25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
1.
The world simply does not behave the way
described in the Bible
2. The words used to define Christian Doctrine
are representative of things whose existence
cannot be 'proved' outside of language
3. The Fall of Adam & Eve (and resulting
Doctrine of Original Sin) is incoherent and
contrary when compared to scientific evidence
and other doctrines
4. The concepts of Heaven and Hell are equally
morally and ethically reprehensible
5. Historical Evidence shows much of the Old
Testament was appropriated from earlier
Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, &
Persian Myths
6. The Account of the Flood and Noah's Ark
bears striking similarities to the Epic of
Gilgamesh and other pre-dating
Creation/Flood myths
7. Persian Zoroastrianism altered Jewish
Doctrine during the Babylonian Captivity
8. The influence of the pseudepigraphal Book of
Enoch on the mystical Good-Evil dichotomy of
Christian Doctrine
9. The influence of Philo of Alexandria on the
development of Christian Doctrine
10. The ancient gods and goddesses that were
assimilated by the Hebrews to become Elohim
EL & Yahweh YHWH
11. Myths of Dying-Resurrecting God-Men Born of
Virgins that Pre-Date the Story of the GodMan Jesus
12. The Problem of Evil (Theodicy) and the
Hiddenness of God
13. Natural (Empirical/Scientific) vs. Supernatural
(Faith/Language-Based) Belief Systems
14. The Gospels are not 'eyewitness' accounts but
anonymous third-person narratives
15. The 'Evolution' of the Christian Canon and
Jesus' Godmanship
16. Saul/Paul of Tarsus and the 'Re-Creation' of
the Christian Myth
17. Archaeology and Biblical claims
18. Biblical Criticism: Findings as to Who - What When - Where - How - Why
19. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes
20. The Nag Hammadi Library, Ugaritic Texts, and
Amarna Tablets
21. Canonical and Extracanonical books, the
Gnostics, and Church Councils
22. Examined objectively, the Bible is rife with
errors, contradictions, misstatements, and
inconsistencies
23. Belief, Doubt, Disbelief and Critical Thinking
24. Science and the Scientific Method
25. Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution
INTRODUCTION
An armchair polymath, for thiry-odd years I've been a student of comparative religion, theology,
philosophy, mythology, literature, history, and science (after a long hiatus, I've even returned to graduate
school and am currently pursuing another degree in Humanities). I've read thousands of books, have
over four thousand in my personal library, five hundred of which belong to the subject of Christianity and
the Bible (see partial list).
Prior to earning degrees in Humanities (e.g., Philosophy, Literature, History), I attended Northwest
University to prepare for a career as a pastoral minister. I studied biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, New
Testament (Koine) Greek, a little Hebrew, ancient near east history, and doctrinal interpretation. During
this time I was 'on fire for the Lord'. I witnessed to anyone who would listen and brought several friends to
Christ. Always a voracious reader—sometimes reading three or four books a week—I immersed myself in
the study of religion and took full advantage of the extensive (and expensive) scholarly volumes in the
school library.
Ironically, it was during my years at the Bible college that I was inadvertently introduced to information
that would eventually lead me to question my faith. The more I researched, the more I uncovered cogent
evidence and religious information typically hidden from the general church-goer (see DESCENDING
BABEL for further discussion). I had no idea. Despite attending Sunday School my entire life and several
years of 'confirmation' and bible classes, I knew so little, just a narrow band of teaching that supported
sectarian church doctrine. Overwhelmed by what I was discovering, shocked and apprehensive, in time I
could no longer embrace the belief that the Bible was the inerrant and inspired Word of God. This
realization did not come easily despite the preponderance of evidence—a million pieces it seemed the
Page 1 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
more I looked—that showed the Bible was nothing more than a man-made composition, compiled to
promote religious-political platforms specific to its time. I fought this knowledge every step of the way, I
wept and gnashed my teeth, and prayed incessantly for guidance. I felt as if I was going through
agonizing withdrawal following a long addiction, the psychoactive drugs of indoctrination and
enculturation. After four years of honest soul-searching and book-searching, I conceded the realization
that I was no longer a Christian. But my religious and Bible studies did not end there. For thirty years I
have never ceased to research and inquire.
Throughout the years I've made several attempts to catalogue and discuss this information, but was
quickly daunted by the sheer magnitude of the task. There was just too much to pull together from so
many different sources—textual and source criticism, form and redaction criticism, socio-historical and
rhetorical criticism, tradition, history, comparative myth and religion, language studies, linguistics,
archaeology and anthropology, etc—hundreds-of--thousands of pieces of information that emphatically
controvert the veracity of Judeo-Christian tradition and the Bible. I wondered how many others had
attempted this before and were forced to give it up or else restrict their findings to sizeable bites. I found it
remarkable that people continued to embrace the Bible as a supernatural document with so much
contrary information available. To start uncovering this information all anyone had to do was commit to a
couple of weekends of honest and dedicated research. In almost no time they'd have enough information
to send them down a hundred different paths of inquiry, there was just so much of it, from so many
different sources. The scholarly information alone numbered in the millions.
I came to realize that most people didn't want to do the research, to uncover waiting evidence or scholarly
information, for fear of undermining their belief systems. Today I sincerely believe most people already
suspect deep inside what they will find, so they don't bother to look. They might scratch the surface, hash
out the same 'safe' arguments that have become something of a cottage industry for apologists and
skeptics alike, but when it comes to digging deep, really getting their hands dirty, feeling a bit panicky and
uncomfortable, fearful even, most would rather rely on what they'd like to believe, what they already think
they know, what promotes encouragement and promises them hope. This is understandable given human
nature, although not very commendable. Offering up 'explanations' for a few hundred bible 'difficulties'
gives the appearance of honest analysis, but what about the other five-hundred--thousand? If there are
over half-a-million 'difficulties' in the Bible, doesn't this undermine the basic claim that it is the inerrant and
inspired Word of God?
In the end it comes down to how honest we're willing to be with ourselves, how far we're willing to go,
whether or not we have the courage and stamina to do the work, stand up to what we fear the most,
acknowledge it, accept it, finally admit what we've so long pretended not to know. What follows are
twenty-five things I've struggled with over the years, each in their own way, one hard-fought step at a
time. I did not start out determined to undermine Christianity or the Bible. To the contrary, it was because
of my love of God that I wanted to know the truth, to acknowledge and accept it, even if it became the last
thing I wanted to hear, even if in the end it threatened to break my heart.
01
THE WORLD SIMPLY DOES NOT BEHAVE THE WAY DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE
There is the world we live in and then there is the world of the Bible. In our world, the 'real world', the
world of flesh and matter, there is no magic, no metaphysical conjuring, nothing supernatural or
transmundane. What exists is experienced empirically—through the five senses—and therefore
measurable, testable, subject to examination and experiment and ongoing scrutiny. Sure there is talk of
the supernatural, of the occult, of miracles and faith healing and psychic phenomena, events or agents
that can nonchalantly circumvent the laws of physics. There are books and movies and TV shows and
sermons from the pulpit and paintings of supernatural entities like angels and ogres and ascending gods
aglow and crowned with halos. But in the 'real world', the world outside of language and art, the world we
live in each day, there none of these things. None. And make no mistake about it, science has looked.
Page 2 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Science has been looking into claims of the supernatural for centuries, spent hundreds of millions of
dollars, rigorously tested the various assertions of preternatural behavior, and found that the world simply
does not work this way. If someone claims they can communicate with your dead loved one, they are
lying to you. If someone claims they can lay hands and cure cancer, they are lying to you. If someone
claims they can levitate or walk on water or read your future, they are lying to you. The evidence is clear
and specific: Any claim that contradicts the laws of physics is either an intentional lie or an unverifiable
belief. This is not merely a 'naturalistic presupposition' as bemoaned by Christian apologists, but simply
the way things are. The way this world works can be proven again and again, rigorously tested,
realistically examined, with millions of experiments. If the apologists want to make 'supernaturalistic
presuppositions' can these likewise be proven, tested, evidenced, anywhere in the world? Where exactly
does the supernatural realm exist? Where is the only place that apologists can point to for proof?
Only at words. Because they are unable to point to anything in the world, they can only point at words in a
book and forced to manipulate language in order to argue, defend, and debate a supernaturalism that is
nowhere else in evidence. All things being equal, whose presupposition is the more rational, the more
intellectually honest, the more coherent? The person who presupposes a natural world susceptible to and
driven by natural laws based on known evidence, or the person who presupposes a supernatural world
based solely on words in a book? If all the books went away tomorrow, all writing, all language, we would
still be able to deduce our natural world and its natural laws. Without words what could the apologists
deduce? What defines reality? Interaction with the world we live in or words in a book? If all the words in
the world were suddenly removed, isn't reality that which remains? This is one of the reasons why
religious books have become so important to religious believers because without having words to point to
they would have no other evidence of the supernatural, and in order for religion to hold sway you must
buy into the notion of the supernatural.
Most religions claim that life is more than the flesh and matter we see around us, that encloses us, of
which we are composed. In addition, religions suppose some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm that
exists 'behind' everything, beyond the scope of science and measurement, imperceptible and
undetectable, and that our 'true selves' are really spiritual entities, not material at all. Since all this
depends on claims that are outside the scope of science and therefore undetectable, how does religion
'know' to talk about it? If the spiritual realm can't be seen or measured, or Heaven, or even God, how did
religion come up with attributes, characteristics, features, properties? Isn't religion simply a case of word
association, of words pointing back and forth to other words since they are unable to point anywhere
else? If not for words, where would God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Life, Sin, Salvation, Jesus, Holy
Spirit, et al, be found?
To date all the evidence has determined that life is strictly a natural phenomenon, that who we are—our
selves—is material, a series of physical interactions, dependent upon the biochemical workings of the
brain. Our sense of self, our personalities, the way we perceive the world, can be severely altered by
head injury, stroke, or chemical imbalance. With a serious enough injury we can even be considered
'brain dead' although all our autonomic functions (heartbeat, constriction/dilation of blood vessels,
constriction/dilation of the pupils, digestion, respiration, perspiration, relaxation and contraction of the
bowels and sphincters, erection and ejaculation, child birth, and tear formation) operate normally. That
sense of 'who were are' can be altered, reversed, even 'die', because it's fully dependent on our brains, a
broad synthesis of our material surroundings, environment, cultural prejudices, parental influences and
biases, birth order, sex, physical appearance, shared experiences, stored memory, bones, flesh, blood,
eyes, ears, mouth, and a steady oxygen supply. Everything we think we are we owe solely to the state of
our flesh and empirical surroundings, a process impossible to remove from the intrinsic network of matter.
With all the above suddenly in absence, what would remain to 'stand' in judgment before the Throne of
God, and what mechanisms (or lack thereof) would propel interaction with the Divine Inquisitor? We are
natural entities, part and parcel with the natural world, expressly subject to natural laws. We are like all
other animals in that respect, who exhibit no supernatural tendencies. Unless these animals appear in the
Bible.
Page 3 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
In the Bible animals can talk, wizards and witches summon spirits, demons possess pigs, sticks turn into
snakes, food falls from the sky, people walk on water or through walls or remain lost for forty years in an
area roughly this size of West Virginia. In the Bible the dead can come back to life, enough rain fall in
seven weeks to cover the entire planet, all sorts of magical things happen that have no basis in the way
we know the 'real world' works. If you know the world doesn't work this way, if all the evidence shows it
impossible for the world to work this way, then what are your reasons for believing the Bible when it
claims otherwise? You'd consider yourself crazy if you believed Greek and Roman myths that claimed the
same types of things, or fairy tales, or old European fables, simply because you know how the world
works and it doesn't work that way! And yet, when the Bible makes claims contrary to the way you know
the world works, not only do you believe and defend it, but consider all those who don't as the ones who
are living in error. Is this an honest assessment? Shouldn't what we believe somehow coincide with what
we actually know?
The short answer to all of this? The Bible and Christianity don't stand up under scrutiny. There are too
many glaring contradictions and inconsistencies, incoherent reasoning and moral repugnances, ethical
sidesteps and magical presuppositions. As a spiritual entity it is corrupt and self-serving, ego-centered,
narcissistic. When Hitler's "Final Solution" was to send six million Jews to their deaths we condemned him
as a monster; when the Christian God sends these same Jews to Hell we are suppose to praise and
adore him as the Highest Paradigm of Moral Intelligence. It makes no sense, unless we are living in
abject denial.
02
THE WORDS USED TO DEFINE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THINGS WHOSE EXISTENCE CANNOT BE 'PROVED' OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE
Instead of saying God, Heaven, and Hell, you could just as easily say Glavin, Homatron, and Jyklumoo.
Like God, Heaven, and Hell, the only way you can know anything about Glavin, Homatron, and Jyklumoo
is through word association. But this isn't exactly true either. In all actuality, you don't know anything
about Glavin, Homatron, and Jyklumoo other than the words associated with these terms. You can't point
to Glavin, Homatron, and Jyklumoo, or see them, or measure them, or know what they're suppose to be
or whether they even exist, or where, or how. In fact, any words used to define Glavin, Homatron, and
Jyklumoo are applied not because of anything experienced in reality, but solely out of artificial and
abstract word associations. The only we think we know anything about Glavin, Homatron, and Jyklumoo
at all is through word associations and for no other reason! Since the existence of Glavin, Homatron, and
Jyklumoo cannot be proven and nowhere in evidence, anything said about them is completely contrived,
invented, speculative, made-up. If I say "Glavin is All-Knowing and All-Powerful" how do I know this?
Since the existence of Glavin cannot be proven and is nowhere in evidence, I could just as easily have
said "Glavin is ignorant and weak." Why? Because 'Glavin' is by itself a meaningless term that
appropriates meaning solely from the words associated to it and from nothing else! This being the case,
any words could be associated with it no matter how far-fetched, ridiculous, or contrary. You can't prove
that one set of word associations is correct and a different set of word associations is incorrect, because
'Glavin' is composed of nothing but word associations. And that is the nature of religion.
Religion is nothing more than a carefully crafted series of word associations whereby X = A + B + C + D.
Remove A + B + C + D and you have nothing else to show for X. While you can make these same types
of word associations with a tree or a dog or a car, trees and cars and dogs don't need word associations
to argue their existence or make themselves known, but terms like God and Heaven and Hell are wholly
constructed by word associations alone.
Don't believe me? You can't show me 'God' but you can show me words associations that add up to
define God. Where did these word associations come from? The term 'God' is meaningless without the
word associations, but what about the word associations themselves?
Let's look at the Christian doctrine assertion that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (allknowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (all-good, all-loving). How do we know God is
Page 4 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
any of these things? Did we determine this by pointing to God or did we determine this by pointing to
words?
There's a very simple test to determine the answer.
Without pointing to words, without relying on word associations, what can you tell me about God? If you
can't tell me anything without referring back to word associations, then the word associations
themselves—omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent—are meaningless since they
also or composed of associations that cannot be proven and are nowhere in evidence. For example, what
does it mean to say that God is omnipotent (all-powerful?) Is there really such a thing as omnipotence or
does its very definition entail contradictions and paradoxes? This quote by Epicurus (341-270 BCE)
clearly exemplifies the issue: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He
able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He
neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"
It's almost like an elaborate con game is going on. The term 'God' is meaningless without the word
associations, but the words used to make the associations are also meaningless since taken together
they are inherently contrary, paradoxical, and still manage to beg the question. And isn't all doctrinal
language just this way? You can't point to God, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to
life-after-death, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to Satan, so you make word
associations instead.
Without words, without making word associations, there would be no knowledge of the Soul or Heaven or
Hell or Judgement Day or Eternal Life, etc. Even the notion of 'Sin' depends on word associations, for
what is a 'sin' without the declaration of sin? It may be said that "it's a sin to tell a lie" but the 'sin' and the
'lie' are both products of the 'telling' word associations.
Without language, without words, you cannot tell a lie and you do not sin. Both come into existence with a
declaration and not before. And, if you think about it, the same can be said for 'truth'. Outside of telling,
there is no truth. Like God, like Heaven, like Hell, you can't show Truth. Truth is a product of language
and requires words to exist. Prior to language, notions of God, Heaven, Hell, Soul, Salvation, Truth, etc,
are not an issue. With language they are defined using any consensual word associations that anyone
can make. This being the case, such words—because they can be defined as anything—are ultimately
meaningless, hollow, and empty. Reality is not based on definitions or word associations or quotes from a
book. Reality is what you have after all the books have been put away and you keep your mouth shut.
Reality has been around for billions of years and language for only a few thousand. You don't need
language to know reality. Anything that requires language to make itself known is not reality but the
artifice of words, simply word associations, predicates on paper that can nowhere else be seen.
03
THE FALL OF ADAM & EVE (AND RESULTING DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN) IS
INCOHERENT AND CONTRARY WHEN COMPARED TO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
AND OTHER DOCTRINES
QUERY 1
According to a literal reading of the Bible (as opposed to a more tenable figurative or metaphorical
interpretation) Adam and Eve were created fully formed and adult as part of God's initial six day act of
Creation. Although apologists evoke all kinds of side-stepping sophistry to explain it away, a close
reading of Genesis 1 - 3 demonstrates there are two separate 'Creation' accounts that are mutually
exclusive (Genesis 1:1-2:3 & Genesis 2:4-25) and contain contradictory elements easily deconstructed
by the Documentary Hypothesis. Despite which account is cited, is the 'Creation' story in Genesis
compatible with the way we know the world works, with the findings of science, with our 21st century
understanding of biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc? Is there evidence demonstrating that
most of the early stories of the Bible were borrowed, assimilated, and reworked from earlier Sumerian,
Page 5 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Greek, et al, myths to accommodate a distinctly Hebrew retelling? Not
withstanding the narrow doctrines espoused from the pulpits and casually accepted by congregations in
the pews, what do higher-educated, well-read, and well-researched Bible scholars believe? Do all the
known facts support a literal supernatural six-day Creation or a Hebrew Creation Myth appropriated from
the evolved mythology of other Ancient Middle Eastern cultures? Which explanation is the more sensible
(and the least complex by way of Occam's Razor) in light of what we know regarding Ancient Middle
Eastern religion?
BOOKS OF INTEREST
















The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old
Testament
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament
The Ancient Near East (Volume I): An Anthology of
Texts and Pictures
History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 BC
The Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient
Near East
Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood,
Gilgamesh, and Others
Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria
The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology (Campbell)
A History of Religious Ideas Vol. 1 (Eliade) • Vol.2 •
Vol.3
Patterns in Comparative Religion (Eliade)
History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine "Firsts" in
Recorded History
Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary
Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C.
The Treasures of Darkness: A History of
Mesopotamian Religion
Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia:
An Illustrated Dictionary
The Bible and the Ancient Near East
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times














Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in
Western Monotheism
Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical
Tradition
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories
from the Ancient Near East
Ancient Israel's Faith and History: Introduction
to the Bible in Context
The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the
Biblical Tradition
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in
the History of the Religion of Israel
Stories from Ancient Canaan
From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in
Ancient Israel
The Hittites: And Their Contemporaries in Asia
Minor
Hittite Myths, Second Edition
The Secret Origins of the Bible
The Origins of Christianity and the Bible
Jealous Gods and Chosen People: Mythology
of the Middle East
River of God, The : A New History of Christian
Origins
QUERY 2
According to the Apostle Paul (e.g, Romans 5:12), the inheritance of a sinful and inherently evil human
"nature" is universal and unconditional (i.e., every human being is automatically marked by sin and death
at birth because of the original disobedience of Adam thousands of years ago and that's just the way it is,
so quit your whining), however God's Plan of Salvation is not unconditional and universalJune 22,
2007/U> something to make it happen—you need to repent, accept Jesus, be "born" again, become
baptized, etc). It seems, therefore, that human depravity June 22, 2007/EM> and more powerful than
Jesus's ability to save (since salvation is conditional and not universal). My having to ask to be saved is a
condition of my salvation, but I didn't have to ask or do anything at all to be branded by sin and death. In
other words, sin is unconditional, but salvation is not.
As such, is the curse of Original Sin more powerful than the sacrificial death of Jesus? Is the
unconditional curse of sin stronger than the conditional power of salvation? If I am born depraved
because of the unpetitioned stain of Original Sin, why would I (or how could I) ever petition to be saved?
Wouldn't my very depravity actually prevent me from ever pursuing the right thing (e.g., accepting Jesus)?
According to Pauline doctrine, I am born accursed with spiritual blindness by no fault of my own and then
damned because I am spiritually blind. Is being born with this blindness my fault? If it is, then why? If it
isn't, then whose fault is it? Who, really, is to blame for keeping this curse alive?
Page 6 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Either help me safely across the street or push me gleefully into onrushing traffic, but don't threaten me
with damnation to an Eternal Hell because I was 'created' already cursed with spiritual blindness. Either
the concept of Original Sin is a false and a poorly interpreted doctrine or it is a Zen-like stepping stone
used to measure one's true spiritual journey. If God is love, why am I going to Hell? If you're so spiritual,
how can you casually accept the idea of Eternal Damnation? Wouldn't an ethical person reject his-or-her
own salvation strictly on moral principles? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? To stand up to God and
consciously choose to become "dead again" after becoming "born again" or at least try to rally the troops
to storm the gates of Hell in order to free those in endless bondage? I'd rather spend eternity in Hell
knowing I did the right thing in voicing my disgust at the concept of an Eternal Hell than one second in
Heaven knowing I did nothing at all because I was selfish, complacent, or fearful of punishment. In the
presence of the doctrine of Eternal Damnation, isn't seeking one's own salvation ultimately a cowardly
and immoral act? Isn't rejecting the author of Eternal Damnation as reprehensible and deplorable actually
the more ethical and moral choice?



God created Adam and Eve already cursed by death. How do we know this? Because, according
to Genesis 3:22-24, in order to "live forever" they would to have had to have eaten from the Tree of
Life. Since they did not eat from the Tree of Life this means they followed their "natural" state and
eventually succumbed to death. In other words, Paul is wrong in Romans 5:12 because death did
not enter the world "through sin" since death was already in the world prior to the so-called sin.
Eating the fruit from the Tree of Life would have reversed the already-present state of death and
God elected to prevent this by casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden before they have
a chance to eat the magical fruit. Even though they were instructed to not eat the fruit of the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they die, they were going to die anyway since they would
have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life in order to not die.
God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis
2:16-17). In other words, since Adam did not have the knowledge of Good and Evil before eating
the fruit any action he took prior to this eating was neither an act of obedience or disobedience
since both require the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., right and wrong) in order to make sound
and informed choices. In our contemporary legal system, if a person does not have the knowledge
of good and evil (i.e., cannot determine right from wrong) and commits a crime they are not
punished for this crime by "reason of insanity." If Adam did not have the knowledge of good and
evil before he "disobeyed" God and ate the fruit to acquire the knowledge of good and evil, then his
punishment is farcical and ultimately immoral because he would have needed the knowledge of
good and evil to make an informed decision to disobey. To put it bluntly, without the knowledge of
good and evil any act that Adam committed was a legally insane act. Since God created Adam
without the knowledge of good and evil, God created Adam legally insane.
According to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), allloving, and merciful. What does this all mean when considering the creation of Adam and Eve and
the notion of Original Sin?
o Since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) He knew Adam and
Eve's fate before He created them, the world, the universe itself.
o God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (they would need to
eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to acquire this knowledge).
o God created Adam and Eve already doomed to die (they would need to eat from the Tree
of Life in order to "live forever").
o God created the Garden of Eden with the world's most-hazardous tree within quick reach
all the while knowing in advance that this easy access would doom all of mankind.
o God created the serpent "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made"
(Genesis 3) and placed this talking(!) tempter smack-dab in the middle of the Garden
knowing in advance that it would bait Eve into eating of the fruit while also knowing that
Eve would entice Adam into eating of the fruit as well.
o Knowing all this, God punishes Adam (and, according to Pauline doctrine, all mankind until
the end of time) for an act of disobedience that was not disobedience since a disobedient
act requires the foreknowledge of good and evil, something Adam acquired only after the
Page 7 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett


act. [NOTE: Eve's enticing of Adam to eat the fruit is a different kettle of fish entirely since
at this time she did possess the knowledge of good and evil even though Adam did not.]
o Knowing all this, God also punishes the serpent who was "more crafty than any of the wild
animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) for beguiling Eve with it's silver tongue.
o Knowing all this, because of Adam's "original sin" God punishes the entire human race
(according to Pauline doctrine) through a proclamation that every infant born into the world
is born into sin, accursed by the so-called "disobedient" act of Adam.
o Finally, knowing all this, God gives human beings an escape clause through Jesus (who
himself laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens according to Hebrews 1:10). All
that men and women have to do to be "saved" from God's judgment is rise above their
inherent sinful natures and ask to be saved by-way-of Jesus's fabulous escape clause.
Perhaps we might better understand the above scenario this using an analogy:
o I am a father of two very young children, perhaps two and three years old.
o I tell them that they can play with anything in the house but they are not to play with the
book of matches that I leave laying on the coffee table in the living room.
o I tell them I am going to go away for awhile but that I will be back shortly.
o Before leaving I take a gallon of gasoline into the house and empty it on all the living room
furniture.
o I leave my two young children in the care of my teenage son who I know is "more crafty
than any of the children I have made."
o I also know that this teenage son has a nasty habit of convincing others to play with
matches.
o When I return I discover that the house is burning and my two young children are trapped
inside. Outside, my teenage son is gleefully watching the flames.
o I stand beside him and watch the house burn while listening to the screams of my two
young children. I refuse to go into the house on my own accord and save them. I will stand
back and allow them to burn alive unless they first ask me to save them. If they don't ask
me to be saved it is entirely their fault that they are being burned alive.
o I am a wise and merciful father who is allowed to treat his children any way I like because
I, after all, created them. Without me they wouldn't be here, now trapped inside a burning
house.
o I am a loving father because I have given my children an escape clause. Even though I
constructed the whole scenario knowing full well the outcome would mean me standing
outside watching my children trapped inside a burning house, I was loving enough to give
them an escape clause. Of course, this clause only works on the condition that my children
ask to be saved. Until they do that, I will stand back and allow them to burn. I will not raise
one finger to help them unless I hear them ask. My love knows no bounds.
My question is this: If I behaved in this manner with my own children would I be considered the
type of father worthy of love, admiration, and respect? Or might I be looked upon as a sick, cruel,
psychopathic, and heartless monster deserving only derision, loathing, disgust, or pity? Would my
actions be considered moral or immoral, my underlying intentions kind or malign? Is my offering of
a so-called "escape clause" really demonstrating mercy or does it entail something else altogether,
something darker, more self-serving, egocentric and selfish? Finally, am I demonstrating
unconditional love with this type of behavior or only that when push comes to shove I really don't
give a damn about anyone else's feelings but my own?
SUGGESTED BOOKS



Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
History of Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition
Eve: The Bone of Contention : A Psychospiritual Understanding of the Story of Creation and the
Garden of Eden
Page 8 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
SUGGESTED LINKS
















Religion & Ethics: Original Sin (BBC)
The Problem with Original Sin (J. Allan Danelek)
The Absurdity of Original Sin
Doctrines on Original Sin (Edward T. Babinski)
The Incoherence of Original Sin and Substitutive Sacrifice
The Concept of Original Sin
Original Sin (Sullivan County)
Original Sin: An Overview (Sullivan County)
Adam and Eve (Wikipedia)
Original Sin (Wikipedia)
Cosmic Fall (Dictionary of the History of Ideas
Adapa and the Food of Life (Earlier Sumerian Myth)
Adam and Eve (Suite 101)
Adam & Eve Online Resources
Genesis 1-11 (RTOT)
Adam/Eve Discussion
04
THE CONCEPTS OF HEAVEN AND HELL ARE EQUALLY MORALLY AND
ETHICALLY REPREHENSIBLE
Let's face it. Despite making altruistic claims to the contrary, I'm convinced most Christians believe the
way they do for two main reasons:
o
o
To be rewarded with Eternal Life in Heaven
To escape the Wrath of God and Eternal Damnation in Hell
Closer examination will reveal both these reasons are equally morally and ethically reprehensible while
proving themselves flip-sides of the same shameful coin.
According to Christian doctrine, nobody deserves going to Heaven (i.e., Eternal Reward) because of (1)
the inheritance of the Original Sin of Adam and (2) personal sin, and it's is only through the intercession of
Jesus Christ that Christians are allowed to go to Heaven (i.e., earn Eternal Reward). As such, since most
of the world's population are not Christian this means that the majority of people will feel the Wrath of God
and be condemned to Hell (i.e., Eternal Punishment). In other words, Christians are all to happy to accept
Eternal Reward knowing that (1) they don't really deserve it and (2) most peope will be condemned to
Hell. This stance is neither moral nor ethical. A person of higher moral and ethical standards would (1)
reject salvation as (a) undeserved, (b) capricious, and (c) self-serving, and (2) stand up to God and
appeal for those he has condemned to Hell. Anything less shows the true moral character of the so-called
'righteous' believer.
What inspires faith, or rather what incites it, is belief in an afterlife. Never mind there's nothing in the
physical world or the mechanics of natural law to support such a claim except sacrosanct promises
conveyed in ancient texts (though tradition is no argument, despite what some apologists might have you
believe), second-hand stories of black tunnels\white lights\shadowy figures (limbic system reaction to
anesthesia or trauma or stress; psychological disorders; fraud and confidence games), or spurious claims
of past life regression (via reincarnation), all in direct denial of what we can be empirically aware, might
physically touch in regards to death – roadside carrion, the coppery taste of blood in your mouth,
cadavers putrefying in zippered body bags, the moldering dead. But belief in an after-life is essential to a
fundamentalist's faith, and its purpose is two-fold:


It provides the anticipation of Heaven, Eternal Life, One's Just Reward, etc.
It promises the threat of Hell, Eternal Punishment, Damnation, Retributive Justice, etc.
Page 9 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
How ingenious of church doctrine! Promising a paradise it never has to deliver and threatening a
punishment it never has to inflict (to date no one has returned from the dead to make a formal complaint,
demand his or her money back, grouse about the squandered years, denounce the celestial promises,
the vitriolic threats of the church, etc). According to conservative Christians, we don't need to defer to
reason, proof, evidence, logic, critical thinking, or rational thought (after all those things are actually
worldly and unsavory). All we have to do is believe. All we need is faith! So what if our religious belief
system is ultimately incoherent, illogical, rife with contradiction, and ethically the moral equivalent of the
Nazi Holocaust (not possessing a clean bloodline the Jews are carted off to the camps and ovens, and
after dying carted off to the fires of Hell because they are not Christians)—what does it matter as long as
we are saved? As long as we're in Heaven? As long as we don't have to suffer for all eternity? If our
children don't make it, our spouses, our parents, brothers, sisters, friends: no problem! Just as long as we
make it! Just as long as the God of Love doesn't inflict his eternal torture on us!
Stated bluntly, faith or belief in an after-life is the single-most cause of suffering and foolishness inflicted
upon the human race, by the human race, and for several reasons:








It negates the immediacy and value of human life right here and right now.
It corrupts the collective unconscious of the species in such a way as to affect behavior. Believing
in an life-after-death, making the assumption people don't really die, subconsciously legitimizes
capital punishment and the death penalty, abortion, territorial wars, religious wars, turf wars, gang
wars, terrorist attacks, ethnic cleansing, murder, suicide cults, political assassination, et al, since
people aren't really dying after all—they're just continuing on in another stage of existence.
It allows people to postpone action in this life (whether humane or humanitarian) in favor of the life
yet to come, allowing for political and religious boundaries, derision and division, separatism and
succession. Hence there remains global hunger, border skirmishes, illiteracy, disease, poverty and
pestilence, all because the problems of this world are deemed ultimately not as important when
measured against the life yet to come. With the idea of an after-life always simmering in the back of
people's mind, they don't try as hard to really instigate change in this world, strive for peace,
alleviate suffering, fight for global changes. After all, eternal life starts at death so why should folks
get all worked up over sixty or seventy years?
It offers people hope for a solution to their problems at some future time and enables them to not
make a conscious effort to begin making the necessary changes or do the necessary work now. It
allows them to postpone taking responsibility for their own lives or education (since god will
enlighten them and fix everything once they get to heaven) and permits them to sit on their hands
in ignorance and inertia while life passes them by. Why make a serious search for truth if truth will
be revealed on the other side?
It legitimizes the use of persecution and torture in the name of saving souls for the after-life.
It allows religious leaders to control their people by offering hope in the next life, promising
rewards, threatening punishment, even sentencing eternal damnation (through papal bulls,
excommunication) all by invoking interpreted church doctrine.
It assumes a mind-body (or soul-body) dichotomy, a disembodied spirit that is mystically and
temporarily ‘housed' in human flesh while blissfully ignoring the inescapable synthesis of each
person's material surroundings, environment, cultural prejudices, parental influences and biases,
birth order, sex, physical appearance, shape, size, color, health, biochemistry, electrochemical
reactions, stored memory, bones, flesh, blood, eyes, ears, mouth, and steady oxygen supply to
shape personality. Everything we think we are we owe solely to the state of our flesh and empirical
surroundings, a process impossible to remove from the intrinsic network of matter. With all the
above in absence, what would remain exactly to “stand” in judgment before the throne of god, and
what mechanisms (or lack thereof) would drive interaction with the divine inquisitor?
It rewards laziness, complacency, ignorance, superstition, irrationality, religious fervor, and blind
faith with promises of an other-wordly victory and assurances of everlasting retribution.
Until we as a race are willing to take responsibility for our lives here and now, to respect and honor life
here and now, and to put away imaginary dreams of some afterlife we will continue to be governed by
superstition, ignorance, and childish 'me first' behavior.
Page 10 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
'Me first' believers are unethical and immoral, period, if they can consciously and deliberately accept
going to Heaven while knowing the majority of the world's population will be spending the rest of eternity
(that's 1010000 years x 1010000 years x forever) being deliberately tortured in Hell.
They are unethical and immoral if they can, with a clear conscience, praise and worship a Deity who will
condemn a person for all eternity (that's 1010000 years x 1010000 years x forever) for behavior and/or
choices made (or not made) during his-or-her incredibly short human lifespan (that's 70-80 years vs.
Eternity).
They are unethical and immoral if they do not reject this behavior on the part of the Deity outright,
confront the Deity for being the architect of the atrocities of Hell (at least the Nazi Holocaust only lasted a
few years), reject their own salvation on moral priciples, make plans to charge the Gates of Hell and free
its prisoners, or offer to take another's place in Hell as an act of Unconditional Love. As long as there is a
Hell—even the slightest threat of Hell—I could not morally or ethically consider that kind of Deity a god
worthy of worship or emulation (whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) but a tyrant more in keeping with
Hitler's "Final Solution" and the fiery stoking of the ovens.
What I find inconceivable is how any Christian considers this Deity worthy of praise and worship, unless
beneath it all it's really about enlightened self-interest, not caring how many others will suffer just so long
as he-or-she can avoid the flames. If this is the case, then they've become just like their chosen Deity—
shameful, unethical, immoral, and incredibly selfish.
Side Note: If Jesus died for my sins then how come I can still go to Hell? This means there must be a sin
that Jesus didn't die for, the ultimate sin, the biggest sin of all—the sin of my not accepting him. If that's
the case, then what kind of Savior is this? He'll die for my lying, he'll die for my cheating, he'll die for my
thievery, or adultry, or murder, but when it comes to my not acknowledging him that's where he draws the
line. He'll die for all my sins, except the one that really counts. If Jesus is the 'Son of God' I guess the
apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Don Cupitt has said it best: "All the doctrinal themes are meant gradually to sink in and become part of
one's own being—which gives rise to the paradox that when you have fully become a Christian, you aren't
one any longer." And so, over the years, I've evolved and discovered that I can no longer be a Christian.
I've found it impossible to constantly work at justifying what is blatantly selfish, offensive, horrific, and
cruel. Maybe that's the final test, the secret test, the real test, come Judgment Day. Are you willing to
hand your salvation back to the Deity and reject Heaven outright because accepting it would be just plain
wrong? Perhaps that is what is meant by the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, because many
are called but few are chosen...
SUGGESTED BOOKS








God's Just Vengeance : Crime, Violence and the Rhetoric of Salvation (Cambridge Studies
in Ideology and Religion)
Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue
Four Views on Hell
The Problem of Hell
Reforming Christianity
Our Immoral Soul: A Manifesto of Spiritual Disobedience
Your God Is Too Small
God and the Problem of Evil (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy)
Page 11 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
SUGGESTED LINKS












05
Christian Quotes Concerning the Divine 'Justice' of Hell
Enlightened Quotes Concerning the Injustice of Hell
Religion, Morality and Charlatanism (David Rand)
The Problem of Hell
Major Conflicts Over Hell (ReligiousTolerance)
God and Moral Autonomy
The Moral Foundations of Atheism and Christianity
Heaven and Hell (SEP)
Universalism
Universalism and the Bible
Tentmaker.org - Universalism Discussion
The Rich Man and Lazarus
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS MUCH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS
APPROPRIATED FROM EARLIER SUMERIAN, BABYLONIAN, EGYPTIAN,
CANAANITE, & PERSIAN MYTHS
Anyone who takes the time to deliberately study Ancient Near East texts, history, archaeology, and
mythology, will quickly discover that much of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was appropriated and
assimilated from earlier cultures and religious traditions (specifically the Sumerians, Babylonians,
Canaanites, Hittities, Syrians, Egyptians, and Persians/Zoroastrians). This is not some Bible-bashing
liberal idea contrived from thin-air but a historical and verifiable fact derived from physical evidence and
conscientious research.
Remember, because they were at various times a 'conquered people' the Hebrews would be impacted
and influenced by the traditions and ethos of those doing the conquering. If Christians (as well as Jews)
would dedicate a little energy investigating Ancient Near East texts and mythology they would see how
Old Testament stories were adapted, modified, and evolved from older myths and legends.
Why aren't Christians told about all these Ancient Near East texts and mythologies that pre-date the Old
Testament when attending church, Sunday school, or bible college? Why do you suppose? What is
particularly interesting is that after they are shown how the Hebrews "borrowed" these older stories and
altered them for their own religious uses, most Christians will still continue to believe in the legitimacy of
the Old Testament. Why? Because they would rather 'believe' in comforting religious stories and cling to
hope in an 'afterlife' than face and recognize their denial of death and fear of annihilation.
LINKS OF INTEREST













Ancient Near East Text Archive
Mesopotamia (IAHS)
World Wide Web Sites Relating to the Ancient Mediterranean
Ancient Near East (Virtual Religion Index)
Sumerian Mythology FAQ
Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQ
Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ
Hittite/Hurrian Mythology FAQ
Greek Myths and the Bible
Baalism in Canaanite Religion and Its Relation to Selected OT Texts
On-Line Primary Literature Related to ancient Near Eastern religions, Hellenistic Mediterranian
religions and Biblical Study
Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
Annals of the Kings of Assyria
Page 12 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett

The Origins of Christianity and the Bible
BOOKS OF INTEREST



























06
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
The Ancient Near East (Volume I): An Anthology of Texts and Pictures
History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 BC
Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others
Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria
The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology (Campbell)
History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine "Firsts" in Recorded History
Patterns in Comparative Religion (Eliade)
Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C.
The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion
Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary
The Bible and the Ancient Near East
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism
Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East
Ancient Israel's Faith and History: Introduction to the Bible in Context
The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
Stories from Ancient Canaan
From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel
The Hittites: And Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor
Hittite Myths, Second Edition
Jealous Gods and Chosen People: The Mythology of the Middle East
The Secret Origins of the Bible
The Origins of Christianity and the Bible
THE ACCOUNT OF THE FLOOD AND NOAH'S ARK BEARS STRIKING
SIMILARITIES TO THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH AND OTHER PRE-DATING
CREATION/FLOOD MYTHS
While most conservative Christians may adhere to the notion of the legitimacy and credibility of the Bible or go so far
as to proclaim it inerrant (without error), infallible, and inspired by God what they probably haven't been
taught is the extent it has 'borrowed' and assimilated myths that pre-date the development of Hebrew
doctrine and the writing of the Old Testament itself. For example, nowhere is this seen more clearly than
in the use of the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" in the construction of the Hebrew story of Noah's Flood
which share about 20 major points in common. In both cases:









The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly
sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children,
babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the
original Hebrew).
The hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat
The ark would be sealed with pitch.
The ark would have many internal compartments
It would have a single door
It would have at least one window.
Page 13 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett










The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of
other land animals.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The mountains were initially covered with water.
The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not
return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
The hero was blessed.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of
Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
For Pre-Dating Flood Myths see: Ziusudra - Atrahasis - Utnapishtim - Deucalion
Christian apologists, when confronted with this evidence, immediately go into 'spin mode' and either (1)
attempt to explain it away with rationalizations and arguments that one would expect any educated
person to see through, or (2) simply state there is no direct correlation between the accounts as if flat
denial is all one needs do to convince the ever-faithful. The apologists will argue that (a) although the
Epic of Gilgamesh was indeed written before the Old Testament, the Sumerians/Babylonians probably
stole the story from the Hebrews' "oral" account; in other words, the Hebrews "said" it first but the
Sumerians "wrote" it first; (b) there can't be a correlation because of the differences between the two
stories, for example in Genesis a raven and doves were sent out, but in Gilgamesh a dove, a swallow,
and a raven were sent out; (3) the Book of Genesis is a 'real historical' account, but the Epic of Gilgamesh
is "only a myth" (so insulated have the apologists become in their own 'spin' they are completely unaware
how preposterous this last argument really is and are under the impression it is quite reasonable. I
imagine it is this same insulation from logic that allows them to interpret as 'Difficulties' what are obvious
biblical Contradictions, Inconsistencies, Fatal Flaws, Absurdities, Questionable Guidelines,
Immoral Behavior, Atrocities, and outright Errors).
SUGGESTED BOOKS















The Epic of Gilgamesh
The Archetypal Significance of Gilgamesh
The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels
When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood
Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth
The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation
Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History
Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought
Before the Flood: The Biblical Flood as a Real Event and How It Changed the Course of Civilization
Enuma Elish Volumes 1 & 2: The Seven Tablets of Creation; The Babylonian and Assyrian Legends
Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind
Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World
A Dictionary of Creation Myths
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
Origins: Creation Texts from the Ancient Mediterranean: A Chrestomathy
SUGGESTED LINKS



Epic of Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh Summary
Comparison of Babylonian and Noahic Flood Stories
Page 14 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett

















07
Storytelling, the Meaning of Life, and the Epic of Gilgamesh
The Origins of the Story of Noah’s Flood
Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic
Flood Stories
Flood Legends
Flood Stories from Around the World
Deucalion
The Flood: Myth and Science
The Origin of the Sumerians and the Great Flood
The Eridu Genesis
An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
Antediluvian King Lists: Kings before the Flood
Myths of Creation and of Origins
Creation Myths and Sacred Narratives of Creation
Creation Myths (About)
Creation Myths In The Ancient Near East
Internet Sacred Text Archive
PERSIAN ZOROASTRIANISM
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY
ALTERED
JEWISH
DOCTRINE
DURING
THE
Most Christians are never taught the extent by which Judeo-Christian doctrine was influenced by Persian
Zoroastrianism during the Jewish 'exile' or Babylonian Captivity. In other words, the Jews went into
Babylon believing one thing and came out of Babylon believing something else entirely. What happened?
Babylonian myths and doctrines were absorbed and assimilated during the Jews' captivity and reworked
into local doctrine upon their return home.
Any college student who has studied Ancient Near East history is well aware of this Zoroastrian influence
as a matter of course, but churches are not filled with college graduates with Ancient Near East
pedigrees. It's easy to believe one thing if you've never learned (or never made the effort to learn)
otherwise.
So what types of things did the Jews pick-up during their Babylonian captivity? The pre-exilic Jews did not
believe in life after death where there would be a judgment of the soul (i.e., reward of heaven or
retribution of hell), the Messiah (in the pre-exilic period, 'messiah' was a only a title granted to important
people regarded as close to god), an eternal Kingdom of God, Resurrection of the Body, Angels or
Demons, or the ongoing battle between Good or Evil that would be fought until the End of the World
(eschatology). Post-exilic Jews came away from captivity with all these ideas that were eventually worked
and reworked into the Hebrew bible to ultimately influence the ideas inherent in Christian doctrine.
Questions for consideration: If the Jews had never been deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE would they
ever have invented the notion of Messiah? Angels? Devils? Heaven? Hell?
SUGGESTED BOOKS




The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research
Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
In Search of Zarathustra : The First Prophet and the Ideas That Changed the World
Essays on Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism






Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World's Religions
Teachings of Zoroaster and the Philosophy of the Parsi Religion
Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion
Textual Sources for the Study of ZoroastrianismTextual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism
The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years
The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality
Page 15 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett






The Origin of Satan
Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come, 2nd Edition
The History of Hell
A History of the Devil
The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present Day
Biography of Satan: Exposing the Origins of the Devil
SUGGESTED LINKS

















08
Zoroastrianism (ReligiousTolerance)
The Zoroastrian-Biblical Connections
Zoroastrian Influences on Judaism and Christianity • 2 • 3
Persian Influence on Judaism • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6
AVESTA: Zoroastrian Archives
Zoroastrian Page (Purdue)
Influence of Zoroastrianism on Other Religions
Zoroastrian Influence on Notion of Life After Death
Ancient Traditions of the Messiah
History of the Devil (Caras 1900)
History of Satan
Satan: 300 BCE - 100 CE
Satan: 100 CE - Present
Beliefs About Satan
Bible Passages About Satan
Implausibility of Satan
Angels in Zoroastrianism
THE INFLUENCE OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHAL BOOK OF ENOCH ON THE
MYSTICAL GOOD-EVIL DICHOTOMY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
One can only imagine how different Christianity would be and how better off the world itself would be had
there never been the Book of Enoch. Scholars date its composition to the 2nd century BCE. This
pseudepigraphal book (not part of the Old Testament canon either Protestant, Hebrew, or Catholic,
although now part of the Ethiopian canon) about fallen angels and the cosmic battle between good and
evil had a major influence on post-exilic Jewish and early Christian doctrine, as well as apocalyptic
literature.
Although it did not garner enough 'votes' to be included in the New Testament, portions of the Book of
Enoch are interestingly enough referenced there (see here and here). I repeat: while the Book of Enoch
is called pseudepigraphical, it was considered otherwise to early Christian writers as the quote from 1
Enoch 1:9 in the New Testament book of Jude 14 clearly indicates:
In the seventh (generation) from Adam, Enoch also prophesied these things, saying:
'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict
all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly
way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners spoke against him'.
Thought lost for millennia after being destroyed by early dogmatic Christian authorities, it was
rediscovered in 1773 in Ethiopia. The Book of Enoch remains one of the oldest extant mystical
documents and is referred to in the Hebrew Zohar, the Epistle of Jude, and is considered a critical
influence on the New Testament. It also includes the lost "Book of Noah," early references to a messiah
as "Christ" and "Son of Man," and an accounting of the angels and subsequent creation of demons, as
well as discussion of Heaven, Hell, Eternal Life, and Divine Judgment, all ideas appropriated from the
Babylonian Exile.
Page 16 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
SUGGESTED BOOKS










1 Enoch: A New Translation
Enoch And Qumran Origins: New Light On A Forgotten Connection
The Book of Enoch
The Lost Book of Enoch
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Book of Enoch the Prophet
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1): Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments
Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil: Why Church Fathers Suppressed the Book of Enoch and Its
Startling Revelations
Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden
The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
SUGGESTED LINKS
















09
The Book of Enoch (Wikipedia)
The Book of Enoch (Online)
The Apocryphical Book of Enoch (Various Book Excerpts)
The Book of Enoch & the Pseudepigrapha
Introduction to the Book of Enoch
Pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch
The Enoch Literature (AskWhy)
Book of Enoch (New Advent)
Book of Enoch - History
Sons of God, Daughters of Men
What About The Book of Enoch?
Jesus and the Book of Enoch
The Book of Enoch - Discussed (Babinski)
The Book of Enoch Quoted in the New Testament
Book of Enoch (1911 Encyclopedia)
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Web Page
THE INFLUENCE OF PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
Most Christians have never heard of Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus) nor are aware of his influence on
Christian doctrine. He was an an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt in 20 BCE
(died 40 CE). The few biographical details concerning him are found in his own works (especially in
"Legatio ad Caium") and in works by Josephus.
When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century BCE it was only
natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms
of Greek philosophy. It was Philo who produced a Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought,
later appropriated by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen. He likely influenced Paul, his contemporary, and the authors of the Gospel
of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of
Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo's primary importance is in the
development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity, particularly the platonic idea
of the Messiah and the Logos.
The doctrine of the Logos, or Word, as an emanation or essence of divine wisdom is very old. It is found
in the ancient religions of Egypt and India. It was recognized in Zoroastrian theology, and was
appropriated and incorporated into the Jewish theology by the Babylonian exiles. It constitutes an
important element in the Platonic philosophy. The presentation of Jesus as an incarnation of the Logos
belongs to the second century and is prominent in the Fourth Gospel. The ideas are chiefly those of Plato
Page 17 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
and Philo of Alexandria. Plato's trinity was Thought, Word and Deed. The Word occupies the second
place in the Platonic trinity as it does in the Christian trinity. That the author of the Gospel of John, written
several decades after the time of Philo, borrowed largely from that philosopher, is shown by the following
parallels drawn from their writings:
Philo: "The Logos is the Son of God" (De Profugis)
John: "This [the Word] is the Son of God" (John 1:34)
Philo: "The Logos is considered the same as God" (De Somniis)
John: "The Word {Logos] was God" (John 1:1)
Philo: "He [the Logos] was before all things" (De Allegoriis Legum)
John: "The same [the Word] was in the beginning with God" (John 1:2)
Philo: "The Logos is the agent by whom the world was made" (De Allegoriis Legum)
John: "All things were made by him [the Word]" (John 1:3)
Philo: "The Logos is the true light of the world" (De Somniis)
John: "The Word [Logos] was the true light" (John 1:9)
Philo: "The Logos only can see God" (De Confusione Linguarum)
John: "No man hath seen God.... He [the Word] hath declared him" (John 1:18)
SUGGESTED BOOKS









The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged
Philo of Alexandria : An Introduction
Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, Giants and Selections
Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria
Philo and Paul Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian
Movement
Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Judaism Before Jesus: The Ideas and Events That Shaped the New Testament World
The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity
The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria
SUGGESTED LINKS












Philo of Alexandria Home Page
Philo of Alexendria/Judaeus (Wikipedia)
Philo's View of God (Wikipedia)
Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series
Philo Of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Thought
The Works of Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria)
Philo of Alexandria (IEP)
Philo of Alexandria (Early Church)
Philo of Alexandria (New Advent)
Philo of Alexandria and the Vocabulary of Belief
Logos
Philo of Alexandria Blog
Page 18 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
10
THE ANCIENT GODS AND GODDESSES THAT WERE ASSIMILATED BY THE HEBREWS TO
BECOME ELOHIM EL & YAHWEH YHWH
Most Christians seem to have the rather pedestrian idea that the notion of the Judeo-Christian God, that
is to say Yahweh (or YHWH), has always been around in pretty much the same way as He is today.
Once again, historical evidence demonstrates the contrary.
Like everything else connected to the language of religion, the idea of God (whether called Yahweh or
Elohim) evolved over time and was assimilated and adapted by the Hebrews over millennia. As you
might have already guessed, the names Yahweh and Elohim did not even originate with the Hebrews, but
date all the way back to the early Canaanites who themselves appropriated customs, religious myths,
and language from the early Sumerians / Babylonians. Tracing word origins, one discovers that Yahweh
was derived from the Ugaritic god of water, Yam. The term 'Elohim' that is used for God throughout the
Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is actually plural, reflecting early Judaic polytheism. Originally meaning
"the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being, the word may have been singularized by later
monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods with their own patron god Yahweh
(YHWH) alone.
For further study regarding the early Semitic/Hebrew goddesses please research the Asherah / Astarte /
Anat / Eostre connection (from which the word Easter originated), as well as Shekhinah and Matronit.
SUGGESTED BOOKS






















The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary
The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel
The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel
Ancient Israel's Faith and History: Introduction to the Bible in Context
Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition
Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
The Hebrew Goddess (Jewish Folklore and Anthropology)
When God Was a Woman
Yahweh's Wife: Sex in the Evolution of Monotheism
The Great Goddess: Reverence of the Divine Feminine from the Paleolithic to the Present
Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism : Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit
Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Writings from the Ancient World)
Stories from Ancient Canaan
SUGGESTED LINKS







Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
Yahweh-Elohim's Historical Evolution
Tetragrammaton: YHWH (Wikipedia)
Tetragrammaton: YHWH from HWH (Mystica)
El: God (Wikipedia)
Elohim: The Gods (Wikipedia)
The Names of God in Judaism (Wikipedia)
Page 19 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett












11
Jehovah Unmasked
How Judaism Began and Evolved Into Christianity
El in the Ugaritic Texts
God's Sacred Name YHWH
Elohim
God or Elohim?
The Name of God
Hebrew Goddess: Asherah
Asherah
From Adonai to Yahweh
An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
Bible Origins
MYTHS OF DYING-RESURRECTING GOD-MEN BORN OF VIRGINS THAT PRE-DATE THE
STORY OF THE GOD-MAN JESUS
Most Christians mistakenly believe that the virgin birth, miraculous life, death, and resurrection are
original and unique to Jesus Christ. Au contraire. Long before the story of Jesus was scripted, there were
myths of dying-resurrecting god-men throughout the Mediterranean and Ancient Near East who were
born of virgin human mothers and divine fathers, performed miracles, were killed and buried only to finally
resurrect in glory.
What does this mean?
It means that the notion of dying-resurrecting god-men is an archetypal mythic type common to the
collective belief systems of the various peoples (cultures) of the Mediterranean and Middle East who each
had their own 'local' myth that referenced a god-man (and oftentimes a dying-resurrecting god-man)
including Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz/Dumuzi, Bacchus, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Pythagoras,
Apollonius Of Tyana, Krishna, Murukan, the Corn King, the Green Man, to name a few.
Any rational thinker worth his-or-her intellectual salt can confirm this with a little dedicated research and
scholarly elbow-grease. The problem is many Christians really dislike research or dedicating time to study
if it nudges them, however slightly, from their presupposed comfort zones. Apparently it's easier to believe
than it is to roll-up one's sleeves and do the work necessary to unearth the 'truth' whatever it might lead. I
suspect this phobia against honest research is a kind of infantile pathology wishing to (1) avoid
acknowledging the inescapable reality of death and (2) avoid putting aside promises of a Magical Happy
Place so as not to take responsibility for one's own life right here and right now.
SUGGESTED BOOKS















Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology
The Mystery-Religions: A Study in the Religious Background of Early Christianity
The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook : Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient
Mediterranean World
Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity
The Survival of the Pagan Gods
The Golden Bough
Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the History of Oriental Religion
The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
The Jesus Mysteries
Jesus and the Lost Goddess
Gospel Fictions
The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy
The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World
The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries
Page 20 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett











Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection
Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Christianity Before Christ
Dionysus: Myth and Cult
The Cults of the Roman Empire
Tammuz and Ishtar
Ishtar and Tammuz: A Legend of Ancient Babylon
Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code
The Secret Teachings of All Ages
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis
SUGGESTED LINKS





























12
Pagan Origin of the Christ Myth
Life-Death-Rebirth Deity (Wikipedia)
Osiris-Dionysus (Wikipedia)
Tammuz/Dumuzi (Wikipedia)
Adonis (Wikipedia)
Mithras (Wikipedia)
Attis (Wikipedia)
Pythagoras (Wikipedia)
Apollonius of Tyana (Wikipedia)
Parallels Between the Story of Jesus and Osiris-Dionysus (ReligiousTolerance)
Jesus the Christ Mythic Discussion
The Roots of Christianity
The Jesus Puzzle
The Christ Conspiracy
Ancient Traditions of the Messiah
Alexandria: Myths, Et Al
The Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras
The Mysteries of Eleusis
Christianity's Debt to Pagan Monotheism
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans
Treading the Winepress: Yeshua and Dionysius 1
Treading the Winepress: Yeshua and Dionysius 2
Esoteric Christianity: The Greek Mystery Religions and Their Impact on Christianity
Mystery Religions
The Origins of Christianity
Pagan Origins of Easter (ReligiousTolerance)
Myths Surrounding the Birth of Jesus (ReligiousTolerance)
Dionysus and Kataragama: Parallel Mystery Cults
The Christ by John Remsburg (Online Book)
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (THEODICY) AND THE HIDDENNESS OF GOD
Tiny children with encephalitis, cancer, cystic fibrosis, progeria, dying prematurely and painfully, suffering
needlessly simply because they were born. This alone should be argument enough against the existence
of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and 'loving' God, but most believers who espouse this view conveniently
overlook the obvious contradiction between Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence and the
Problem of Evil (or Theodicy).
With straight-faces and righteous sincerity, earnest apologists will jump through hoops and juggle
concepts, blow smoke and angle mirrors, practice sophistry and philosophical obfuscation to relieve God
of the burden of human suffering or to turn suffering around as a kind of 'training exercise ' that God
employs to deter us from sin, teach us virtue, promote obedience, submission, and humility (as one
apologist claims here). Others will take the problem of evil and twist it up inside theology, invoke Latin
Page 21 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
phrases and fifty-cent terms like ipsa voluntas, posse pecarre, non posse pecarre, supralapsarianism,
then go on to claim that it is either (1) Adam's fault there is evil and suffering in the world and (2) a
"fortunate Fall" because it necessitated the need for a Blessed Savior (or as one apologist deadpans
here: "Not only is the only logically consistent universe one in which evil exists for God's purposes, but
God's people will be far more blessed because of the incarnation and Christ than they could ever have
been blessed by an obedient Adam." How lovely! And how wonderful such apologists have the
precognitive ability to weigh and determine God's blessings as well as his intentions). Although the
average layperson may fall victim to such hocus-pocus and surmise an answer was given somehow to a
question built solely on an assumption of divine attributes, thinking men and women will quickly see
through the false reasoning and bold-faced paralogisms.
For some inexplicable reason, Christian apologists and theologians like to describe God's attributes even
though they have never actually seen God in order to determine these attributes. Only through tradition
do they construct this list of attributes and for no other reason. In other words, apologists and theologians
will endlessly argue who and what God is based on abstract language alone (i.e., words representing
something impossible to determine) and nothing else.
What do I mean by this? You can point to a tree and list its attributes, you can point to a dog, you can
point to your neighbor, but in order to list God's attributes you can only point to words, the abstract
language of tradition alone, therefore said attributes are inherently meaningless because they are
grounded solely on abstraction and artifice.
Again, what does this mean? It means that if the only way you can show God's attributes is by pointing to
words in a book or repeating words you heard, then those attributes have been determined solely through
the abstraction of language and nothing else. Therefore, the attributes of God are really empty attributes
because they might as well be anything. You can say that God is an invisible color-blind jazz singer with a
distaste for all things Norwegian and the only proof that you have are the words you use. Think this is
wrong? If so, then show me—don't just tell me—any one of God's attributes (and pointing to more words
in a book do not amount to 'showing' but only 'telling' twice removed).
If you can only talk about God's attributes (or only talk about angels, or devils, or miracles, or speaking
snakes, etc.) then you have fallen into the trap of a reification error. Reification (hypostatization,
sometimes a pathetic fallacy) is a language fallacy that involves ascribing existence, substance,
attributes, and behavior to mental constructs or concepts, then talking about these constructs and
concepts using language that presupposes them to be real. It is similar to a metaphor, but a metaphor
that has been extended too far and taken to a spurious extreme. When applied to fantastic entities or
gods, it is similar to anthropomorphism. While it is useful to be creative and employ metaphors and
abstractions in our language, unless we are mindful of the symbolic properties of words we risk the
danger of treating abstract entities as 'real' solely through the attributes we metaphorically use to describe
them with words. How we talk about and discuss things has a great influence on what we believe about
them, which means our impression of reality is often structured by the very language we use to describe
it. Being aware of the reification fallacy can teach us to pay critical attention to the words we use or else
we run the risk of projecting our descriptions outside the abstract world of language and into the realm of
the concrete world itself.
So what are the supposed attributes of God and what do they have to do with the Problem of Evil?
According to tradition, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent
(everywhere at once), changeless, eternal, and all-loving (see biblical list here). If God is really all these
things, then why is there evil in the world (whether natural evil—earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, etc—or
man-made evil—murder, rape, theft, torture, war, etc)? You can ease the question further by
acknowledging the need for some evil in order for freewill to work, but ask why there is as much evil? For
example, why are some unfortunate children born with progeria (Hutchinson-Gilford Syndrome) only to
suffer with accelerated premature aging and die by age thirteen? This is a clear demonstration ofthe
Problem of Evil. If God really is God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-loving then why
doesn't God prevent progeria, infant abuse and torture, painful birth defects, etc? If God could prevent it
Page 22 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
(being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) but doesn't then God isn't all-loving. If God is all-loving
but can't prevent it, then God isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Finally, if the knowledge and acceptance of God is essential for the condition of my eternal soul (that's
1010000 years x 1010000 years x forever), whether I will be granted an eternal reward (that's 1010000 years x
1010000 years x forever) or an eternal punishment (that's 1010000 years x 1010000 years x forever), then how
come God is hidden? I am a rational human being. I derive knowledge empirically, i.e., through my five
senses. If the future state of my eternal soul (that's 10 10000 years x 1010000 years x forever) is dependent
upon my accepting the 'right' doctrine, then don't just point me to abstract words in this book (the Bible) or
that book (the Koran), or infer that I am suppose to make a reification error as a matter of faith. Why?
Because I am by nature an empirical creature. I learn through reasoned experience. Don't just tell me,
show me! If God could show me (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) but doesn't then God
isn't all-loving. God must be playing cat-and-mouse with me. If I'm empirical and rational, but supposed to
behave as if I were metaphysical and irrational, then there's something awfully wrong going on here. I'm
suppose to believe in what I cannot see, act irrationally, and feign intellectual ignorance, or else I will be
damned for all eternity (that's 1010000 years x 1010000 years x forever).
It is evident to me that these two things—the Problem of Evil and the Hiddenness of God—strongly
demonstrates that God cannot be the type of God that Christian tradition makes him out to be. He cannot
be all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, changeless, eternal, and all-loving. Given the human condition,
the suffering of innocents and helpless babies, this particular flavor of God most certainly does not exist.
SUGGESTED BOOKS










Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason
Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion
The Problem of Evil: A Reader
God and Evil: An Introduction to the Issues
The Problem of Evil (Oxford Readings in Philosophy)
Nonbelief & Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God
o Book Review (Philosophy Now)
The Evidential Argument from Evil
After Auschwitz: History, Theology, and Contemporary Judaism
Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy
The Evidential Argument from Evil
SUGGESTED LINKS










13
The Problem of Evil (Wikipedia)
The Problem of Evil
The Logical Problem of Evil (IEP)
Introduction to the Problem of Evil
The Evidential Argument from Evil
Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief
God and the Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil - Discussion Links
The Problem of Evil: A Collection and Critique of Responses
Debate: God, Morality, & Evil (Craig-Nielsen)
NATURAL (EMPIRICAL/SCIENTIFIC) VS. SUPERNATURAL (FAITH/LANGUAGE-BASED)
BELIEF SYSTEMS
What is naturalism? It is not really a philosophical system so much as a point of view or tendency
common to a number of philosophical and religious systems. Rather than a well-defined set of doctrines,
it is more an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines.
Page 23 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in
terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Nature is regarded the one
original and fundamental source of all that exists. The limits of nature are also the limits of
existing reality and knowledge. A more specific form, Materialistic Naturalism, asserts that
matter is the only reality and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical
laws.
All forms of naturalism explicitly reject any reference to or reliance upon supernatural powers or authority.
And what is supernaturalism? Just the opposite.
Supernaturalism is the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or
authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level,
but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause. According to supernaturalism,
a supernatural order is the original and fundamental source of all that exists. It is this
supernatural order which defines the limits of what may be known.
The difference between these two positions is one of the fundamental differences between atheists and
theists—it is a difference which tends to cause the most disagreement and most friction. Atheists tend to
be naturalists—taking the perspective that this natural world is all there is, all there is to know, and does
not require anything "supernatural" to explain it. Theists tend to be supernaturalists—assuming that a
supernatural realm exists beyond what we see and is necessary in order to explain our universe. These
fundamental assumptions are mutually exclusive and incompatible. If one is true, the other cannot be. But
is one more reasonable than the other? Is it more reasonable to be a naturalist, or does the evidence
support being a supernaturalist?
I have been studying philosophy and religion for several years now. This activity has led me to investigate
some problems of philosophy which discussions always seem to reduce to by simple necessity regardless
of the philosophical sophistication of whomever the writer or speaker. The problem is one of the
fundamental problems of philosophy: that of epistemology, further refined with philosophical/linguistic
analysis of presuppositions. You see, whenever we start to speak of what we "know," a legitimate
question is just how it is we know it, why it is we think whatever method we used to arrive at that
knowledge is reliable, and whether that knowledge was acquired honestly, rationally, and without overt
bias. These are all epistemological problems.
Presuppositions enter when we carefully examine the statements we use in our discussions, including
discussions of epistemology. By way of a example, suppose I am in the living room of my house and say
to my son "Could you please go get me a soda from the refrigerator?"
That request presupposes (or contextually implies) a number of things. That the child I'm speaking to will
understand what I say, that he will follow the request, that he is capable of following the request, that
there is a refrigerator, that there are sodas in the refrigerator. Indeed, communication by language would
be quite impossible without a myriad of such presuppositions.
These presuppositions affect every statement we make, whether we're talking about evidence for
electrons or the existence of historical figures. The problem then is how is it we can arrive at a rational
philosophical basis for believing our science, physics, history, our everyday world? And does that basis
lead more naturally to a empirical/scientific interpretation of the world, a supernatualistic/faith/languagebased interpretation of the world, or something else entirely?
Most theists might argue that our basic presuppositions lead first and foremost to supernaturalism, that
our basic presuppositions require that we first accept supernaturalism. It doesn't matter that there is no
Page 24 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
evidence of anything supernatural, supernaturalism should first and foremost be the primary
presupposition, if not by evidence then by faith.
They do not view this as an added "extra" assumption as would naturalistsl. Instead they will argue that
belief in their God is logically prior to all other beliefs about nature, history and logic. This means that
naturalism, which presupposes just a natural world, is wrong because it does not presuppose the specific
God of specific theists.
There are basic irreducible presuppositions that are philosophically necessary in any debate or
discussion whether you are a naturalist or a supernaturalist. "Necessary" here means that they cannot be
denied without ending up in a self-contradictory loop.
They are:
1. The validity of logic. Logic is presupposed every time we make an utterance designed to urge
acceptance of some proposition, even the acceptance or rejection of logic itself. What this means
is that in order to make the statement "logic is not true" be a true statement, the contrary
statement "logic is true" must be false. But that is the law of non-contradiction - one of the "laws
of logic." Thus for logic to be false, it must be true -a self contradiction. As such logic is a
necessary truth.
2. The existence of other minds. Else who are we trying to convince of anything?
3. The existence of a common mental/perceptual world. In order for our utterances to convey
any meaning or to transfer thoughts and ideas and facts we believe about the world, there must
already be some common ground for understanding. We can call this methodological naturalism,
although that term may already be preempted with its own definition. But when we speak of
gravity or water or clouds to another who seems to speak our own language we would be
somewhat surprised if they didn't know what we were talking about. Common English (or French,
or Swahili, but here we use English) words convey, where they convey information about the
world, sufficiently similar ideas about that world; where they convey grammatical information
about the sentence, sufficiently similar cues, etc. Else communication could not happen.
4. The stability of that common world. It is necessary for any knowledge at all that we normally
be able to trust both our memories and our expectations. That the past has always been like the
present, or that the future will continue to be like the past cannot be proven, but that assumption
is necessary in order to claim to be able to know anything at all. This was explored more in depth
in my earlier article describing the contradiction between this necessary assumption and the
assumption of historical miracles in Christian theology.
These are the presuppositions we all share whenever we attempt to communicate with anyone, but do
they either (1) require a prior god belief or (2) logically necessitate a god belief?
The theist may try to make a god responsible in some part for some or all of the presuppositions
discussed above, but to get to the god in the first place, he must have already accepted the above
presuppositions to have learned enough language and philosophy or religion to articulate his belief. Thus,
these presuppositions actually come before his articulated god belief, rather than the other way around as
some argue.
Let's make an example that doesn't rely on specific scientific or involved pure logic demonstrations, but
rather draws on daily life. To build our scenario, we'll propose a Chinese man, raised communist in the
middle of China, far from any Christian church. He has a solid basic education in math, the sciences etc.,
but lacks much knowledge of the West at all, and peculiarly, much knowledge of even his own history.
Thus, we'll assume he is at least as ignorant of Western history as the average Westerner is of Chinese
history and at least as ignorant of Western philosophy and religion as the average Westerner is of
Chinese philosophy and religion. He is also pretty innocent of the very idea of history, the local
Page 25 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
communist committee not seeing fit to offer history as a subject. The Chinese man has also coincidently
been raised an austere Taoist, so he has no idea of God/Gods.
Our Chinese gentleman comes to the United States, to your hometown, indeed into your home. Your job
is to teach him about the West, including about Christianity. Despite his education, among the things he
doesn't know is how to speak English. He's not sure how to use western style furniture, flush toilets are a
novelty, etc. So you have a lot of work to do.
But at least he is bright.
The object of this little experiment is to work through just what you're going to have to do if you wish to
teach him about Christianity. Will your perspective have to be naturalistic or supernaturalistic? First, you
need to teach him the language. You must presuppose that he can learn English, that his mind works
similarly enough to yours that as you try to teach him the vocabulary and grammar of English that it will
make sense to him. That's the easy, and obvious part, but it is so obvious that it does bear separate
mention simply because this unconscious presupposition does have profound influence and importance.
Next, how do you teach him the idea of history? Archeology? What do you presuppose the moment you
endeavor to teach about history? At least one assumption must be that there—is—a history.
Being bright, he catches on fairly quickly. Now, how do you teach him about the Bible? Having learned his
history and archaeology, one of the first things he asks you is where are the source documents for the
Bible, and in what state of preservation and how close the documents are to the time of supposed original
composition? So what do you tell him? How do you propose to convince the Taoist, who lacks any belief
about the supernatural, or at least supernatural beings, that Christianity is true? How even do you
convince him that there is enough evidence to accept the Bible as providing much in the way of history?
Without assuming naturalism and the continuity of the observable world—and that you both share much
the same experience of that world—how can you possibly succeed? The answer is that you can't. That
answer is that you do have to assume naturalism rather than supernaturalism.
In this way we see that naturalism is prior to theism of any kind. When that naturalism becomes selfconscious, then you arrive at "physicalism" or "scientism"—a perspective often derided by some
theologians and Christian apologists.
So it should be clear now that the assumption of supernaturalism, the idea of a supernatural world, is an
"extra" assumption that simply isn't needed. It certainly isn't needed in order to make use of things like
logic and it doesn't appear needed in order to explain things like history or the workings of our world.
In answer to the question of which is more reasonable, naturalism or supernaturalism, it looks like
naturalism is the more reasonable perspective to adopt.
Naturalists (scientists, physicalists, empricists, materialists) have made massive progress with their world
view and reached a nearly complete agreement on most of the fundamentals of their world view within the
last 400 years (approximately) that that view has developed. This is something all the theists in all the
world have not managed in the previous 10,000 years up to the present. We have one physics, one
biology, one chemistry, etc, while the number of theistic beliefs, despite the loss of some views, is at least
as great now as it ever has been and actually increasing (see Adherents for more information).
A decidedly odd position if naturalism is false and supernaturalism is true.
SUGGESTED BOOKS



Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation
Religion and Science (Gifford Lectures Series)
When Science Meets Religion
Page 26 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett








Celsus, on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians
Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains
The Biology of Belief: How Our Biology Biases Our Beliefs and Perceptions
Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition
The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark
Religion, Science and Naturalism
The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View
Mind Of God: The Scientific Basis For A Rational World
SUGGESTED LINKS















14
Empiricism (Wikipedia)
Supernatural (Wikipedia)
Empiricism - Introduction
Naturalism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism (About)
Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural
Naturalism Is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry
Naturalism, Supernaturalism, and Humanism
A Defense of Naturalism
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Naturalism.org
Faith and Reason (PBS)
Faith, Reason, and Doubt
Faith, Reason and Evidence (Handout - PHIL 342)
The War Between Science and Faith (Infidels)
THE GOSPELS ARE NOT 'EYEWITNESS' ACCOUNTS BUT ANONYMOUS THIRD-PERSON
NARRATIVES
While it may come as a complete surprise to a majority of the faithful (although this information is clearly
stated in most Bibles' own introductions to each of the four Gospels), it has been known for centuries that
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
Instead, these are "traditional" names tacked onto anonymously-written works over a hundred years after
they were composed. This knowledge is not controversial among biblical scholars, although it is
deliberately kept from general church-goers. What is controversial is the dubious attempt to assign actual
authorship to these anonymous works, and to insert them into historical, social, cultural, and theological
context as testimony. Most believers might be shocked to learn that the Gospels were not eyewitness
accounts, or even second-hand accounts ('hearsay'), of Jesus' time. Rather, they are contrived products
of a complicated theological advocacy created generations after the time described.
"It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are
anonymous, but..."
—Dr. Craig Blombery to Lee Strobel
The Case For Christ, page 22 [emphasis added]
There is no 'but'; the gospels are either anonymous compositions or they are not, and no amount of
apologetic sophistry or argument from tradition is going to turn them into eyewitness accounts or firstperson accounts or even 'hearsay' accounts once removed. The PLAIN-AND-SIMPLE TRUTH of the
matter (although truth is hardly plain and rarely simple) is that (1) the four Gospels are copies of copies of
copies of original documents that (2) no one has actually found, that (3) no one knows who wrote, and (4)
were finally 'given names' a hundred years after the fact so as to make them appear authoritative.
Page 27 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Too often Christian apologists use the argument that "by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the
dead." Ask them what they mean by "historical accounts" or what they are using for historical records and
they will quickly point you to the New Testament, specifically the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. But is it at all reasonable and rational to consider the Gospels 'historical accounts' beyond the
basic fact that they were created sometime in history? When Christians use the terms 'historical accounts'
or 'historical records' what they want to mean is 'eyewitness accounts'.
But are the Gospels 'eyewitness' accounts? Were they composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as
witnesses to the life of Jesus?
As any true student of the Bible and church history can tell you, the four gospels are not eyewitness
accounts: (1) they were written as third-person narratives, and (2) they were originally composed
anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ascribed to them were actually second
century "guesses" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. So what does it
mean when someone makes the claim that 'by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead'? It
actually means that according to an anonymously written third-person narrative a supernatural and/or
magical event occurred in which a character called 'Jesus' circumvented the Laws of Physics and Biology
and rose from the dead. And what, exactly, is an anonymously written third-person narrative? It is nothing
more than hearsay thrice-removed! Not only is there (1) not an eyewitness account, but (2) only a thirdperson account, without (3) a named or recognized author taking credit for the composition of that thirdperson account! That is why the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed. No one knows who wrote the
Gospels or if any of the events contained therein actually happened. In other words, millions of people
may be using as a "testimony" of their faith four documents describing magical and supernatural events
that may have been created out of whole cloth and motivated for purely political or religious reasons.
Which explanation is more feasible given what we know about the way the world works? That
magical/supernatural/miraculous events occurred two thousand years ago, although such events haven't
occurred since, or that these documents were deliberately and anonymously created in order to satisfy a
political or religious agenda? Since they were anonymously written and in the third-person, it would be
irrational to attribute to them any sense of validity because the events they describe simply do not
correspond with the way we know the real world works. Miracles and magical and supernatural hocuspocus simply do not occur, so the simplest explanation (by way of Occam's Razor) is that these
anonymously-written third-person narratives were created solely as a tool for propaganda in order to
entice superstitious or magically-inclined people to climb aboard a particular band-wagon.
Please consider the following discussion of First, Second, and Third-Person accounts:
Account
Description and Example
First Person
Eyewitness or autobiographical account: "I saw..." "I heard..." "I witnessed..."
NOTES:
(1) The use of the first-person does not automatically mean a document is a true or valid
rendering of actual events in history. The novel Moby Dick was written in the first person utilizing
a narrator called Ishmael, but Ishmael is not real and the events described in Moby Dick were not
'real' historical events although made use of very real scenes, settings, and locations. As far as
the story goes, what happened in the book was the invention of its author, Herman Melville.
Therefore, when somebody quotes Ishmael, they are not actually quoting Ishmael, but the words
that Herman Melville put in Ishmael's mouth.
(2) Simply because a recognized author claims to have been an eyewitness to an event, this
claim does not automatically mean the claim is legitimate or that the event actually occurred. In
his book Communion: A True Story, sci-fi author Whitley Strieber writes in the first-person his
supposed eyewitness account of his own abduction by gray-skinned aliens. Are we suppose to
take this book at face and consider it undeniably true simply because it (1) has a recognizable
author and (2) it was written in the first person? Absolutely not, and while the Gospels have
Page 28 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
neither of these (no recognizable authorship, no first-person account) they are considered by
most conservative Christians to be legitimate 'eyewitness' or 'historical accounts', when, in fact,
they are neither.
Second
Person
Directional, conversational, or rhetorical account: "You saw.." "You heard..." "You
witnessed..."
NOTES:
(1) The second-person account is a directional and conversational device in which the author of
the book or a character in the book is either addressing the reader directly or another character in
the book. It is also a rhetorical device used by the author or narrator to posit a question in which
the answer is already assumed.
(2) Simply because the author or narrator or a character in the book can posit a rhetorical
question in the second-person does not mean the events surrounding that question actually
occurred. Simply because I, a recognizable author, can ask you a thetorical question "Were you
there when aliens gave me an anal probe? Of course you weren't!" doesn't mean I actually had
an up-close-and-personal relationship with aliens.
Third Person
Narrative referential account: "He saw.." "John heard..." "Jesus said..."
NOTES:
(1) The third-person account is a narrative account. It tells of events, actions, and conversations
between characters in a story. The third person-account is not a first-person 'eyewitness' account.
The third-person account does not say "I saw Jesus do such-and-such" but rather They saw
Jesus do such-and-such or John said to Jesus or Jesus said to them, "Blessed are the poor..."
(2) Simply because a recognizable author writes of events in a book using the third-person
account, this does not mean that any of those events occurred. In fact, the use of the third-person
is a narrative technique used to remove accountability by one step. An example of this
accountability removed by one step is the notion of hearsay in a court of law. If I say on the
witness chair that I overheard somebody say something to somebody else, this is hearsay one
removed: I didn't say something and somebody didn't say something to me directly, but I 'heard'
somebody 'say' something to somebody else. The problem with hearsay and its issue lies in the
fact that I might not be telling the truth. Just because I said I overheard such-and-such doesn't
mean it ever happened. I could be lying. I could have ulterior motives. I could be trying to
indoctrinate or trick you, take advantage of you, or convince myself because there is strength in
numbers.
What does it mean that the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed?
(1) Hearsay Once Removed: I overheard somebody say something to somebody else, then repeat what
I overheard. My repeating of what I heard is not the original source. It is once-step removed from the
original source, and it wasn't even said to me directly. Anything I say could be pure invention, so this is
hearsay once removed.
(2) Hearsay Twice Removed: I repeat something that somebody else claims to have seen or overheard
or read. I didn't actually see or overhear it, but only repeat what somebody else claims to have seen or
heard. The problem with this form of hearsay is that whatever I am told and then repeat might never have
happened at all. The person telling me the story may have fabricated the whole thing out of whole cloth.
This is hearsay twice-removed.
(3) Hearsay Thrice Removed: Suppose I pick up a notebook written in the third-person claiming all sorts
of fantastic things, strange and magical events that simply do not happen in the 'real' world. There is no
Page 29 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
author's name on the notebook, so I have no way of knowing who wrote it. Not only do I have no idea who
wrote it, because it is written in the third-person (because it doesn't claim to be a first-person 'eyewitness'
account) I have no way of knowing if any of the events or any of the conversation described therein
actually occurred. Since the events it describes are strange and magical, it would be particularly foolish of
me to take the events described in the notebook as true and at face value, because (1) I don't know who
wrote the notebook, (2) I don't know where it came from, (3) because it is written in the third-person I
have no way of knowing if anything the notebook describes ever happened at all, and (4) if strange and
magical events don't typically occur in the 'real' world, why would I start believing them only because they
were described in an anonymously written third-person narrative? Now, suppose fifty years later
somebody slaps an author's name on the notebook simply to make it look more appealing and legitimate;
does the fact that it's now been associated with an arbitrary name alter the fact that it is still hearsay, still
a third-person narrative account, still reciting strange and magical stories that don't actually occur in the
'real' world? No! However you try to argue around it, the notebook is still hearsay, still a third-person
account, still not an 'eyewitness' account or so-called 'historical record'. If I quote from this notebook, what
am I actually quoting? Am I quoting the words and deeds of 'real' people or simply made up characters?
Because it is a third-person narrative I have absolutely no way of knowing, none of it may never have
happened, so in the end all such supernatural claims, accounts, and conversations contained within the
notebook are ultimately meaningless.
Just like the Gospels.
Moby Dick as a work of fiction is actually more believable than the Gospels because with Moby Dick not
only is there no magic or supernatural hocus-pocus involved, but you can actually say with certainty who
wrote the book! What's astounding is that people will recognize that Moby Dick is a work of fiction and
then turn around and call anonymous third-person narratives compiled by vote over several hundred
years the indisputable 'Word of God'.
See Also: "All Claims of Jesus Derive From Hearsay Accounts" from NoBeliefs.com
SUGGESTED BOOKS








Who Wrote the Gospels?
Gospel Fictions
Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
Can We Trust the New Testament?: Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony
The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of
the New Testament
New Testament Background : Selected Documents: Revised and Expanded Edition
SUGGESTED LINKS













Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?
Who Wrote the Bible?
When Were the Gospels Written?
Are the Gospel Accounts Historical?
Dating the Synoptic Gospels
TC: A Journal of Textual Criticism
Biblical Criticism & History Discussion Group (Infidels)
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
The Tertullian Project
The Straight Dope: Who Wrote the New Testament?
Early Christian Writings
The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?
Christian Origins: The Gospels (UPenn)
Page 30 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
15
THE 'EVOLUTION' OF THE CHRISTIAN CANON AND JESUS' GODMANSHIP
What Most Christians are unaware how the canon ('official' books) of the New Testament and the 'divine'
character of Jesus (Christology) as well as the notion of the Trinity was argued and decided by council
vote over the course of several centuries.
50130
CE
Early writers declare Jesus of Nazareth is a 'god'.
100200
CE
Early Church Fathers declare Jesus is a 'second god' to Yahweh.
325
CE
First Ecumenical Council of Nicea was convened by emperor Constantine. It declares that Jesus is
equal to god and establishes the Nicene Creed as the fundamental statement of Christian faith. Because
Constantine wanted to 'Christianize' the Empire he needed to come up with some kind of consensual
agreement because up to that time no two Christian groups agreed on anything. Basically, in the end
Constantine said, "You will all believe this way or else."
341
CE
The Council of Antioch declares that Jesus is NOT equal to God, but 'like' God.
364
CE
The Church Council of Laodicea ordered that religious observances were to be conducted on Sunday,
not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath: Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but
shall work on that day.
381
CE
First Council of Constantinople. Convened by Theodosius I, then emperor of the East and a recent
convert, to confirm the victory over Arianism, the council drew up a dogmatic statement on the Trinity by
adding the Holy Spirit as having the same divinity expressed for Jesus by the Council of Nicaea 56 years
earlier.
394
CE
Council of Carthage. First council to uphold doctrines of prayers for the dead and purgatory.
431
CE
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus denounced the teachings of Nestorius (d. 451), who argued that Christ
had completely separate human and divine natures.
451
CE
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon voted that Christ is simultaneously "truly man and truly God."
A little known statement of the Council was Canon #15 (1): No woman under 40 years of age is to be
ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny. This is appears to have been the last time in church
history that the ordination of women was mentioned as a routine practice in any form, and certainly
establishes that women did hold, at one time, important church offices.
553
CE
Second Council of Constantinople, convened by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I to settle the dispute
known as the Three Chapters. In an attempt to reconcile moderate Monophysite parties to orthodoxy,
Justinian had issued (544) a declaration of faith. The last three chapters anathematized the writings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa for Nestorianism.
While the charge was true of their writings to a certain extent, the Council of Chalcedon had cleared those
men of any personal heresy. Justinian's edict slighted the council and encouraged Monophysitism; it was
deeply resented in the West. Pope Vigilius, resisted at first, but eventually was forced to support the edict.
Under pressure from the Western bishops he then reversed himself. In retaliation, Justinian called a
council at Constantinople; it was attended by only six Western bishops, boycotted by Vigilius, and
dominated by Justinian and the Eastern bishops. The council approved the imperial edict and seems to
Page 31 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
have censured Vigilius. The pope was forced to ratify the council's work the following year. The West, in
general, was slow in recognizing it as an ecumenical council, but ultimately it was accepted - mainly
because of the orthodoxy of its pronouncements.
68081
CE
Third Council of Constantinople. It was convoked by Byzantine Emperor Constantine IV to deal with
Monotheletism.
787
CE
The Second Nicean Council met - this was the last of the seven church councils commonly accepted as
authoritative by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The Council voted to allow the
veneration but not the worship of icons.
86970
CE
Fourth Coucil of Constantinople. It has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church, which instead
recognizes the council of 880 that supported Photius. The council of 869 was convened at the suggestion
of Basil I, the new Byzantine emperor, to confirm the restoration of St. Ignatius of Constantinople to the
see
that
Photius
had
resigned.
Photius had already been condemned, without a hearing, at a Roman synod. At Constantinople his
defense was cut short, and when he refused to sign his own condemnation, he was excommunicated. The
result of these councils was to intensify the bitterness between East and West.
1085
CE
At the Council of Clermont, the First Crusade (out of a total of eight official crusades) was called by Pope
Urban II (c. 1035 - 1099) against Muslims in the Holy Lands.
1123
CE
First Lateran Council. Summoned by Pope Calistus II to signal the end of the investiture controversy by
confirming the Concordat of Worms (1122), it was held in the Lateran Palace, Rome, making it the first
council to be held in Western Europe. Many of the council's decrees became part of the evolving corpus of
canon law.
1139
CE
Second Lateran Council. Convened at the Lateran Palace, Rome, by Pope Innocent II, the council
attempted to heal the wounds left by the schism of the antipope Anacletus II (d. 1138) and condemned the
theories of Arnold of Brescia.
1179
CE
Third Lateran Council. Convened at the Lateran Palace, Rome, by Pope Alexander III after the Peace of
Venice (1178) had reconciled him with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, it included an envoy from the
Orthodox Greeks. The most important legislation was the first canon, which confirmed that the election of
the pope was to be in the hands of the cardinals alone, two thirds being necessary for election.
1215
CE
Pope Innocent III organized the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome in order to discuss and define central
dogmas of Christianity. It was one of the most important councils ever held, and its canons sum up
Innocent's ideas for the church. It recognizes the necessity of the Eucharist and penance as sacraments
for salvation.
1408
CE
Council of Oxford prohibited translations of the Scriptures into the vernacular unless and until they were
fully approved by Church authority, a decision sparked by the publication of the Wycliffite Bible.
1409
CE
1409 Council of Pisa ended the Great Schism by declaring both rival popes deposed and electing a third:
Pope Martin V.
1417
CE
The Council of Constance, largest Church meeting in medieval history, officially ended the Great
Schism.
It replaced a papal monarchy with a conciliar government, which recognized a council of prelates as the
pope's authority and mandated the frequent meeting of councils. This new period was known as the Italian
territorial papacy and lasted until 1517 CE.
Page 32 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
John Hus traveled to the Council of Constance to propose his reforms for the Church. Upon his arrival at
the Council, Hus was tried for heresy and burned. His death encouraged futher revolt by his followers.
15451563
CE
Council of Trent, Catholic Reformation, or counter-reformation, met Protestant challenge by clearly
defining an official theology
1869
-1870
CE
First Vatican Council, 20th ecumenical, affirmed doctrine of papal infallibility (ie. when a pope speaks ex
cathedra on faith or morals he does so with the supreme apostolic authority, which no Catholic may
question or reject).
1962
-1965
CE
Second Vatican Council, 21st ecumenical, announced by Pope John XXIII in 1959, produced 16
documents which became official after approval by the Pope, purpose to renew "ourselves and the flocks
committed to us" (Pope John XXIII).
SUGGESTED BOOKS
















Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of
the New Testament
The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
Lost Christianities: Battle for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew
Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament
The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1): Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments
The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology (325-787 : Their History and
Theology)
Early Christian Doctrines
The Trinitarian Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought)
The Christological Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought)
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1 : The Emergence of the
Catholic Tradition (100-600)
Page 33 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
SUGGESTED LINKS























16
Whose Canon? Which Bible?
Wikipedia: Ecumenical Councils
Church Ecumenical Councils - All the Decrees
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament
Formation of the Canon (NTGateway)
Non-Canonical Books (OTGateway)
The Council of Jamnia and the Canon of the Old Testament
Background to the New Testament
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
The Formation of the New Testament Canon (Infidels)
The Canon of Scripture - Links & Discussion
The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth
The Ecumenical Councils Made Simple
Councils of Constantinople
The Early Ecunemical Councils
The Seven Ecumenical Councils
The Bible and Christian Heresies
Brief Overview of History of Early Orthodox Church
TIME Magazine: The Lost Gospels
The Belief Systems of Early Christianity
Wikipedia: Arianism
Chronology of the Arian Controversy
Wikipedia: Christology
SAUL/PAUL OF TARSUS AND THE 'RE-CREATION' OF THE CHRISTIAN MYTH
For all intents and purposes, the Apostle Paul 'created' the original notion of the Christian Myth which
directly influenced the development and direction of Christian doctrine for millennia. Paul never met Jesus
in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who
preached an enlightened form of Judaism), thus inventing Pauline Christianity. Because there are no
known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew him in the flesh (other then
perhaps James), most of what Jesus may have actually taught is lost forever.
While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion because events of his life lay the
foundation story of Christianity, Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained,
in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation,
stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time. The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from
the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism and converted to what
he called Christ. Paul would later be placed above his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named
Marcion.
SUGGESTED BOOKS











The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity
Paul: The Founder of Christianity
Saint Paul
Paul: The Mind of the Apostle
Paul: A Critical Life
The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters
Pauline Parallels
The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching
What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
Paul: An Introduction to His Thought
Page 34 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett


The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon
The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (Cambridge Companions to Religion)
SUGGESTED LINKS
















17
Paul the Apostle Links & Articles (NTGateway)
Paul of Tarsus (Wikipedia)
The Pauline Conspiracy
Paul: The Founder of Christianity
Paul and the Pauline Epistles (The Text This Week)
The Paul Page
As Paul Tells It (PaulOnPaul)
The Evolution of the Pauline Canon
Paul and the Origins of Christianity
Early Christian Writings Online Books
The Spuriousness of So-called Pauline Epistles Exemplified by the Epistle to the Galatians
The Non-Pauline Originof the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul
No Historical Paul?
Corpus Paulinum - Discussion Group
Marcion
The Failed Predictions of Jesus and Paul
ARCHAEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL CLAIMS
No Egyptian text ever found contains a single reference to ‘Hebrews’ or ‘Israelites’ in Egypt, much
less to an ‘Exodus.’
William G. Dever Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? 12-13
Now let us turn to biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see
at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simply cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived...from archaeological investigation. The whole "ExodusConquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the
term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction," but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs.
William G. Dever What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? 121
While legitimate archaeologists, geologists, scientists, and historians methodically examine the various
strata of the Middle East/Near East only to confirm discrepancies between their findings and the claims of
the Bible, Christian apologists, in an effort to rally support of biblical claims, unconscionably promote
findings that (1) time and again turn out to be forgeries, (2) stretch or fake 'facts' so as to give the
appearance of support, or (3) conveniently fail to report findings that contradict said biblical claims. While
scientists and archaeologists have nothing to lose by uncovering the truth—they merely want to divulge
facts however they are discovered or wherever they point—Christian apologists are less interested in
facts as making spurious facts and half-truths fit a predetermined set of supernatural expectations. Even
after so-called 'Bible supporting' artifacts are later found to be fogeries, Christian apologists will go to
further lengths to discredit these findings in order to force support for biblical claims. Why is this? Why
can't Christian apologists use and accept the same scientific criteria used throughout the
scientific/scholastic/academic world? Because, for the most part, Christian apologists have very little
scientific/scholastic/academic evidence that supports any of the biblical claims outside the names of
cities, towns, and the occasional ruler. As far as support for any of the broader claims of the Bible—claims
so extravagant there should be a preponderance of external evidence—there is virtually none. It is no
wonder that Christian apologists are quick to jump on any bandwagon that supposedly offers "proof" of
something claimed in the Bible—there is so little of anything for them to rally around. Instead of
Page 35 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
approaching such claims with academic reserve and skepticism, Christian apologists waste no time in
broadcasting to the ever-faithful the latest-and-greatest "discovery" that 'proves' the legitimacy of the
Bible. Even after said discovery is found to be yet another fake and forgery, apologists will hem and haw
or point fingers of derision and distrust in order to obfuscate the unavoidable facts. Does this behavior
uphold honesty and integrity or are these forfeited in the service of ancient supernaturalistic words? Are
the facts allowed to speak for themselves are are they twisted to better fit a supernaturalist
presupposition? If magic trumps science does it also trump logic, critical thinking, and rational inquiry?
Where do we draw the line? When is it time to say enough is enough! What does the world really teach
us? Not words in a book, but physical reality! Dirt! Rocks! Bones! Clay!
SUGGESTED BOOKS
















What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
David and Solomon : In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E.
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.)
The Oxford History of the Biblical World
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel
The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 1, Introduction: The Persian Period
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East
The Ancient Near East (Volume I): An Anthology of Texts and Pictures
The Ancient Near East (Volume II): An Anthology of Texts and Pictures
The Ancient Near East: Ancient History Series, Volume I
SUGGESTED LINKS










18
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
The Hebrew Bible and Archaeology - Discussion
Evolution of Alphabets
Biblical Archaeology (BibArch)
Internet Resources: Hebrew/Jewish (WSU)
Biblical Archaeology Review
The Bible and Interpretation
ABZU
ASOR
The History of the Ancient Near East
BIBLICAL CRITICISM: FINDINGS AS TO WHO - WHAT - WHEN - WHERE - HOW - WHY
Biblical criticism is a form of historical criticism that seeks to analyze the Bible through asking certain
questions of the text, such as: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? Why was it
written? What was the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the text? How well preserved is the
original text? How unified is the text? What sources were used by the author? How was the text
transmitted over time? What is the text's genre and from what sociologial setting is it derived? When and
how did it come to become part of the Bible?
Biblical criticism has been traditionally divided into Lower (or Textual) Criticism, that seeks to establish
the original text out of the variant readings of ancient manuscripts, and Higher Criticism (HistoricalCritical Method) that focuses on identifying the author, date, and place of writing for each book of the
Bible. In the twentieth-century a number of specific critical methodologies have been developed to
address such questions in greater depth, including Source Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction
Page 36 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Criticism, Narrative Criticism, Structuralist Criticism, Social-Scientific Criticism, Postmodern
Biblical Criticism, Deconstructionism, and also contained work using the Documentary Hypothesis.
SUGGESTED BOOKS































Handbook of Biblical Criticism
The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation
To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application
Understanding the Bible: A Basic Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Revised Edition
Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism
Principles of Textual Criticism
Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism
The Historical-Critical Method
Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible
What is Form Criticism?
What is Redaction Criticism?
What Is Narrative Criticism?
What Is Social-Scientific Criticism?
What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism?
The Postmodern Bible
The Postmodern Bible Reader
Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader
Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination
Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study
The Text of the New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Who Wrote the Bible?
The Bible with Sources Revealed
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of
the New Testament
New Testament Background: Selected Documents: Revised and Expanded Edition
SUGGESTED LINKS

















Bible Criticism (Wikipedia)
Biblical Criticism (IBSS)
Biblical Criticism (Theopedia)
Biblical Criticism (ReligiousTolerance)
The Journal of Higher Criticism
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
Essays in Biblical Criticism
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
Biblical Studies Resources
The Bible and Interpretation
Biblical Criticism, Archaeology, & History
Who Wrote the Pentateuch?
The Documentary Hypothesis
Biblical Criticism & History Discussion Group (Infidels)
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
The Tertullian Project
Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Page 37 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
19
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE ESSENES
The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise roughly 850 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible,
discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of
the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) in the West Bank.
The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include practically the only known
surviving copies of Biblical documents made before CE 100, and preserve evidence of considerable
diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism.
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were
Masoretic texts dating to 9th century CE. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls
push that date back to the 2nd century BCE. Before the discovery, the oldest Greek manuscripts such as
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were the earliest extant versions of biblical manuscripts.
Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text,
most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings
where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts.
Further, the sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of which were previously unknown, offer
new light on one form of Judaism practiced during the Second Temple period, particularly the preChristian traditions of Messianism and Eschatology, the Teacher of Righteousness and "end of the
world" expectations.
SUGGESTED BOOKS

















The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Geza Vermes
The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (6 Volume Set) by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov
The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scroll by Lawrence H. Schiffman
The Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation by Michael O. Wise
The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Jesus by Michael O. Wise
The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Israel Knohl
The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls by James VanderKam
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English by
Martin G. Abegg
The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Jodi Magness
The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Philip R. Davies
Qumran In Context: Reassessing The Archaeological Evidence by Yizhar Hirschfeld
Biblical Interpretation At Qumran by Matthias Henze
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins by Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Enoch And Qumran Origins: New Light On A Forgotten Connection by Gabriele Boccaccini
The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (3 Volumes) by James H. Charlesworth
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls by James H. Charlesworth
SUGGESTED LINKS











Dead Sea Scrolls (Wikipedia)
Qumran (Wikipedia)
Essenes (Wikipedia)
Dead Sea Scrolls Collection (Gnosis.org)
25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls
Basic Facts Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls
Dead Sea Scrolls Institute
Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Timetable of the Discovery and Debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls
Scrolls From the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship at (Library of
Congress)
Library of Congress DSS Online Exhibit
Page 38 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett














20
The Dead Sea Scrolls Project (Oriental Institute)
Dead Sea Scrolls (Crystallinks)
Qumran-Essence Theory (Norman Golb) PDF
Essenes (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Essenes (Jewish Encyclopedia)
Christianity and Qumran
Who was the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Three Personalities
The Dead Sea Scrolls (ABC, Australia)
David Ramsay Site: Dead Sea Scrolls & Essenes
Dead Sea Scrolls (OT Gateway)
Dead Sea Scrolls (Preterist)
Dead Sea Scrolls (NYT)
DSS Guide (Codex)
THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, UGARITIC TEXTS, AND AMARNA TABLETS
Since the 19th century extensive investigations have been carried out throughout the Middle East, as well
as in Greece and Italy, that have shed a lot of light on the traditions of the Bible. During a series of
expeditions by the British in the mid-19th century, the great library of the 7th-century BCE Assyrian king
Ashurbanipal was uncovered at the site of ancient Nineveh (near modern Mosul, Iraq). In this library were
found tablets with the Babylonian stories of creation and the flood, a discovery that set the biblical
accounts in Genesis in a wholly new light. Cuneiform documents from ancient Mari (modern Tell Hariri) in
western Syria have clarified the origins of Old Testament prophecy, the identification of place names, and
the concept of tribal nomadism.
The tablets of ancient Nuzi (modern Yorgham Tepe) in northern Iraq have provided scholars with
information concerning legal customs of the 15th century bc, customs with parallels in the patriarchal
narratives.
Letters from Canaanite kings to their Egyptian overlords, found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, have shed
light on the political situation in Palestine about 100 years before the Israelite conquest. Numerous law
codes from the libraries of great Assyrian and Babylonian kings have provided analogies and parallels to
the law codes of the Old Testament.
From 1929 to the present, excavations by the French at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) in western Syria have
produced thousands of tablets belonging to the period between 1400 and 1200 BCE. Many of these are
literary in character, describing the exploits of the gods of the Canaanite religion, among them the storm
deity Baal (title of Hadad) mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. Moreover, the poetry of Ugarit has
strong affinities with that of the Bible and pre-date much of its vocabulary, structure, and the use of
figures of speech and other literary devices.
In 1945, at ancient Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, some 50 Gnostic writings in Coptic were discovered.
They could be dated to the 4th century ad, but investigation of their character and content showed that
they were translations of Greek works of perhaps the 2d century, thus placing them among the earliest
known sources for Gnostic Christianity. These writings have proved invaluable for understanding the
evolution of Christianity in Egypt, especially in its nonorthodox forms. The complete Nag Hammadi
collection was published in English in 1977.
Since 1964, an Italian expedition under the direction of Paolo Matthiae has exposed at ancient Ebla
(modern Tell Mardikh), in central Syria, royal palaces, a monumental city gate, rampart, temples, and
private houses. From 1974 to 1976, thousands of tablets and fragments of tablets belonging to the early
Bronze Age (perhaps c. 2500 BCE) were found. The tablets are written in cuneiform and represent two
languages. The first is Sumerian, for which cuneiform was devised, and the second is Semitic, the actual
language of the Eblaites and of many other peoples scattered throughout the Middle East. These texts
Page 39 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
have shed new light on commerce and culture in 3rd-millennium Syria and supplied considerable
information about both languages at this stage of their evolution. In 1979 the statue of a Syrian king was
found at Tell Fakhariye in the Habur region of Syria. The statue, inscribed in Assyrian and Aramaic and
dated around 1000 BCE, could be of the greatest value for linguists, especially Aramaists, as this is one
of the longest inscriptions of such an early date in that language. Having a parallel text in Assyrian
enhances its value.
SUGGESTED BOOKS






















The Nag Hammadi Library by James M. Robinson
The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Texts by Jean Doresse
The Gnostic Bible by Willis Barnstone
The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels
The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels by Marvin Meyer
The Gospel of Judas by National Geographic Society
The Gospel of Thomas by Joseph B. Lumpkin
Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century by Mark S. Smith
The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark
S. Smith
The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith
The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel by Mark S.
Smith
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel by Frank Moore Cross
Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel by William G. Dever
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? by William G. Dever
What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? by William G. Dever
The Amarna Letters by William L. Moran
Syria and Egypt: From the Tell el Amarna Letters by William Matthew Flinders Petrie
Amarna: Ancient Egypt's Age of Revolution by Barbara Watterson
The Tell Amarna Tablets by C. R. Conder
The Royal Archives of Ebla by Paolo Matthiae
Eblaitica Essays on the Ebla Archives and Elaite Language by Cyrus H. Gordon, Gary Rendsburg, and
Nathan H. Winter
SUGGESTED LINKS





















Nag Hammadi (Wikipedia)
Nag Hammadi Library (Gnosis.org)
Nag-Hammadi.com
Nag Hammadi and Berlin Gnostic Library Colletion
Nag Hammadi Library (Nazarene Way)
WWW Resources for Gnosticism and Nag Hammadi
The Gospel of Thomas (Wikipedia)
The Gospel of Thomas (Early Christian Writings)
Gospel of Thomas (Gnosis.org)
Gospels of Thomas, Philip, and Truth (Metalogos)
The Gospel Truth (Standford Magazine)
Ugarit (Wikipedia)
The Edinburgh Ras Shamra Project
Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ, ver. 1.2
Ugarit and the Bible (Quartz Hill School of Theology)
About the Discovery of Ugarit (QHSoT)
Ugaritic Literature as an Aid to Understanding the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
Introduction to Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
Gods of Canaan as Described by the Ugarit Tablets
Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts
Amarna (Wikipedia)
Page 40 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett






Amarna Letters (Wikipedia)
Amarna Tablets (Crystallinks)
Amarna Tablets - Overview (PDF)
Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool
Amarna Project
Ebla (Wikipedia)
21
CANONICAL AND EXTRACANONICAL BOOKS, THE GNOSTICS, AND CHURCH COUNCILS
Any reasonable examination of both the canonical and extracanonical books, the Gnostics, and the
formation of the canon and church councils clearly evidences the 'hand of man' in the creation of the Bible
(both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament) and not the mystical Hand of God. To argue otherwise in
light of all the available evidence is to embrace an act of denial verging on pathology.
SUGGESTED BOOKS

The Formation of Christian Biblical Canon: Revised and Expanded Edition by Lee Martin McDonald
Essential reading regarding NT canon!
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger
The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History by Dennis C. Duling and Norman
Perrin
The Canon Debate by Lee Martin McDonald (Editor)
The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition by James A. Sanders
Torah and Canon by James A. Sanders
Introduction to the Old Testament: From Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon by J.
Alberto Soggin
From Sacred Story to Sacred Text by James A. Sanders
Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism by James Barr
The Scope and Authority of the Bible by James Barr
The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon by John Barton
Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity by John Barton
Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study by John Barton
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of
the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman
The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon by Arthur G. Patzia
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis
The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II by
Christopher M. Bellitto
Amos: The Prophet and His Oracles: Research on the Book of Amos by M. Daniel Carroll R.
Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos by Shalom M. Paul
The Theologico-Political Treatise by Benedict de Spinoza
The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas
What Is Gnosticism? by Karen L. King
Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism by Kurt Rudolph
Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions And Literature by Birger A. Pearson
Forbidden Faith: The Secret History of Gnosticism by Richard Smoley
The Beliefnet Guide to Gnosticism and Other Vanished Christianities by Richard Valantasis
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman
Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman



























SUGGESTED LINKS





Biblical Canon (Wikipedia)
Council of Jamnia (Wikipedia)
Old Testament Apocrypha (Wikipedia)
Masoretic Text (Wikipedia)
The Samaritan Pentateuch (Wikipedia)
Page 41 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett






































22
Pauline Epistles (Wikipedia)
Authorship of the Pauline Epistles (Wikipedia)
Non-Canonical Books Referenced in the Bible (Wikipedia)
Ecumenical Councils (Wikipedia)
Gnosticism (Wikipedia)
Gnosticism (IEP)
Gnosticism (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Gnosticism (Jewish Encyclopedia)
Gnosticism (Religious Tolerance)
Introduction to Gnosticism
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism (Early Christian Writings)
Proto-Gnostic Elements in the Gospel According to John
The Judas Gospel (National Geographic)
o Gnosticism
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament
The Canon of Scripture
The Formation of the New Testament Canon
The Canon of the Bible (Larry Taylor)
Development of the (Old Testament) Canon (Gerald Larue)
The Hebrew Canon (RPW)
The Christian Old Testament Canon (RPW)
Codex Sinaiticus (British Library)
Texts, Manuscripts, and Translations (Gerald Larue)
The Formation of the New Testament Canon (Richard Carrier)
Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the Old Testament
Catholic Encyclopedia: Canon of the New Testament
Jewish Encyclopedia: Bible Canon
Early Christian Writings
Bible Research
Tanakh ML Project
The Gnostic Archive (Gnosis.org)
o Library
o Nag Hammadi Library
o The Gospel of Thomas Collection
o The Dead Sea Scrolls Collection
Hypertext Bible Dictionary
Amos: Hypertext Bible Commentary
The Origin and Nature of the Samaritans and their Relationship to Second Temple Jewish Sects
Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel
Irenaeus: Against Heresies
The Samaritan Pentateuch
Ecumenical Councils of the Christian Church
Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils
EXAMINED OBJECTIVELY, THE BIBLE IS RIFE WITH ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS,
MISSTATEMENTS, AND INCONSISTENCIES
The Bible Contains Errors, Contradictions, Misstatements, Inconsistencies, and Incoherencies
Any rational person being completely honest with him- or herself will have no qualms with the above
statement. A thorough reading of the Book of Genesis alone will expose hundreds of problems, and a
complete reading of the Bible shows hundreds-of-thousands of issues. Despite nearly a half-million
'problems' in the supposedly 'inerrant' and 'inspired' Word of God, Christian Apologists see no irony in this
and attempt to 'explain' the same few of these using circular reasoning, creative interpretation, deliberate
silence and/or fabrication, and improper referencing of 'authorities'.
Page 42 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
A Word About Apologetics
The modern term apologetics is derived from the Greek word, apologia, which means “to defend” or “to
make a defense.” Thus, apologetics is a discipline dedicated to the defense of something. The word
apologist is used to describe a person who practices or specializes in apologetics and there can be as
many different types of apologetics as there are beliefs. In theory, an apologist could defend a set of
beliefs about practically anything, but in practice an apologist is someone who defends a set of religious
beliefs or worldview. There are Christian apologists, Hindu apologists, Buddhist apologists, Jewish
apologists, even atheist apologists. Typically, when the discipline is discussed, it is most often associated
with Christian apologetics. In this avenue of inquiry, when I use the term apologetics I will be referring to
Christian apologetics specifically.
There are two options available to apologists in defending their beliefs: positive apologetics and negative
apologetics. A positive apologetic attempts to justify a belief system and worldview somehow in terms of
arguments and evidence. A negative apologetic attempts to defend against objections to that worldview,
which may take on the form of a competing worldview or belief system.
An apologetic may also be defined in terms of its relative combativeness. A soft apologetic attempts to
demonstrate the rationality of accepting a particular worldview. A hard apologetic is more ambitious and
uses persuasive arguments to demonstrate why rejecting a particular worldview is irrational, illogical,
even immoral.
The Intention of Apologetics
At first glance, it seems the intention of apologetics is to defend the Christian belief system and worldview
against outside interlopers, perhaps even convince a few non-Christians to take up the faith. While
apologists like to assume the front of "Defenders of the Faith" against skeptics and rational thinkers, it is
not skeptics and rationalists that ultimately concern them. Apologists are really concerned that Christian
believers might start listening to what skeptics and rationalists are saying and so devise arguments to
convince believers (as well as themselves) why the Christian belief system is right and why the skeptics
and rationalists must be wrong. In other words, apologetics is practiced for believers who might be
tempted to start considering skeptical and rational arguments against the claims of Christianity. As such,
the underlying intention of apologetics is to keep believers firmly tucked into the fold, to convince them
their belief system is right and the rest of the world wrong, and to put a "supernatural spin" on the
reasoned arguments of rationalists, empiricists, naturalists, skeptics, scholars, critics, scientists,
historians, archaeologists, et al, so as to make them appear irrational, unnatural, illogical, immoral,
subjective, unreliable, iniquitous, and ungodly.
Why should apologists care what non-Christian rationalists are saying and teaching? Because they're
fearful believers might actually start listening to what these others are saying and start questioning the
rationality of their faith. In other words, apologists have an agenda and it is to this end they most fervently
strive—to defend believers from the teachings of rationalists, scientists, skeptics, and critical thinkers
through the use of apologetics, interpreted doctrine, and inherited assumptions. According to the
apologetic mindset, black is not necessarily black and white not necessarily white—black and white are
whatever the Bible says they are and it makes no difference if it goes against common sense, empirical
evidence, logical inquiry, practical reasoning, scientific findings, or the consistent mechanics of the
physical world. If apologists argue that black is white only because "it's in the Bible," are apologists being
honest? Have they made honest inquiries? Are they putting their beliefs first then adjusting the "facts" to
fit their belief system second? Finally, are they more interested in arriving at the truth or upholding a
preconceived status quo, a predetermined worldview, seeing retributive justice measured out, or a
promise of heavenly reward fulfilled?
Page 43 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
What Apologists Say
While several issues regarding apologetics will be discussed elsewhere, a succinct apologetic "warning
label" is offered here. When reading apologetics it is advisable to keep the following always at the
forefront:







The apologist has an agenda, plan, intention, and ulterior motive for the statements being made and for
statements NOT being made. The apologist will reveal some things, obscure some things, and deliberately
conceal other things that either detract from or might refute their arguments.
Apologists like to write books in a question-and-answer format which at first glance looks like a legitimate way
of doing things. After all, some of the questions they ask are of valid concerns—If God is loving, why is there
evil and suffering? If God is forgiving, why is there an Eternal Hell? Is God worthy of worship if He kills
innocent children? If God created the Universe and all life on Earth in six-days, why does the evidence of
science point so strongly an ancient cosmology and evolution? etc. However, upon further examination you
might note that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of more 'interesting' questions the apologists are
conveniently forgetting to add into their question-and-answer game, real questions that call the very legitimacy
of biblical accounts into play. Initially, these might include simple bible inconsistencies, biblical fatal flaws,
bible absurdities, questionable bible guidelines, immoral godly behavior and failed prophecies, bible
atrocities, illicit biblical behavior, bible contradictions, and several thousand cases of biblical errancy
small and large. Secondly, a deeper discussion of any of the following might be considered despite the
apologists' characteristic silence, harried brush-offs, or hurried denials: the assimilation and evolution of the
Genesis creation story from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g., Enuma Elish), the
assimilation and evolution of the Genesis Adam, Eve, and Trees of Life and Knowledge story from earlier
Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g. Adapa And The Food Of Life), the assimilation and
evolution of the Noah (e.g., from Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, even the Greek Deucalion) and the
Flood story from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g., Epic of Gilgamesh), the
assimilation and evolution of the Tower of Babel (confusion of tongues) story from earlier Sumerian and
Babylonian myths (e.g., Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta), the assimilation of Elohim-Yahweh from earlier
Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugartic, and Canaanite myths (e.g., El/Elohim and Yam/Yaw/Yah/Yahu/Yahweh),
and so many others all of which I will be examining in much more detail throughout these 'Reasons'.
Irregardless as to what argument the apologist is making, he-or-she is doing so for purely subjective,
interpretive, psychological, emotional, political, or ideological reasons. Any statement the apologist makes is
tempered by these reasons even if he-or-she denies it (in which case the extent of denial becomes a
reasonable barometer of his-or-her sense of "self-honesty").
All apologists defer to presuppositions and make assumptions. Read each statement an apologist makes and
try to determine its inherent assumption. If an apologetical statement boldly commands what God wants for
you, how you should behave (e.g., "A wise person will continually seek the Glory of God and an unwise
person will not"), or what the future will hold, realize that assumptions and presuppositions are being made,
sometimes several in a single sentence. Make note of these assumptions and try to determine if they are
sound, logical, valid, or rational. In many cases, apologetical statements rely only on a series of assumptions
and by themselves have no inherent validity or concrete evidence.
Remember: Simply because a statement can be made that is grammatically correct and has proper syntax it
should not be inferred automatically to be valid, meaningful, or even coherent. In the course of their
arguments, apologists are typically guilty of reification (hypostatization) even though most are unaware of it.
This is a common language error and occurs when abstract, unknowable, metaphysical, or unprovable
concepts are discussed as if they were concrete, perceptible, and self-evident things. Reification is
encountered most often when literary objects found only in the interior world of words are treated as if they are
viable and existent constructs in the exterior world at-large. These may include angels, demons, sea
monsters, ghosts, miracles, talking animals, fairies, spirits, and gods.
Many apologists will quote from the Bible to prove their point, because they fervently believe the Bible to be
the Word of God. Please note this belief is also an assumption based on a linked chain of other assumptions.
Though apologists will deny it, they use the Bible to "prove" the Bible and this is circular reasoning. Try to
determine the type of assumptions being made whenever the Bible is quoted as "proof" of something. If this
assumption relies on a previous assumption, then try to determine its type, and so on backward through the
chain. In some cases, the top-level assumption is the result of ten or more previous assumptions all linking
one to the other. See if you can work your way back to the bottom-most assumption and try to determine its
veracity and motive.
All of us make assumptions. The person interested in truth for truth's sake realizes this and will deliberately
and critically examine his-or-her assumptions to determine whether they are "honest" assumptions based on
probability, carefully analysis, and the proponderance of evidence, or else assumptions that are inherited,
ethnocentric, enculturated, anticipative, or untested. Are the assumptions the apologist is making "honest"
Page 44 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett


assumptions or are they impelled by something else? Try to determine the underlying motives of all the
assumptions being made—your assumptions, my assumptions, and the apologist's assumptions. Is truth the
deciding factor? Faith? Belief? Fear? Wishful thinking?
Ultimately, try to determine what is more important to the apologist: truth (even if it proves harrowing,
uncomfortable, or unpleasant), telling the truth (even if it means admitting weaknesses, ignorance,
assumptions, second-guesses, hopes, wishes, and fears), belief (even if it means a denial, rejection, or
distortion of clear evidence), or faith (even if it means belief in a complete and total assumption, in what can
never been proven, analyzed, witnessed, touched, measured, disclosed, in other words, the "substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"). If the apologist admits to putting his-or-her belief or faith
above truth or seeking the truth, then it is advisable to treat with suspicion anything that apologist might say.
Finally, would apologists be so adamant in defending their faith and continue to love Jesus/Yahweh so much if
Jesus/Yahweh suddenly had a change of heart and decided to send everybody to Eternal Hell anyway,
including them? (And, yes, God can change his mind or have second thoughts. See Genesis 6:6, Exodus
32:14; Numbers 14:20; Isaiah 15:35; 2 Samuel 24:16) It is my position that as long as one being is threatened
with Eternal Hell then Jesus/Yahweh is not worthy of defense, love, honor, or respect. I suspect that the
apologists' need to defend their faith so rigorously stems from (1) their own fear of death and need for
assurances that not only will they survive biological extinction but will be rewarded in the process, and (2) the
desire to savor a hearty helping of Christian revenge as retributive justice is meted out and the "wicked"
(including all non-Christians, scientists, evolutionists, skeptics, truth-seekers, and atheist/agnostics no matter
how honorable) properly punished an eternity for their short lifetime of sins.
It never ceases to amaze me that even into the twenty-first century, with all the information that we have
available to us from archaeology, history, comparative religion, mythology, sociology, psychology,
philosophy, literature, science, even biblical research, that otherwise intelligent people would rather
narrow their focus inside the "box" of faith and simply believe rather than explore all the available
information in order to determine what is and is not literally the truth. So indoctrinated (enculturated) by
family upgringing, cultural traditions, and social mores, most people causally, almost off-handedly, accept
what their particular religious communities inform them to be true (as if any system of belief based on
invisible "faith" has any bearing on truth at all), then spend a great deal of time either defending this
"truth" or trying to convince themselves of this "truth" while continuing to neglect all other evidence that's
freely available "outside the box".
SUGGESTED BOOKS
























The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey
Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide by C. Dennis McKinsey
Self-Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr
The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself by Randel McCraw Helms
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer
The Born Again Skeptic's Guide To The Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green
The Firstborn of God : Resolving the Contradictions in the Bible by Gail Evans
Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains by John W. Loftus
Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians by Jason Long
Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? by Tim Callahan
The Secret Origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan
Deceptions And Myths Of The Bible by Lloyd M. Graham
The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel by Thomas L. Thompson
The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David by Thomas L. Thompson
Myth, Magic and Morals by Fred Cornwallis Conybeare
The Vanquished Gods: Science, Religion, and the Nature of Belief by Richard H. Schlagel
The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin
Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" by Earl Doherty
Bible Bloopers by Michael Ledo
Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker
Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith by Charles Templeton
Leaving the Fold by Marlene Winell, Ph.D
Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief by Ruth A. Tucker
Putting Away Childish Things by Uta Ranke-Heinemann
Page 45 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett

Celsus, on the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians by Celsus by R. Joseph Hoffmann
(Translator)
Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains by Porphyry by R. Joseph Hoffmann
(Translator)
The Mind of the Bible Believer by Edmund D. Cohen
No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe by Matt Young
The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith by Marcus J. Borg
Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally by Marcus J.
Borg
Difficulties in the Bible by R. A. Torrey An Apologist "explains" a handful of biblical problems oblivious of
his abject denial, false logic, & circular reasoning






SUGGESTED LINKS
























23
Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Talk Reason
This Way and That: Biblical Contradictions (Dr. Jason Long)
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Skeptic's Guide to Christianity
Debunking Christianity (Blogspot)
Secular Web
Skeptical Review
Bible Errors (Dave E. Mason)
Best-Selling Errancy: An Essay on Inconsistencies in the Bible Mark D. Ball, Ph.D
Confused? Bible Contradictions by Dan Barker
The Origins of Christianity and the Bible (Andrew D. Benson)
The Bible And Christianity - The Historical Origins
Bible Origins (BibleOrigins.net)
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems by Donald Morgan
Inerrancy: Is the Bible Free of Error? (ReligiousTolerance)
New Testament Problems
Bible Contradictions (BornDigital)
Bible Contradictions (Dave's Free Press)
The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible by Niclas Berggren
Over-Dex of Objections (Christian Think-Tank)
How to be a Bible Apologist
Tektonics
Agnostic Review of Christianity
o Examining Assorted Christian Claims Good stuff! Clearly reveals the typical Christian mindset,
parroting of church doctrine, & utter lack of Bible knowledge
BELIEF, DOUBT, DISBELIEF AND CRITICAL THINKING
What Is Critical Thinking?
"Broadly speaking, critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness,
as opposed too emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness. Thus, critical thinking
involves: following evidence where it leads; considering all possibilities; relying on reason rather than
emotion; being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the
effects of motives and biases; being concerned more with finding the truth than with being right; not
rejecting unpopular views out of hand; being aware of one's own prejudices and biases, and not allowing
them to sway one's judgment."
~ Daniel Kurland, I Know What It Says...What does it Mean?-
Page 46 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
SUGGESTED BOOKS



The Biology of Belief: How Our Biology Biases Our Beliefs and Perceptions by Joseph Giovannoli
How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael Shermer
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by
Michael Shermer
Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials : The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety by Wendy Kaminer
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason Paperback by Sam Harris
Brain & Belief: An Exploration of the Human Soul by John McGraw
On Belief by Slavoj Zizek
The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity by Slavoj Zizek
Belief or Nonbelief? by Umberto Eco & Cardinal Martini
Prisoners of Belief: Exposing & Changing Beliefs That Control Your Life by Matthew McKay & Patrick
Fanning
Idiot Proof: Deluded Celebrities, Irrational Power Brokers, Media Morons, and the Erosion of Common
Sense by Francis Wheen
Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience by Martin Gardner
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions by James Randi
The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous
Delusions by Robert Todd Carroll
Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs by Ninian Smart
Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life by Richard Paul & Linda Elder
Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley
How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life by Thomas Gilovich
Heuristics and Biases : The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment by Thomas Gilovich























Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology by David A. Levy
Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation by Nicholas Humphrey
Science, Reason, and Anthropology: A Guide to Critical Thinking by James William Lett
I Know What It Says...What Does It Mean? Critical Skills for Critical Reading by Daniel Kurland
Thinking and Deciding by Jonathan Baron
The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making by Scott Plous
Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making by Reid
Hastie
Self-Deception by Herbert Fingarette
Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology Of Self Deception By Daniel Goleman
Perspectives on Self-Deception by Brian P. McLaughlin & Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (Editors)
Self-Deception Unmasked by Alfred R. Mele
Irrationality: An Essay on Akrasia, Self-Deception, and Self-Control by Alfred R. Mele
Autonomous Agents : From Self-Control to Autonomy by Alfred R. Mele
Motivation and Agency by Alfred R. Mele
The Oxford Handbook of Rationality by Alfred R. Mele
Self-Deception and Paradoxes of Rationality by Jean-Pierre Dupuy (Editor)
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy by Gerald Dworkin
Radical Honesty: How to Transform Your Life by Telling the Truth by Brad Blanton
Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway by Susan Jeffers
Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation by Jennifer Michael Hecht













SUGGESTED LINKS








Belief (Wikipedia)
Delusion (Wikipedia)
Self-Deception (Wikipedia)
CCMS - Communication, Culture and Media Studies
The Problems With Beliefs (Jim Walker)
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die (CSICOP)
Mind, Memory and the Psychology of Belief - Part 1
Mind, Memory and the Psychology of Belief - Part 2
Page 47 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett









































24
Development of Beliefs in Paranormal and Supernatural Phenomena
The Ghost in My House: An Exercise in Self-Deception
Judging Authority
The Belief Engine
Eyewitness Testimony and the Paranormal
Workshop Report: To Err Is Human
Open Minds and the Argument from Ignorance
Planting a Seed of Doubt
How to Study Weird Things
Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?
Study: Religious Believers Also Believe in Paranormal
A Mind at Play: An Interview with Martin Gardner
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (CSICOP)
What Is Critical Thinking? (ACCD)
National Center for Teaching Thinking
Dan Kurland's Critical Reading Web Site
Critical Thinking: What It Is And Why It Counts (PDF format)
Critical Thinking Mini-Lessons (Skeptic's Dictionary)
The Path to Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Handbook
Critical Thinking Principals
Mission: Critical
The Critical Project
Truth Mapping
The Fallacy Files
Logical Fallacies
The Critical Thinking Community
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
THESEUS Critical Thinking Software
The Skeptic's Dictionary
Skepsonix
Truth or Fiction
Snopes.com
Honesty (Wikipedia)
Self-Deception (Wikipedia)
True-Believer Syndrome (Wikipedia)
Wishful Thinking (Wikipedia)
Self-Serving Bias (Wikipedia)
Cognitive Bias (Wikipedia)
List of Cognitive Biases (Wikipedia)
Self-Deception (Skeptic's Dictionary)
SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
What is Science?
The definition of science poses some problems for people. Everyone seems to have an idea of what
science is, but actually articulating it proves to be difficult. Doing so, however, is necessary to understand
what science really is and what science is not. Understanding science is, in turn, necessary because of its
incredible power and influence in modern society. Ignorance about science simply isn't a viable option.
The classical definition of science is simply the state of "knowing"—specifically theoretical knowledge as
opposed the practical knowledge. In the Middle Ages the term "science" came to be used interchangeably
with "arts," the word for such practical knowledge. Thus, "liberal arts" and "liberal sciences" meant
basically the same thing.
Modern dictionaries are a bit more specific than that and offer a number of different ways in which the
term science can be defined:
Page 48 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
The observation, identification, description,
experimental investigation, and theoretical
explanation of phenomena. Methodological
activity, discipline, or study. An activity that
appears to require study and method.
For many purposes, these definitions can be adequate, but like so many other dictionary definitions of
complex subjects, they are ultimately superficial and misleading. They only provide the barest minimum of
information about the nature of science. As a consequence, the above definitions can be used to argue
that even astrology or dowsing qualify as "science."
Distinguishing modern science from other endeavors requires focusing in particular on its
methodology—the means by which it achieves results. Fundamentally, then, science can be
characterized as a method of obtaining reliable—thought not infallible—knowledge about the universe
around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it
happens.
The knowledge is reliable because it is continually tested and retested—much of science is heavily
interdependent, which means that any test of any scientific idea entails testing other, related ideas at the
same time. The knowledge is not infallible, because at no point do scientists assume that they have
arrived at a final, definitive truth.
The knowledge involved is that about the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why
science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both
description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened. This
latter point is an important factor because it is only through knowing why events occur that we can predict
what else might occur in the future.
Science can also at times be characterized as a category or body of knowledge. When this is how the
term is used, the speaker usually has in mind just the physical sciences (astronomy, geology) or
biological sciences (zoology, botany). These are sometimes also called "empirical sciences," as
distinguished from the "formal sciences," which encompass mathematics and formal logic.
Finally, science is often used to refer to the community of scientists and researchers who do scientific
work. It is this group of people who, through practicing science, effectively define what science is and how
science is done. Philosophers of science attempt to describe what an ideal pursuit of science would look
like, but it is the scientists who establish what it will really be.
FROM: ABOUT.COM
What is the Scientific Method?
How Is It Used And What Does It Do?
Science is effectively defined by the method which actual scientists use in order to make discoveries and
generally produce knowledge about the universe around us. It is this method which distinguishes the
scientific process from other, generally less successful, attempts to produce knowledge about the world.
Therefore, understanding science requires understanding how the scientific method works.
Page 49 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
What is described here is, to be honest, an ideal—actual scientists do not always follow the description
here perfectly, but the practice of science is nevertheless often close to the broad outlines of the ideal. It
is important, however, to understand that neither the reality nor the ideal is some special or magical
mental process unavailable to non-scientists.
The scientific method involves a combination of induction and deduction, each feeding back upon the
other. The first part, known as the Method of Induction, is the process by which we take particular
information from our senses and attempt to produce general statements about our world. For example,
when we observe that fire consistently burns our fingers, we can conclude fire is generally too hot to
touch.
The deductive aspect of the scientific method moves in just the opposite direction: it involves taking a
general principle about the world and deducing what will or should happen in some particular instance.
Thus, working from the principle that fire is too hot to touch, we can deduce that putting our foot in a fire
will cause burns and pain.
Because the scientific method involves a feedback loop of induction and deduction, it often isn't possible
to determine where any particular process has started—this is, in fact, one place where the practice and
ideal diverge. Nevertheless, a common starting point is used here in these six steps:
1. Observation
Some aspect of the world is observed by us and we arrive at new knowledge. This information might be
obtained through any or all of our senses, and it may come to us either through our intentional efforts or
accidentally.
2. Repetition
Not much can be done with a single observation (usually); thus, more observations are necessary before
proceeding further. Often these new observations are obtained deliberately as part of an effort to confirm
or refute the initial observation in step #1. Our observations are often stated in the form of a question or
problem, for example: In situation S, why does X always occur?
3. Induction
After arranging and considering our observations, we attempt to create some general principle which both
describes what happened and, more importantly, explains why it happened. This principle should ideally
be framed as broadly as possible and is generally called a hypothesis.
4. Deduction
Now that we have what we hope is a general principle which accurately describes and explains things
which happen in our universe, it is time to do some tests to see if we are correct. This is accomplished by
creating predictions—these are phrased as statement in the form "if principle P is true, then event E
should occur or fact F should be true."
5. Testing
Once we have predictions, it is time to go out and actually see what we find by collecting more
observations. We try to determine if some fact (F) is already true about the world or if some event (E)
occurs or can be caused to occur.
6. Induction (again)
Page 50 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
After we produce more observations, it is time to take another look at the general principle we formulated
earlier. If our predictions were true, then our hypothesis has been made stronger. According to some,
once this successful testing has been repeated multiple times, the hypothesis should be called a
'scientific theory.' We now might want to start looking at making our theory broader so that it can account
for more diverse phenomena.
If, however, our predictions were not successful, then we must consider what went wrong. Possibilities
include: our theory was mistaken and we need to reformulate it; our deductions from the theory were
mistaken and we need reconsider our understanding of it; or finally, our experiments were flawed and we
need to try again.
Notice that all three of those possibilities are, in fact, theories which might explain some observed
phenomenon: the failure of our experiments to confirm our original theory! So, figuring out which of them
is correct will involve going through the above process and using the scientific method all over again.
Hopefully it is clear from this description that this method is ordered and that the given order is important.
If you hypothesize before observing and stating a problem then you are not really being scientific; and
you obviously can't test a hypothesis unless you have a hypothesis to test. Moreover, this is an iterative
process: testing frequently will provide new information even if the hypothesis fails the tests. If the testing
stage fails, you may go back and refine the hypothesis, or go back to analysis to reconsider the problem,
then progress forward through the stages again.
Sometimes you may go back to the observation stage from the induction stage if you discover that stating
a clear solution to the problem is difficult. Thus it is possible to move backward through the process as
well as forward. Moreover, the process can be hierarchical: each stage of the process may involve using
the scientific method to solve sub-problems or related problems. So, while the overall process is fairly
simple, there can be a great deal of detail and complexity in its operation.
If all of the above sounds too difficult to grasp, rest assured that in reality it's not. As a matter of fact, the
scientific method is only a formalized description of what people do every day. It is not too far wrong to
say that the scientific method, even when described technically, amounts to systematized common
sense. To see how and why, consider the following example, used by Tim M. Berra in his book Evolution
and the Myth of Creationism. First will be the simple description and second will be the formal
description:
1.
You walk into a room in your house and flick on the light switch, but nothing happens. You flick it a few more
times to make sure it isn't working and then go get a replacement bulb. After you put it in, you find that it still
doesn't work. Looking around at the other electrical appliances in the room, you don't see any of them
working either, so you go down to the basement to check the fuse box.
2.
You walk into a room in your house and flick on the light switch, but nothing happens. At this point, you have
an observation: the light isn't coming on. Immediately you form a hypothesis: the connection isn't making
proper contact. You predict that, if this hypothesis is true, then it may be possible that it will make a
connection with further attempts, so you try the switch again several times.
Unfortunately, your experiment does not produce the results you hoped for, thus your prediction fails.
Your experiment was valid and your understanding of the principle is probably valid, so you have to go all
of the way back to the beginning to try a new hypothesis: the bulb is burned out. If that is true, then
replacing the old bulb with a new one should produce light, so you go to fetch a new bulb.
Once again, your experiment fails; once again, your experiment and your understanding of your
hypothesis were probably valid, so you need yet another theory. Looking around, you make the new
observation that nothing else in the room is working, so you theorize that the power to the room must be
interrupted. You also predict that, if this is true, you will find evidence of that in the fuse box, so you go
down to the basement to check.
Page 51 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
Both of the above are descriptions of the same series of events, with the latter simply being much more
explicit about the background processes which we are almost always unconscious of. The scientific
method is more formalized and explicit than how we proceed in our everyday lives, because first, it is
important that nothing be missed accidentally, and second, it is important that others be able to replicate
our steps in order to determine whether or not our results are valid.
It is also worth noting where this practice diverges from the ideal—for example, a hypothesis is formulated
after a single observation rather than after several. Although multiple observations are preferable,
sometimes just a single observation or even just a single idea is enough to begin the process of
formulating hypotheses to test. There are no absolute requirements as to what we need before we start
theorizing about what happens in our world.
FROM: ABOUT.COM
SUGGESTED BOOKS


























Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: A Translation of Summa Logicae III-II:
De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio by John Lee
Longeway
Philosophical Writings: A Selection by William Ockham, Philotheus Boehner, and Stephen F. Brown
Ockham's Theory Of Terms
Ockham's Theory Of Propositions
Quodlibetal Questions: Volumes 1 and 2, Quodlibets 1-7 by William of Ockham
The Cambridge Companion to Ockham by Paul Vincent Spade
On Ockham by Sharon Kaye and Robert Martin
A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey
Scientific Method in Practice by Hugh G. Gauch Jr
Science Rules: A Historical Introduction to Scientific Methods by Peter Achinstein
The Book of Evidence (Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Science) by Peter Achinstein
Inference to the Best Explanation (International Library of Philosophy) by Peter Lipton
Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation by James Woodward
Abductive Reasoning by Douglas Walton
The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn
How to Think Like a Scientist: Answering Questions by the Scientific Method by Stephen P. Kramer
Our Knowledge of the External World: As a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy by Bertrand
Russell
Science and Method by Henri Poincare
Science and Hypothesis by Henri Poincare
Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method by Henry H. Bauer
An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson
The Nature of Scientific Evidence: Statistical, Philosophical, and Empirical Considerations by Mark L.
Taper
Understanding Scientific Reasoning by Ronald N. Giere
Doing Science: Design, Analysis, and Communication of Scientific Research by Ivan Valiela
The Art of Scientific Investigation by W. I. Beveridge
SUGGESTED LINKS








Occam's Razor (Wikipedia)
Occam's Razor (Skeptic's Dictionary)
Occam's Razor Links (David Dowe)
Occam's Razor (Galilean Library)
Occam's Razor (Principia Cybernetica)
What Is Occam's Razor (Adelaide University)
William of Ockham (SEP)
William of Ockham (IEP)
Page 52 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett





















25
Ockham's Razor: How It Works (Kevin Kelly)
Mediaeval Logic and Philosophy
Thoughts, Words and Things: AN Introduction to Late Lediaeval Logic and Senatic Theory (PDF)
Science (Wikipedia)
Scientific Method (Wikipedia)
History of Scientific Method (Wikipedia)
Scientific Method: Portal (Wikipedia)
Scientific Method: History Timeline (Wikipedia)
Introduction to the Scientific Method
Lecture on the Scientific Method (Greg Anderson)
An Introduction to Science: Scientific Thinking and a Scientific Method by Steven D. Schafersman.
The Scientific Method Today (ScientificMethod.com)
Scientific Method Flowchart (NASA)
Scientific Method (Science Fair Handbook)
Steps of the Scientific Method (Science Buddies)
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws
Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology
Is the Theory of Evolution Just a 'Theory'?
10 Myths of Science
Theory-Ladenness (2005, Galilean Library)
CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND EVOLUTION
WhatThe science speaks for itself. The evidence is undeniable unless one is preconditioned to put his or
her faith in magical or supernatural explanations. Who wrote the Book of Genesis? Was its author a
'witness' to the supposed Act of Creation? If not, then the available science must speak for itself since the
other claims are based on something less than hearsay—mystical 'visions' or interior 'revelations' that
owe nothing to reality or the workings of the material universe.
SUGGESTED BOOKS


















Darwin, Third Edition (Norton Critical Editions)
What Evolution Is
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea
The Creationists
Tower Of Babel: The Evidence Against The New Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction
The Counter-Creationism Handbook
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design & the Easter Bunny
40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other Oddities on Trial in
Pennsylvania
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism
Darwin And Intelligent Design
SUGGESTED LINKS



TalkOrigins
TalkDesign
TalkReason
Page 53 of 54
25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian by Craig Duckett
















Creationism vs. Science
National Center for Science Education
AntiEvolution.org
Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
Evolution Evidence Page
Evolution Resources (Kenneth R. Miller)
No Answers in Genesis
Panda's Thumb Blog
Science and Creationism
Compelling Data for Common Descent from Matching Redundant DNA Sequences
Creationism & Creation Science (Skeptic's Dictionary)
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Scientific American)
Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
Creation "Science" Debunked
The World of Richard Dawkins
The ID Hypothesis (Edward T. Babinski)
SUMMARY
For me it isn’t enough I claim that I no longer believe in Christianity and everything such belief entails.
As an honest ‘truth seeker’ (whatever ‘truth’ may be, wherever it may lead) I have discovered the
preponderance of evidence discredits the various supernatural claims and magical thinking necessary
to continue supporting Christianity and the Christian mindset ( albeit evangelical/fundamentalist) which
denies hard science, rejects rational analysis, and quietly avoids dedicated research, practical
reasoning, and critical thinking. The bottom line is this: either the world is a magical/supernatural place
or it isn’t. Without resorting to language, to words in a book, or sermons from the pulpit, what does the
world itself tell you about nature of reality? Is it supernatural or isn’t it? Don’t point back to words to
decide, but step outside. Be very, very quiet. Listen. Now what is the world telling you? Without relying
on words would you have had any reason to believe in anything claimed in the Bible, or do these
claims only exist in the Bible? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? Or the Upanishads? Or the
Urantia book? Etc?
If you 'feel the urge', you are invited to write me at craigd@control-z.com (I have Spam Arrest
installed so you will have to reply to a challenge in order for me to receive your email).
If you want a reply, please include a list of the last ten (10) books you have read that address religion,
comparative religion, mythology, history, psychology, philosophy, cognition, or science. While some of
these books may be decidedly Christian in nature, at least half of them should come from a
perspective other than Christian. An honest questioner will look at both sides of an issue and read
material that comes from many different sources. Reading only Christian books (or Mormon books, or
Islamic books, or scientific books, or freethinking books, or atheist books, etc) does not promote
honest truth-seeking and does not remove you from the indoctrination or enculturation found "inside
the box" of your worldview.
If you are truly interested in the discovery of ‘truth’, you will step "outside the box" and examine all the
necessary information available there. Once you find the courage to step "outside the box" you will
discover there is a lot more information (and quite a bit more to reality) than you have ever imagined.
Page 54 of 54