Some Of The WAYS I Rule Out Christianity (and Islam) as Either "Good" Or "True"'.

[First Draft] 

Today, I heard a Christian (on Youtube) say
"There is something". [Time Index 11:51, at this video]

-- My reply to this claim and to the larger premise of Christian (and Islamic) religions is this: I hope there "is something". And yet, since I'm not a sociopath, I'd rather there "be nothing", if "the something" is anything like what your religion fantasizes about. Although, all claims about an afterlife are meaningless without defining the "i". And that's a huge blind spot for Christianities (plural) and for Islamic religions as well. They don't know how to define it. Until they do, all of their eternity-promises literally mean nothing. However, here is my best attempt to support the general idea of an afterlife: Some species of moths have such a short lifespan that each new year is all-new-moths. But somehow, they all just instinctively know there is 'a place' and 'a life' waiting for them in a far-off-place. And they all instinctively know which direction to fly in to get there, and when to begin that migration. They have no "evidence". They only have a sense that there is and a trust that there is. Now, a counter-argument for that is: #NotAllHumans feel that. Another counter-argument for it is: Even the ones who do feel that ... can't reach anything like a consensus about the details which define that hope or that instinct. So they might all say "there is an "after" for our lives", but they don't share an intuition for where to go, or how to get there, or what to expect once they get there. Granted, there are ideologically segregated groups of humans who reach some agreements about it. They just don't agree with rival groups. However, none of their specific ingroup agreements are born from innate awareness; nor even from logical inquiry. Religious groups reach their internal agreements via rumor-based stories and mutual manipulations. Those stories are given "weight" because people are easily impressed by things like: The age of stories. Many people are also easily impressed by the social game called "authority". People are also easily impressed by the 'familiarity' of religious concepts that are "normalized". Cultural concepts are normalized via prolonged cultural exposure. That exposure seeds concepts into the conscious and the subconscious; which then wait to be fed during times of distress. "I've got some culturally-seeded ideas in my head. Ideas about "hope" and "purpose". Won't someone please come water these for me?". People are also easily impressed by patterns. When doctrinal pieces of a larger crafted narrative fit and lock into each other to form a larger and relatable image, reward-circuits in the brain are triggered. That experience provides a sense of satisfaction and intrigue. The more pieces all connect perfectly, the more impressive the experience. We are "pattern seeking creatures". We feel a sense of reward from seeing pieces lock into each other; even more so from seeing larger patterns immerge; even more so from seeing a larger picture take form as those patterns coalesce.  Every religion has a set of stories. Those stories are a series of ideas that connect with each other. When someone is newly studying a religion, it's the job of the recruiter to guide interested-persons through a process where each piece of a theological-narrative is placed in front of the prospective-convert. Following that, another piece is revealed, and then it is locked into place. That keeps happening until the reward-circuits in the prospective-convert's brain start to fire. With each next piece that is connected to form a larger picture of "reality", there is a building sensation of discovery. Adding to the effect, people are seeing themselves in the image of that puzzle. However, that's because the salesman is superimposing it there; via mental-projection. That can generate a sense of profound discovery about a profound truth; a "reality" where the prospective-convert's ego is at the very center of that universal puzzle. Religions today are drawing from thousands of years of trial-and-error marketing. That includes thousands of years of trial-and-error refinement for ways to manipulate other people's cognition. That's why both Hebrew and Christian ideologies developed through a messy and meandering evolution of competing ideas. That's why today's versions of "Christianity" would all be considered heresy to the earliest followers of Jesus. Religion evolves. However, most versions of Christianity can't afford to admit it, because they are built on the premise of "revealed truth" from an "unchanging God". For me, part of the test I've developed for identifying BS is: Asking myself "What are the traits that a religion has the best-vs-worst chance of appealing to?" TRUTH, especially a "truth" we were "intelligently designed" to be compatible with, would surely resonate both greatly and equally across all demographics. I think that's what we should expect, if this was all pre-planned by a perfect planner. Such an architect would be duty-bound to ensure maximum success for his own desired outcomes. But that's not what we see. There is a great disparity of faith-conclusion outcomes. And that disparity is being driven by factors which have nothing to do with "free will". The better someone is playing 'the game of life', on average, ...

the less likely is it that they'll end up in: any version of Christianity. Most Christians will openly admit this; saying that it takes a lot of pain and desperation ... to drive someone into the waiting arms of Jesus. And that's not even the ONLY thing interfering with people either: a.) God-shopping or b.) Finding resonance with (whichever version of ) "Christianity" you think is true. Geographical location has a HUGE impact on these things. So then ask yourself: Does anyone use their "free will" to choose where they'll be born and raised? Additionally, ... How much money they are born into? How much money will they manage to make as adults? These factors will ALSO have a huge impact on faith-interest and faith-conclusions. Additionally, ... How well-developed a person's logic-skills are ... will ALSO have a huge impact on their faith-interest and their faith-conclusions. A LOT of that is impacted by IQ (which people don't free get to choose). It's also impacted by how good-or-poor their education was while growing up. People don't get to "free will-choose" that either. So, if we really think about it, "free will" is either: a.) not usually or b.) not ever ... the deciding factor in people's faith-interests or faith-conclusions. [It's actually: not ever. Because libertarian Free Will isn't an actually-existing thing. It's not even a rational concept. However, we can just assume it IS a thing. And then just NOTICE how it's not really the deciding factor in whether or not someone becomes a Christian.] Even people who DO become Christians ... are not using "Free Will" either. It breached their mental defenses, by sneaking in through a 'hole in the wall'. - any weakness that was already there. This is why it works so much better (on average) when done to children. Children's critical faculties (bullshit detectors) have not yet matured. This also reveals how Christianity continues to INSIST on SUBVERTING their own children's right to self-determination. ... by indoctrinating their own children (and anyone else's children they can again access to). That behavior goes directly against the principal of "Free Will" those same religions claim is sacrosanct to their "God".

In other words, they believe their GOD has directed them all to VIOLATE that God's own moral ideals. -Breaking their God's own rules, per his command to do so ... in order to give their own children much better ODDS of ending up in Heaven. Meanwhile, their best defense for that is "Hey, we're willing to violate your children too, for their own good, if you'd just let us". Meanwhile, a lot of people's REASON for ending up "eternally damned" is: Those people are born into circumstances they didn't get to choose. Sometimes, those circumstances make a growing into monsters; a monster who will never have the CAPACITY to give a fuck about anyone but themselves. I've known many of these people. I even spent years in "long term relationships" with a few of them. For such people, any message about "brotherly love" can go fuck itself ... UNLESS that religion grants easy access to vulnerable victims, and/or lets them off the hook for their own shitty-ness. Now, in their defense, monsters didn't choose to become monsters. Very specific parts of the brain must fully develop, in order for someone to mature INTO someone who is deeply and consistently driven by compassion, rationality, and personal accountability. Traumas can prevent that from happening. So then this has nothing to do with "free will". Alternatively, a mix of lucky-variables and "endured traumas" can force someone to grow very wise and ethical instead. But people don't get to "freely choose" that path either. Some people just happen to win the random-variables lottery. Later, as adults, they might do TOO GOOD of a job at 'rising to the challenges' in this death-trap-system designed by "God". -and then (according to Christians) end up eternally damned because of it. So then, the people LEAST likely to end up Christian are: 1. The most personally responsible and accountable people. This fact shouldn't surprise us; since the core message of Christianity is the offer to EVADE accountability for our shitty shit ... by ritually and mentally transferring responsibility for that shit ... onto an innocent scapegoat. 2. The most honest people. Because these are the people who cannot be programmed to lie and gaslight themselves and others. 3. The most logical people. Because these are the people who won't be impressed by the logical fallacies that Christian apologetics are built with. 4. The most courageous egos. Because these are the people who will dare to base their own identify and worth on how well they take personal OWNERSHIP of their own failings and their own virtues. They are also the people most likely to let the FACTS lead wherever the facts will lead. 5. The most emotionally well-regulated people. Because these are the people who won't need any religion as a COPE. They are also the least likely to surrender to superstitious "what ifs" being circulated in their society.

They aren't likely to worry about bad luck from breaking a mirror, or the wrath of invisible Entities for violating any of the arbitrary taboos listed in "holy books". 6. The most adult-autonomous people. Because these are the people who can't be tempted to FORSAKE that adulthood in trade for the mental comforts that come with regressing back to a child-dependent-state where a larger-than-life parental figure will take care of everything. In fact, they will realize that a GOOD FATHER would want his children to outgrow their child-state decencies. 7. The most compassionate people. Because these are the people who can't and won't make peace with countless others (including some people they love) being thrown away like TRASH forever (or worse). -And for no greater reason (as alleged by Christians) than failing to provide sufficient utility to a Super-Father's ego before a random death-timer expires on a twisted Game Show. 8. The most equitable/just-minded people. Because these are the people who will understand that: Any system which fails to provide equal opportunity (for all participants) (proven or disproven by causal assessment and statistical outcomes) for: a.) correctly deducing (whichever) TRUTHS and b.) successfully accessing (whichever) mental, social, and physical mechanisms are essential to their quality and quantity of life ... is: (if it fails those metrics) by definition, un - just. 9. The least selfish people. These are the people who won't be interested in nor resonating with any plan (real or alleged) that sacrifices the quantity and quality of other people's lives in order to maximize their own. And let's be clear about this: THAT is what Christianity proposes. -a Grand Plan where: The only way for a small collection of people to make it into an eternal paradise ... is: if most people who ever existed ... end up suffering horribly in this life (without their consent; not something anyone volunteered for, and not usually the fault of the suffering people), ... and then (after that) most people (who ever existed) either get: a.) thrown away like trash, forever. or b.) tortured forever. Only a sociopaths and psychopaths think it's "good news". Anyone ELSE who claims to think that's "good news" is failing to honor and confess what they really think about. -- TRUTH should either resonate with every demographic equally (if we're all intelligently designed to resonate with that truth) or (if we are not intelligent designed) resonate the most with the most mature and adaptable people. But we don't see either of those things happening with Evangelical Christianity. Instead, Christianity has (by far) the best chance of working on people who are: the least educated ABOUT that religion's history, the least educated about language (as a science), the least educated about human psychology, sociology, and neurophysiology, the least emotionally well-regulated, the least mentally developed (ie. children), the most child-state-dependent/needy adults, the least ethically developed, the least logically developed, etc.. Please notice: I am NOT comparing Christians to atheists. The question of "who does atheism have the strongest appeal to?" is a different topic. The question of "which people do OTHER religions have the strongest appeal to?" is also a different topic. I'm only talking about which traits Christianity must target for maximum chance of success-at-spreading. Although, I'd be making the same points if we were talking about Islam, or any other moral-authoritarian religion. Thus, we see local "outreach" campaigns, and overseas "missionary" work, and domestic indoctrination programs ... focusing specifically: on children, and on people who are emotionally overwhelmed, and on people who are both economically and educationally impoverished. In other words, like any viral disease, the "complex viral memetic" of religious fundamentalism(s) ... must target the extra-vulnerable, in order to spread effectively from one brain-computer's Operating System to another. They don't really rely on facts, or logic, or virtue. They may "include" carefully selected facts and arguments. They may include (intentionally) vague (or intentionally misrepresented) ethical precepts. But they'll carefully avoid various facts, arguments, and ethical precepts their theology is incompatible with. They rely on identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities. Truth doesn't work that way. Neither does basic human decency. -- Case in point, think about all the lives destroyed by abusive religious concepts being pushed into vulnerable heads. Think about all the young adults and very young children who are somewhere on the LGBT+ spectrum ... who are driven (by Christian and Islamic ideologies) to such pain that they end up wanting to Un-ALIVE themselves, just to escape that pain. It is a fair and useful test of any religion, to consider the EFFECT that religion has on vulnerable people's lives; including their psychological health, ego-health, logic skills, and ethical traits. I care LESS about how many people those religions have HELPED; especially since most (maybe all) of those people would have been helped the same (or more) by secular means. -And CERTAINLY those people would be helped better (by comparison) if all those people would have been helped by a non-abusive religion instead of an abusive religion. I care MORE about all the people those religions (unscrupulous ideology-spreaders) grievously injured. I also consider the effect that religion has on societies. Christianity fails DRAMATICALLY, here, as well. Please note, again, that I am NOT comparing Christianity to atheism, nor to any non-Christian religion. Christianities (plural) simply have: a.) non-respect-worthy methods of transference, and b.) non-respect-worthy effects on human individuals, nor human social, nor societal systems. Non-Christians religions can SUCK however much they might suck. ATHEISTS can SUCK however much they stuck too. But if a 'people group' has some great and essential truth, as GIVEN to them by a literally perfect, Multi-Omni BEING, then we MUST hold them to a higher standard. Every competing version of "Christianity" fails to live up to a higher standard. Their methods and fruit are rotten; at the same-or-worse rate as any other competing demographic. At the same time, the occasionally good fruit that a Christian either demonstrates or testifies about ... develops the SAME for people in RIVAL religious factions. So then, if there are some Beyond-Human Super-People doing both trivial and life-saving favors for lucky faith-lottery winners, then: They are "meeting you where you are"; the same as they do for Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholic, Mormons, Baptists, Hindus, Muslims (both the peaceful and the violent versions, etc.. So then, you could use that to defend "faith, in general". But you couldn't use that (honestly) as an "only my kind of faith" argument. Because: The benefits (or "fruits")... are not unique to your religion; neither in frequency nor in power. Thus, not in reality. Thus, not in truth.