90 Atheist Quotes That Christians and Atheists Should Read


What follows is a compilation of quotes from atheists. Some of the quotes will evidence a militant mentality against religion, others challenge common atheist assumptions and are even self-critical. This illustrates that atheism cannot be viewed monolithically, but that atheism comes in an array of forms evidencing various interests and strategies.

1. Not all atheists are bigots towards religion

Atheist humanist philosopher Richard Norman believes that religious and non-religious people must work together if progress is to ever take place in dialogue. He contends that simple, inaccurate generalizations will not help:

Humanism is more than atheism, it is about putting humanist beliefs and values into practice and trying to make the world a better place. And that is impossible unless we’re prepared to cooperate with others who share those values, including those for whom the values are  inseparable from a religious commitment . . . We have problems enough in the world. The threats of climate change, global poverty, war and repression and intolerance can never be countered unless we are prepared to work together on the basis of a shared humanity. Simplistic generalizations about religion don’t help” (1).

 2. God’s existence is not a trivial matter

God’s existence is a crucial question that many realize has significant ramifications to many, if not all, aspects of human life including questions of value, morality, purpose, meaning, and more. According to the anti-theist Richard Dawkins, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer” (2).

The atheist existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre explains what he believes the consequences are if one rejects belief in a creator God: “If God does not exist… man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon, either within or outside himself” (44).

3. Many atheists are critical of New Atheism

Not much is new about the New Atheists other than a hyped intensity with which they disdain all things religion. But such an approach to religion is not viewed favorably by all atheists. According to atheist Gary Wolf:

“The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But so far, their provocation has failed to take hold… I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there’s always a chance we could turn out to be wrong” (3).

According to the father of secular humanism Paul Kurtz, “I think they are atheist fundamentalists. They’re anti-religious and they’re mean spirited, unfortunately. Now, they are very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good” (4).

Likewise naturalist philosopher Michael Ruse has been one of the most skeptical voices when it comes to the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins. Talking of a book released by Dawkins, Ruse claims that “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why” (5).

Michael Shermer, the The Skeptics Society, notes the existence of atheistic fundamentalism within science; he complains that “Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious sceptics… Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance” (19).

4. Atheism is underscored by a hopeless worldview

Many atheists have not shied away from conceding that atheism eliminates any sense of objective purpose in life. In one debate, an atheist activist Dan Barker remarked that “There is no purpose to life, and we should not want there to be a purpose to life because if there was that would cheapen life” (6).

Many atheists feel the nihilistic force behind their philosophy, as in the words of the late William Provine,

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either” (7).

Provine would also say that “No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there any absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life” (34).

Further, after Richard Dawkins had published his The God Delusion (2006) he brings light to concerns forwarded to him by his readers,

A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism” (31).

Despite the existential nihilism, Dawkins attempts to dampen its impact somewhat: “Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life’s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway?” (32)

The atheist chemist Peter Atkins painted the rosy picture of us being “children of chaos,” and that “the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe” (33).

Jon Casimir is forthright: “Here’s what I think. There is no meaning of life. The whole thing is a gyp, a never-ending corridor to nowhere. What is passed off as an all-important search is basically just a bunch of philosophers scrabbling about on their knees, trying to find a lost sock in the cosmic laundromat” (35).

Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre articulates what appears to be a nihilistic epiphany: “I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe… I was just thinking… that here we are, all of us, eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence and there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing” (48).

Atheist philosopher and materialist Thomas Nagel explains that “It is often remarked that nothing we do now will matter in a million years. But if that is true, then by the same token, nothing that will be the case in a million years matters now. In particular, it does not matter now that in million years nothing we do now will matter” (75). In another of his works, Nagel believes that “Even if life as a whole is meaningless, perhaps that’s nothing to worry about. Perhaps we can recognise it and just go on as before” (76).

5. Objective moral values do not exist on atheism

Many atheists concede that objective moral values do not exist on atheism. Rather, we are left with moral subjectivism. The atheist activist and president of American Atheists David Silverman states that “There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions… “The hard answer is it [moral decision making] is a matter of opinion” (8).

The nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that “When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality. For the latter is not self-evident… Christianity is a system” (9). Nietzsche would go on to see that if God does not exist then “everything is permitted” (11).

Philosopher Julian Baggini articulates this contention well: “If there is no single moral authority [i.e. if there is no God, then] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are… moral claims are judgments [that] it is always possible for someone to disagree with… without saying something that is factually false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error” (12).

Secular writer for American Thinker John Steinrucken believes that atheists should do some self-reflection: “Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist!” (29).

Michael Ruse concludes claiming that our “sense” of morality is a byproduct of sociobiological evolution,

In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate… Ethical codes work because they drive us to go against our selfish day to day impulses in favour of long-term group survival and harmony… Furthermore, the way our biology forces our ends is by making us think that there is an objective, higher code to which we are all subject… ethics is a shared illusion of the human race” (74).

6. Moral values can only be grounded in God

According to philosopher Richard Taylor: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone” (10).

7. Atheism remains a minority worldview

It would seem that claims of God’s death have been proven to be somewhat premature, as Wilson notes: “Naturalistic atheism remains the orthodox worldview of Western intellectual culture, despite the fact that its advocates constitute ‘a tiny minority of the world’s population” (13).

8. Evil’s existence is not incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful God

According to the philosopher William Rowe, “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God [who is all-powerful and all-good]. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed… there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God” (14).

9. Belief in God is alive

Michel Onfray in his book In Defense of Atheism writes that “Never more than today has there been such evidence of vitality in… the return to religious thinking, proof that God is not dead but that he was merely and briefly dozing… The trend has escalated to such an extent that we are now obliged to take up old defensive positions” (15).

Michael Shermer explains that “At the beginning of the twentieth century social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the end of the century because of the secularization of society. In fact… the opposite has occurred… Not only is God not dead, as Nietzsche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive” (16).

Gavin Hyman, in Atheism in Modern History (2006), similarly believes that “although modernity has undoubtedly witnessed a turn from tradition-based religious commitment, this has not resulted in the widespread atheism that many had previously predicted… In fact, outright atheism remains a minority confession, and the modern Western world has witnessed the proliferation of alternative ‘spiritualities’ of various kinds,” and a major reason for this is that “Many, it seems, are dissatisfied with atheism as the ‘final truth’ of the human condition” (17).

10. Christianity is not a force for evil

It is common to come across anti-theist materials that religions, including Christianity, are forces for evil in the world. But some atheist speak of Christianity being a less threatening religion than others. The New Atheist Sam Harris writes that “Our Christian neighbours… are right to be outraged by this pretence of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery than Christianity has been for a very, very long time” (18). Similarly, philosopher Michael Ruse believes that “it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims… ” (28)

11. The New Atheists are terrible at arguments

Although one might except a criticism like this to come from a theist, a number of atheists have also criticized their own, especially the New Atheists. French atheist anthropologist Scott Atran explains that,

The arguments being put forward here are extraordinarily blind and simplistic… I just don’t think scientists, when they step out of science, have any better insight than the ordinary schmuck on the street. It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” (20)

Philosopher Richard Norman finds anti-religious generalizations questionable: “By far the commonest criticism directed against the New Atheists is that they do over-generalize, and I think that the criticism is justified” (21). Norman is furthermore critical of the late New Atheist Christopher Hitchens:

The circularity of Hitchens’ argument [is that] Religion poisons everything. What about the good things done in the name of religion? If they’re really good, that just shows that they’re not really religious. The same circular argument appears in Hitchens’ discussion of the atrocities generated by secular creeds. He says of totalitarian societies that because their leaders are regarded as infallible, such states are theocracies and therefore essentially religious” (22).

Thomas Nagel is critical of Richard Dawkins’ work: “Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy the traditional… arguments for the existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm. I found these attempts at philosophy, along with those in a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak” (23).

Michael Ruse does not view Dawkins’ criticism of religion favorably saying that “I think Dawkins is ignorant of just about every aspect of philosophy and theology and it shows” (24). Even more fiercely, he says that Dawkins and his peers are “absolute disasters”:

I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle… what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will” (25).

Michael Shermer winces at the embarrassing arguments and statements made by Dawkins on religious people,

I found myself wincing at Dawkins’ references to religious people as ‘faith-heads,’ as being less intelligent, poor at reasoning, or even deluded, and to religious moderates as enablers of terrorism. I shudder because I have religious friends and colleagues who do not fit these descriptors, and I empathize at the pain such pejorative appellations cause them… I am not convinced by Dawkins’s argument that without religion there would be ‘no suicide bombers, no 9/11 [etc.]’… many of these events were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony” (26).

Richard Norman notes the false generalizations perpetuated against religious people by the New Atheists: “In the “religion” that Dawkins and Hitchens relentlessly attack I simply do not recognize the many good, sensitive, intelligent and sometimes wonderful religious people I know” (56).

12. Some atheists will never believe in God

The atheist comic artist Martin Rowson stated that “If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him… I don’t believe in God, not because I can’t but because I don’t want to” (40).

Philosopher Thomas Nagel presents a similar logic,

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time” (41).

Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin explains his commitment to materialism, no matter what he has an “a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods… of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the… world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our… adherence to material causes to create… a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying” (42). Lewontin goes on to say that his “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”

The late Australian philosopher John Smart reveals the lengths that he would go to in order to explain away a miracle if he witnessed one: “someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one… Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle’s Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their positions. I don’t know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same thing had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad – I would probably go mad” (43).

Richard Dawkins also exercises faith in his dogmatic belief that every cause in the universe must be natural in origin and explanation: “The kind of explanation we come up with must… make use of the laws of physics, and nothing more than the laws of physics” (47).

13. Science does not make it impossible to believe in God

Atheist cosmologist Lawrence Krauss explains that “Science’s success does not mean it encompasses the entirety of human intellectual experience… Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it” (45).

In a similar manner, Michael Ruse claims that he does “not see that committing oneself to science necessarily implies that one thinks that all of religion is false…” (46).

Elsewhere, Ruse dispels the myth that science and religion have always been in conflict:

Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity, it was the Church that was the home of science . . . the arrival of evolution, particularly in the form of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, put this tolerance to severe test. But without denying that there were strong opinions on both sides, the truth seems to be that much of the supposed controversy was a function of the imagination of non-believers (especially Thomas Henry Huxley and his friends), who were determined to slay theological dragons whether they existed or not” (68).

14. Atheists can be cult like

Sam Harris notes a sort of “piety” in the atheist camp after some criticism was made of his work:

“…there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety” (55).

15. Religion, specifically Christianity, has provided many benefits to humanity

Richard Norman explains that “religion has inspired not only some of the worst but also some for the best human achievements…. To present religion and its works in a wholly negative light would in my view be hopelessly unbalanced” (27)

John Steinrucken, a secular writer, claims that Christianity “has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition” (30).

Journalist Matthew Paris, upon reflecting of his journey to Africa in his piece As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God, noted the positive impacts Christianity has had there. Parris believes that to remove Christian evangelism from Africa will “leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete” (36). Paris believes that “Africa needs God…Missionaries, not aid money,” as they “are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem—the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset” (64).

Parris also saw how those professing belief in Jesus has made life more bearable for many in Africa. He explains: “Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good” (50).

He has also seen how Christians, irrespective of race, have worked wonders across Africa: “Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.” (51)

However, Parris explains that this doesn’t seem to fit his atheism: “It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my worldview, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God” (52).

Roy Hattersley criticizes his fellow atheists for their lack of effort in relief effort: “You don’t hear of “Atheist Aid” rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army… I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor” (53).

16. New Atheism and its arrogance

Somewhat surprising is that some of the New Atheists have criticized their fellow New Atheists. Christopher Hitchens, for example, finds Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett’s claim that atheists are “brights” cringe-worthy. He notes that his own “annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called “brights,” is part of a contentious argument” (37).

17. Atheists have faith

Atheists often distance themselves from having anything to do with the notion of faith. Faith they believe is monopolized by the religious. Faith is also defined negatively as something irrational and opposed to reason. But some atheist admit that their philosophical assumptions are indeed matters of faith.  Michael Ruse says that “if you want a concession, I’ve always said that naturalism is an act of faith” (38). George Klein, in his book The Atheist in the Holy City, says,

I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith… The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy” (39).

Professor of biochemistry Isaac Asimov puts his faith in his emotions by claiming that his atheism is not entirely based upon reason: “I am an atheist, out and out. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I’m an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time” (49).

18. Just some religion hating atheists

It is worth noting some quotes from atheist who really hate religion. The philosopher Paul Edwards parallels religious belief to “sick dreams” when he said that “The sooner these sick dreams are eliminated from the human scene the better” (57)

Jon O’Hair of American Atheists claims that “This world would be the best of all possible worlds if “faith” was eradicated from the face of the earth” (58).

Daniel Dennett wants to disinvest his students of their religious convictions, “They will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that – that’s what I am, and that’s exactly what I am trying to do” (59).

Christopher Hitchens, in one of his many speeches, said: “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right” (60).

Dawkins stated something very similar at a Reason Rally where he urged attending atheists to “Mock them, ridicule them… in public” (61).

Theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg gives a mandate to scientists out there in the world: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion … anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (62).

Some might think that Sam Harris crossed a boundary when he stated: “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion” (63).

The nineteenth century French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon implied that intelligent men cannot be religious when he said that: The first duty of free and intelligent man is to chase the idea of God out of his conscience incessantly” (73).

19. Several ways God cannot be explained away

Mel Thompson, who identifies as “a frustrated religious atheist”, asserts that guilt cannot explain away religious belief: “If a sociologist argues that religion exists in order to hold society together, or a psychologist holds that religious belief is connected with guilt, that does not mean that what is believed is necessarily false” (65).

Elizabeth Burns and Stephen Law point out that: “if God is omnipresent and the sustainer of all causal processes, whatever brings about an experience of God will, ultimately, be caused by God. It could only be shown that these alleged experiences were not caused by God if it could be shown that God does not exist” (66).

According to William Provine, “even if every case of theistic belief could plausibly be explained in terms of some naturalistic theory or other, that still wouldn’t exclude positive answers to the questions ‘Does God exist?’ and ‘Is belief in God warranted?’” (70).

20. No evidence for God is not the same as no God.

As Kai Nielsen captures, God still may exist even if there is no, or weak, evidence: “All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists” (90).

Scot Shalkowski implies that to be an atheist one must have good reasons, “if there were no evidence at all for belief in God, this would [at best] legitimize merely agnosticism unless there is evidence against the existence of God” (69).

21. Problems for atheism

Atheists have highlighted what they think to be possible challenges and problem facing atheist. Lewis Wolpert admits that the beginning of the universe in the Big Bang is a “problem”: “And then, of course, there’s the whole problem of where the universe itself came from. And that is a great mystery. Big bang, big schmang! How did that all happen? I haven’t got a clue” (71).

However, even though strong scientific evidence points to a finite beginning of the universe “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created” (88). Stephen Hawking captured the difficutly atheists have with the big bang when he stated that “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention” (89).

There is also the problem of true belief, namely whether or not one has good reason to trust that their beliefs are true on their worldview. J. B. S. Haldane explains that “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” (72).

Thomas Nagel believes that naturalistic evolution is problematic for naturalism, “Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends” (77). Nagel goes on to explain how consciousness is an obstacle to a naturalistic worldview,

Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything. If we take this problem seriously, and follow out its implications, it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture” (78). This would likewise suggest that “Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants” (79).

And on moral realism he says: “Since moral realism is true, a Darwinian account of the motives underlying moral judgment must be false, in spite of the scientific consensus in its favor” (80).

22. The historical illiteracy of many atheists

Atheist historian Michael Grant takes aim at those atheists who claim that Jesus Christ did not exist as a historical figure,

“This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth… But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars” (81).

Neil Carter in his An Atheist’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus does not mince his words either: “It doesn’t seem to bother the deniers that they themselves have no specialization in the academic field they disparage because in any field of study there will always be at least some small contingent who go against the consensus. The existence of those outliers is justification enough for the deniers to say, “This business is far from certain, you know. Just look at these four people who disagree!” That’s how I feel when people in the skeptic community argue that Jesus never existed” (82).

Carter concludes: “I don’t think it makes us look very objective when we too eagerly embrace a position which contradicts an almost universal consensus among those who have devoted their lives to the academic discipline which concerns itself with these matters. We of all people should know better” (83).

Tim O’Neill is similarly critical of his fellow atheists,

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person’s grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing” (84).

23. Atheists on the Jesus of history

What have some atheists said about the Jesus of history? Surprisingly, some have attested to facts that would seem to cohere with orthodox Christians beliefs. Regarding Jesus’ resurrection appearances, the atheist historian Gerd Ludemann says that “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (84).

Jeffery Lowder, a writer at Secular Web, believes that we have sufficient reason to believe that “…the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability” (86). This is important to Christians because they believe that if there is to be a resurrection, then there also needs to be a tomb in which Jesus was buried.

Generally speaking of Jesus’ ministry, Neil Carter writes that “While highly colored by religious bias, the amount of information we have about Jesus is still impressive in comparison to any other non-official person of his time, even when pared down the most essential details” (87).


1. Norman, R. 2007. Holy Communion. Available.

2. Van Biema, D. 2006. God vs. Science. Available.

3. Wolf, G. 2006. The Church of the Non-Believers. Available.

4. Paul Kurtz quoted by Barbara Hagerty in A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists (2009). Available.

5. Michael Ruse quoted by Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion (2007).

6. Dan Barker in a debate with James White: The Triune God of Scripture Lives! Available.

7. Provine, W. 1994. Origins Research. p. 9.

8. Debate with Frank Turek: Which offers a better explanation for reality-Theism or Atheism? Available.

9. Friedrich Nietzsche quoted by Janaway & Robertson in Nietzsche, Naturalism, and Normativity (2012). p. 95.

10. Taylor, R. 1985. Ethics, Faith, and Reason. p. 83-84.

11. Friedrich Nietzsche quoted by Albert Camus in The Rebel (1951). p. 58.

12. Baggini, J. 2003. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. p. 41-51.

13. Wilson, E. 2005. Can biology do better than faith? Available.

14. William Rowe quoted by Pojman & Rea in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (2012). p. 314.

15. Onfray, M. 2007. In Defence of Atheism: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam. p. 37.

16. Shermer, M. 2000. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. p. xv.

17. Gavin Hyman, “Atheism in Modern History” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. 2007. p. 33.

18. Harris, S. 2007. The Problem With Atheism. Available.

19. Shermer, M. 2007. Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messers. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. Available.

20. Atran, S. This Week: Beyond Belief.

21. Norman, R. 2007. Holy Communion. Available.

22. Norman, R. 2007. Ibid.

23. Nagel, T. 2006. Fear of Religion. Available.

24. Michael Ruse in interview with Tristan Abbey in The Impact of Darwinism. Available.

25. Michael Ruse quoted by Peter Williams in A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism (2009). p. 44.

26. Shermer, M. 2007. Arguing for Atheism. Available.

27. Norman, R. 2007. Holy Communion. Available.

28. Michael Ruse quoted by Andrew Brown in When Evolutionists Attack (2006). Available.

29. Steinrucken, J. 2010. Secularisms Ongoing Debt to Christianity. Available.

30. Steinrucken, J. 2010. Ibid.

31. Dawkins, R. 1998. Unweaving the Rainbow. p. ix.

32. Dawkins, R. 1998. Ibid.

33. Peter Atkins quoted by Richard Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow (1998). p. ix.

34. Provine, W. 1998. Scientists, Face it! Science and Religion are Incompatible. Available.

35. Jon Casimir quoted by John Marsden in This I Believe (1995). p. 48.

36. Paris, M. 2008. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Available.

37. Hitchens, C. 2007. God is Not Great. p. 5.

38. Michael Ruse quoted by Robert Stewart in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue (2007). p. 37.

39. Klein, G. 1990. The Atheist in the Holy City.

40. Rowson, M. 2008. If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him. Available.

41. Nagel, T. 1997. The Last Word. p. 130-131.

42. Lewontin, R. 1997. Billions and Billions of Demons. Available.

43. Smart, J. 1996. Atheism & Theism. p. 50–51.

44. Paul Sartre, J. The Rebel. p.75.

45. Lawrence Krauss quoted by George Johnson in A Free-for-All on Science and Religion (2006). Available.

46. Ruse, M. 2007. Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill? Available.

47. Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. p. 151

48. Paul Sartre, J. Nausea. p. 162.

49. Isaac Asimov in An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible. Available.

50. Parris, M. 2008. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Available.

51. Parris, M. 2008. Ibid.

52. Parris, M. 2008. Ibid.

53. Catchpoole, D. Atheists Credit the Gospel. Available.

54. Wolpert, L. 2007. The Hard Cell, Third Way. p. 16.

55. Harris, S. 2007. Response to My Fellow Atheists. Available.

56. Norman, R. 2007. Holy Communion. Available.

57. Edwards, P. Encyclopaedia of Unbelief. p. xiii.

58. Jon O’Hair cited by Os Guinness in The American Hour (1993). p. 172.

59. Dennett, D. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. p. 53.

60. Christopher Hitchens in a talk in Canada on Free Speech (November 2006). Available.

61. Richard Dawkins in the Reason Rally.

62. Stephen Weinberg in the closing statements of presentation at Beyond Belief : Science, Religion, Reason and Survival (5 November 2006)

63. Saltman, B. 2006. The Temple Of Reason: Sam Harris on How Religion Puts the World at Risk. Available.

64. Parris, M. 2008. As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Available.

65. Thompson, M. 2003. An Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics. p. 65.

66. Burns, E. & Law, S. 2006. Philosophy for AS and A2. p. 119.

67. Zuckerman, P. 2007. Cambridge Companion to Atheism. p. 60-61.

68. Ruse, M. 1998. The Philosophy of Biology. p. 671.

69. Scot Shalkowski “Atheological Apologetics” in Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman’s Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (1992). p. 63-70.

70. Provine, W. 1998. Scientists, Face it! Science and Religion are Incompatible. Available.

71. Wolpert, L. 2007. The Hard Cell. p. 18.

72. Haldane, J. 1927 Possible Worlds, and other Essays. p. 209.

73. Pierre Joseph Proudhon quoted by Karl Lowith in Meaning in History (1949).p.63.

74. Michael Ruse and Edward Wilson, ‘Evolution and Ethics’ in New Scientist (1985). p. 51-52.

75. Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal Questions. p. 11.

76. Nagel, T. 1987. What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. p. 100.

77. Nagel, T. 2012. Mind and Cosmos. p. 28.

78. Nagel, T. 2012. Ibid. p. 35.

79. Nagel, T. 2012. Ibid. p. 45.

80. Nagel, T. 2012. Ibid. p. 105.

81. Grant, M. 1977. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. p. 200.

82. Carter, N. 2014. An Atheist’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus. Available.

83. Carter, N. 2014. Ibid.

84. O’Neill, T. The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers. Available.

85. Ludemann, G. 1996. What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. p. 80.

86. Lowder, J. Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story. Available.

87. Carter, N. 2014. An Atheist’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus. Available.

88. Humanist Manifesto I. Available.

89. Hawking, S. 1988. Brief History of Time. p. 46.

90. Kai Nielsen in a debate with Willian Craig: Does God Exist?  Available.


  1. I couldn’t make it through all of that nonsense! That’s a big reason I can not come to associate with atheism even though I do not believe in a god that actively interacts with our universe (though I am neutral on the possibility of a deist-style god).

  2. “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    –Harvard geneticist Richard C. Lewontin


  3. “IN SPEAKING OF THE FEAR OF RELIGION, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

    –Philosopher Thomas Nagel, from *The Last Word*

    • Like we painted god in our own image,and assume that he thinks similarly to the fools we are. I think Leonardo said that,but he kept it to himself ,or he would have been killed by the pope 🙂

  4. Oh James… How sad. The way religious believers look at the world: as though everyone lives by the singular quotes of other members of their group.

    • The citations are hardly “singular quotes” standing alone as though they were aberrations and outliers. They are the buds attached to the branches which come from a trunk deeply rooted in the incipient nihilism that lies at the heart of atheistic materialism. Honestly reading the authors of the quotes in context would lead anyone to conclude that the mainstream manifesto of these atheist “believers” is that the universe and humanity are purposeless accidents. The atheist mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell summed it up well: “Even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” from “A Free Man’s Worship” in “Why I Am Not a Christian”, Simon & Schuster, 1957 (pp. 106-107).

  5. THIS “The atheist needs to posit that blind forces of nature from the finite beginning of a purposeless universe gave rise to their cognitive faculties and abilities.”
    IS EXACTLY WRONG. At the very beginning, undermining the entire post as a simple straw man.

    Atheism (a-theism) is simply a rejection of the theist claims due to a lack of evidence, NOTHING MORE.

    My worldview is not “atheistic, as if atheism (the lack of belief in theism) defines my worldview. It is a single aspect of my worldview. Since atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS it has no need of explaining the origin of species or the cosmos. Those are questions science seeks to resolve.

    Religion seeks to address these issues, who we are, where do we come from, where are we gong, what is the purpose of life and so forth. Atheism is a simple rejection of the assertion of religion because it lacks foundational evidence to support it’s claims.

    it is a lack of theism in my worldview, but not my worldview.

    • “Atheism (a-theism) is simply a rejection of the theist claims due to a lack of evidence, NOTHING MORE.”

      That itself is a straw-man. Atheism is not and never was the lack of belief in God. Are rocks atheists? This definition has gained credence because atheists cannot defend atheism i.e. the belief that God does not exist.

      By that argument theism, via the double negation of logic (a-atheism) is merely the lack of belief in claims made by atheists due to lack of evidence. So yes I am an a-atheist and only lake belief in the religion of atheism.

      “Since atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS it has no need of explaining the origin of species or the cosmos. Those are questions science seeks to resolve.”

      Wrong it makes many unsupportable claims.

      1) Life ends at death
      2) There are no supernatural objects such as God, forms, gods, jinns, angels or demi-gods
      3) all that exists is the universe (those are the opening lines of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos)
      4) Matter and Energy are all that exist
      5) Science will save us from our human condition via trans-humanism, genetic engineering, etc.
      6) Life originated from undirected processes.
      7) My mind is identical to my brain
      8) I am identical to my body
      9) Adherence to the fallacious and debunked epistemology of logical positivism or verificationism.

      All of these are tenets of the religion of atheism.

      10) Religion needs to be violently eradicated

      This tenant of atheism was popular in the USSR, PRC and Cambodia and is still popular in DPRK.

      Also the discussion of past events (origins of the cosmos or origins of species) are not scientific questions they are historical ones. Science cannot tell us about past events that is what history does. By your logic Napoleon did not invaded Russia in 1812 since their is no scientific evidence that he did.

      “Atheism is a simple rejection of the assertion of religion because it lacks foundational evidence to support it’s claims.”

      A-atheism is a simple rejection of the assertions of atheism because it lakes foundational evidence to support it’s claims.

      • Sorry Todd but you are wrong
        Once upon a time, before religion some human claimed a god, no proof just a claim. Over time the gods and definitions of God have changed, but the claim remains.
        This is a positive claim with no evidence, as such all religious claims are arguments from ignorance, that is why I am always asking for evidence.
        accepting that clam makes one Theist, believing in God, non acceptance of this claim is a-theism or LITERALLY “lacking belief in God”
        I have this very argument with other atheists, who also think I need to make a counterclaim of “no God”, I do not. The default is a NULL position, neither believing or not believing, unaware and unconcerned about it because you never HEARD of any such thing as a god, like the Piraha People.

        “Are rocks atheists?” poor question, rocks are not cognizant. BUT, for shits and giggles lets assume rocks are cognizant, self aware creatures with a soul, as religion asserts. Then the original position of the rocks would be NULL, not positive or negative but Null.
        :”This definition has gained credence because atheists cannot defend atheism” There is nothing to defend, as Atheism is not a thing but the lack of a thing.
        “the belief that God does not exist” this is called Gnostic or Hard Atheism, and I do not believe it can hold water either, because it also argues from a point of ignorance. Both theists and Gnostic atheists are making claims, one that God exists and the other that God does not exist. I am making no such claims as I do not have the evidence to prove either assertion, neither do you. What you consider evidence will not rise to the level of evidence required to prove your case.
        IF either position HAD evidence then there would not be much discourse as the claim would be proven.
        I am an agnostic (not claiming knowledge of God or against God) Atheist (not believing in the God claim because it lacks evidence.
        The world is not left and right, there is also a center.
        “lack of belief in claims made by atheists due to lack of evidence” this seems correct, except I am making no claim, I am just not believing in your claim, because it lacks evidence. In that sense A-Atheism is nonsensical, in the case of a Hard or Gnostic Atheist then A-Gnostic-Atheism does make sense as they also are making a claim of “no God”.
        Next you have this long list of things you are seeing as Atheist claims, but they are not atheist claims, they are unproven claims of religion. Again my failure to accept your belief is not a counter claim of any of those things, it is a result from NOT believing your unproven claim. You do not have a lot of those issue correct either, you conflate science models and theories as if they are beliefs, which they are not. They are just science models and require no belief.
        Atheism is not a religion as it lacks all the items necessary for this definition. Atheists adopt other world views in lieu of religion, like humanism and showing love to other humans. We use our human empathy and ethics to guide us in these pursuits. No god or religion required.
        I certainly do not think religion needs to be violently eradicated. The actions of despots will be despotic, Christian ones included, and a great many atrocities occur at the hands of believers who become convinced the other guy is of the devil and therefore it is ok to kill them. This is a failure of both ethics and empathy, religion is good at squashing those in some cases.
        Origin of species and cosmology are both efforts by humans to understand how things came to be, and have no bearing on the religious claim at all. They only seem to affect your belief because they might conflict with what you already believe, they are both long before recorded history, and though they have a historical aspect, could not be human history, as humans did not yet exist under those paradigms. This is faulty reasoning.”Since I am making no claim at all, I fail to see what you have to reject. You just gave me another collection of straw men.

        • Dude, if the world goes by your weird logic then we will end up going back to stone age.
          You said:”The default is a NULL position, neither believing or not believing, unaware and unconcerned about it because you never HEARD of any such thing as a god, like the Piraha People”.
          Now in real life:
          Steve Jobs: I have this amazing design of a cellphone in my mind. I believe we should work on it.
          Shareholders: Steve, that cellphone does not exist. So please be unconcerned about it.

          If all thought like you the consequence will be that we will no more have any discoveries and inventions. And if you want evidence of God just pray to him every night asking for cruel death of your parents. If this gets you scared you know you have found him. Otherwise, just wait a few years to see if they die in that manner.

          • Jella, you are conflating the definitions of belief itself. This is very common in religion as well, in fact the Christian religion, in the Biblical test, redefines the term entirely. This is a definition fallacy.
            The default is the Null position. Before any believer becomes a believer, they do not know the tale, they don’t know about salvation, or Jesus (to use the Christian model). They neither believe, nor do they dis believe, they are in a null position, they don’t even know the story, they are not even aware of the notion.
            your analogy to Mr Jobs is inept as well. Mr Jobs took an existing idea and improved upon it. Even if he were the inventor of the cell phone, which he was not, it would still not equate to belief in the faith sense.
            It would be a theory then, an idea with a lot of evidence to support its validity, the prototype would prove it works.

            Your final paragraph shows me how drenched in fear you live, that you feel you must threaten me with more fear. How heartless of you to ask me to pray for the cruel death of my parents, that is to ask me to imagine, in grim detail the cruel death of said parents. I would never ask such a cruel thing of you. for your personal enlightenment, my parents already died long slow cruel deaths years ago, that is the nature of cancer.

            THIS is the model of God you are presenting ” If this gets you scared you know you have found him. Otherwise, just wait a few years to see if they die in that manner.”
            A tyrant of fear and torment, which you, like a coward, bend a knee to?
            With not a shred of evidence the boogeyman in your fearful heart is real?

            IS that the God you believe in, or is that your anger at my lack of belief because it forces you to examine the rationale for your own beliefs? I fail to see how either is “loving thy neighbor as thyself”.

    • D.N.B , you said :
      Atheism (a-theism) is simply a rejection of the theist claims due to a lack of evidence, NOTHING MORE.
      My response :
      Then #17 on this list fits your summary perfectly
      Atheism is really nothing more than a faith . And militant atheism is really just one faith system trying so desperately hard to eradicate another as it tries desperately to impose its own worldview .

      Atheism is not merely a rejection of theistic claims , it is positive embracement of its polar opposite

      There is no such thing as a NON world view , unless you exist in persistent vegetative state . If your mind rests on a particular assumption of the world , even as an negative proposition , it would still be a worldview

      You continued :
      My worldview is not “atheistic, as if atheism (the lack of belief in theism) defines my worldview. It is a single aspect of my worldview. Since atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS it has no need of explaining the origin of species or the cosmos. Those are questions science seeks to resolve.

      Since atheism consists of the absolute denial of theism and the vast amount of its tenets , if not all of them , even as a negative proposition it must stand as a world view .

      As a Christian I hold the value of heterosexual relations within the context of marriage to be of the highest importance , both for the individuals and society as a whole

      If , by virtue of being an atheist , one refuses to accept these tenets of Christianity , but rather hold the view that people can have sexual relations with whomever and whenever they so please then I would say that atheism POSITIVELY embraces a view of the world and those that hold the atheistic worldview exibit certain behaviours and hold certain attitudes . towards those behaviours based upon his

      Christians reject the belief that people can participate or procure an abortion
      Atheists , at least most of them , would uphold a womans right to destroy the life within her if she so chooses to do so , thus conflicting with theistic views that life is sacred at all stages

      Theses are just two examples of how atheism , as a rejection of certain Christian values , embraces a world view of its own

      Theism , in particular Christianity , is not just a belief in God , but comes with an entire set a principles by which the believer adheres to

      So it is the same with atheism ; the rejection of Christian tenets ultimately means embracing another worldview that conflicts with theistic values

      Of course not every atheist believes in the right to abortion , but the vast majority do . Conversely , some Christians might believe in a womans right to have an abortion , but the vast majority don’t .

      There are always exceptions to the rule , but the point being made is that a persons values and their theistic/nontheistic belief ARE NOT mutually exclusive .

      I believe that you would have a very difficult time proving you NON-POSITIONAL theory any further based on this alone .

      • This is False
        “Since atheism consists of the absolute denial of theism and the vast amount of its tenets , if not all of them , even as a negative proposition it must stand as a world view .”
        Atheism is not the denial of theism, it is the insistence Theism prove its fantastic beliefs a real empirically before belief is warrented.

        The Flying Car Analogy

        A person comes up to you telling you the wonders of their new flying car (Jesus). They tell you it is very fast, very durable and completely safe. It is so safe the company pays your insurance for you.
        They produce a brochure (Bible) full of accolades about the car, which they know so very well. They tell you of their friends who now have flying cars, and how much happier they are for buying them.

        I ask for a test drive, but am told no flying cars are available to test drive now. I have to instead make payments (tithing) until I die and after my own demise I shall receive my very own flying car.

        I reply “No thank you” as such a contract makes no sense.
        I am then told if I fail to enter into the contract the maker of the car (God) will be so angry he will dump me into a volcano if I refuse to enter into the contract.

        I see no evidence of the car’s maker (God) or the car (Jesus).

        With no evidence to support the reality of the car (Jesus), or maker (God) why should I not think is a confidence scam?

  6. I appreciate these amazingly candid quotes. Thank you. Do you have full bibliographic references for them? If so, can you make that material available?

  7. I posted this article, piece by piece on CARM’s atheist forum. I did so because I wanted to see the reactions of them. One poster picked on item 23, noting that the quote from Lowder, on the Infidel.org page doesn’t actually state that.
    I checked, and I can’t find it either. This is reference 86.
    Admittedly I did a ctrl+f with the quote you used. I did not find it. I then did a ctrl+f for Joseph of Arimathea, and found 19 instances.
    While I realize that such large blogs can become unweildy, I trust you guys to make sure it’s all correct, and accurate. Otherwise I simply get mud on my face, and yet more mud on the gospel– making all of us viewed as less trustworthy when it comes to the testimony of Jesus.

    • Perhaps he’s updated the sourcing since you posted your comment, but the source is correct as noted.

      The quote is:
      “…the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability”

      And it can indeed be found in “The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave” on page 266.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s