves ? For a handicapped person, I understand a miracle of healing be an aim (among other possibilities), but for healthy people, why should they be bothered to oblige themselves to give themselves a means (faith) to seek an end (a miracle) that not only anyway (according to catholic statistics themselves) hardly bring anything (except, some very bloody stigmata all life long, is that your dream ?) but is as likely to happen as a gain at lotto ?
Otherwise, why did you write "we just need to have a great faith to have a miracle" ? Did this remark occur to your mind by accident ?

You wrote about the big bang, that the end of time is now. Science does definitely not say this, but rather that the universe will keep existing without limits (progressively degrading along billions of years). Where do you get that from ? from the bible just like young-earth creationists who deny the big bang ?

If the purpose of miracles is to generate faith, and if the purpose of faith is to generate miracles, then what is the purpose of both ?

Was the existence of Neanderthals or Erectus a fruit of chance ? Did their life (that had no descent) have a sense ? Did it have as much or less sense than ours, and why ? Is it by chance ?
What religion did God want them to believe ?
Is the existence of mosquitoes an accident, or did God create them, for what purpose ?


Good evening, I hope you are doing well. I read your messages, let me time for thinking please, no problem I'll answer

Were Neanderthals sinners ? Did the Son of God sacrifice for them ?

Was the Original Sin a historical event ? Is it a new specificity of humans as compared with the animals they descend from ? In other words, are humans worse in this sense than animals, or similar, or better ?
Is there life and civilizations elsewhere in the universe ? Are they without sin, or did the Son of God also die for them ? Did He sacrifice only once on only one planet, or on several ? If on only one, was it chosen by chance ?
If the Son of God was sacrificed on only one planet but not ours (and that here the Gospel story was a mere fruit of a human error and accident), would the foundations of theology be affected (less true) and our relation with God (notice of any difference) ?

To complete the previous question on miracles:
Stigmata and the crying Lady, that is funny but what is it for ?
"science could not prove" miracles: I don't get the sense of this remark, what was the point ?
And if prophets could not announce scientific and technological discoveries ?

About the Fatima miracle, I just read Wikipedia, that mentions the UFO hypothesis, that seems an interesting clue for it, what do you think ?

How can a religion that brings its followers to stigmatize homosexuals, by putting homosexuality in the same list of the worst evils of mankind as (I quote your first message) "abortion war prostitution", while:

- sexual orientation is not chosen (but fixed by nature), and
- homosexuality is one of the very few non-tragical limits to the main plague that destroys the Earth (overpopulation),

come without shame or hesitation, to describe itself as "a religion of love hope and peace" (not mentioning its "humility") and then be surprised (find it wrong) that people go away from its teachings ?

After what criteria shall we be judged :

1) Our faith in God (religious orientation, prayers...)
2) The purity of our intentions (heart...)
3