Can we be good without God? by Chad Tomasso

If there is no God, then there cannot be a standard by which we know what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. By this alone, Matt Slick argues, the question of “Can we be good without God?” can only be answered 'no'. He goes on to say that God alone determines what is good and bad and removing him from the human experience would leave humans wondering what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. Matt Slick, a Christian apologetic, argues these points in his debate against Dan Barker at Harvard University, but he is not alone. Most believers have similar convictions. Are they right? First, I believe it is essential to define what good and bad mean here, or rather what morals are. What are morals exactly? Morals are defined (by dictionary.com) as “pertaining to character” or “proper behavior of a person in society”. These are very vague definitions, but I believe this is appropriate. Let me explain. What does it mean to have proper behavior in society? On its face, it appears that morals are subjective to, or rather determined by, individual societies. It is of no consequence to Matt that our society is constantly changing its views on acceptable social behavior: slavery, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. Throughout history we have seen people rise up against these ‘human rights violations’ in the name of equality and compassion, and change the view (of society) on what is deemed most beneficial for all of us. To tackle the question in a more evolutionary way, we might easily deduce why stealing, killing, cheating or lying might be looked at as undesirable actions. Humans are social creatures, we know that. We interact with each other because it benefits each of us individually in our goal to survive and recreate. A fundamental requirement to sustain a functional and sustainable society is trust. Without trust, we couldn't rely on our neighbors to help us in a disaster, or to not kill us when we sleep, or steal our most precious things when we're not looking. On a bigger scale, we need to trust our government agencies to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. The list goes on and on, but lets digress a bit and try to start from the beginning. Imagine if you can, you live in a small tribe, much like our ancestors did. One member of the tribe is caught stealing extra food rations from the group. This stealing affects you and everyone in the tribe (even more so if rations are low). It would be absolutely necessary to confront the member and correct the problem. Based on our experience with other social animals, the result would likely be expulsion from the group, which would be a virtual death sentence for the accused. They might be mauled to death by a wild beast, killed by a neighboring tribe or simply starve to death. In the end, stealing would be considered a bad choice for an individual and thusly avoided out of fear of being punished. In this scenario, it would be plain to see why stealing would be highly regarded as bad, at least in human terms. It would be taught to offspring to ensure their long-term membership in the group. And over the course of thousands of years this teaching and ‘way of life’ will have been engrained in the human psyche, much like ‘do not murder’ would be under this same premise. Divine commandments are not needed to remind humans to refrain from killing or stealing. It is evident we had worked this all out long before the first Jew or Christian showed up. To their credit, however, the great religions of our past recorded these ‘social codes’ in their holy texts and passed them to us much in the same way as our ancestors did before them. If you ponder your own social circle, you will find this need to ‘trust’ others as still being quite foundational to our way of life, and essential to our survival. You want to go out but have kids? You need a babysitter who will do what they say they are going to do. You need a cab ride home? You need a driver that can do it without needlessly endangering your life. You have a health issue? You get the picture. There is no escaping it. So to say we cannot know what is ‘good’ without positing a God is absurd at the least. This debate, in this day and age is old news. Humans are aware of what is good, at least in terms of how we should treat other humans. We each have certain expectations and we trust others will uphold to them as well. These are called morals and they need no supernatural explanation. So what about our need to help others? Where does that come from? It is an interesting question and one that is repeatedly brought up in philosophical debates. Many posit the idea of reciprocity; you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. This works fine and dandy if you are surrounded by people you know and could expect to see again, but what about perfect strangers? Why do people risk everything to help them if they know in doing so it will likely go unrewarded? Let’s explore this by using another hypothetical. Let’s say you are traveling in Europe for the first time. You see a burning building full of children and you are the only one who can act quick enough to save them. It is almost a certainty that you will suffer terrible injury (maybe death) , but you push all that aside and rush in. It is right to say we view this type of act as heroic and selfless. It is the quintessential marker that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. But what if there is a selfish explanation for this type of behavior? According to recent neurological studies, humans are capable of feeling pain even when no physical harm is being done to them. Huh? Let me illustrate by giving yet another example. You are watching a speaker at a conference and in the middle of his presentation he starts jabbing a long needle into his arm. Unless he is on very powerful pain killers, he is experiencing extreme physical pain. His skin registers the damage and his brain receives the signals. The interesting thing is, if we hooked the audience up to brain wave sensors, the exact areas of the brain that are lighting up in the speaker’s brain are also lighting up in theirs. So what does this mean? We are ‘feeling’ the pain with him? You bet. Immediately, we would expect to see several people from the audience rush to stop the man from jabbing his arm, but are they doing it for him or for themselves? It would seem that at least mentally, they have a reason to act on their own behalf. In much the same way we turn the channel or close our eyes when we know the slasher is going to kill his next victim, we try to avoid our perceived pain. Now back to the burning building; are you rushing in to save the children from harm or yourself from harm? It is at least debatable. The science is very interesting around the function of human empathy, our ability to feel what others are feeling. It may shock people to know that our greatest human attribute-saving others-may be steeped in selfish motivations, but this is no way diminishes the incredible act of risking our own well being for others. It should, however, give pause to those who believe that only God could have given us this ‘innate desire’ to help our fellow man. We can be good without God. Good being a subjective idea. What is good for us, may not be good for fish, or birds or aliens on another planet. Good is what benefits humans within the human experience. And the human experience has been going on for at least 100,000 years. Its safe to say we know what works and what doesn’t. What works is good, what doesn’t is bad- put in very simple terms. So be good, for goodness sake.

Should we really be erecting Ten Commandments statues in our courthouses? by Chad Tomasso

Look on any news reporting website, or Christian web page and you will find at least one story about the fight over the Ten Commandments. The headline might read something like this, “Atheists Suing God and His Commandments on Courthouse grounds” or “God’s Law-Constitutional or Illegal?” or “Christians Donate $50,000 Ten Commandments Statue to Public School.”

At any given time you can find two-dozen stories on the battle to keep the Ten Commandments in view of the public…front and center. What you will also likely find is the same explanation for why the Ten Commandments should be displayed-prominently: It is the basis of American Law.

If you think that on the face of it, it appears that placing a religious memorial on government property is unconstitutional- you would be right, and not alone. In fact, numerous cases for erecting new Ten Commandment statues have been shot down by our courts. But this has not stopped Christian groups from pushing the agenda forward, only this time, they say ‘these aren’t religious symbols, they are historical ones’. They argue that without a doubt, the Ten Commandments are the foundation for the United States legal system. Without them, our laws would look quite different.

There is no argument over the influence the Christian religion has had on this country’s development, but I had to pause and wonder if what Christians are claiming is really true. As an exercise of my own sanity, I want to revisit the Ten Commandments and see just how much influence they have on our current laws. Can we see traces of the Ten Commandments in our legal system today? I have to find out. So lets line the batters up, one by one, and see if there is a hit behind the pitch.

Commandment 1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

According to most Christians, this is the most important commandment of them all. If you have other gods, they are quite clear on where you will be spending your eternity after death.

The interesting thing about this commandment is that it flies in the face of the first amendment of the US Constitution. There is no question that the god mentioned in this first commandment is Yahweh or (the Christian) God or Jesus. The first amendment gives us the freedom of religion and no one is thrown in jail for practicing the gods of other religions. Just ask Tom Cruise. Strike one.

Commandment 2: Thou shalt not make any graven images.

One only needs to step into a church to see this commandment being grossly disobeyed. The Christ on the crucifix is the most recognizable symbol in the world (just barely ahead of “the finger”-thank you England!). If this commandment was so important, why is it OK for Christians to trample all over it?

Never mind the Christians’ disregard for this important directive, this commandment directly contradicts our freedom of speech given to us in the 1st Amendment. If this commandment was foundational to our legal system, then it is as elusive as a ten-point buck during deer season. Strike two.

Commandment 3: Thou shalt not use the Lord’s name in vain.

See the first amendment, under freedom of speech. Not only is it contradictory to my rights as an American, but I know what you, me and any other red blooded American would say if you drop an open beer or accidentally hit your thumb with a hammer. Its like a goddamn tradition to yell it out when the opposing team scores a touchdown!…oops, it slipped. Strike 3.

Commandment 4: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Little to no explanation is needed for the egregious behavior of the American people on Sundays. Anyone who knows the bible knows this original commandment was followed by very specific details on what God meant when he said, “keep it holy”. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

Not only do we go to stadium packed football games, mow the lawn, clean our pools, walk the dogs, and watch America’s Funniest Home Videos on this holiest of days, we consume ridiculous amounts of beer after purchasing a case of Budweiser from the local store which is full of hard working employees-who ironically just want to go home, watch the football game and get drunk.

As for this commandment’s influence on our legal system, it’s quite obvious isn’t it? Strike 4.

Commandment 5: Honor thy mother and thy father.

This is an interesting one. At a glance, this sounds like good advice…if your mother and father are loving and caring people that is. It may have been important back in the day when respect in the community was of utmost importance to a family-where honor killings were part of the social justice scene. Not in America. If my father beats me, I am not going to respect him any more than I would respect a slave owner. Additionally, my father would be the one going to jail. This commandment is not only not practical, but like the others, has no trace in our legal system. Honor thy common sense. Strike 5.

Commandment 6: Thou shalt not kill.

Finally, we are getting somewhere. No question our laws are built around this premise, but is the law to ‘not kill’ original with the Jewish Ten Commandments?

It is generally understood that the Hebrew story of the exodus, if taken to be true, took place around 1490 BCE. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was written around 1800 BCE. The confessions that the Egyptian deceased would have to make to pass through to the next life resemble many of the Ten Commandments we are familiar with today, especially the one about killing. The confession is written, “I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.” Surely, it was virtuous to avoid killing centuries before Moses trekked up the mountain to get the tablets, but it was Christopher Hitchens who said it best when he supposed that if the commandment to ‘Not Kill’ was original with the Mount Sinai episode, surely the human race would have never made it to Mount Sinai.

In addition to the historical roots of this command, we can also look at our own back yard to see how well we are adhering to this very important commandment. If you avoid places like Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Florida and 31 other states that have capital punishment on the books, you will see the broad sweeping affect this commandment has on our society and its laws.

Don’t get me started on bible-belt murder rates either. Strike 6.

Commandment 7: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

A society based on family development, prosperity, education and security would have this principle at its roots. However, a principle is not a law, and there is nothing even close to resembling a working law that this commandment has influenced. How this can pass as influential to the American legal system is beyond me, because we all know that adultery is an American virtue.
Good idea, but pointless in the legal system. Strike 7.

Commandment 8: Thou shalt not steal.

See Commandment 6.
I am not trying to weasel out of putting in my time with this commandment, but when a precedent has already been set, why waste a good reference. Strike 8.

Commandment 9: Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor.

The Book of the Dead again seems to have beaten the Hebrew commandments to the punch. “I have not uttered lies or curses,” it reads, short and sweet. This by no means weakens the importance of this commandment, but if we are going to erect symbols of legal influence in or around our courthouses or public schools, wouldn’t it be more accurate to build monuments that display the Code of Hammurabi or the Book of the Dead?
I won’t give this one a strike, but perhaps a foul ball in a full count.

Commandment 10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.

The heading above is quite generous. The “property” being referred to in the bible is quite dated in its descriptions of things not to covet (i.e. house, land, man servants, maidservants, ox, donkeys). Despite the fact that coveting your neighbors stuff is the very foundation of the American way, and let’s be honest, the reason Christmas is the biggest shopping event in human tradition, the question remains…what influence has this commandment had on our legal system? In one word, none.

Strike 9 and a half.

These are the ten most important and influential commandments to our American Legal system according to Christian groups across the nation. We are told that the very foundations of our society were built on these ten significant and eternal rules, but where are these influences to be found in our laws? Clearly, a majority of these commandments have nothing to do with law at all and even go so far as to directly contradict what we accept as essential human rights under the U.S. constitution. There seems to be a stretching of the truth by proponents who wish to erect these “monuments to history”. But if truth and accuracy is what we are after, shouldn’t we be instead building steles with the code of Hammurabi inscribed on it? Or large rolls of papyrus with the inscriptions from the Egyptian Book of the Dead? In fact, why not just erect a statue of Superman and place him at the stairs of every school and courthouse? At least he echoes what our American legal system is all about. Truth, Justice, the American way! Yeah, I like that idea. Who could possibly lie in a courthouse that is adorned by a statue of a man who is incapable of lying himself? There is nothing more American than Superman. I am starting a petition today…Who’s with me?

Angel on Flight 837

The day started off the same way most of my Monday’s do; I woke early, packed my bags, packed my work material, drove to the airport, checked in, got through security and plopped myself in line at the gate along with all the other zombies. I had to be in a business meeting just shortly after landing in Spokane, so time was going to be short. My plan was to take the closest open seat available on the plane, jump out ahead of the pack, sprint to the rental car counter and blaze onto the open road.

I was stuck with a ‘C’ boarding pass, which if you’ve ever flown Southwest Airlines you know the ‘C’ stands for “Crunched between two people.” Almost assured to be a sardine for two hours I entered the craft quite skeptical of getting a decent seat. As I peeked around the corner I was pleasantly surprised to see an empty aisle seat in the third row. I asked the middle-aged woman sitting next to it if the seat was open. She replied that it was, but she warned me she had brought along her small terrier which occupied the floor by her feet. I’m not opposed to dogs, but I saw an empty aisle seat only three more rows back and decided I could use a little more peace and quiet.

I approached the empty seat and saw a small boy, maybe ten years old, at the window and a larger woman sitting in the middle. I asked if the seat was open. The heavy woman replied, “If you don’t mind sitting next to someone who is gravely afraid of flying, it is.” I smiled and sat down next to her.

As the plane climbed to its cruising altitude, I could see the difficulty the woman was having with the turbulence. I asked if she was flying to Spokane for business or pleasure.
“Home,” she said with a sincere smile. “I am finally going home.”As we chatted I discovered she had gone to California to see her older daughter. What was supposed to be a two week stay had turned into a month-long nightmare. The young boy next to her was her grandchild. He was flying back with her to see the rest of the family.

The conversation was pleasant. She talked about her work, I told her about mine. Then I began to notice as the conversation drew on she was finishing what seemed to be every sentence with “God willing”, “Praise Jesus” and “In Jesus’name.” I wasn’t turned off by this, but do you know how hard it is to casually work these into every sentence? At that moment I remembered I had placed my Portable Atheist book by Christopher Hitchens into the pocket just in front of me. I had been talking with this woman for so long I had forgotten I put it there. Of course I started to panic. Not a full-fledged panic, but a mild ‘I hope she doesn’t ask me if I believe in Jesus’ sort of panic. I didn’t want to ruffle any feathers, especially one who seemed to care quite deeply about her faith and one who was already in a fragile state.

“I prayed this morning that an angel would protect me and my grandson during the flight,” she told me quite nonchalantly. “I had the whole church praying to keep this plane in the air today. I thought maybe an angel would just help keep the plane on course, but God sent one to sit next to us.”

I couldn’t see myself blush, but I felt it. I usually do when I get complimented. I didn’t thank her, but rather insisted she had helped me pass the time too. We had both benefited from our casual banter.

“So, do you believe in Jesus?” she asked. My heart dropped into my lap. There it was; the ultimate question. I wasn’t surprised she asked, just taken off guard that it was so straightforward. Truth-be-told, I am not one to lie about my point of view and an honest question always deserves an honest answer I was once told. So I looked the woman in her sincere brown eyes and replied, “No mam, I don’t.” From outside the window, one would have thought an elephant had spontaneously appeared in the aisle, but the awkwardness of the situation was more than that. It was like I gave the round woman her birthday cake then smeared shit all over the top of it. Her shock was only momentary, then a drizzle of mild disgust took over. “Really?” she asked. “And why not?”

I never thought about formulating a thirty-second ‘elevator pitch’ about why I am an atheist. It’s always been a bit more complicated than that. But I said the first thing that came to mind. “I guess my mind doesn’t require a god to be happy,” I replied. Even as I said the words, it felt too simple an explanation. But after weeks of reflection and self-critiquing, I find it to be extremely accurate.

I couldn’t tell if she was insulted or just caught off guard. She glanced over at her grandson, who I had noticed was intently listening, but was now pretending not to be. She turned back to me and asked, “You know the stories in the Bible are true, right?”

As an atheist who typically knows more about the bible than those religious folk who preach to me, I could only smile. Not out of arrogance, but out of pity. This was the equivalent of the baby bouncy pitch in kick ball; predictable and easy to hit out of the park. I knew that this was going to open up a more confrontational discussion, but what the hell; we still had thirty minutes before we got to Washington.

“Which stories are you referring to?” I asked. “All of them,” she quipped. “You mean the ones like Sampson and Jonah?” She was already "all-in" on her faith, no need to wait for her response. I continued, “So a man possessed super human strength due to the length of his hair?”

The woman thought for a moment, then almost whispering her reply she said, “Yes.” I then asked about Jonah and the GREAT FISH (never call it a whale-they hate that) to which she confirmed was also literally true. I brought up other stories as well, Israel wrestling with God, how Adam and Eve had two boys and somehow married women who were not of their lineage, etc. The grandson seemed to be getting a kick out of the back and forth, almost like I was saying things he could only dream of saying himself.

In the end, I told the nice woman that I was still young and who knows, someday evidence may be discovered that favors her Christian God; swaying my world view to a more Christian perspective. But until then, my conversion will have to wait. She replied in kind words that I truly helped her relax during the flight and that meeting me was a ‘special event’. Again blushing, I thanked her.

We landed safely in Spokane and as the rows of business travelers and weary parents exited the plane, the woman had one last thing to tell me. “You are too nice to be an atheist. I think you are closer to being a Christian than you think.”
And there it was. She effectively dipped (what was in her mind) a compliment right into the gooey pot of bigotry and hatred and delivered it like a pro. And ‘this is where the problem lies’ I remember thinking. Right here, with this woman. She is the embodiment of all that is wrong with religion. It removes a person’s sensitivity to others, like a circumcision of the mind. I have lived long enough to know the woman meant well, but the censors in her brain did not allow her to hear or comprehend exactly what she was saying. I was “too nice to be an atheist”? What are atheists typically like? Are they killers, hoodlums, rabble-rousers, criminals of every sort? It is clear that an atheist is someone not to be trusted or at least considered to be far from civil or well-mannered.

Although I was happy to help someone forget their fears for a couple of hours, I came away with new fears of my own. Fear that a person’s affiliation to a religion will always outweigh their personality and good works. Fear that ignorance is more rampant among the faithful than I ever imagined. And fear for that little boy by the window; that someday he will meet a stranger who is too nice to be anything but a Christian and thus continuing the cycle.

Ignorance breeds fear; fear breeds hatred; and hatred breeds religions. A never-ending cycle that must be broken. I hope that little boy breaks out of the mold.

Starry Night- by Chad Tomasso

Like most, as I look up at the sky I see an endless universe of wonder and beauty. I gaze upon the millions of brilliant stars burning at unimaginable temperatures, the twinkling planets- millions of miles away- reflecting light from the very sun we orbit, and streaking meteorites-emblazoned with fire as they burn up in the atmosphere. Oh, how our ancestors must have marveled at the site! Of course, they would have seen things quite differently than me. They might have seen long lost relatives who had passed into the next world, or the eyes of a thousand beasts roaming the deep black pastures of the afterlife, or the twinkling of angels dancing in the firmament. The mystery of it surely had provided endless stories of the heavens and explanations of the cosmos- all wrapped in the context of whatever culture they were describing it in.

Gods were created from such stories; thousands of gods in fact. Why, who else could inhabit the great beyond and the unreachable sky but gods? Sometimes these gods fought for supremacy on a cosmic level. Some destroyed worlds while others created them. Other gods battled just to bring the sun up every morning and others to take it down at night. But after a while the stories became too complicated and far too cumbersome to remember. Though people had an explanation for things, and that was very important, the explanations seemed to change from year to year, ruler to ruler, king to king. Eventually, I suspect, it all became a bit comical and just downright confusing.

Then the people decided that one god was enough, to paraphrase centuries of theological evolution. One god could handle it all. This idea had never been tried before, but why not? People could really sink their teeth into a being that was all-powerful and who controlled everything! This made people feel strangely comforted and strangely happy. Sure the unknown was still out therel, but at least this god had it all under control.

Then the unknown started to lose territory. Its borders got smaller, its darkness a bit brighter. The holes were being filled in and people’s eyes were beginning to truly see. What was a god to do, retreat? In a sense, I feel guilty for knowing far more about the world than my great ancestors did. The wealth of knowledge I posses now is embarrassing in comparison. I also feel pity for them. They never knew how wonderful the real heavens were…how vast and beautiful, how violent and cold, and how far grander it is than the one they came to know.

I wonder about the stars and what they see when they look at us. Do they laugh when they hear us call them angels? Do they giggle when we refer to them as dead relatives, or pin pricks in Heaven’s dark blanket? No that’s silly, stars don’t think or laugh or giggle. What about aliens then? Do they look at us and immediately know we worship gods? Do they see a species that depends greatly on the judgment of an omniscient being? When they see every country poised with armies ready to defend themselves against one another, do they see a life form who truly thinks it will be protected by a celestial being? I suspect not. American evangelicals often say that god is on their country’s side. That America is doing the Lord’s work. Why does the lord need so many guns and missiles? Can’t an all powerful being protect its own righteous country? What would happen if America destroyed all its weapons, and told its enemies that God was now protecting them? That’s a silly idea too. We all know what would happen.

No. Aliens see what everyone else sees, a world behaving exactly as it should if there was no god. It sees a species constantly looking out for itself; defending its resources and its sovereignty from other would-be takers. This is what a species does when they know they can’t rely on anyone but themselves.

The stories of the cosmos will always be around, but maybe-just maybe- they’ll gradually change. Perhaps they will talk about common perspective, or our innate human desire to come together when we share a common bond; or our collective desire to know…not just stories, but the truth of things. How grand of a story that would be! In the meantime, the stars will continue to bat their bright eyes, planets will continue to roam the deep and meteorites will consistently streak over the dark horizon. And the aliens, well, they’ll probably just wait until we’ve finally grown up.

10 Failed Doomsday Predictions

Benjamin Radford Livescience's Bad Science Columnist–

With the upcoming disaster film "2012" and the current hype about Mayan calendars and doomsday predictions, it seems like a good time to put such notions in context.
Most prophets of doom come from a religious perspective, though the secular crowd has caused its share of scares as well. One thing the doomsday scenarios tend to share in common: They don't come to pass. Here are 10 that didn't pan out, so far:

The Prophet Hen of Leeds, 1806
History has countless examples of people who have proclaimed that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, but perhaps there has never been a stranger messenger than a hen in the English town of Leeds in 1806. It seems that a hen began laying eggs on which the phrase "Christ is coming" was written. As news of this miracle spread, many people became convinced that doomsday was at hand - until a curious local actually watched the hen laying one of the prophetic eggs and discovered someone had hatched a hoax.

The Millerites, April 23, 1843
A New England farmer named William Miller, after several years of very careful study of his Bible, concluded that God's chosen time to destroy the world could be divined from a strict literal interpretation of scripture. As he explained to anyone who would listen, the world would end some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. He preached and published enough to eventually lead thousands of followers (known as Millerites) who decided that the actual date was April 23, 1843. Many sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed; though when April 23 arrived (but Jesus didn't) the group eventually disbanded-some of them forming what is now the Seventh Day Adventists.

Mormon Armageddon, 1891 or earlier
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the End Times would begin promptly.

Halley's Comet, 1910
In 1881, an astronomer discovered through spectral analysis that comet tails include a deadly gas called cyanogen (related, as the name imples, to cyanide). This was of only passing interest until someone realized that Earth would pass through the tail of Halley's comet in 1910. Would everyone on the planet be bathed in deadly toxic gas? That was the speculation reprinted on the front pages of "The New York Times" and other newspapers, resulting in a widespread panic across the United States and abroad. Finally even-headed scientists explained that there was nothing to fear.

Pat Robertson, 1982
In May 1980, televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson startled and alarmed many when - contrary to Matthew 24:36 ("No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven...") he informed his "700 Club" TV show audience around the world that he knew when the world would end. "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world," Robertson said.

Heaven's Gate, 1997
When comet Hale-Bopp appeared in 1997, rumors surfaced that an alien spacecraft was following the comet - covered up, of course, by NASA and the astronomical community. Though the claim was refuted by astronomers (and could be refuted by anyone with a good telescope), the rumors were publicized on Art Bell's paranormal radio talk show "Coast to Coast AM." These claims inspired a San Diego UFO cult named Heaven's Gate to conclude that the world would end soon. The world did indeed end for 39 of the cult members, who committed suicide on March 26, 1997.

Nostradamus, August 1999
The heavily obfuscated and metaphorical writings of Michel de Nostrdame have intrigued people for over 400 years. His writings, the accuracy of which relies heavily upon very flexible interpretations, have been translated and re-translated in dozens of different versions. One of the most famous quatrains read, "The year 1999, seventh month / From the sky will come great king of terror." Many Nostradamus
devotees grew concerned that this was the famed prognosticator's vision of Armageddon.

Y2K, Jan. 1, 2000
As the last century drew to a close, many people grew concerned that computers might bring about doomsday. The problem, first noted in the early 1970s, was that many computers would not be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 1900 dates. No one was really sure what that would do, but many suggested catastrophic problems ranging from vast blackouts to nuclear holocaust. Gun sales jumped and survivalists prepared to live in bunkers, but the new millennium began with only a few glitches.

May 5, 2000
In case the Y2K bug didn't do us in, global catastrophe was assured by Richard Noone, author of the 1997 book "5/5/2000 Ice: the Ultimate Disaster." According to Noone, the Antarctic ice mass would be three miles thick by May 5, 2000 - a date in which the planets would be aligned in the heavens, somehow resulting in a global icy death (or at least a lot of book sales). Perhaps global warming kept the ice age at bay.

God's Church Ministry, Fall 2008
According to God's Church minister Ronald Weinland, the end times are upon us-- again. His 2006 book "2008: God's Final Witness" states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God."

Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story-by Richard Carrier

Today I am going to tell you why I don't buy the resurrection story. By that I mean the tales in the Gospels, of Jesus physically rising again from the grave. As a professional historian, I do not believe we have anywhere near sufficient evidence or reason to believe this, and I've been asked by the Yale College Humanists and Secularists to explain why. If any of you want to know more about this than what few points I can cover in thirty minutes, I have several writings on this and other subjects on the Secular Web. But here I will cover the most important reasons why I don't buy the resurrection story.
It actually begins with a different tale. In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't.[1]
As David Hume once said, why do such things not happen now?[2] Is it a coincidence that the very time when these things no longer happen is the same time that we have the means and methods to check them in the light of science and careful investigation? I've never seen monsters spring from a tree, and I don't know anyone who has, and there are no women touring the country transmuting matter or levitating ships. These events look like tall tales, sound like tall tales, and smell like tall tales. Odds are, they're tall tales.
But we should try to be more specific in our reasons, and not rely solely on common sense impressions. And there are specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve, and they are the same reasons we have to doubt the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. For the parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written. Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. Both belong to the same genre of literature: what we call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda, used to promote certain moral or religious views, and to oppose different points of view. The life of Genevieve, for example, was written to combat Arianism. The canonical Gospels, on the other hand, appear to combat various forms of proto-Gnosticism. So being skeptical of what they say is sensible from the start.[3]
It is certainly reasonable to doubt the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing, and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any historian would consider good.[4]
Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:
First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection.
Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.
Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which provide evidence for Caesar's march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.
Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions. Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.[6] And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.[7]
Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.[8]
It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.
But reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.[9]
Only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than respected. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent away, in preference for the local wizard.[10] By modern standards, almost no one had any sort of education at all, and there were no mass media disseminating scientific facts in any form. By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient Literacy [1989], only 20% of the population could read anything at all, fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to books. He found that in comparative terms, even a single page of blank papyrus cost the equivalent of thirty dollars--ink, and the labor to hand copy every word, cost many times more. We find that books could run to the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Consequently, only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.
The differences between society then and now cannot be stressed enough. There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police detectives. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show or simply to persuade and "sell" his story, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer.[11] At the same time, doubters didn't care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of which there were hundreds then.[12] And so it should not surprise us that we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century after it began--not even slanders or lies. Clearly, no doubter cared to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to investigate the facts.[13]
These are just some of the reasons why we cannot trust extraordinary reports from that time without excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical resurrection of Jesus. For on the same quality of evidence we have reports of talking dogs, flying wizards, magical statues, and monsters springing from trees.[14] Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no.[15] What about alien bodies recovered from a crashed flying saucer in Roswell, New Mexico? Many people sincerely believe that legend today, yet this is the modern age, with ample evidence against it in print that is easily accessible to anyone, and this legend began only thirty years after the event.[16]
Even so, it is often said in objection that we can trust the Gospels more than we normally would because they were based on the reports of eye-witnesses of the event who were willing to die for their belief in the physical resurrection, for surely no one would die for a lie. To quote a Christian website: "the first disciples were willing to suffer and die for their faith...for their claims to have seen Jesus...risen bodily from the dead." Of course, the Gospel of Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn't believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all. But there are two other key reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons but doesn't hold water under rational scrutiny.
First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in Acts the story has it that he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove anything in that respect. Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told, he says nothing about dying for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions only his belief that Jesus was the messiah, and was at that moment in heaven.[17] And then he sees Jesus--yet no one else does, so this was clearly a vision, not a physical appearance, and there is no good reason to believe earlier appearances were any different.
The second and only other "martyr" recorded in Acts is the execution of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought he died for.[18] In fact, we have one independent account in the Jewish history of Josephus, of the stoning of a certain "James the brother of Jesus" in 62 A.D., possibly but not necessarily the very same James, and in that account he is stoned for breaking the Jewish law, which recanting would not escape, and in the account of the late 2nd century Christian hagiographer Hegesippus, as reported by Eusebius, he dies not for his belief in a physical resurrection, but, just like Stephen, solely for proclaiming Jesus the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven.[19]
Yet that is the last record of any martyrdom we have until the 2nd century. Then we start to hear about some unnamed Christians burned for arson by Nero in 64 A.D.,[20] but we do not know if any eye-witnesses were included in that group--and even if we did it would not matter, for they were killed on a false charge of arson, not for refusing to deny belief in a physical resurrection. So even if they had recanted, it would not have saved them, and therefore their deaths also do not prove anything, especially since such persecution was so rare and unpredictable in that century. We also do not even know what it was they believed--after all, Stephen and James did not appear to regard the physical resurrection as an essential component of their belief. It is not what they died for.
As far as we can tell, apart from perhaps James, no one knew what the fate was of any of the original eye-witnesses. People were even unclear about who the original eye-witnesses were. There were a variety of legends circulating centuries later about their travels and deaths, but it is clear from our earliest sources that no one knew for certain.[21] There was only one notable exception: the martyrdom of Peter. This we do not hear about until two or three generations after the event, and it is told in only one place: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which was rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh...[22]
Which brings us to the second point: it seems distinctly possible, if not definite, that the original Christians did not in fact believe in a physical resurrection (meaning a resurrection of his corpse), but that Jesus was taken up to heaven and given a new body--a more perfect, spiritual body--and then "the risen Jesus" was seen in visions and dreams, just like the vision Stephen has before he dies, and which Paul has on the road to Damascus. Visions of gods were not at all unusual, a cultural commonplace in those days, well documented by Robin Lane Fox in his excellent book Pagans and Christians.[23] But whatever their cause, if this is how Christianity actually started, it means that the resurrection story told in the Gospels, of a Jesus risen in the flesh, does not represent what the original disciples believed, but was made up generations later. So even if they did die for their beliefs, they did not die for the belief that Jesus was physically resurrected from the grave.
That the original Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection is hinted at in many strange features of the Gospel accounts of the appearances of Jesus after death, which may be survivals of an original mystical tradition later corrupted by the growing legend of a bodily resurrection, such as a Jesus that they do not recognize, or who vanishes into thin air.[24] But more importantly, it is also suggested by the letters of Paul, our earliest source of information on any of the details of the original Christian beliefs. For Paul never mentions or quotes any of the Gospels, so it seems clear that they were not written in his lifetime. This is supported by internal evidence that suggests all the Gospels were written around or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., well after Paul's last surviving letter, which was written around the year 58.[25]
Yet Paul never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh. He never mentions empty tombs, physical appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into heaven afterward (i.e. when Paul mentions the ascension, he never ties it to appearances in this way, and never distinguishes it from the resurrection event itself). In Galatians 1 he tells us that he first met Jesus in a "revelation" on the road to Damascus, not in the flesh, and the Book of Acts gives several embellished accounts of this event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more).[26] Then in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reports that all the original eye-witnesses--Peter, James, the Twelve Disciples, and hundreds of others--saw Jesus in essentially the same way Paul did. The only difference, he says, was that they saw it before him. He then goes on to build an elaborate description of how the body that dies is not the body that rises, that the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and how the resurrected body is a new, spiritual body. All this seems good evidence that Paul did not believe in the resurrection of a corpse, but something fundamentally different.[27]
Finally, when we examine the Gospel record closely, it becomes apparent that the physical nature of the resurrection was a growing legend, becoming more and more fabulous over time, a good sign that it wasn't the original story. Now, we don't actually know when any of the Gospels were written, but we can infer their chronological order. Luke and Matthew both copy whole phrases from Mark and arrange them in an identical order as found in Mark, so it is clear that Mark came first among those three. Scholars dispute whether Luke preceded Matthew or the other way around, but it seems to me that, since they show no apparent awareness of each other, they were written around the same time, though scholars generally hold that Luke perhaps wrote later than Matthew. John presents the most theologically elaborate of the accounts, suggesting a late development, and even earliest Christian tradition held that this Gospel was the last to be written, and scholars generally agree on this.
So we start with Mark. It is little known among the laity, but in fact the ending of Mark, everything after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest versions of that Gospel that survive.[28] It was added some time late in the 2nd century or even later. Before that, as far as we can tell, Mark ended at verse 16:8. But that means his Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man [29] that Jesus would be seen in Galilee--nothing is said of how he would be seen. This was clearly unsatisfactory for the growing powerful arm of the Church a century later, which had staked its claim on a physical resurrection, against competing segments of the Church usually collectively referred to as the Gnostics (though not always accurately). So an ending was added that quickly pinned some physical appearances of Jesus onto the story, and for good measure put in the mouth of Christ rabid condemnations of those who didn't believe it.[30] But when we consider the original story, it supports the notion that the original belief was of a spiritual rather than a physical event. The empty tomb for Mark was likely meant to be a symbol, not a historical reality, but even if he was repeating what was told him as true, it was not unusual in the ancient world for the bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world: being deified entailed being taken up into heaven, as happened to men as diverse as Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana, and Mark's story of an empty tomb would simply represent that expectation.[31]
A decade or two passes, and then Matthew appears. As this Gospel tells it, there was a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel--blazing like lightning--descended from the sky and paralyzed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single handedly before several witnesses--and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Obviously we are seeing a clear case of legendary embellishment of the otherwise simple story in Mark. Then in Matthew a report is given (similar to what was later added to Mark), where, contrary to the angel's announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and grab his feet as he speaks.[32]
Then, maybe a little later still, Luke appears, and suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself.[32a] As happened in Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.[33]
Finally along comes John, perhaps after another decade or more. Now the legend has grown full flower, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. And outdoing Luke in style, John has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the Disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrations of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes license to make up a lot of details.[34]
We have no primary sources on what was going on in the forty years of the Church between Paul in the year 58 and Clement of Rome in the year 95, and Paul tells us almost nothing about what happened in the beginning. We only conjecture that the Gospels were written between Paul and Clement, though they may have been written even ten or twenty years later still. But what I suspect happened is something like this: Jesus died, was buried, and then in a vision or dream appeared to one or more of his Disciples, convincing them he had ascended to heaven, marking the beginning of the fast-approaching End Times as the first to be raised, and then what began in the simple story of Mark as a symbolic allusion to an ascended Christ soon to reveal himself in visions from heaven, in time led some Christians to believe that the resurrection was a physical rising of a corpse. Then they heard or came up with increasingly elaborate stories proving themselves right. Overzealous people often add details and color to a story they've been told without even thinking about it, and as the story passed from each to the next more detail and elaboration was added, securing the notion of a physical resurrection in popular imagination and belief.
It would have been a natural mistake to make at the time, since gods were expected to be able to raise people bodily from the dead, and physical resurrections were actually in vogue in the very 1st century when Christianity began. Consider the god Asclepius. Doctors associated themselves with this god, and many legends were circulating of doctors becoming famous by restoring the dead to life, as recounted by Pliny the Elder, Apuleius and others.[35] Asclepius was also called SOTER, "The Savior," as many gods were in that day. He was especially so-named for being able to cure the sick and bring back the dead, and since "Jesus" (properly, Joshua) means "The Savior" in Hebrew it may have been expected that his resurrection would be physical in nature, too. After all, so was that of Lazarus, or of the boy raised by Elijah in 1 Kings--a prophet with whom Jesus was often equated.[36] Jesus' association with many healing miracles may also have implied a deliberate rivalry with Asclepius, and indeed, Jesus was actually called SOTER, and still is today: we see the Christian fishes on the backs of cars now, containing the Greek word ICHTHUS, the last letter of which stands for: SOTER. Not standing to be outdone by a pagan god, Christians may have simply expected that their god could raise himself physically from the grave.[37]
Then there is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries. He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that believers went to heaven when they died. We also know that circulating in the Middle East were very ancient legends regarding the resurrection of the goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar), who was crucified in the underworld, then rescued and raised back to earth by her divine attendant, a tale recounted in a four thousand year old clay tablet from Sumeria.[38] Finally, Plutarch writes in the latter half of the 1st century how "Romeo-and-Juliet-style" returns from the dead were a popular theme in contemporary theatre, and we know from surviving summaries and fragments that they were also a feature in romance novels of that day. This trend is discussed at some length in G. W. Bowersock's book Fiction as History.[39]
So the idea of "physical resurrection" was popular, and circulating everywhere. Associating Jesus with this trend would have been a very easy mistake to make. Since religious trust was won in those days by the charisma of speakers and the audience's subjective estimation of their sincerity, it would not be long before a charismatic man, who heard the embellished accounts, came into a position of power, inspiring complete faith from his congregation, who then sought to defend the story, and so began the transformation of the Christian idea of the resurrection from a spiritual concept to a physical one--naturally, calling themselves the "true church" and attacking all rivals, as has sadly so often happened in history.
Lending plausibility to this chain of events was the Jewish War between 66 and 70 A.D.[40], which ended with the complete destruction of the original Christian Church in Jerusalem, and much of the entire city, after all Judaea itself was ravaged by war. It is likely that many if not all of the original believers still living were killed in this war, or in Nero's persecution of 64, and with the loss of the central source of Christian authority and tradition, legends were ripe for the growing. This would explain why later Christians were so in the dark about the history of their own Church between 58 and 95. It was a kind of mini-dark age for them, a time of confusion and uncertainty. But what exactly happened we may never know. However it came to change, it seems more than likely that the first Christians, among them Paul, believed in a spiritual resurrection, and not the resurrection story told in the Gospels.
So this is where we end up. We have no trustworthy evidence of a physical resurrection, no reliable witnesses. It is among the most poorly attested of historical events. The earliest evidence, from the letters of Paul, does not appear to be of a physical resurrection, but a spiritual one. And we have at least one plausible reason available to us as to why and how the legend grew into something else. Finally, the original accounts of a resurrection of a flesh-and-blood corpse show obvious signs of legendary embellishment over time, and were written in an age of little education and even less science, a time overflowing with superstition and credulity. And, ultimately, the Gospels match perfectly the same genre of hagiography as that life of Genevieve with which I began. There the legends quickly arose, undoubted and unchallenged, of treeborn monsters and righted ships and blinded thieves. In the Gospels, we get angels and earthquakes and a resurrection of the flesh. So we have to admit that neither is any more believable than the other.
It should not be lost on us that Thomas was depicted as no less righteous for refusing to believe so wild a claim without physical proof. We have as much right, and ought to follow his example. He got to see and feel the wounds before believing, and so should we. I haven't, so I can't be expected to believe it.[41] And this leads me to one final reason why I don't buy the resurrection story. No wise or compassionate God would demand this from us. Such a god would not leave us so poorly informed about something so important.[42] If we have a message for someone that is urgently vital for their survival, and we have any compassion, that compassion will compel us to communicate that message clearly and with every necessary proof--not ambiguously, not through unreliable mediaries presenting no real evidence. Conversely, if we see something incredible, we do not attack or punish audiences who don't believe us, we don't even expect them to believe--unless and until we can present decisive proof.
There is a heroic legend in the technology community about the man who invented elevator safety brakes. He claimed that any elevator fitted with his brakes, even if all the cables broke, would be safely and swiftly stopped by his new invention. No one trusted it. Did he get angry or indignant? No. He simply put himself in an elevator, ordered the cables cut, and proved to the world, by risking his own life, that his brakes worked.[43] This is the very principle that has delivered us from superstition to science. Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn't been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I'm not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.
Yet, if one returns to what was probably Paul's conception of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, then the resurrection becomes no longer a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, but an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ--not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself. Though I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us,[44] I leave it to the Christians here to consider a spiritual resurrection as a different way to understand their faith. But I don't see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.

Why Do We Believe in gods? A Scientific Approach

See link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3779,Why-We-Believe-in-Gods---Dr-Andy-Thomson---American-Atheists-09,Andy-Thomson