Saturday, June 14, 2014

The Top Ten Lies of Christianity - Refuted
The YouTube video "The Top Ten Lies of Christianity" was brought to my attention today by a skeptic, and I felt it was worth taking the time to refute the false claims. It's by a professed atheist satanist, Styxhexenhammer666 (I'll call him Styx from here on), about whom I've already written a blog post - Why I Left Christianity and Became a Satanist.

Before discussing specifically what Styx says, I'd like to point out that all evidence is evaluated based on our presuppositions. I don't accept that there are any lies in the Bible, but lies presuppose truth, and you can't get truth without God. So even criticizing Christianity presupposes it is true.

I also want to point out that God is the Judge, not us. Anyone who sits in judgment over God's word and deliberately twists Bible verses or deliberately spreads lies about Christianity to promote their own anti-God agenda will give an account of their lives on the Day of Judgment, and the Bible warns that, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31). God will judge all who love lies rather than love God and love truth. (Or put another way, those who love lies create their own anti-reality and judge themselves.)

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)

But to show the critics that there is evidence to refute all of Styx's accusations here we go...

Here are what Styx says are the top 10 lies of Christianity:

10. Evolution lacks evidence

- That's not a lie. It's true. It does lack evidence.

As evidence for evolution he mentions the following things:

(i) The Fossil record

- "While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples." (Dr Jonathan Sarfati)

The fact is that the missing links are still missing. All the fossils for ape to man evolution are either fully ape, or fully human.

Also, the fossil record is great evidence for the global flood as it contains exactly what we'd expect to find if there really was a worldwide flood - billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. For more information see here.

(ii) - Genetics 

- "Goo-to-you evolution requires millions of information-adding mutations to generate the encyclopaedic information in the genome, but it’s doubtful that we have observed even one."
(Dr Jonathan Sarfati).

For more on the impossibility of evolution from what we know about genetics see the following article -

(iii) Archeology - the human race has been shown to have changed in the archeological record

- No it hasn't - it's only changed in the imagination of people who make secular museum exhibits. So called cave men, were just people who lived in caves, and were no less human or less intelligent than we are. (In fact they were probably more intelligent than we are.)


Archeology again and again has confirmed the truth of the Bible. (See Q & A on Archeology at here.)

(iv) Common sense - microevolution therefore macroevolution given enough time.

- His logic is sound on this one, and is the reason why Christians should not use the term "microevolution". There is no evidence for microevolution in terms of an increase in genetic information. A better term to use rather than microevolution is 'speciation', or 'variation within kinds'.

The following is from CMI's list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:

“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.” These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Importantly, the term microevolution will be seen by many as just a ‘little bit’ of the process that they think turned bacteria to people. In other words, it implies that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes. But this is not so; see The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.

9. The Bible is a reliable historical guide 

This is true. The Bible has never been proven false in any matter of history, despite having been heavily criticised. Again and again the Bible has been confirmed true by archeological findings. The following 5 minute video is a great overview of some of the evidence we have supporting the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Styx says there is dispute as to things that happened
- So what? Some people dispute that 9/11 happened. Of course people who reject God's word are going to dispute things that are in the Bible.

Certainly the NT was not written at the date it occurred.

- Again - so what? Just because something is written later doesn't make it false, especially in this case where it was written by God through men.

OT Exodus - no archeological evidence for crossing of the Red Sea.

- An argument from silence is a very weak argument if not a fallacy.

Note - Christians should be very skeptical of any claims by Ron Wyatt. From Arguments creationists should NOT use:

  Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.

No evidence that slaves built the pyramids.

- This is false. There is evidence to support the Bible here.

8. Charles Darwin converted to Christianity before his death 

I agree - this is not true. Again from Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:

Darwin recanted on his deathbed”. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If a prominent creationist recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.

7. Noah's Ark has been found

I agree. Noah's Ark has not been found despite a number of false alerts and hoaxes. However this doesn't mean the Flood never happened. He's implying that because the Ark hasn't been found that it never existed, but this is using the fallacy of argument from silence again.

No reliable evidence for flood ever happening in geological record.

- What would he accept as valid geological evidence if he won't accept the billions of fossils that point towards a global catastrophe? There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Mentions local area flood

- This is a straw man argument that assumes the flood was local, but the Bible is clear that it was a global Flood.

6. The Ica Stones prove humans and dinosaurs coexisted

I agree that the Ica stones don't prove anything, but these stones, and a lot of other evidence all point towards the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Ultimately though the proof that humans and dinosaurs coexisted is that the Bible is true and the Bible has all creatures including animals and humans being created in the space of a few days during the creation week.

5. The sounds of hell prove Hell exists

I had never heard this one before. I didn't need to check to know it's not true, but I found this article about it that discusses this clearly ridiculous story.

4. Many scientists convert to Christianity, feeling their work leads them to believe in Jesus

I agree with Styx that this does happen sometimes, but that the majority of scientists are not Christians. Either way it's irrelevant, as to argue that Christianity is true because of this kind of thing is a bad argument - it's the bandwagon fallacy. Christianity is true because the Bible is true, not because of who believes or doesn't believe it is true.

Those with higher education tend to be more likely to be agnostic and atheist.

- Yes, this does tend to be the case although not exclusively. The most likely reason for this is the unbiblical nature of secular education, and the peer pressure that exists in academia to not be Christian.

The more intelligent people are the more unlikely they are to be involved in religion.- Some studies seem to have shown this correlation. A big reason for this could be related to that which I've just mentioned - the hostility against Christianity that exists in higher academia. Another issue could be related to pride. I'd also like to point out that there are many very highly educated and intelligent Christians such as Jonathan Sarfati who have extremely high IQs and are PhD scientists as well as being creationists. (Sarfati is a former New Zealand chess master, and once drew against the world chess grand master.)

3. The existence of Jesus is indisputable.

This isn't a lie - it is indisputable - to any sane person at least who objectively looks at the evidence.

"The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence." (Paul L. Maier) (

There is no other figure in antiquity who is better attested to than Jesus, so to deny his existence, while not questioning the existence of people like Julius Caesar is to have a double standard. It is also a massive philosophical bias - why is the Bible automatically excluded as valid evidence?

The earliest books mentioning Jesus are up to 50 or 60 years from the date Jesus died. Someone as interesting as Jesus wouldn't have taken decades for him to be written about.

- What does the date something is written have to do with its truth? Most people those days were uneducated anyway.

Why is it that contemporary historians didn't write about him?

- Luke was a Doctor and contemporary of Jesus, and his approach bares the hallmarks of a careful historian.

What Styx is really asking is why is it that contemporary non-biblical historians didn't write about him? Perhaps they did, and we just haven't found what they wrote yet. Most probably they knew about him, but like Styx they were desperately trying to suppress the truth about Him. Did any non-biblical historians deny Jesus of Nazareth existed? Crickets chirping on that one.

And we do have Josephus - a first century historian who lived not long after the time of Jesus who wrote about Jesus:

Josephus (AD 37–c.100, Jewish military leader and historian): Wrote about Jesus on two occasions. The authenticity of one occurrence, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is hotly disputed, but his account of the execution of James is generally accepted, and he mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (

It's a possibility that Jesus was just a fable.

- No, it's not. The Bible is true and you can't get truth without God.

2. The King James version of the Bible of the bible is an accurate, unchanged, 

Well I'm not a KJV-only person, and I'd agree that the KJV is not the most accurate Bible version available today, but the things that are different are very minor issues.

The Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Judas, and the book of Enoch were left out of the Canon at the Council of Nicea, because Jesus was depicted in them as just a teacher and not a god. Females were empowered. Too confrontational towards authority figures.- This is just nonsense. The Scriptures weren't decided on at the council of Nicea (325AD). Christians already knew what the true gospels were, and the council of Nicea just formally recognised what was already known.

For more on why the Gospel of Thomas and other non-biblical books are not part of the Bible see this article:

1. The book of Revelation refers to the Apocalypse at a future date

Again, this isn't a lie. This is correct.

Styx says this is probably the biggest lie in Christianity, and that it was written symbolically to represent ancient Rome and Nero Caesar's name adds to 666. If you read the book in the context of addressing the tyrannical rulers of Rome, you see dozens and dozens of parallels between what was happening then and what is written. - While it is true that the book of Revelation was written to encourage Christians who were experiencing persecution at the hands of the Romans and Nero, it was also written with the future apocalypse in mind. So it's not one or the other - it's both. It deals with contemporary events of the time and future events and uses symbolism that made sense to the early Christians who received the letter.

Why didn't the end of the world come during the time of Jesus?

- Jesus never said the end of the world would come during his lifetime or the lifetime of the first Christians. The Bible specifically says that in the end times scoffers / mockers would come mocking God.

For more on this topic see the following article -

Doesn't make any logical sense.- Logic and sense both presuppose God, but Styx is suppressing the truth.

Know the truth.

Truth presupposes God. How do you get truth without God? How do you determine truth? It's not just a case of using Wikipedia or Google because anything that you find online (apart from the Bible) is a mixture of truth and error. And without God you've got no way of knowing which is which.

No pyramids built during the Exodus period.
- This is false as you will see from the Egypt article above.

99% of theologians agree revelation was written about Rome and not written about the future at all.

- This is just nonsense. It was written about Rome AND the future return of Jesus. Nearly all Bible scholars agree on that. In fact you'd have a hard time finding even 1% of theologians who would argue that the book of Revelation was only written about Rome and not also about future events.

This would have to be the biggest lie that Styx has told in this whole video, which is ironic as he calls it Christianity's greatest lie. Anyone who reads Revelation will see that it has many verses talking about the future return of Jesus and the future Apocalypse.

When Jesus returns the second time he will come as Judge, so if you haven't yet done so I urge you to repent and to put your faith in Jesus.


  1. You did well showing the failings of his "reasoning" and the fact that people like this simply do not do their homework. But you know me, I have to chime in.

    Styx indulges in substantial prejudicial conjecture and it appears that he wants to intellectually justify his rejection of God. Satanism and atheism have a great deal in common, both are based on pride and selfishness. Not only does evolution lack evidence, they support their claims through bad logic (especially conflating "evolution" with "science"), rely on prejudicial conjecture when they claim that creationists do not have evidence refuting evolution and supporting evolution, and they have good old-fashioned fraud.

    The NT was not written at the time. Well, let's discard most of the history books on the shelves, since they were written after the events. However, the Bible was written by eyewitnesses within a few years after the events (as you indicated) — unlike many ancient historical documents that were written hundreds of years after the events, and have only a few manuscripts in existence. Yet, those are accepted. Double standards. As for the Red Sea, there is new evidence that the Egyptian timelines that have been accepted are actually fallacious, with rulers running concurrently instead of consecutively and other flaws in the dating.

    Screams from Hell. Yeah, I rejected that one. But I also found hoax sites saying that nobody made such claims.

    Do you know anyone who uses the Ica stones as "proof"? No, they add to the accumulated evidence for the existence of dinosaurs with man. Evolutionary presuppositions will not allow them to see that their paradigm is fundamentally flawed.

    As for the "studies", there are many that are based on loaded questions, selective citing, making surveys based on biased demographics and more. Their studies do not reflect actual observed facts. Also, I've seen political surveys in the US where most people in a group voted Democrat. Who did they survey? Democrats.

    The existence of Jesus...yeah, you can find a crackpot that goes against the evidence, and then use that one to support your views. The difference here with scientists who support creation over evolution is that archaeology has actual evidence and eyewitness accounts, where evolution is supported by interpretations of changing scientific "facts".

    That "Council of Nicea" thing is popular among misotheists, and as you have shown, easily refuted for anyone who wants to spend a little time to research the matter. By the way, I'm opposed to the KJV-Onlyists because they are usually lousy at apologetics and reasoning, and usually base it on bad presuppositions; if a version differs with the KJV, it's a New Age Satanic plan to destroy the Word of God, which is the KJV. Oh, please.

    When it comes to eschatology, I'm a firm "I don't know-ist". Some things make sens for a pre-tribulation rapture, but Amillennialists, partial-preterists and others raise some good points as well. Revelation is highly symbolic. The "thousand year reign" may not be literal because every other place in Scripture, it's symbolic ("the cattle on a thousand hills", for example). It's fallacious to use sections of one Bible book to try to refute the whole.

    These people do a great deal of appeal to ignorance and then "reason" from there: I don't understand/believe this, therefore the entire Bible is false, therefore, there is no God. Similarly, atheopaths will go like this: You are a bad Christian in my view, the Bible is false, therefore, there is no God. Uh, what moral standard can we judge a "moral" atheist or Satanist by?

    Isn't it great to be called a liar (in this case, by his generalizations) by a liar? Thanks for taking Styxie's nonsense apart.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment :) Hopefully the professed atheist who posted this video on Facebook a few days ago will read this blog too, but I'm not holding my breath as I knew from the start that even if I refuted everything on the video he wouldn't take much notice. I actually asked him if he'd worship God if we could answer all of his objections and prove to his total satisfaction that God exists and the Bible is true - but he hasn't answered that and seems to have disappeared.