Sunday, February 11, 2018

Atheists are Intellectually Dishonest

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but recently in a discussion it was argued that Atheists are "intellectually dishonest," and the theory here is that this is because someone would have to essentially be God in order to simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, which would be necessary in order to know that there is no God. For this reason they argued that atheism is intellectually dishonest, adding that agnosticism is the better, more honest choice, if one is going to dare to be a non-believer(as if non-belief is a choice?)

Anyway, I contend that this line of thinking is not entirely correct. While I do agree with the part that a person would need to be omnipotent to be able simultaneously search everywhere in the universe, that dilemma could also be solved with either omnipresence or omniscience, both of which many believers also attribute to God. If, say, you're omnipresent, then by definition you're already everywhere at once. If you're omniscient, then you know everything, including if gods exist, or not.

But what I'm contending here is that one needn't have any of those three attributes to conclude, in a practical sense, that there is no God/are no gods. More on this in a minute.

For now, let's look at two types of atheists: (1) those who believe that there is no God, and (2) those who simply lack a belief that there is a God(there's a meaningful distinction there, BTW).

But before I get too far into this, I should point out that it is possible and reasonable for someone to be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. Yes, contrary to what many people believe, the two positions are not mutually exclusive, because one deals with belief; the other deals with knowledge. In other words, it's two totally different subjects. I know I've covered this a half a dozen times on this blog, but it seems it can't hurt to repeat it as long as people are going to repeat misinformation or out'n out falsities.

To attempt to illustrate how I or anyone can be both atheist and agnostic, consider that I do not know for sure, and thus, I cannot say for certain that leprechauns do not exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm agnostic when it comes to leprechauns).

Notwithstanding, I still do not believe that leprechauns exist(for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist when it comes to leprechauns). Note that this is slightly different than me saying, "I believe leprechauns are non-existent!", and it's much different than me saying, "Leprechauns don't exist!".

So, on the one hand I could simply be suspending belief in something until there's conclusive evidence for that something's existence, all the while admitting that I don't know for certain. On the other hand, I could be saying that X doesn't exist and it be implicit that I mean it in a practical sense, not an absolute sense.

Neither of these is being intellectually dishonest or unreasonable, while agnosticism is overt in the former, and in the latter, agnosticism is implied.

If we encounter a person who believes that God does not exist, or if someone proclaims, "There is no God!", the same thing applies; this person need not know with absolute certainty that no God exists to be intellectually honest with one's self and others.

Case in point, in the same practical sense that we can say that leprechauns don't exist, we can also say that invisible, supernatural, creator beings don't exist. If someone says that they don't believe in leprechauns, no one tells them that they're being foolish and/or intellectually dishonest. I mean, imagine how that would sound. Well, I contend that it sounds just as absurd to say that Atheists are "intellectually dishonest."

Now, with all of that being said, could I, an agnostic atheist, be missing a greater truth? Yes! Of course I could! How about a more awesome truth? Ditto! But here's the rub: I'd only be doing myself a disservice to accept such a greater, more awesome truth on "faith". Once I start accepting things on "faith" and/or because something sounds more awesome than something else, at that point I have chosen a constructed truth over a truth built on facts and evidence. If someone finds fault in truth that's built on facts and evidence, then I don't know, maybe it just could be that I'm not the one who's being intellectually dishonest?

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Social Media Christian no. 2,899,761

Hi, all,

Okay, yes, I pulled that number out of thin air :p

But seriously, it really does seem like I've had conversations well into the millions with Christians on social media. Well, yesterday I crossed paths with yet another social media Christian(friend of a friend), a guy who I quickly found out had some very bizarre views on the topic of morality, which of course, he claims comes from Christianity(this is demonstrably false, but that is for another discussion)

It all started with a meme that a mutual friend posted, one where pop skeptic Penn Jillette is pictured and is quoted, saying....

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

The reasonable among us understand the point he is making. But at least one person, a guy who I will simply call "jj"(his initials), either pretended to not understand the point being made, or willingly misunderstood it, countering back....

Believe true Christian thinks that a 'person' is watching over them.

I remarked back that the distinction he made is irrelevant, because Penn Jillette is simply making the observation that he finds it inconceivable that the only thing stopping some people from murdering and raping is the notion that they're being watched, with the possibility of being judged at a later time.

So, like clockwork, jj fires back....

Anyone who actually KNOWS and believes in the Spirit of God is not going to be drawn to raping and murdering

Did you catch that? Okay, anyone who's ever read a newspaper headline or a social media news feed knows that this is false. For starters, Christians, themselves, are some of the first people to admit that they are drawn to "sin", but always add that the "Holy Spirit" protects them, well, unless they slip up and get caught. When that happens, then they are sure to let you know that they are "forgiven", and this seems to align with one platitude in particular that goes, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

We all know that one, don't we? And yet, in this instance when I called the apologist out, rather than him point out that Christians aren't perfect and can "sin" like everyone else, he instead attempted the ever popular, "Not a True Christian!" argument, aka, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Yes, the learned Christian apologist proffered that, while Christians can act immorally or unethically, no "True Christian" could ever rape or murder. 'Funny, because just a cursory look at the bible and we see that murdering people is in fact approved by the very character whom jj will no doubt claim makes him and every other "True Christian" incapable of murder. There are countless murders of people commanded by biblegod, including the murder of women and children. Now, are the ones who followed the orders not "True Christians", then? I think of what a great ministry tool it would be if someone could clear this up. But I wouldn't recommend the holding of one's breath.

In any case, at this point I interjected that, statistically, Christians are just as capable of rape and murder as anyone else, which, in hindsight, might not have been the best choice of words. Notwithstanding, there are statistics and studies that have shown that prison populations have a higher number of inmates who identified as Christian than those who identified with other faiths.

But of course, jj latched onto the "statistic" comment like a fly on guano, demanding that I provide said statistics, which, by the way, I did, but a few of them were given by way of a bar graph. I provided graphs (and sources) for two separate years, clearly showing that Christians make up most of the prison population.

Here is one of the actual links I provided...

Lo and behold, my Christian interlocutor contested the link, calling one "a meme" and another "vague", while complaining at length because it lacked the precise percentages of the inmates who are in prison specifically for rape and murder, never mind that there are also charts that actually do show these percentages:

So, inmates who committed violent crimes, including rape and murder, make up more of the prison population than those who committed lesser offenses. Given this data, we are then being reasonable to deduce that a very large percentage of that section identify as Christian. It's a matter of doing the math.

And yet, this sort of evidence will not satisfy, and I knew it wouldn't, which is why I didn't even bother with posting the above pie chart. Why didn't I post it? The answer is simple and obvious: Because the social media Christian has taken the intellectually lazy way out and simply redefined what "Christian" means. This way, with a wave of a hand, he can simply say that any person who rapes and murders isn't a "True Christian". How's that for convenience?

I'm sure that I am not the only one who sees how vacuous this sort of argument is. I certainly saw it, so using one of my favorite literary tools..i.e..sarcasm, I pointed out that things like armed robbery, child molestation, and child pornography are not deal breakers in this guy's world; you can still commit these 'not-so-immoral' acts and be a "True Christian".

Of course, this is what all Christians do. I did it when I was a Christian. They all subjectively draw their lines. They all project their own idea of how morals should be.

As one might have guessed, there was dead silence on this issue. Not one iota of interest shown in clearing it up. Not that this is shocking, or anything.

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Goodness: All for Nothing?

Above is an image of a galaxy taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. To be precise, it's a barred spiral galaxy called NGC 5398, and it's about 55 million light-years away.

Now imagine upwards of two trillion of these. Seems unfathomable, right? But this is actually the latest estimate that astronomers give for the number of galaxies in the observable universe.

Factoring in this number, ask yourself this: Is it possible that we earthlings are the only intelligent life in the entire universe?

I think I'd have to say, sure, it's possible, but not bloody-likely. 

But for sake of discussion, let's say that religion had it right and that we are alone in the universe. Done.

So, whether you believe that we are here because a god set things up this way, or whether you believe that we essentially won the cosmic lotto, one thing we must agree on is that the life-giving energy from our sun is limited. The sun, like any other star, will eventually succumb to star death.

When the sun has burned off all of its hydrogen, it will go through an expansion process in which it will eventually become a red giant. When this happens, scientists say that this could actually swallow "near by" planets like Venus and Mercury.

Bottom line, though, is that at some point the earth will no longer support human life. Humans, who are presumably the crowning jewel of the universe if one accepts religion's explanation for how and why we got here, will become extinct. Gone. Kapoot. If one holds to a naturalistic view, the same---nature will have simply run its course, and death will have become the final result of life, as it is for every other living thing.

But again, regardless of which position one holds, one thing is for certain and that is that a virtual infinite list of potential humans will be ixnayed. Think of it as trillions upon trillions of potential human beings who will never see the light of day(literally), meaning that trillions upon trillions of people will never exist to experience what I, and you the reader, have experienced. They will never experience childhood. They will never experience the unconditional love of a pet. They will never experience a good book, a snow cone on a hot day, an orgasm, having children, eating, sleeping........none of it.

When it comes to the human experience, another thing we can likely agree on is that there are bad experiences along with the good. On the one hand, we are here, when in fact so many potential people just like us will never even get that chance. This is something that, when I sit back and really think about it, it makes me feel extremely lucky. And if you're religious, you might say "blessed". Either way, it's one of the good things to know while we're here.

Conversely, one of the bad things about our human experience here is that the longer we live, the more we will become witness to our loved ones vanishing before our eyes. There is, of course, this idea that our dearly departed aren't really dead at all, but are still "alive" in some otherworldly realm. But so far there is no objective confirmation for this. In fact, the current scientific data on the subject tells us that it's wish-thinking at best.

In my case, I would say that I am cursed to go where the evidence leads when it comes to this subject. I mean, if it was just a matter of willing myself to believe that which I find unbelievable? Hell, I would do just that, and then maybe my human experience would be a little more bearable when it comes to this topic. As it stands, however, I'm left to believe that at some point I will never again see those whom I love the most. And upon my own death, all my achievements and memories, including the memories of the people gone before me, will end up in the abyss of nothingness.

As one might imagine, this doesn't make for very pleasant subject matter on which to ruminate. And if it's not bad enough that I'll never see friends and family members ever again, in many cases I will first watch them wither away from despicable diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer's. That, or they may become witnesses to my suffering the same fate.

That this is unsettling is the understatement of the century. But of course, reality does not give a rat's patooty about what you or I think, nor does it care about what we hope or feel. Nope. Reality will go about its business of being reality. If there's any saving grace at all, the day will come when I, too, vanish, at which point, I won't even know that I'm dead nor that I had ever lived. My "existence" will be on par with those from the infinite list I mentioned earlier, that is, non-existence. And let's be honest, none of us were sad or inconvenienced before we were born, so there's no reason to think it'll be any different after we've died.

But back to our relatively short stay on this earth---another thing that I find unsettling, especially lately, is how the legacies that we may leave behind could be overshadowed by a simple lapse of judgment while we're here. Subsequently, any and all good that we have done in our lives is, for all intents and purposes, for nothing. And no, I don't mean guys like our 45th President who was caught on tape talking about grabbing women's nether regions, the same guy who gives a nod of approval when his daughter is regarded as a "piece of ass".

So, no, I don't mean people who have a long trail of instances when their credibility and ethics were called into question. I mean people who are seemingly decent, caring, smart, talented individuals who slip up and who use poor judgement a time or two throughout their lives.

It's almost like, in the blink of an eye, any goodness that we do in our lives can be wiped off the table. It doesn't seem quite fair. But as mentioned before, life isn't about fairness, and reality doesn't care about how we feel, so I've more or less answered my own question.

We are suppose to be an intelligent race of beings, so I can only hope that the intelligent among us will continue to see the good in people even in spite of our imperfect nature. And I should point out that this is provided that we're not talking about those who are amoral(without morals)...e.g...John Wayne Gacy, Charles Mansion, and the like. The former was an artist, so most certainly his artistic accomplishments will be overshadowed by the fact that he was a serial murderer.

In closing, I want to point out that I do understand that people who choose to be in the public eye have to be more careful. I also understand that there are real victims out there, as in the case of the current situation where women are coming forth and making allegations about certain celebrities and politicians. So none of this is an attempt to trivialize or delegitimize any victim's experiences. But alas, we are all victims of someone else's error in judgment at some point in our lives. Perfection is unobtainable. It's a myth, and chasing myths is a form of insanity. So it seems that doing our best and hoping for the best is all we can do. It's what I will do.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

The Stark Difference

Okay, so, you know there's something fishy going on when you're discussing the Problem of Evil with someone - for instance, if you're discussing why, if there is a "God" who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, does a child die of hunger every seven seconds - and the person with whom you're discussing this topic fires back.... "What have you done to help a starving child?!?"

I'm going to venture a guess that most of us see the fallacy of the argument right away. And while it might be true that I've never offered food to a child in need, it doesn't address the actual argument being made. No, it sidesteps it. It's a red herring.

In other words, whether I help starving children or not, is totally irrelevant. Remember, I'm not asking, "Why is there world hunger?"; I'm asking, "If there is a God who is both all powerful and all loving, why is there world hunger?" Two different questions, not necessarily the same implications. 

For starters, I'm not the one claiming to be (or being claimed to be) things like omnipotent and omnibenevolent. No, my resources, and most assuredly my powers, are totally limited. I admit this.

 Furthermore, I'm not the one claiming to be able to feed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. If I had gone on record to claim something so extraordinary, then sure, at that point questioning my motives or powers would be warranted.

So, if God presumably has the above-mentioned powers, but yet, children starve to death daily, why isn't questioning God's powers and motives warranted? How is an individual who mysteriously never has to lift a finger in the way of helping his supposed "children", able to get all the "glory", while we the "children" get all the responsibility and blame? Does that seem right to you? Because if I, and I alone, could stop world hunger and human suffering in general, particularly that of children, I would. I guess that is the stark difference between me and "God".

Thursday, November 23, 2017

1 Corinthians 2:14

Welp, as the story goes, the reason that I and other atheists reject Christianity is because we don't understand it. In fact, when certain bible verses are employed, the already eyebrow-raising assertion that we don't understand Christianity is then taken even a step further, as we are told that the reason we don't understand Christianity is because we can't understand it.

I give you 1 Corinthians 2:14

 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

To discern the problem with this verse (and hundreds more just like it), you don't need to be given any special powers, or codes, or passwords. You needn't become something otherworldly or non-human. No, you need only do one thing, and that is to use common sense.

But let's back up a bit, first. If I'm told in no uncertain terms that it's not possible for me to understand X, Y, and Z, then what person in his or her right mind would hold me responsible for not understanding X, Y, and Z??? And how about punished? Punished for not understanding something that I'm unable to understand????

Secondly, even if there was a way for me to obtain the magical or secret component that's required for understanding X, Y and Z, I would still need complete access to this component, now wouldn't I? Yes, I'm damned near certain that that would be the case. If A, B, and C is required for my discerning X, Y, and Z, then I would need to be given access to A, B, and C. Again, common sense.

But alas, where the Christian philosophy is concerned, the creators of said philosophy didn't think things through too well and seemed to forget that some people actually have common sense, because in their attempt to demonize non-members of their club and write them off as things like "heathens" and "foolish", said creators screwed up royally because they employed circular reasoning when it came to membership requirements.

See, if a person such as myself presumably can't know God until/unless I can discern that which is "spiritual", but yet, if I can't discern that which is "spiritual" until/unless I know God, the problem sort of reaches out and smacks you in the face. And that is clearly the problem with the Corinthians verse, which can be brought to light better reading the verse like this...

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit 

So, certain things come from this so-called "Spirit of God", and one those things is evidently the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". Hello?

Folks, this is mental sleight of hand, which is to essentially say that you have to just decide, a priori, that Christianity is true, and then the rest will fall into place. In other words, ignore the circular logic, take the leap of faith, and then and only then will you magically possess the ability to discern that which is "spiritual". How convenient, right?

As Sam Harris would say, this is like playing tennis without the net. And he is being kind, here.

Your Closed Minded!

Okay, admittedly I've never thought about owning a "closed minded", much less what I'd do with one.....:: n'yuk, n'yuk::

Of course, when this was directed at me the other day on social media I had a little fun with it there, as well :)

Okay, so jumping right into it, when you call your interlocutor close-minded for merely disagreeing with you, this amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. Yes, because you are essentially suggesting that if I don't agree with your worldview then, oh, my mind must be closed.

Alrighty, let's see how this mindset stacks up if applied elsewhere:

Suppose that a Christian and a Muslim are in a debate and the topic of the debate is which faith's holy writ is truly inspired by a supernatural entity, and which faith's holy writ is a bunch of man-made nonsense.

Okay, so in closing arguments the Muslim tells the guy representing the Christian faith that he is "close-minded" because he was ultimately not swayed by the Muslim's arguments that the Holy Qu'ran is in fact the divinely inspired Will and Testament of the creator of the universe, not the bible.

Question: Will the Christian debater accept the Muslim's charge that he is close-minded? And what about any Christians in the audience? Will they accept that they, too, are close-minded, and all because they remain unconvinced that the Qu'ran holds the power that the Muslim debater and the Qu'ran itself, say it holds?

The answer on both counts of course is NO. The Christian debater is simply not convinced of the claims of Islam or its book, and dollars to doughnuts the same would be true for any Christians in the audience.

So now let's switch it up for a moment: Suppose that the Christian debater was instead an atheist, and suppose that the Muslim made the same charge in his closing arguments, telling the audience, "Atheists reject the Qu'ran, so we must therefore conclude that atheists are close-minded!".

Now, would the Christians in the audience agree with the Muslim debater that the atheist debater is "close-minded" for rejecting the claims of Islam and its accompanying book? If we're honest, we must admit that the answer to that question is "no", because if we can conclude that atheists are "close-minded" and thus write them off for rejecting the Qu'ran, then by extension we ought to be able to conclude that Christians are also "close-minded" for rejecting the Qu'ran. Needless to say, Christians don't like being written-off any more than anyone else likes being written-off.

So, see, when Christians reject the claims of other theists, it's not because Christians are necessarily close-minded; it's because Christians are skeptics just like atheists are skeptics. The difference is that Christians don't apply that same skepticism to their own theistic claims, whereas, atheists apply skepticism to all theistic claims.

In other words, when internet Christians trot out the argument that nonbelievers are "close-minded" for not accepting their bible, this is just another in a long line of intellectual cop-outs. It's also no coincidence that this is nine times out of ten employed as a parting shot, when nothing else in their ministry has worked.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101

This one is sort of a continuation of the previous post, "Comment Policies", albeit, it dives into something else later on.

So, aside from bloggers having policies set up for guests who may want to leave a comment, there is often times a disclaimer, which is basically letting your readers know your blog's terms and conditions. Most of the time a disclaimer works to avoid liabilities. For example, to attempt to make it so that you can't be held accountable if someone relies on your website/blog content.

Another thing that might be included in the terms and conditions is a copyright notice. This lets your readers know your writings are yours and that they are protected and should not to be copied or reproduced without permission.

Okay, so bouncing around the blogoshpere the other day I linked to a blog on which the blog's owner/operator delineates some copyright terms and conditions. In part, this stated that visitors cannot download or reproduce any part of the website in any way, shape, or form, without written permission. However, it goes on to say that just linking to the website or to a specific blog post is perfectly fine.

So, if, for example, I provide a link to a blog post on the above described website, my readers can then link to it directly and read this blogger's written work(s). However, if I copy that work and paste it here without written permission, I'm apparently in violation of the site's terms and conditions, unless I've misunderstood something.

I confess that I've not taken the time to look into the legalities of it, so I will just post a link to the website and specific blog post I want to address, and then take my chances:

Disclaimer: any and all type herein that is in the color red was not authored by me and I am in no way trying to take credit for it. Furthermore, nothing in this post, "Terms, Conditions, and God-Speak 101" that is in red type reflects the views of this blog/website, Boomslang's Lair.

We know God exists because we see His creation all around us ~ SBG

False. You don't know that a God exists, and claiming that that which exists is "creation" is the fallacy of begging the question, aka, affirming your conclusion in your premise. It is also an argument from personal incredulity, which is a type of argument from ignorance.

It takes this form:

1. I cannot fathom how things can exist without a creator.

2. Therefore, there's a creator

When we see a fine watch, we know that someone had to design it because it is too complicated, beautiful, and high functioning for it to have "evolved" by accident from scrap metal ~ SBG

False. If we're walking around in nature and we come across a "watch" on the ground, whether it be "fine", or a broken piece of junk, we can know that it was designed because we know that watches don't occur in nature. In other words, we can distinguish between things that occur in nature and things that do not  occur in nature. Also, not everything in nature is "complicated"; not everything in nature is "beautiful"; not everything in nature is "high functioning". Rocks can be "beautiful" for sure. But are they "complicated"? Are they "high functioning"? No, and no.

As for "evolved by accident", for starters, how something evolved isn't necessarily the same subject as how it came to be. Origins is one topic; evolution is a different topic. As for "accident," creationists and ID proponents conveniently ignore the "selection" part of the process of "Evolution by natural selection."

 The same is true for the human body, the stars in the universe, and all the miracles of nature -- a Being of unlimited intelligence, power and good had to design and create these ~~ SBG 

False. Once more, calling things (or occurrences) in nature, "miracles of nature", is the fallacy of begging the question. If we observe a tapeworm hanging out of a dog's rectum, have we just witnessed a "miracle of nature"? Or is it simply nature? How about when a tsunami drowns ten thousand people? Does anyone call this a "miracle of nature"? No, of course not---it's just nature, albeit, some people do believe that bad weather is to punish people. This of course is superstition at work, and curiously, some of the worst weather in the U.S. occurs in the Bible Belt. Enough said.

God does not want to force Himself on us, so He made us with the ability to choose Him or to reject Him ~ SBG

We can still choose (or reject) an individual that we know for certain exists. In other words, we're being asked to accept God's existence on faith. So in essence, we're being told that the faith is necessary, because if we knew for certain that God existed, this would somehow compromise our free will and we'd be "forced" to accept him. This notion is as silly as it is false. The "Divine Hiddenness of God" argument has been thoroughly debunked. On top of it all, God was making personal appearances all throughout the "The Twelve" and to over 500 other people, and this didn't harm anyone's "free will". And yet, today the only appearances God makes is on a piece of toast or on a tree trunk.

 There is no evil or darkness in God -- He is perfectly pure, holy, and just ~ SBG


a) God created evil [Isaiah 45-7] . To bring evil into existence would require evil. To allow evil (when you can prevent it, but don't), makes you complicit.

b) to be perfectly "just" would require giving the deserved punishment each and every time, no exceptions. Thus, being merciful, aka, granting clemency, even once, precludes "perfect justice".

  So we have all broken the Ten Commandments ~ SBG

Yes? And? So, what? There is no evidence that we get morals (or ethics) from the Bible or its "Commandments". Besides, how would we even know good commandments from evil ones? What standard would you use to tell them apart? And what if God commanded Christians to kill all nonbelievers?? Would killing nonbelievers then become "good"? Is this a command that you'd obey? Be honest, now.

But God found a way to make peace between sinners and Himself. He loves us so much that He sent His only Son, Jesus, to take the punishment that we all deserve ~ SBG

Someone taking the punishment for what someone else deserves? So much for that "perfectly just" stuff. Christianity's Substitutionary Atonement spits into the face of justice.

He paid for all our sins, past, present and future ~ SBG

Then what's the problem? A debt that is paid doesn't usually require any other actions from the debtor. But yet, for some reason in Christianity words and language never quite mean what they actually say, and in the case of Jesus taking the punishment to pay off the "sins" of the "sinner", there are clearly strings attached. Yes, strings attached, aka, conditions. So, in the end, no, Jesus didn't pay "for all our sins"; he paid for the sins of Christians, exclusively, because they are the only ones who benefit from having their sins paid. Christianity amounts to favoritism.

  No matter what good things we do, it never outweighs the fact that we are sinners and deserve to go to hell ~ SBG

And there is it again. "Sinners" deserve to go to hell. The very definition of "justice" is giving someone nothing less than what they deserve. But does God give all sinners what we are told they deserve? No. Thus, the God described in the Bible is not "perfectly just". "Justice" and "mercy" contradict one another. This is how we know that Christians create and speak their own language. Colloquial word meanings are turned on their head. Only in God-speak 101 can an individual be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just.

 It doesn’t matter to God how many bad things we have done in the past or how terrible those things were, because He knows that each of us is guilty ~ SBG

And this is exactly the reason that those who actually care about things like reason, compassion, and justice should be denouncing Christianity, a philosophy by which a serial rapist can feasibly have their crimes swept under the rug and be rewarded a never-ending life of pure, unadulterated bliss, meanwhile, a person of another faith or no faith at all who has never harmed a hair on another human being's head, gets incinerated in "hell." A rapist need only profess Christianity and accept its god into their heart, and they're good to go. Despicable. Utterly despicable. Thank goodness there's no evidence that any of it is true.