Divine Shield: 5 Ways Religion Protects Itself From Legitimate Criticism

No matter your faith or lackthereof, we all should want to believe things that are true. You can believe in something because it makes you feel good, or because it helps you be a better person, or any other number of reasons (I like to call these “Arguments From Wishful Thinking”), but none of those reasons make the belief true.

If something is true, it should be able stand on its own merits regardless of the criticism thrown at it. If your religion is true, you should welcome criticism and questions so that you can show just how true it is.

The following common retorts from believers are not arguments at all but simply a shield – a buffer between themselves and those who would question the veracity of their religious beliefs.

2015-12-08 20.26.46
I know, I know, my nerd is showing!

1.) Holy book verses that claim there will be opposition and it just means you’re right!


In my response to Ken Ham, I called this the deus ex machina of Christian apologetics.

When all else fails, they can simply reassure themselves that they are correct because Jesus “predicted” opposition. “Jesus said this would happen,” they say smugly while patting themselves on the back. “It just means we are on the right track.”


Unfortunately, sometimes criticism only makes the belief stronger due to this built-in defense mechanism of Christianity.

Of course, this fails to take into account the fact that questioning and criticizing is not actually persecution. Persecution is being tortured or killed for believing differently. Persecution is living in fear of your boss, family, or children’s parents finding out your faith differs and losing your job or custody of your children.

Asking questions in the pursuit of truth is not persecution.

2.) Saying that only those who already believe a concept can understand it

This defense comes in many, many variations. Some examples:

“Only born again Christians can interpret the Bible.”

“Allah will reveal to you the correct interpretation of the Quran.”

“You must read the Bible with the Holy Spirit.”

“You’re suppressing the truth.”

“Pray to God as if he were real. You must obey and listen and he will reveal himself to you.”

If you’ve had any interactions with believers and tried to discuss the veracity of their claims, especially when it comes to contradictions in their holy books, you’ve probably come across defenses like this. Evangelical Christians are big on this one, that you can’t understand the Bible without your God goggles / mystery decoder.

This, to me, is such an odd concept. I have not heard of any other time in my life where I should first pretend to believe something and it will suddenly be true or I will suddenly understand it the way someone else understands it.

I mean, it would be like saying you can only understand Romeo and Juliet if Shakespeare’s ghost is chilling there with you.

Might’ve been helpful, actually…

Saying that God will not reveal himself to those who don’t believe is even more bizarre. How then does anyone become a believer? How can you believe before you believe? Truth should be accessible to everyone and if God makes it inaccessible for certain people then it’s quite his fault that I’m an atheist, isn’t it?

3.) Dehumanizing anyone who disagrees

The other night I watched a Periscope (follow me!) broadcast of a Benny Hinn prayer meeting. UGH. I really just wanted to encourage them to research Benny Hinn and think twice about giving him any money, but I admit I lost quite a bit of patience with the immediate accusations of being a demon/devil/witch/evil spirit etc.

Here are some actual comments from the scope:

Caaaaan you feel the looove toniiight?

I’ve said this before, but one of the reasons it’s so heartbreaking to have these sorts of interactions sometimes is because I can only imagine my family viewing me in a similar light when they find out I no longer believe. Will they try to get me exorcised? Will they no longer value my input and opinions, because they think that Satan is speaking through me to try to destroy their faith?


Again, this is in no way an argument for the truth of their claims. This is just a way to not have to answer any questions.

“I don’t have to speak to you, because you’re from Satan and are trying to distract me.” – Theists, basically

This is a way to completely close off any discussion. End of communication.

4.) Equating criticism with hate

Easily one of the best examples of this is being called “Islamophobic”. Don’t get me wrong – there is certainly anti-Muslim bigotry about… in spades. Don’t get me started on Donald Trump right now.


You can see this knee-jerk reaction in many right-wing Christians but in many atheists, too. I don’t like any religions, but I’m not shallow enough to conflate distinguishing jihadists and non-jihadists with support of ISIS. This is a no-brainer.

But Christians are just as likely to say that I question their claims because I hate Jesus, or I hate Christians. This is ludicrous. Almost everyone I know, including family and friends, are Christian. I don’t hate them in the slightest. I simply think their belief in a deity is misplaced.

Here are some helpful examples of what hate is and is not:

“Some Bible verses can be interpreted as instructing or condoning violence.” – not hate

“All Catholics should be raped, they love raping kids!” – hate

“Verses can be found in the Quran that devalue women.” – not hate

“Wipe Muslims off the face of the earth!” – hate

“Jesus died for your sins.” – not hate

“I piss on all Atheists for I know they will burn in hell when it will be to late what a waste (sic).” (actual tweet) – hate

“I don’t believe your religion is true.” – not hate

“If I was queen of the world I would sterilize every Christian and Muslim for defective genes & lack of intelligence.” (actual tweet) – hate

This is simple stuff, to me. Yet far too many people have no grasp of this and all it does is lead to a breakdown in communication — whether you’re at fault for being hateful instead of facilitating productive conversation, or the other person is simply conflating questioning for hate, no one is getting anywhere.

5.) Passing the buck

As I’m writing this, I’m realizing how many of these five points actually overlap. But five is a nice, round number… so I’m keeping it!

This one fits in a bit with the 2nd topic. Acting as if it’s not your responsibility to answer questions because it’s not your teaching, it’s the church’s is sort of the Catholic and Mormon equivalent to Evangelicals’ “You need the holy Spirit to interpret the Bible”. I say Catholic and Mormon because while many Christian sects rely solely on Scripture, Catholicism and Mormonism in particular rely heavily on “tradition” and Church authority.

When I was a questioning Catholic, I was often met with, “I don’t know, that’s just what the Church teaches.”

shrug gif

Yes, those individuals were at fault for not studying enough and knowing why they believed what they did. But it provides a very convenient out for topics that make people uncomfortable — how many times have you heard, “I don’t make the rules, God does!” when it comes to… LGBT rights? Abortion? Etc? It’s just a way to not have to think about their beliefs.

So how do we tackle these conversation killers?

I’m so glad you asked! I have mentioned in another post how I’ve changed tactics in conversing with a lot of believers lately. A lot of this has to do with the book The Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian — don’t be scared off by the title. It’s mostly about how to use the Socratic method (asking questions) to tackle the concept of faith rather than attacking people’s religions. It encourages people to try this out on strangers (called Street Epistemology — the opposite of street preaching!). I don’t think it’s my “calling” per se to go out and talk to strangers, however I like watching others put it into practice because I can see myself using these methods of conversing when conversation about religion DOES come up.

I honestly think many of these types of stalemates I mention above can be avoided in the first place if more people used this way of conversing with others. It is non-confrontational and compassionate, and because it tries to focus on how believers come to know their belief is true, rather than nitpicking biblical arguments, etc, the above “divine shields” don’t even come into play.

I encourage you to read the book and search “Street Epistemology” on YouTube and see what you think.

What other arguments do you consider “divine shields” — total conversation killers — and what are some ways to combat them?

Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort, and Sauron Walk Into A Bar…

I just finished my umpteenth re-read of the Harry Potter series which many people, including the author J.K. Rowling, compare to the Jesus story due to – spoiler alert! – both sacrificing themselves for others, being resurrected, and conquering the ultimate baddies, Voldemort and Satan, respectively.

It got me thinking.


A common argument against the existence of God is the lack of miracles or answered prayers. It seems pretty obvious to me that, for all theists’ protests that God is working in their lives daily, there are no miracles on the scale of what we see in the Bible – such as the parting of the Red Sea, even Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. A good apologist will have plenty of explanations for this seeming lack of wondrous happenings… Though they are extremely unconvincing to most of us atheists. Almost any “miracle” can be explained naturally, and if it can’t, that doesn’t automatically mean YOUR personal god did it.

In many religious people’s minds, however, unexplained phenomena and everyday “little miracles” (getting a job promotion, surviving a car accident, having exactly the 1/4 cup of milk that the recipe calls for left in the carton) are indicative of the constant spiritual battle raging between good and evil.

Most of the more theologically-minded realize that God allows Satan to roam the earth, not because he can’t easily defeat Satan, but because the battle is actually fought by winning the allegiance of human souls. (Ignoring that, especially in Christian culture, getting to heaven is exceedingly difficult and it’s more likely that most people go to hell, which would mean Satan actually “wins”. They don’t think this shit through, do they?)

Right, so, spiritual battle for people’s souls. In this battle, prayer is a weapon. Miracles are special little gifts that God tosses your way once in a while to keep you on his side, sort of like the sponsor gifts in The Hunger Games.

How many literature references can I cram into one post?

There are some big names in this battle who get special powers – the power to heal, prophesize, and in some sects, even harm. I am referring to people in history AND in modernity like Moses, Aaron, Jesus, Jesus’ disciples, prophets of all different sects (Mohammed, Joseph Smith), saints in Catholicism, snake-handling pastors, and some laypeople who consider themselves having certain “powers” or “gifts” of the Holy Spirit. In Nigeria, many people are considered to have powers but especially the pastors. Many laypeople consider themselves to be “prayer warriors”.

Some of the more “moderate” sects who don’t believe in these types of powers or modern miracles explain the lack due to it being a different time, miracles aren’t needed to convince people because Jesus, etc. Or that giving people too much power would be bad so God wouldn’t do that.

So we have all these people, especially notable religious figures in history, with these “powers” bestowed on them by God.

Maybe you can see where I’m going with this post. Where are the notable names in history with evil powers?

Wouldn’t “Obama the Anti-Christ” benefit greatly from evil powers bestowed on him by Satan?


If Satan and God are locked in a battle for the souls of the world, and most people are inherently evil, I’d think that a very easy way to get them on your side would be to give them evil powers! Especially since the “good” powers seem to be lacking since the time of Jesus.

Healing powers? How about harming powers? Killing powers? Mind control? The possibilities are endless!

Some might say God wouldn’t allow it, but these are the same people that say God allows children to starve or people to be raped because [free will / our responsibility / insert other asinine excuse here]. If Satan were able to offer us evil powers and God wouldn’t allow it, he’d be stopping our free will. That excuse doesn’t cut it here.

Satan obviously has the capability (or religious people think he does, anyway). He fucked with Job just for the hell of it.


In the Bible, we’re warned about false prophets, who will do signs and wonders but not truly in Jesus’ name. People think ouija boards actually contact the dead (Christians usually think it’s Satan tricking you). I wasn’t allowed to read Harry Potter because witchcraft was from Satan. Many Americans don’t even celebrate Halloween due to its occultish themes! I would say that most Christians seem to believe these types of evil powers exist.

Yet there is not one evil historical equivalent to Jesus. Or even Moses. Why don’t devil worshippers take over huge parts of the world?

When Voldemort came to power, both times, he had an inner ring of followers to whom he taught much of the Dark Arts that he had learned. They, in turn, convinced, blackmailed, and/or terrorized the common folk into supporting the Dark Lord. Or, they placed them under sinister, mind-controlling spells. And Voldemort was only the Dark wizard in Britain… In another part of the world, a wizard named Grindelwald also mastered the dark arts and became a sort of evil leader. So that’s two Dark Lords in the span of a few hundred years in the Harry Potter universe. In Star Wars, you have the Light and Dark sides of the Force. In Lord of the Rings, you have good wizards like Gandalf or evil wizards like Sauron.

Yes, we’re discussing fantasy literature but art imitates life. No matter what the nature of the power is – whether it be money, fame, technology – whenever people have power, some will use it for good and some will use it for evil.

Yet in all of history, there are no stories of dark-powered humans. No evil equivalent to Jesus’ miracles.

You’d think, as an evil Satan-worshipping atheist, I’d get some kind of perks out of it. Why else would we want to push the atheist agenda on poor unsuspecting Christians?


Arguing from a lack of miracles has been done to death. I haven’t heard of anyone arguing from a lack of evil powers, though. And in my opinion, it’s simply more evidence that Satan does not exist and by extension, neither does Jesus or God.

Let me know what you think of this analysis in the comments below!

A Response to a Response to a Response… Oh My!

The other day I put up Three Strange But True Ways Christians Justify Starving Children – A Response Post. I’d like to firstly thank everyone for the overwhelmingly supportive reactions to my writing, which always manages to shock me. This post was far more popular than I expected it to be and I am ecstatic at the reach it has gotten.

Secondly, I’d like to note that my writing is normally an outlet for me and aimed at my non-believing or questioning audience alone, but since I’m not one for subtweeting or vaguebooking, I thought it would be sort of lame if I didn’t give the author of “3 Strange But True Reasons Why God Doesn’t Feed All the Starving Children of the World”, a chance to look over my post. Peter has very graciously commented on my response and I’d like to respond to him here. Another Christian blogger has also written a response post to which I’d like to respond to, as well. Some of my responses can apply to both of them, but I try to be as clear as I can.

If you want to read either of the responses in full, you’ll have to look at the comments from my previous post for one and read the blog link below for the other.

Ready? Okay!


1. Your Interpretation of Matthew 6:26 is Inaccurate.

In your response, you said that Matthew 6:26 is a Bible verse that supports the claim that God says that He is going to feed everyone, or at least starving children. However, that is not the correct interpretation of the Bible verse.

Peter provided some links to blueletterbible.org which he calls an “Orthodox Biblical Commentary”. However, I’m a bit confused as to why, because these explanations of the verse fully support my interpretation (highlighted for brevity):

August 15, 2015 84309 PM EDT-1

August 15, 2015 84421 PM EDT

August 15, 2015 84608 PM EDT

August 15, 2015 84728 PM EDT

August 15, 2015 84912 PM EDT

August 15, 2015 85118 PM EDT-1

August 15, 2015 85302 PM EDT

It repeats over and over, Don’t worry because God will provide your necessities such as food and clothing if you trust in him, if you believe, if you have faith. Any other interpretation I could find within this link, such as maybe “it is a sin to worry because that means you don’t trust God” seems to run concurrently with the interpretation you say is incorrect. If you try to say that only that underlying lesson is true, I have to think this is dishonest because it is ignoring the blatently obvious implications in the link that you recommended.

Your only recourse then would be to say that children who are starving must not pray hard enough, must not believe hard enough,must not live in an area where they worship the correct god, and that would be a pretty callous answer.

Peter continues:

This then brings up the point, what makes these author’s interpretation of the Bible correct, and yours incorrect? The answer lies in how you interpret the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that the only correct way to interpret the Bible is to have God reveal to you what it means.

1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “But the natural man (i.e. unbeliever) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

This verse implies that one has to be a born-again Christian to correctly understand the things of God.

Does that mean that unbelievers should not read the Bible? Of course they should read the Bible. However, unbelievers have two choices if they want to read and interpret the Bible correctly:

1. Either they can pray and ask God to help them understand what the Bible means
2. Or they can rely on a reliable Orthodox Bible commentary to help them

If they don’t do one of these two things, and they read Bible passages the way that you do, then they will make common mistakes. These are mistakes like taking things out of context, and not understanding the rules that govern the interpretation of Scripture.

We are varying a bit again from the original topic of the Problem of Suffering, but I’d like to address this briefly.

The Bible is (most Christians’) ultimate evidence of all things God, right? This is how God’s message is spread throughout the world and my eternal salvation is contingent upon me believing it is the word of God and is true. But you’re telling me that I need to already have believed in and accepted Jesus before I can read the bible and understand it. You have to believe before you can believe? What a terrible business model!

That is not how evidence works, at least not in the real world. Imagine you’re presenting evidence to a jury at a murder trial. You’re trying to convince them that the victim was stabbed to death with a sponge, and you can tell by their faces that they are not buying it. I mean, how can anyone be stabbed to death with a sponge? You show it to them — it is soft. There is no blood.

But, you have the ace of spades in your pocket. You say to them, “The key is, you must accept that what I say is true and the defendent murdered the victim with this sponge. First you must believe it in your heart, THEN you can see the evidence that points toward the sponge!”


Aaand then you get laughed out of the courtroom.

Another good example of this “believe before you can believe” mentality is the Emperor’s New Clothes story. I’m sure you’ve heard that one before. This strategy might have worked before people had access to so much information, but now?

We don’t choose what to believe. We are either convinced or not convinced by the weight of the evidence. It is simply not enough to say that only born-agains can understand the Bible. First, you’re assuming that I was never born-again (what if I said God revealed to me the correct interpretation when I was a born-again Christian, and he says your interpretation is wrong?), and second, that God for some reason would make the Bible so tricky and convoluted that it fools many people into becoming atheists even though our salvation is dependent upon the Bible.

2. Your Interpretation of Mathew 21:2 is Inaccurate

Again, you misinterpret Mathew 21:2 in your article. I think it’s sufficient to say that if your interpretation were true, then Christians would be asking God for millions of dollars in their bank accounts every day.

But any Christian worth his or her salt knows that that is not the case, and that’s not what the Bible advocates.

I guarantee you that if any Christian won the lottery right now, they’d be thanking God for answering their prayers. Now, why would that be? Confirmation bias regarding prayer is very strong — Christians associate any good fortune with a blessing from God.

This is why we are even having this discussion! Christians act like God intervenes in their life on a daily basis, by providing them food, job promotions, finding a dollar bill on the ground, etc. If Christians didn’t believe in an interfering God on the one hand and then defend him not feeding starving children on the other, I wouldn’t have ever written on this topic.

3. You Are Making Up a God in Your Own Image

The mistake that you’re making here Nancy is that you are dictating to God the way that you think He should act. Anytime that you do that, then you are making up an idol in your own image, which is exactly what point number two of my article is talking about.

I am not “dictating to God how I think he should act”. I am pointing out the discrepancies in how CHRISTIANS say God is, and how he supposedly acts. I didn’t make up these attributes — Christians did. Christians say, “God answers my prayers! I prayed for financial help and I got a promotion! God healed my father’s illness!” And on and on. I don’t claim God answers prayers — Christians do.

This is the number one mistake that atheists make when it comes to God. They have problems with the way the Christian God behaves. I can say that because as a former atheist, this is what made me leave the Christian faith to begin with.

Peter links to his conversion story, which are always fascinating reads.

Peter, thank you for sharing your story. I appreciate you trying to identify with your audience in that you did not believe in religion at some point. However, for every conversion to Christianity I could show you de-conversions to atheism or conversions to Islam. Personal experiences simply cannot count as evidence, because they cannot be verified, and because every other religion has personal experience stories also.

You are assuming that the reason you deconverted to atheism is the same reason every other atheist does. I, for one, did not become an atheist because God wasn’t there for me during one incident. I became an atheist because the weight of the evidence points to the nonexistence of any deities, especially the Christian God.

4. Atheists Don’t Capitalize “He” When Referring to God

I was joking. Feel free to capitalize “God” all you want… that aside was more for my audience’s benefit.

5. One of God’s Attributes is Missing

While yes God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, there is one at attribute of God that you didn’t mention, and that most people don’t talk about. That attribute is that God also has all-freedom.

What does that mean? It means that He has the freedom to make whatever choices He wants to make that fit His purposes, and that are often based on His knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the future is something that you and I don’t have, but God does. So in my opinion, it’s sufficient to say that God makes His own choices based on His own reasons and purposes.

Imagine if I asked my parents, “Why don’t you feed me? Why are you starving me?” and they said, “Because we can.” Would that make them a good parent? What if they said, “Well, it is Christians’ responsibility to feed you, and we are not Christians”? Or, “Because we have to save money for a bigger plan. You will see someday.” None of these are reasonable explanations for starving your child. Why are they acceptable reasons for God not to feed his children? “Because he can” is the worst answer of them all.

6. God Delivers Justice in this World and in the Afterlife

Yes, God did deliver justice instantaneously in some parts of the Bible. Then there are also parts in which He granted people an opportunity to repent before implementing His justice. Again, this is to some extent based on God’s knowledge of the future. So God can choose to deliver justice instantaneously or at a later time.

As this applies to not just feeding starving children but the problem of evil/ suffering as a whole, I’ll let Tracie Harris answer this one:


It’s okay, Tracie. You’ll understand in the afterlife.

Peter asks:

But what about those children who do pray to God and do get fed? How about those children whose prayers are answered? I’m pretty sure that to it would be an impossibility for you since you wrongfully assume that God doesn’t exist.

I don’t know, you tell me! Did those children pray harder? Did they happen to be born in an area where their parents worship the right God? Why would God feed some children and not others?

It has been shown over and over that people have their “prayers” answered at the same statistical rate as what would have naturally occurred anyway. Christians get divorced, recover from illness, and experience poverty at approximately the same rate as any other religion. Atheists are not collectively worse off than Christians — in fact highly atheistic countries fare far better in overall societal health.

What you’re demonstrating here is cognitive bias — you latch on to the times that what you wished for came true, and called that “God answering your prayer”. The times that what you wished for didn’t come true, that’s God saying “no”, or “wait, I have a bigger plan”. It is a rigged game.

Screenshot_2015-08-15-21-48-37-1-1If anyone is interested, the full video is here.


Please also note that when I pointed out the errors in your article, I don’t do it maliciously or because I want to prove you wrong. It is my sincerest desire to see you come back to Christianity and to give your heart to Jesus.

I thank you for your comments and your gracious tone, and I hope you read my responses with an open mind as I did yours, and look deeper into the links you showed me that I highlighted above. Unlike you, I am not trying to convert or deconvert anyone, I just want people to question with boldness!

As I stated above, I received another response post from a Christian, Ufuoma, on her blog The Isaiah 53:5 Project titled “The Poor You Will Always Have With You – A Response Post”. I find it funny that a Christian would use a Jesus “one-liner” when we atheists are so often accused of taking Bible verses out of context. The full context:

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

As I addressed in my recent response to Ken Ham, this is one of the most callous verses from Jesus that I have read. In this story, Jesus has no concern for the poor whatsoever. This may be harsh, but Christians seem to use this verse as a way to make themselves feel better about poor people. In context, it is clearly situational, and the attempt to use this as a rationalization that “spiritual needs trump physical needs” is gag-inducing.

Why not use a different one-liner from Jesus? How about Matthew 19:21?

Sell all of your posessions, give your money to the poor, then come back and follow me.

Why is it that Jesus’ words to Judas are supposed to be for everyone, but not his words to the rich man?


Ufuoma continues:

Many people have wrong expectations of God.  The Jews, for instance, were expectant that when the Christ came, He would deliver them from the rule of the Romans.  But that wasn’t Jesus’ agenda at all.  And though Jesus healed and fed many people, He didn’t heal all the sick or feed all the poor that lived in the world, while He walked on it, or even in Judae.  Jesus came for a higher purpose than to make this world a more cosy place for everyone.  He came to save the world spiritually!  You may not agree with His priorities, but that’s just the way it is.

Again, we are getting way off-topic here, but the fact that the Jewish people don’t think Jesus fulfilled their prophecies and therefore was not the Messiah should actually be very concerning to Christians. Read more here.

God already gave us a chance for a perfect world, without sickness, sin, death and poverty!  It was His original plan, to live among men in a state of Heaven on Earth.  However, we all know what happened to that plan.  The enemy succeeded in deceiving Eve and Adam, so that they became corrupt and could not abide in the Garden and live in that perfect world.  God didn’t see Satan’s attack as a defeat, but as a challenge…an opportunity to teach, groom, and lead us to know and love righteousness.

The reason I even read Peter’s post was because it promised to be new and exciting. “The Fall” as an answer does nothing for me. The idea that Adam and Eve could even sin, when they could not even know right from wrong because they were not moral agents, and then because of them all of humanity is condemned to suffering in a fallen world, is morally repugnant. What father would punish his other children for the sins of the first?

Asking why God doesn’t feed all the starving children is equivalent to asking why God doesn’t make everyone believe in Him!  You may disagree, but really, what’s the difference?  If God really wanted to, He could snap His fingers and make the world perfect once again.  He could, with a word, cause all men to fall in love with Him…  But that’s not His way.  That’s not true love, because it deprives us of our choice, and therefore, responsibility and sacrifice.

First, there is a huge difference between giving people enough evidence to believe in him and forcing people to worship him. Did Abraham, Noah, Moses, or Paul have their free will taken away when God/Jesus appeared to them?  You believe in Satan, don’t you? Yet you do not worship him. Even if everyone believed in God, they would not be forced to worship him. God could still provide for the most helpless of humans, as he has supposedly promised, and those who wish to sin would still do so.

Every parent knows that their kids will never learn responsibility, compassion, discipline or even patience, if they always do everything for them.

This entire paragraph… okay. If we held God to the standard of earthly parents, he would be jailed or at the very least we’d be taken away from him. There’s a difference between letting kids make mistakes and starving them, or ignoring them.

Where is the “true love” in hiding from one’s children and in playing games with the way in which you communicate to them? Even Jesus says, “If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

So, what I’m trying to say here is that, there is no complex answer to why God allows evil to coexist with good on Earth. In His parable of the Wheat and the Tares, Christ answers this question even more clearly…

“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matt 13:24-30)

That’s it, in a nutshell! I cannot do better than my God. There’s no other smart answer to give. At least, not one that will satisfy an atheist!

This parable fails as an analogy to feeding starving children for several reasons. It more addresses the problem of evil than the problem of suffering, but I’ll play along.

If you say that God cannot remove evil in the world without “uprooting” the good stuff, then you are admitting that God is not all-powerful. As a society, we do our best to either rehabilitate or remove harmful people from society by jailing them.

It also completely ignores the fact that there are actual children involved whom God is choosing to ignore. Jesus was not asked the question “Why does God let children starve?” and as such I don’t think it’s fair to apply this answer.

You will see that most of the people out there helping the poor in foreign lands are Christians, and they do it because they are Christian, not because they are good people.

If the only reason you want to help others is because you’re commanded to by God, I would agree that they are not good people. We should be good for goodness’ sake, out of empathy and care for others, not because we are told to, or to receive rewards or avoid punishments. There are plenty of religious and secular charities and programs, and it might also interest you to know that Muslims give the most to charity.

The fact that both life-long and deconverted atheists give to charity and do volunteer work should indicate to you that it has more to do with human empathy than religion. If you lost your faith today, would you stop caring about your fellow humans? Would you suddenly turn into an evil person, just because you weren’t convinced of the Bible’s claims? I’d hope not.

Penn Jillette

Finally, I must address this:

By the way, God won’t consider your claim to atheism as a reasonable defence against your disobedience.  You say you don’t believe in God, that’s ok.  You should know that God doesn’t believe in atheism either (Romans 1:18-25)!  And, you know what, neither do I!  Nobody wants to live in a world without God, any more than a child wants to grow up without parents.  The problem is, you want a god you can control, who fits your idea of niceness and who won’t make you do what you don’t want to do.  Just because we have largely succeeded in stripping parents of their power in the home, doesn’t mean we can strip God of His authority over the Earth!  God is not God if He jumps at yours or my command!

This is a mistake I come across far too often. What do you know about me besides my believing different from you? Nothing? So who are you to say that I’m “disobedient” or just want to sin? What did Jesus say about judging others again? As I’ve stated above, the only reason we are having this discussion is because the claims that Christians make about God’s attributes do not match the real world.

I don’t see anything in Romans 1:18-25 that says there’s no such thing as atheists, however I find it presumptuous of Christians. Imagine if I were sitting here with a Quran saying, “Allah doesn’t believe in Christians, so you must not be a Christian.” Sounds silly, right? The problem, again, is starting with the answer — the Bible must be true, so in order to justify this you must dismiss the thoughts and feelings of millions of atheists around the world. Or , you’re calling us liars. I think Christians are mistaken, but I don’t think they are liars, and again, I find this attitude presumptuous.

For a more in-depth back-and-forth on these topics, Godless Cranium has been active in the comment section of the post.

Phew. 4000 words in, I’m going to end this, finally! I’d like to thank both Peter and Ufuoma for their responses. We may disagree on many things but I appreciate everyone’s civility and willingness to discuss.

As we have veered very far off the original topic, reasons God doesn’t feed starving children, and we are getting into several topics that have been hashed out over and over, I think from here on out I’ll likely restrict my responses to the comment sections.

Three Strange But True Ways Christians Justify Starving Children – A Response Post

Every once in a while a post or a tweet grabs my attention and I simply cannot contain my response to 140 characters. This was one of them: “3 Strange But True Reasons Why God Doesn’t Feed All the Starving Children in the World” from the apologetics website “Not Ashamed of the Gospel”. This should be good, I thought. “Strange”, so they probably won’t be reasons I’ve heard before, and “true” so there must be some pretty good evidence to back these reasons up! Sigh. Wrong on both counts. And thus we have my second response post.

So, what are the strange but true reasons God doesn’t feed all the starving children?

Reason #1 : It’s Not God’s Responsibility to Feed the Starving Children of the World

Of all the times that I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I can’t think of a single Bible verse in which God makes a promise to feed all the starving children in the world.

So when somebody accuses God of being unjust because He has the capability to feed starving children, and He doesn’t, then it’s that person that has a misunderstanding of God.

All right, let me stop you right there, because I can think of two Bible verses off the top of my head that contradict this line of thinking. The first being…


Pretty. It continues:

 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? 28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. – Matthew 6:26-33

This sounds suspiciously like, “God will feed all the starving children”, doesn’t it? Especially if they earnestly pray and seek God. I hardly doubt the author can say that those children must not have prayed hard enough or believed firmly enough.

This brings me to the second verse which contradicts Reason #1. Jesus himself promises to grant whatever prayers we ask for:

10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” – Luke 11:10-13

That sounds pretty conclusive to me. Of course it doesn’t use the exact words, “God promises to feed all the starving children in the world”, but it’s extremely close. How about one more, for good measure? Okay 🙂

21 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ it will be done. 22 And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” – Matthew 21:21-22

How many Christians pray every day for the poor? Yet nothing happens.


I can’t move on to the second reason without addressing this:

If God Isn’t Responsible For Feeding Starving Children, Then Who Is?
The answer is you and me. I can think of numerous Bible verses in which God instructs His children to feed the poor people of the world.

Of course he goes on to list said Bible verses. Here’s the thing — God is all-powerful. We are not. God has unlimited resources. We do not. Why in the world would he entrust the well-being of his children to his other children who can barely take care of themselves?! That would be like an absentee parent expecting the oldest child to take care of all the younger ones — I mean, they’ll do it cause they have to, cause they love their siblings and want the best for them, but it’s gonna be hellish, to say the least. Instead of ALL of the children being taken care of equally well by a responsible parent, each child will suffer to varying degrees.

This “reason” – that we are responsible, not God – is not answering the “why” here.

Q: “Why doesn’t God feed all the starving children in the world?”
A: “Because it’s our responsibility!”

But why is it our responsibility? It’s not answering the question. It’s shifting the blame and not giving a reason. It’s saying, because I said so. In this case, because the Bible says so. You will not get very far using the Bible to prove the Bible with an atheist.

Reason #2: God Isn’t Like Humans

Atheists make a mistake when they say things like, “If I saw a starving child and had the power to feed him and I don’t, then I am evil. That’s the same thing with God, He is evil because He has the power to feed starving children and He doesn’t.”

First of all, an atheist would never capitalize “He” for God. Blech. 😉 Secondly, I pretty much already addressed this when the author asserted it was somehow our responsibility, but I’ll repeat: the God you assert exists has the motive (all-loving), means (all-powerful), and opportunity (all-knowing/all-present) to feed all the starving children of the world. We do not. It’s not that atheists think God is evil. It’s just that this issue makes more sense if he didn’t exist, because the properties you assign to God do not jive with life as we know it.

God’s goals are different than our goals. His purposes are different than our purposes. His way of justice is different than the human way of justice.

Ahh, the “mysterious ways”. *Insert Twilight Zone theme music here*

Once again, this is not answering the question. This is wishful thinking. Cognitive dissonance. Mental gymnastics. The world doesn’t jive with the properties you assign to God, so there must be an explanation! Yet once again, you fail to give one.

Reason #3: God’s Justice is Coming Soon For All

While God does see hate crimes, rapes, and murders as sins, He also sees lying, cheating, and hating people as sins too.

So since God is a just God, then He’s going to have to give justice to all if He were to judge the world today.

That means that there would be a lot of people who would receive punishment for eternity for breaking God’s standards.

So instead, God is saving His judgment for Judgment Day. That’s when everyone is going to get judged for what they did on earth.

Okay, I think we went a biiiiit off topic with this last reason. We were talking about feeding starving children, remember? But I’ll bite – This is a cop-out.

There are plenty of instances where God delivers “justice” immediately in the Bible. Just off the top of my head, God smites: Noah’s contemporaries, Oman for spilling his seed, 42 children mauled by bears for making fun of a prophet, Sodom and Gomorrah. I could go on, but you get the idea. There are also plenty of examples in the Bible where God helps people immediately – all of Jesus’ miracles (including feeding and healing people), parting the Red Sea, manna from heaven, etc. Come on, don’t play coy – we all know that God intervenes heavily in people’s lives in the Bible.

So this “you have to wait til after death” thing is crap. Jesus didn’t say, “Ask and ye shall receive in heaven”.

Here’s the thing though, maybe we wouldn’t expect God to feed all the starving children if believers weren’t constantly thanking him for mundane shit like finding their keys, getting a promotion, or putting food on their table. Isn’t it weird how God always seems to “bless” people in first world countries more? Why can he feed us but not the people who need it most?

So many questions.

All of these (now debunked) reasons apply not only to starving children, but the problem of evil / suffering as a whole. You can try to apply these to someone being raped, or murdered, or tortured, or all three. Why doesn’t God help them? Any of us would immediately rush to someone else’s aid if we had the means and opportunity.

This blog post (3 Strange But True Reasons…), while it does include questioning Christians in its target audience, seems to assume these explanations have never occured to atheists before. On the contrary. Especially for ex-believers like myself who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into non-belief by our own brains, we have wrestled with these questions and even accepted these answers at some point.

Where we start to slide into non-belief is when these reasons no longer satisfy us. They no longer satisfy the cognitive dissonance ringing in our brains saying, This doesn’t make sense!

We come to realize it makes far more sense not to twist ourselves into a pretzel for these half-assed rationalizations, and that the far simpler answer is… it’s just us out here. We do have to take care of each other because we are the only ones who can.

Update: The author of the original post responded to my critiques. Check out my response to a response to a response… Oh my! 

To make a real difference in others’ lives, click here and donate, in honor of the one-year anniversary of Robin Williams’ passing, to one of his favorite charities.

Hat tip to GodSwill Ministries (website, Twitter) who posted the original article on their Facebook today. Go check ’em out! 

For my first response post, check out It’s Not “The Message” We Object To, Trust Me… – A Response to Ken Ham.

How to Make Teens Think Indoctrination is Cool: Charismania 101

As you know if you’ve read my “deconversion story”, I was raised Charismatic Catholic. Hm? You don’t know what that means? Yeah, neither do 99% of Catholics.

For all of their weird cannibalistic rituals (eating and drinking the body/blood of Christ) and Sunday Sitting/Standing/Kneeling Olympics (known as Mass), Catholics are one of the more liberal sects of Christianity. Most everyday Catholics are perfectly fine with equal marriage (now known as just “marriage!”), not going to church every Sunday, and pre-marital sex (just ask any ex-Catholic school girl 😉 ).

happy nun

Most are what I used to call Sunday Catholics — they went to church, maybe confessed their sins, and then went right back to living life not thinking about God or the Bible for six days during the week. It’s even a running joke that most only attend church on Christmas and Easter.

Then there’s Charismatic Catholics. Charismatics are basically the Catholic version of evangelical Protestants or Baptists. We would go to church on Sundays like regular Catholics, then have our own prayer services sometime during the week where we would have praise and worship music, speak in tongues, be “slain in the spirit”, etc. Yes, exactly like those worship CD infomercials you see late at night. Funnily enough, even though everyone I knew was Catholic and even went to Catholic school, others thought I was in a cult because it was so different (and intense).

Once or twice a year, we would hold and/or attend “conferences” that were sort of like what mega-churches must look like every Sunday. If you were raised in one of these similar sects, you might know what I’m talking about. I especially encourage life-long atheists or those ex-believers that had a pretty lax religious upbringing to view these with an open mind and understanding. Children and teens are especially susceptible to such manipulative pandering. Maybe you can understand how people can fall for this stuff. I hope you guys watch these clips because my describing it absolutely cannot do them justice. Take a quick look:

Let’s break down how this works. These events were packed with talks from KidsJustLikeYou! who had found Jesus and turned all their problems around. Hip priests who played the guitar or drums. Skits and songs and line dancing. Glow sticks. Spot lights. Beach balls. Clapping to the beat in the sign of the cross. All of this is very attractive to young teens who would otherwise fall asleep during Sunday services.

Some of these events I attended were honestly the best times of my life. I loved the feeling of community, the laughter, the friendship, the songs and the music. I felt close to God and others. But they had a dark side, too.

I’m not sure how some of these other denominations handle guilt and forgiveness, but if you even know a Catholic or ex-Catholic, you know there’s a running joke about Catholic guilt. From what I understand, other denominations have simple crosses in their churches, while Catholic churches often feature various depictions of the crucifixion. Hideous, isn’t it?


Charismatics take the guilt thing to a whole new level.

Remember that documentary, “Jesus Camp”? I honestly could not get through it because it bubbled up such intense feelings for me. Imagine being shown graphic depictions of torture and being told, as a child or teen, that YOU did this to Jesus. Whenever you lie to your parents, or hit your brother, or give in to natural sexual urges, be it with yourself or others, YOU drive the nails into Jesus’ hands and feet. Remember those children sobbing in the movie? Overwhelmed with guilt and self-loathing? My little prayer group would put on these guilt-inducing skits that had teens and grown adults crying in shame and begging an imaginary being for forgiveness.

Kids are told that they are broken and need fixing. They’re told that normal every day issues that almost all teens face are not only dangerous to themselves but hurting the imaginary God that watches them all the time. That only Jesus can save them.

Notice how Jesus doesn’t save this girl? She “saves” herself. I have seen many variations on the theme in the skit above — usually varying “sins” placing chains on a teen, until they can finally get to Jesus. Jesus almost never saves them. They have to come to Jesus themselves, of course. We wouldn’t want them thinking Jesus can actually do anything, now would we?

Check out the 4:30 mark. At the bottom right corner, you can see a young man put his head in his hands during the crux of the skit. This is usually what happens. I have seen grown men and women crying over stuff like this. One of the comments I saw on one of these videos was, “You should show the people afterward”. Then they are usually presented with the opportunity to be prayed over / accept Jesus… yadda, yadda.

Teens are in such a vulnerable state already. Often, they are dragged there by well-meaning parents who are attending the attached adult conferences, or friends who are already heavily involved in the cult. Yes, it was a cult. I can see that now.

As an atheist, of course, all of this seems exceedingly silly. I can recognize now the dopamine rush that felt like a spiritual connection. I get the same highs listening and singing along to other types of music I love. I can see how so much of this is targeted at kids who think singing hymns in church is, like, totally lame. I was one of those kids. I thought my faith was special. I felt like I wasn’t part of a religion – it was a relationship (I know you’ve heard that one before!).


People sometimes accuse internet/Twitter/Facebook/blog atheism of being an echo chamber. You know what? Sometimes it is, and sometimes I’m okay with that. Sometimes I need that. Because, believe it or not, sometimes when I watch these videos or hear this type of music, I can feel the tug at my heartstrings. Maybe it’s nostalgia, maybe it’s a longing to be able to wish all my problems away like these kids are told they can. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s there.

Of course, Christian believers would say this is Jesus calling to me, and I’m rejecting him. But you and I know that I am trying to protect myself from returning to a toxic cult mentality. And I am forever grateful to my internet atheist “community” for keeping me grounded.

Mystery of the Loving Christian – SOLVED!

I am cracking up, you guys, and I just had to post an update to my “Mystery of the Loving Christian” post.

I should reiterate that I initially wrote that post about a year ago and I’ve been blocked for at least a good six months or so.

So when “X” happened to respond to a Twitter thread today between my dear friends, @Playdoughpoem and @Vanromon, and me, right after I published that post, I had to think it was destined by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon you!)

Of course, tweeting from behind a block is exceedingly dishonest. I just laughed and asked the others to untag me a few times since I was blocked. Monica (@Vanromon) asked to be untagged as well and told X to block her also. His response?


Doesn’t anyone else find this creepy?? I think I was pretty generous in my original post and giving him the benefit of the doubt that I believed he might be sincerely expressing the Christian “love” he was taught to. Now that I can prove he’s a liar, I don’t believe this any longer.


“William” (of course not his real name either) is using a lot of words here, that either I don’t think he understands, or he is being intentionally dishonest. Due to his past behavior, I’m inclined to think it’s the latter.

Let’s play “Interpreting Dishonest Christianspeak”:

“Fighting for you” = trying to force you to believe the same as I do.
“Loving you” = saying ‘I love you’ as a method of emotional manipulation.
“Unconditionally” = until I figure out that you will not be convinced, and I do block you even though I said I wouldn’t.

So there you have it. I have to admit the exchange pretty much made my day. I love waking up laughing.

Note: When I originally wrote my “Loving Christian” post, I respectfully did not post X’s name or Twitter handle as we were still pretty friendly. Now that he has declared my conscience “seared” (i.e. called me morally decrepit and repugnant), blocked me, and continues to use manipulative tactics towards friends, I don’t see the need to spare his name or Twitter handle since everything is public anyway. That said, I’m in no way encouraging anyone to harass or dog pile him. Thanks!

Nancy Drew and the Mystery of the Loving Christian

Recently, I’ve had some interactions with a fairly respectful Christian on Twitter. Let’s call him “X”. While X and I disagree on most things, we keep it respectful and even playful at times. I don’t consider him a friend, really, because our interactions have not moved beyond religious discussions and his interactions sometimes make me feel he is dishonest. Think William Lane Craig – super nice outwardly, kinda slimy underneath. Or Sye Ten Bruggencate – seething anger simmering just below the surface.

X has taken to saying “I love you” from time to time. He’s not in love with me, obviously (I hope? Kidding). X will just say it in the middle of a thread on some discussion on religious points. It’s not like a “love ya, have a good night” type of thing that I’d say to friends. At first glance it seems that he is actually embodying the type of love Jesus advocated by saying “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Love your enemies”. I mean, I’ve never had a Muslim say they love me.

I'm pretty sure I got proposed to by one, though. Yikes.
I’m pretty sure I got proposed to by one, though. Yikes.

I think it’s a sort of conversion tactic. Like if they say “I love you” enough we’ll think Jesus is showing his love through them. Not a bad route to take.

But think about that for a second. It’s actually condescending, especially in the middle of a discussion in which you disagree: “I love you anyway even though you are an evil atheist.” Similar to “I’ll pray for you.” What am I supposed to say to that? “I love you too?” I don’t “love” everyone. I have compassion for every human. I wish good things for everyone. I don’t harbor ill will for others. But I think saying you love everyone cheapens it a bit, don’t you? However, if I express this to X, I am almost certain he would say it’s because, as an atheist, it’s impossible for me to have that sort of love. I think he would want me to dislike him using that phrase, so he could say it’s because I can feel Jesus calling to me and I’m rejecting him or some other nonsense.


I don’t think they really love everyone. In fact, I think it’s self-righteous on top of being condescending. “Look at me; I can say ‘I love you’ to this baby-eating Satan worshipper!” It’s a way to act holier-than-thou and gloat when the atheist doesn’t respond in kind.

Sometimes, I even think it’s a diversion tactic – “I don’t have any answer to your argument, so I’m going to say I love you so I can seem morally superior”. So I just ignore it and continue on with the discussion 🙂

Update: I actually wrote this blog post sometime last year, when I was still getting involved in a lot of debates on Twitter. As stated above, X and I were very friendly and cordial. One day out of the blue, he announced that my “conscience was seared” and blocked me. I had to research this as I’d never heard of it before.

From gotquestions.org (a Christian apologetics site):

The Bible speaks of a seared conscience in 1 Timothy 4:2. The conscience is the God-given moral consciousness within each of us (Romans 2:15). If the conscience is “seared”—literally “cauterized”—then it has been rendered insensitive. Such a conscience does not work properly; it’s as if “spiritual scar tissue” has dulled the sense of right and wrong. Just as the hide of an animal scarred with a branding iron becomes numb to further pain, so the heart of an individual with a seared conscience is desensitized to moral pangs.

Wow. So after all the discussions we had, he really thought that I was so morally decrepit that my conscience was “seared”? How do I reconcile this with the Christian love he so often professed? I can only make it fit into the second category – that he felt he was somehow superior by “loving” this nasty Satan’s minion.

What do you think? Is Christian love sincere? How would you respond? Let me know in the comments!

Another update here: Mystery of the Loving Christian – SOLVED!