God does not exist and religion is the folklore of olden times

[Coach is Back!]

There are literally thousands of recognized religions out there.  Which means somebody is wrong.  But of course, the morons only think that "their" religion is the right one.

Christianity is nothing more than a cherry picked parts of other religions.  When held to basic questions, it collapses upon itself.  Jesus really didn't do anything that someone else hasn't done.  And that is including the context of just the Christian religion and Bible.  Jesus's so called "miracles" are not impressive when you realize other people did them too. 

The fact that religion teaches you that you will only get your rewards after you die is self explanatory.  Nobody comes back after they die.  So kind of hard to have any critics that say "man, this reward stuff is complete bullshit."

Oh boy..

[LurkerNoMore]

Oh boy..

So you have no explanation of this or evidence contrary.  Got it.  Every single thing I posted is factual.  Unlike your bullshit that you believe.

[Coach is Back!]

So you have no explanation of this or evidence contrary.  Got it.  Every single thing I posted is factual.  Unlike your bullshit that you believe.

"Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"

This is actually correct — and it's not a problem for Christianity. It's the starting point of serious inquiry. The existence of many truth claims doesn't mean all are equally valid; it means the task is to examine the evidence. A detective doesn't throw up their hands because there are multiple suspects. Logic, history, and evidence narrow the field. That's exactly what apologetics does.

"Christianity is cherry-picked from other religions"

This is one of the most common objections, and it doesn't survive scrutiny. Critics contend that the most marvelous claims in the Gospels — a miraculous birth, a deity who dies and rises again — are paralleled in religions that predate Christianity, and therefore early Christians must have fabricated these miracles. But when the alleged parallels are examined closely, the myths of miraculous births are closer to divine impregnation than to the virginal conception described in Matthew and Luke — and parallels of this sort are too vague and too dissimilar to support the claim that Christians borrowed their beliefs from pagans.
Furthermore, parallels in other ancient religions neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the New Testament documents — they simply demonstrate the common expectations of people in the first century AD. C.S. Lewis made this point brilliantly: if anything, the echoes of a dying-and-rising God in mythology point to humanity's deep longing for what actually happened in Christ.

"Jesus didn't do anything others haven't done"

This is where the post is most factually wrong. The miracles of Jesus are not haphazard, random, or borrowed from other religions — there is a discernible pattern behind them that emerges upon examination. Other figures may have reports of miracles, but there is a crucial distinction: in the case of the New Testament, one is presented with miracles uniquely accompanied by the self-disclosure of God — and it is this element of self-disclosure that makes them impossible to incorporate in any non-arbitrary way into versions of theism other than Christianity.
More importantly, the primary theme that emerges from the Gospels is that the miracles of Jesus reveal His identity as the long-awaited Messiah — and in the Gospel of John, Jesus announces that He is "the resurrection and the life" and then raises Lazarus on the fourth day in demonstration of the credibility of His astonishing claim.
No prophet, no guru, no mythological figure did that — claimed to be the source of all life, and then demonstrated it with documented, historically attested events.

"The Resurrection is just like other miracle claims"

No. This is the linchpin. Other religions may have reports of miracles, but no other religion has miracles that can withstand the type of cross-examination that the Resurrection and Ascension can — and therefore no other religion has the kind of miraculous evidence for its veracity that Christianity does.
Consider this: the apostles didn't just believe in the Resurrection — they died for it. People die for things they believe to be true. Nobody willingly dies for something they know to be a fabrication. By contrast, the Catholic Church has a continuous history of miracles from apostolic times to the present — including incorruptible bodies of saints, Eucharistic miracles subjected to scientific analysis, and Marian apparitions with thousands of witnesses.

"Rewards after death — convenient, can't be disproven"

This objection cuts both ways. The claim that "nobody comes back after death" is precisely what Christianity disputes — and with serious historical evidence. The Resurrection of Jesus is not a private vision or a pious legend. It is a historically investigated event. The miraculous evidence for Christianity is greater than that for any other religion — the Resurrection of Jesus is a major miracle that withstands skeptical scrutiny, and other religions have nothing comparable. The Resurrection thus provides unique and compelling evidence for Christianity.
As for rewards being "unprovable" — the post assumes materialism: that if it can't be verified scientifically, it doesn't exist. But that itself is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. The very demand that all truth be empirically measurable is a standard that cannot itself be empirically measured.

The Real Question Underneath All of This
The frustration in this post is understandable — there's a lot of noise in the world of religion, and much of it deserves criticism. But the conclusion that all religion is therefore equal or false doesn't follow from the evidence. The question isn't "are there many religions?" but "which one, if any, is actually true?" — and that question deserves serious, honest engagement, not dismissal.
The Catholic faith doesn't ask anyone to abandon reason. It invites reason to go further than it can on its own.

https://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/articles/larmer/art-Larmer_Miracles7_Miracles%20and%20Christian%20Apologetics.pdf

https://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/apologetics.htm

https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-234/

https://onepeterfive.com/miracles-and-the-true-faith-why-only-catholicism-is-confirmed-by-god/

[LurkerNoMore]

"Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"
This is actually correct — and it's not a problem for Christianity. It's the starting point of serious inquiry. The existence of many truth claims doesn't mean all are equally valid; it means the task is to examine the evidence. A detective doesn't throw up their hands because there are multiple suspects. Logic, history, and evidence narrow the field. That's exactly what apologetics does.

So I was right.  It says so in the first four words.  If you can't prove the ones prior or otherwise are wrong, you can't prove yours is right.

"Christianity is cherry-picked from other religions"
This is one of the most common objections, and it doesn't survive scrutiny. Critics contend that the most marvelous claims in the Gospels — a miraculous birth, a deity who dies and rises again — are paralleled in religions that predate Christianity, and therefore early Christians must have fabricated these miracles. But when the alleged parallels are examined closely, the myths of miraculous births are closer to divine impregnation than to the virginal conception described in Matthew and Luke — and parallels of this sort are too vague and too dissimilar to support the claim that Christians borrowed their beliefs from pagans.
Furthermore, parallels in other ancient religions neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the New Testament documents — they simply demonstrate the common expectations of people in the first century AD. C.S. Lewis made this point brilliantly: if anything, the echoes of a dying-and-rising God in mythology point to humanity's deep longing for what actually happened in Christ.

Christianity is cherry picked.  FACT.
Immaculate Birth
Son of God
Resurrection
Disciples
Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Osiris, Horus, etc. all have the same characteristics of little Jesus and Christianity.  Seeing how they came about a long time before, it is undeniable that it is copied from prior pagan traits.  Just ask Constantine the Great.

"Jesus didn't do anything others haven't done"
This is where the post is most factually wrong. The miracles of Jesus are not haphazard, random, or borrowed from other religions — there is a discernible pattern behind them that emerges upon examination. Other figures may have reports of miracles, but there is a crucial distinction: in the case of the New Testament, one is presented with miracles uniquely accompanied by the self-disclosure of God — and it is this element of self-disclosure that makes them impossible to incorporate in any non-arbitrary way into versions of theism other than Christianity.
More importantly, the primary theme that emerges from the Gospels is that the miracles of Jesus reveal His identity as the long-awaited Messiah — and in the Gospel of John, Jesus announces that He is "the resurrection and the life" and then raises Lazarus on the fourth day in demonstration of the credibility of His astonishing claim.
No prophet, no guru, no mythological figure did that — claimed to be the source of all life, and then demonstrated it with documented, historically attested events.

Has done nothing that others have not done.  Died and came back to life?  Lazarus did too.  But Lazarus actually stuck around for 30 more years after resurrection being seen by people with their own eyes.  Jesus did NOT.  He basically took a long a weekend and then fucked off only to have Elvis type sightings for the next month and a half.  That's really sus.  Especially when it was all devoted followers claiming they saw him.  Nothing biased there huh? Raising the dead?  Yeah, Elijah and Elisha, Peter, Paul did that too. 
Walked on water?  Elijah, Elisha, and Peter all walked on water as well.   Created magical food to feed many?  Elija and Elisha did so too. 

"The Resurrection is just like other miracle claims"
No. This is the linchpin. Other religions may have reports of miracles, but no other religion has miracles that can withstand the type of cross-examination that the Resurrection and Ascension can — and therefore no other religion has the kind of miraculous evidence for its veracity that Christianity does.
Consider this: the apostles didn't just believe in the Resurrection — they died for it. People die for things they believe to be true. Nobody willingly dies for something they know to be a fabrication. By contrast, the Catholic Church has a continuous history of miracles from apostolic times to the present — including incorruptible bodies of saints, Eucharistic miracles subjected to scientific analysis, and Marian apparitions with thousands of witnesses.

Straight up bullshit here.  You mean to say people of other religions do not die for what they believe in?  GTFO.  Lack of actual historical evidence is nothing more than dying (and living) for a fabrication.  These are nothing more than claims written by scared old men who were his fevered followers many decades after the event was claimed to have occurred.  Sort of like you trying to write about how the 2020 election was stolen with absolutely no proof to offer.  I mean, I am sure there are other idiots who would believe you, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. 

"Rewards after death — convenient, can't be disproven"
This objection cuts both ways. The claim that "nobody comes back after death" is precisely what Christianity disputes — and with serious historical evidence. The Resurrection of Jesus is not a private vision or a pious legend. It is a historically investigated event. The miraculous evidence for Christianity is greater than that for any other religion — the Resurrection of Jesus is a major miracle that withstands skeptical scrutiny, and other religions have nothing comparable. The Resurrection thus provides unique and compelling evidence for Christianity.
As for rewards being "unprovable" — the post assumes materialism: that if it can't be verified scientifically, it doesn't exist. But that itself is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. The very demand that all truth be empirically measurable is a standard that cannot itself be empirically measured.

The city of Atlantis, Bigfoot and Lochness Monster is a historically investigated event.  None of it existed.  So investigating today, something that happened 2000+ years ago in the absence of evidence, eye witnesses, preserved proof and facts, is bullshit.  The source of this investigation can be traced back to devoted followers who lacked critical thinking and logical processing due to the times.  These superstitious tards would only include actual writings or claims that supported their biased devotion.  Just like all other religions. 
There is no materialism with the rewards being unprovable.  If they existed, there would be proof.  If this was a loving God, then you would be rewarded while alive so you could enjoy it and most importantly, others could see that the reward was true and levied fairly by this "god" rather than having to have "faith" it is so.   This is nothing more than a kid asking their mom for something and she says "we'll see".  Everyone knows damn well that they won't see shit. 
The very fact that so called Christians contradict this god by their own "views" is another sign of failure.  Abortion?  God believed in it.  Infanticide?  Yep, that is a good idea too.  Rape?  Oh yeah....  he's down with that for sure.  Adultery, coveting another man's wife, suicide, etc.. yep.  YHWH is your homeboy there as well.  Genocide, hey ain't nothing wrong with that huh?  Killing innocent kids with SIDS or giving children cancer as a "test", hey..... gotta love jokes like that.


The Real Question Underneath All of This
The frustration in this post is understandable — there's a lot of noise in the world of religion, and much of it deserves criticism. But the conclusion that all religion is therefore equal or false doesn't follow from the evidence. The question isn't "are there many religions?" but "which one, if any, is actually true?" — and that question deserves serious, honest engagement, not dismissal.
The Catholic faith doesn't ask anyone to abandon reason. It invites reason to go further than it can on its own.

The real question is actually simple.  If god existed and rewarded his children, whom he created in his own image as man, woman, child, black, white, yellow, etc...    basically Michael Jackson throughout his years - then why does he avoid his own promises he made to these creations?
Even his own son Jesus isn't important enough or believable enough to stand under the spotlight by himself.  That's why his birth is celebrated on a day he was never born on and shares the same day with another more popular dude named Santa  Clause who actually does reward his believers who have been good with shit.  Or so the story goes.     Have to point out that Santa is white too.  Because whitewashing Jesus of his Middle Eastern heritage was not enough.  And then on a day that changes every year, his followers celebrate his death on Good Friday (which Jesus might have a little bit to say about how "good" this friday was) and then days later his resurrection on Easter - which again... is a duo team up event with another more popular male who also happens to be white in most scenarios and brings rewards to kids that are brainwashed into believing in the Easter Bunny.

Bottom line is Constantine the Great has done more for Christianity than Jesus and God has.

Using AI and actually understand what AI is telling you is two different things.  You did neither very well. 

[Coach is Back!]

Using AI and actually understand what AI is telling you is two different things.  You did neither very well.

Asking theological questions deserves a theological response in regards to “AI”. Link your research

On "Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"

The rebuttal misreads the response. Affirming that somebody is wrong is not the same as saying Christianity cannot be proven right. The whole point is that evidence is what determines which claim is correct — not the number of claims. Saying "you admitted someone is wrong, therefore you can't prove you're right" is a non-sequitur. A courtroom with ten defendants doesn't mean the guilty party can't be identified.

On "Christianity is cherry-picked from Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus"

This is the strongest-sounding objection — and the most thoroughly debunked by scholars. The "copycat theory" is not a product of serious academic research. It originates largely from 19th-century enthusiasts and was popularized by the documentary Zeitgeist — sources that historians and religious scholars, including skeptical ones, have largely dismissed.

Let's take each figure named:

Horus: Horus is often cited as a deity born of a virgin, who walked on water, had twelve disciples, and resurrected after three days — but none of these claims are supported by authentic Egyptian sources. Isis conceived Horus after collecting the dismembered body parts of Osiris. This is not a virgin birth. Horus is not recorded to have walked on water, nor did he have twelve disciples. He is portrayed as a warrior god who avenged his father's death, with no account of crucifixion, resurrection, or sacrificial death for the redemption of humanity.
Most of the writings equating Horus with Jesus were written by comparative religion enthusiasts who referenced other enthusiasts from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries — and this research does not stem from accredited Egyptologists or biblical scholars.

Mithra: Mithras is depicted as emerging fully grown from a rock — not born of a virgin. In Mithraism, Mithras never dies — he completed his earthly mission and returned to the skies in a chariot. There is no historical mention of crucifixion, burial, or resurrection in any Mithraic artwork or text.
Researcher Ronald Nash writes: "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth."

Osiris: Osiris cannot be said to have "risen" in the sense required by the dying-and-rising pattern — most certainly it was never considered an annual event. "In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods."
The bottom line on copycat theory: The claims that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated from authors whose works have been discounted by academia, commit logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. "The alleged parallels disappear when they are compared with the original historical texts. Similarities between Jesus and various mythological gods can only be argued for by employing selective and misleading descriptions."

On Constantine

Constantine did not create Christianity. He legalized it in AD 313 via the Edict of Milan. Christianity had already survived two and a half centuries of Roman persecution before Constantine — it spread against the power of Rome, not because of it. The New Testament documents predate Constantine by 250+ years. The argument that Constantine invented Christianity ignores the apostolic writings, the early Church Fathers, and the historical record entirely.

On Lazarus vs. Jesus

The comparison actually proves the Christian point rather than defeating it. Lazarus was raised by Jesus — he didn't raise himself. He was resuscitated and eventually died again. Jesus rose by His own power, in a glorified body, and was seen by over 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) — not just devoted followers. St. Paul specifically invites skeptics to go interrogate the witnesses while they are still alive. That is not the move of a fabricator.

On Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul performing miracles

Correct — and this is entirely consistent with Christianity, not a refutation of it. These figures performed miracles by the power of God working through them. Jesus performed miracles on His own authority — "I say to you, rise" — not "Lord, grant that this man rise." The distinction between instrument and source is everything. And no prophet ever claimed to be the Resurrection, then demonstrated it in their own person.

On the Resurrection being "sus" because only followers saw Him

The 500 witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 is an open challenge to scrutiny, written within living memory of the events. The apostles didn't just believe — they died under torture without recanting. The "people die for what they believe" counter misses the point: they weren't dying for a belief — they were dying for something they personally witnessed. Nobody willingly dies maintaining a lie they themselves fabricated, with nothing to gain and everything to lose.

On God permitting suffering, SIDS, cancer, genocide in Scripture

This deserves more than a dismissal. The problem of evil is the most serious philosophical objection to theism — and it deserves a full response. The short answer: a God who permits suffering is not the same as a God who endorses evil. The Incarnation is God's answer to suffering — not a detached explanation, but an entrance into it. As for Old Testament violence, the historical and theological context of those passages is vastly more complex than the post suggests, and serious scholars have addressed it at length.

As for the claim that "God endorsed rape, infanticide, and genocide" — these are misreadings. God permitted or recorded events that He did not prescribe as universal moral norms. The same Scripture that records slavery also contains the seeds of its abolition.

On Christmas and Easter being pagan

December 25th is not in the Bible — and the Church has never claimed Jesus was born on that date with certainty. The date was chosen liturgically. The Resurrection, however, is not a date — it is a historical event. Easter's date follows the Jewish Passover calendar. The cultural trappings (bunnies, trees) are entirely separate from the theological claims. Mixing them as if they invalidate the Resurrection is a category error.

The Real Underlying Question

Underneath all of this anger is a real question — and it deserves acknowledgment: Why does a good God seem absent, silent, and unfair? That is not a stupid question. It is the cry of Job, the Psalms, and every honest soul who has suffered. The answer Christianity gives is not "trust us." It is a Person — crucified, risen, and present in the Eucharist to this day.
The post is right about one thing: if God exists and is good, then the evidence of that goodness should be visible somewhere. Christianity says it is — not in the comfortable, not in the powerful, but in the Cross.

If this person could be shown that the "copycat" claims they're relying on were not produced by credentialed historians but by internet documentaries — would they be willing to follow the evidence wherever it actually leads, even if it led somewhere unexpected?

https://www.news24.com/refuting-the-atheist-nonsense-that-jesus-was-a-copy-of-mithra-dionysus-horus-zalmoxis-adonis-20160316

https://reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-vs-osiris-debunking-the-alleged-parallels/

https://www.road2thecross.org/truth-blog/2017/1/29/misconceptions-clarified-jesus-story-stolen-ix-

https://atheomedy.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/5-pagan-parallels-to-jesus-that-actually-arent-bullshit/

[Coach is Back!]

“ Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"
This is actually correct”

“So I was right”

This proves you didn’t read beyond and immediately thought you were “right” hahahahaha

[Necrosis]

"Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"

This is actually correct — and it's not a problem for Christianity. It's the starting point of serious inquiry. The existence of many truth claims doesn't mean all are equally valid; it means the task is to examine the evidence. A detective doesn't throw up their hands because there are multiple suspects. Logic, history, and evidence narrow the field. That's exactly what apologetics does.

"Christianity is cherry-picked from other religions"

This is one of the most common objections, and it doesn't survive scrutiny. Critics contend that the most marvelous claims in the Gospels — a miraculous birth, a deity who dies and rises again — are paralleled in religions that predate Christianity, and therefore early Christians must have fabricated these miracles. But when the alleged parallels are examined closely, the myths of miraculous births are closer to divine impregnation than to the virginal conception described in Matthew and Luke — and parallels of this sort are too vague and too dissimilar to support the claim that Christians borrowed their beliefs from pagans.
Furthermore, parallels in other ancient religions neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the New Testament documents — they simply demonstrate the common expectations of people in the first century AD. C.S. Lewis made this point brilliantly: if anything, the echoes of a dying-and-rising God in mythology point to humanity's deep longing for what actually happened in Christ.

"Jesus didn't do anything others haven't done"

This is where the post is most factually wrong. The miracles of Jesus are not haphazard, random, or borrowed from other religions — there is a discernible pattern behind them that emerges upon examination. Other figures may have reports of miracles, but there is a crucial distinction: in the case of the New Testament, one is presented with miracles uniquely accompanied by the self-disclosure of God — and it is this element of self-disclosure that makes them impossible to incorporate in any non-arbitrary way into versions of theism other than Christianity.
More importantly, the primary theme that emerges from the Gospels is that the miracles of Jesus reveal His identity as the long-awaited Messiah — and in the Gospel of John, Jesus announces that He is "the resurrection and the life" and then raises Lazarus on the fourth day in demonstration of the credibility of His astonishing claim.
No prophet, no guru, no mythological figure did that — claimed to be the source of all life, and then demonstrated it with documented, historically attested events.

"The Resurrection is just like other miracle claims"

No. This is the linchpin. Other religions may have reports of miracles, but no other religion has miracles that can withstand the type of cross-examination that the Resurrection and Ascension can — and therefore no other religion has the kind of miraculous evidence for its veracity that Christianity does.
Consider this: the apostles didn't just believe in the Resurrection — they died for it. People die for things they believe to be true. Nobody willingly dies for something they know to be a fabrication. By contrast, the Catholic Church has a continuous history of miracles from apostolic times to the present — including incorruptible bodies of saints, Eucharistic miracles subjected to scientific analysis, and Marian apparitions with thousands of witnesses.

"Rewards after death — convenient, can't be disproven"

This objection cuts both ways. The claim that "nobody comes back after death" is precisely what Christianity disputes — and with serious historical evidence. The Resurrection of Jesus is not a private vision or a pious legend. It is a historically investigated event. The miraculous evidence for Christianity is greater than that for any other religion — the Resurrection of Jesus is a major miracle that withstands skeptical scrutiny, and other religions have nothing comparable. The Resurrection thus provides unique and compelling evidence for Christianity.
As for rewards being "unprovable" — the post assumes materialism: that if it can't be verified scientifically, it doesn't exist. But that itself is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. The very demand that all truth be empirically measurable is a standard that cannot itself be empirically measured.

The Real Question Underneath All of This
The frustration in this post is understandable — there's a lot of noise in the world of religion, and much of it deserves criticism. But the conclusion that all religion is therefore equal or false doesn't follow from the evidence. The question isn't "are there many religions?" but "which one, if any, is actually true?" — and that question deserves serious, honest engagement, not dismissal.
The Catholic faith doesn't ask anyone to abandon reason. It invites reason to go further than it can on its own.

https://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/articles/larmer/art-Larmer_Miracles7_Miracles%20and%20Christian%20Apologetics.pdf

https://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/apologetics.htm

https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-234/

https://onepeterfive.com/miracles-and-the-true-faith-why-only-catholicism-is-confirmed-by-god/

Why don;'t you right your own responses? ridiculous.

[illuminati]

Why don;'t you right your own responses? ridiculous.

Pronoun boy/girl

The word is Don't not Don;'t 
New to typing are you or English to difficult for you ?

[LurkerNoMore]

Asking theological questions deserves a theological response in regards to “AI”. Link your research

On "Thousands of religions means somebody is wrong"

The rebuttal misreads the response. Affirming that somebody is wrong is not the same as saying Christianity cannot be proven right. The whole point is that evidence is what determines which claim is correct — not the number of claims. Saying "you admitted someone is wrong, therefore you can't prove you're right" is a non-sequitur. A courtroom with ten defendants doesn't mean the guilty party can't be identified.

On "Christianity is cherry-picked from Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus"

This is the strongest-sounding objection — and the most thoroughly debunked by scholars. The "copycat theory" is not a product of serious academic research. It originates largely from 19th-century enthusiasts and was popularized by the documentary Zeitgeist — sources that historians and religious scholars, including skeptical ones, have largely dismissed.

Let's take each figure named:

Horus: Horus is often cited as a deity born of a virgin, who walked on water, had twelve disciples, and resurrected after three days — but none of these claims are supported by authentic Egyptian sources. Isis conceived Horus after collecting the dismembered body parts of Osiris. This is not a virgin birth. Horus is not recorded to have walked on water, nor did he have twelve disciples. He is portrayed as a warrior god who avenged his father's death, with no account of crucifixion, resurrection, or sacrificial death for the redemption of humanity.
Most of the writings equating Horus with Jesus were written by comparative religion enthusiasts who referenced other enthusiasts from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries — and this research does not stem from accredited Egyptologists or biblical scholars.

Mithra: Mithras is depicted as emerging fully grown from a rock — not born of a virgin. In Mithraism, Mithras never dies — he completed his earthly mission and returned to the skies in a chariot. There is no historical mention of crucifixion, burial, or resurrection in any Mithraic artwork or text.
Researcher Ronald Nash writes: "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth."

Osiris: Osiris cannot be said to have "risen" in the sense required by the dying-and-rising pattern — most certainly it was never considered an annual event. "In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods."
The bottom line on copycat theory: The claims that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated from authors whose works have been discounted by academia, commit logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. "The alleged parallels disappear when they are compared with the original historical texts. Similarities between Jesus and various mythological gods can only be argued for by employing selective and misleading descriptions."

On Constantine

Constantine did not create Christianity. He legalized it in AD 313 via the Edict of Milan. Christianity had already survived two and a half centuries of Roman persecution before Constantine — it spread against the power of Rome, not because of it. The New Testament documents predate Constantine by 250+ years. The argument that Constantine invented Christianity ignores the apostolic writings, the early Church Fathers, and the historical record entirely.

On Lazarus vs. Jesus

The comparison actually proves the Christian point rather than defeating it. Lazarus was raised by Jesus — he didn't raise himself. He was resuscitated and eventually died again. Jesus rose by His own power, in a glorified body, and was seen by over 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) — not just devoted followers. St. Paul specifically invites skeptics to go interrogate the witnesses while they are still alive. That is not the move of a fabricator.

On Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul performing miracles

Correct — and this is entirely consistent with Christianity, not a refutation of it. These figures performed miracles by the power of God working through them. Jesus performed miracles on His own authority — "I say to you, rise" — not "Lord, grant that this man rise." The distinction between instrument and source is everything. And no prophet ever claimed to be the Resurrection, then demonstrated it in their own person.

On the Resurrection being "sus" because only followers saw Him

The 500 witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15 is an open challenge to scrutiny, written within living memory of the events. The apostles didn't just believe — they died under torture without recanting. The "people die for what they believe" counter misses the point: they weren't dying for a belief — they were dying for something they personally witnessed. Nobody willingly dies maintaining a lie they themselves fabricated, with nothing to gain and everything to lose.

On God permitting suffering, SIDS, cancer, genocide in Scripture

This deserves more than a dismissal. The problem of evil is the most serious philosophical objection to theism — and it deserves a full response. The short answer: a God who permits suffering is not the same as a God who endorses evil. The Incarnation is God's answer to suffering — not a detached explanation, but an entrance into it. As for Old Testament violence, the historical and theological context of those passages is vastly more complex than the post suggests, and serious scholars have addressed it at length.

As for the claim that "God endorsed rape, infanticide, and genocide" — these are misreadings. God permitted or recorded events that He did not prescribe as universal moral norms. The same Scripture that records slavery also contains the seeds of its abolition.

On Christmas and Easter being pagan

December 25th is not in the Bible — and the Church has never claimed Jesus was born on that date with certainty. The date was chosen liturgically. The Resurrection, however, is not a date — it is a historical event. Easter's date follows the Jewish Passover calendar. The cultural trappings (bunnies, trees) are entirely separate from the theological claims. Mixing them as if they invalidate the Resurrection is a category error.

The Real Underlying Question

Underneath all of this anger is a real question — and it deserves acknowledgment: Why does a good God seem absent, silent, and unfair? That is not a stupid question. It is the cry of Job, the Psalms, and every honest soul who has suffered. The answer Christianity gives is not "trust us." It is a Person — crucified, risen, and present in the Eucharist to this day.
The post is right about one thing: if God exists and is good, then the evidence of that goodness should be visible somewhere. Christianity says it is — not in the comfortable, not in the powerful, but in the Cross.

If this person could be shown that the "copycat" claims they're relying on were not produced by credentialed historians but by internet documentaries — would they be willing to follow the evidence wherever it actually leads, even if it led somewhere unexpected?

https://www.news24.com/refuting-the-atheist-nonsense-that-jesus-was-a-copy-of-mithra-dionysus-horus-zalmoxis-adonis-20160316

https://reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-vs-osiris-debunking-the-alleged-parallels/

https://www.road2thecross.org/truth-blog/2017/1/29/misconceptions-clarified-jesus-story-stolen-ix-

https://atheomedy.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/5-pagan-parallels-to-jesus-that-actually-arent-bullshit/

No only do you not understand the simple English I wrote in response to your AI bullshit, you don't even understand the AI bullshit you tried to counter with. 

And then you end with "follow the evidence" except there is NONE.  The entire point.  If there really was a god, do you think it's a punishment for your past life that he made you so short and stupid?

[LurkerNoMore]

Why don;'t you right your own responses? ridiculous.

Because he can't articulate any.  Like his dependency on a higher power to keep him from tripping over his shoelaces, he depends on artificial intelligence to overcome his lack of any.

[Coach is Back!]

Because he can't articulate any.  Like his dependency on a higher power to keep him from tripping over his shoelaces, he depends on artificial intelligence to overcome his lack of any.

www.zoom.com

You’re skating. Like Necrosis. Leveling typical atheistic bullshit that deserves more than simple back and forth. So why not answer with theologian responses. i can answer all of your questions from basic knowledge of Catholicism but you’re asking questions of all Athiests who’s thinks its all bullshit.

[Van_Bilderass]

I don't understand why Christians try to prove their religion through evidence, facts, science or logic when their own bible says it's about faith, which is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." The Kingdom of God is only for those who are like little children. It is interesting that in the bible the accuser promised he would make it so Adam and Eve would have their eyes opened, so they would know good and evil. Adam and Eve lacked faith and fell for it.

I had a Muslim try to convert me by telling me something about a fly riding on the back of a bigger fly which the Koran talks about, something humans couldn't have known at the time. Proof enough for me!

www.zoom.com

You’re skating. Like Necrosis. Leveling typical atheistic bullshit that deserves more than simple back and forth. So why not answer with theologian responses. i can answer all of your questions from basic knowledge of Catholicism but you’re asking questions of all Athiests who’s thinks its all bullshit.

Don't you think there is a reason why appeal to rationality fails so much? If the proof was so overwhelming there would be little discussion. Even Christians among themselves argue about some fundamentals. There's been schisms. Many Christians place an emphasis on personal revelation, on being born again, on an inward change. Those questioning are encouraged to pray, not trying to prove bible stories scientifically.

If I'm not mistaken, there are lots of religious and spiritual scientists but few believe in the bible literally. They don't believe the creation story, nor the miracles, nor immaculate conception; they think they are allegorical. Necrosis says he believes in Spinoza's God.

[joswift]

I don't understand why Christians try to prove their religion through evidence, facts, science or logic when their own bible says it's about faith, which is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." A belief in something that deep down you know isnt true .The Kingdom of God is only for those who are like little children. It is interesting that in the bible the accuser promised he would make it so Adam and Eve would have their eyes opened, so they would know good and evil. Adam and Eve lacked faith and fell for it.

I had a Muslim try to convert me by telling me something about a fly riding on the back of a bigger fly which the Koran talks about, something humans couldn't have known at the time. Proof enough for me!

fixed

[LurkerNoMore]

www.zoom.com

You’re skating. Like Necrosis. Leveling typical atheistic bullshit that deserves more than simple back and forth. So why not answer with theologian responses. i can answer all of your questions from basic knowledge of Catholicism but you’re asking questions of all Athiests who’s thinks its all bullshit.

Zoom?  hahahaha.  No one is debating a retard.

What facts can you use on Zoom that you can't use here?   Oh, you have none.  As usual.  Which is why you couldn't type in your own words responses to me and then, you couldn't even understand the responses you got from AI. 

[LurkerNoMore]

I don't understand why Christians try to prove their religion through evidence, facts, science or logic when their own bible says it's about faith, which is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." The Kingdom of God is only for those who are like little children. It is interesting that in the bible the accuser promised he would make it so Adam and Eve would have their eyes opened, so they would know good and evil. Adam and Eve lacked faith and fell for it.


If I'm not mistaken, there are lots of religious and spiritual scientists but few believe in the bible literally. They don't believe the creation story, nor the miracles, nor immaculate conception; they think they are allegorical. Necrosis says he believes in Spinoza's God.

Religion has to hide, obfuscate and deceive it's followers in order to survive.  People who follow religion are not known for being overly smart. 

[Van_Bilderass]

Religion has to hide, obfuscate and deceive it's followers in order to survive.  People who follow religion are not known for being overly smart.

That's the easy conclusion, religion has to deceive in order to survive, and man also has to hide in something in order to survive, a vicious circle

Religion is like drugs, said that commie bastard.

[Necrosis]

Pronoun boy/girl

The word is Don't not Don;'t 
New to typing are you or English to difficult for you ?

Hi there!

Maybe look at the proximity of the keys indicated in the grammatical error you have detected. I did notice the typo but decided I didn't care to fix it as it didn't change the message! unlike some other retards who can't spot typos which invert the message.
Thanks for pointing it out!!

[Necrosis]

www.zoom.com

You’re skating. Like Necrosis. Leveling typical atheistic bullshit that deserves more than simple back and forth. So why not answer with theologian responses. i can answer all of your questions from basic knowledge of Catholicism but you’re asking questions of all Athiests who’s thinks its all bullshit.

Brother, you cannot answer anything. You don't even have a cursory knowledge of anything outside of christianity, how could you argue the truth of it without knowing it's opposition.

Who said I was an atheist?

If anything I am a dual aspect monist or perhaps a panentheist. You don't even understand what jesus was saying, a failure in semiotics and hermeneutics for sure.

[Necrosis]

That's the easy conclusion, religion has to deceive in order to survive, and man also has to hide in something in order to survive, a vicious circle

Religion is like drugs, said that commie bastard.

Religion is an experience. To explain that experience man has come up with many mythologies. The original experience is patently available to anyone who cares to venture into that territory. A good dose of shrooms will get you there ffs.

[Coach is Back!]

I’m surrounded by retards on this board

[IroNat]

[illuminati]

Hi there!

Maybe look at the proximity of the keys indicated in the grammatical error you have detected. I did notice the typo but decided I didn't care to fix it as it didn't change the message! unlike some other retards who can't spot typos which invert the message.
Thanks for pointing it out!!

Pronoun Girl/Boy

How very slippery of you & Hypocritical as you were quick
to point out another posters typo recently & jump all over
them, you did not offer them the same pathetic excuse you
are trying to use.

 

[Raymondo]

Little Coach discovered AI, oh dear 

[IroNat]

You gotta have faith.

[chaos]

You gotta have faith.