Matt Powell Part 1: When Bronze Age Hatred Masquerades as Holiness

This is the first part of my series on Matt Powell in my religious nutjobs instalment. 

For the post announcing it see here.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so horrifying. Matt Powell, a minor YouTube firebrand and a self-appointed “pastor,” is one of the few remaining Westerners on this planet with the gall to publicly claim, without shame, that gay people should be executed. Not imprisoned. Not excommunicated. Executed. Just as a side note, this is not exactly a fringe opinion in his circles — it’s a doctrine rooted in a literalist reading of the Bible, specifically Leviticus 20:13, where a long-dead author living in a desert theocracy wrote that men who lie with men should be put to death. And Powell, like others cut from the same anti-human cloth, thinks that this ancient, violent screed is relevant in the 21st century.

Now, I understand that Powell doesn't speak for all Christians. But he speaks for the logical endpoint of the fundamentalist worldview: one that elevates tribal iron-age law codes above empathy, science, and basic human dignity. He isn’t misinterpreting scripture — he’s taking it seriously. That’s the problem. This is what happens when you start with the assumption that the Bible is infallible, and refuse to let evidence, ethics, or decency get in the way. It leads to “God said it, that settles it,” even if it means justifying genocide, slavery, or state-sponsored murder of LGBTQ+ people. Powell isn't perverting Christianity, he's simply following its most barbaric threads to their natural end. Christians who are embarrassed by Powell would do well to look in the mirror: if your holy book can be used to justify this kind of hate (and still be considered “holy”) what does that say about the text? Or about the god behind it?

This here is the problem. It's not that we think that Powell speaks for every Christian. We understand that Powell speaks for a faction of Christians opposed by other Christians. That's understandable, but if Christianity were subjected to the scrutiny that demands objective evidence as the gold standard, then Powell would be speaking for no faction except discredited lunatics. The problem is that other, more liberal minded Christians, are also (to one degree or another) making excuses for not subjecting Christianity to that gold standard. Therefore, since the enlightenment there has been this great line dividing those wishing to adopt a rigorous mechanism that subjects our cherished beliefs to objective empirical evidence, and those that make excuses (no matter how sophisticated) for magical thinking. 

As Hector Avalos documented, modern archeology has killed biblical history. The idea that Moses wrote Leviticus, or that commandments about men lying with each other are direct quotes from God were debunked as soon as they came in contact with objective evidence - the gold standard. Now is the time for more open minded Christians to subject their own faith to this gold standard test, and by doing so they will be further exposing Powell for the bigoted hate preacher that he is!

John Loftus - The Premiere Debunker of Christianity

I have often asked atheists who were once Christian who their favorite debunker of Christianity is. Usually I get a mixed bag of answers. A lot will say that Richard Dawkins is still their favorite. I have heard Hitchens and Russell several times. I think all of these are fine choices, but for me (I was never really a believing Christian, but still) the number one person has to be John Loftus. Loftus is often overlooked in these conversations and I think that's a real shame. To be clear, I do think that Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet et al. have had a profound effect and deserve their reputation. Maybe in some aspects they are better than John, but my focus in this post is more narrow: I focus on the field of debunking Christianity, not religion or irrational thinking in general. In this field, John is the best for several reasons.

Why John is the Best 

It goes without saying that John has all the bona fide credentials (former Christian minister, student of William Lane Craig, several masters degrees, PhD work) that people value in an author in this field, so that's a big plus. Having been one of those trained to keep the sheep in the fold, John is an apologist's worst nightmare. They admit it too. Unlike say Dawkins, who is a lifelong atheist not really knowing what it's like to be even moderately religious, John was brought up to combat people like Dawkins. John knows exactly what and why believers believe and what keeps them believing. 

First and foremost, for me John's exhaustive style is what makes him so formidable. Literally, if there is an argument for Christianity someone has thought of, John has addressed it somewhere. If not in his books and interviews, then on his blog or on social media. He will leave no space for apologetics to thrive. All flavors of Christianity are equally debunked in his work.

Secondly, his no-nonsense style. Unlike the high-brow self-styled "philosophical atheists", John is not interested in endlessly arguing about what the Bayesian probability of talking donkeys is. These philosophical debates, in fact, serve to only give the impression that there is more to a delusion than meets the eye. If you see two supposed intellectuals engaged in a seemingly high level exchange often involving confusing math-y looking symbols, you may think they are equally matched and both their positions are respectable. But one of them believes in reality and the other in talking snakes and invisible beings. John just calls a spade a spade: It doesn't matter how many obscure symbols you use, you are still trying to justify a delusion.

And finally, his goals. John is upfront and honest about the fact that he seeks to change minds. John wants to do the right thing, free people from their delusion. He is not interested in merely sitting around and coming up with clever arguments, he wants to see results. Christianity is a delusion, and why should we not use all our resources to try and free as many people from this delusion as possible? After all, John himself managed to get out of it. And who better to change minds of a delusional person than someone who was once an expert in that delusion.

My Recommendation of John's Books

All of John's books are worth reading, but to make things interesting, I'll give my personal top 3, in no particular order. 

• 1) The Christian Delusion - This is an anthology (a work containing contributions from multiple authors) with chapters by John himself and others by competent debunkers hand picked by John. This book, at least for me, really set the standard for what a book aiming to debunk Christianity should look like. Rather than trying to "further the dialogue" (as is fashionable to claim from more politically correct atheologists), John is trying to end it.There is no dialogue to be had: Christianity is a delusion and the faster people wake up, the better it is. This unapologetic tone is what really defines John's unique style. LINK
• 2) Why I Became An Atheist - This one John calls his magnum opus, and it's not hard to see why. This book was written a bit earlier and it came to define the exhaustive style: leaving no argument unaddressed. It's a really good book that deals with John's biography and carefully goes through every single argument an evangelical might try to cling to. LINK
• 3) God and Horrendous Suffering - Another anthology. This one really not only debunks Christianity, but also exposes philosophy of religion for the bastion of apologetics it has become. John, and his handpicked authors, show us how "the problem of evil" should have been talked about before. LINK

Our Next Religious Nutjob: Matt Powell

 

This is to announce that my next project will be on Matt Powell, a somewhat lesser known apologist, who had a start as Kent Hovind's yes man puppet but then moved on to becoming awful in his own right, not just Hovind Jr. 

And I assure you: no matter how low you expect a Kent Hovind aficionado and a young earth creationst hate preacher to sink, this guy regularly and consistently goes lower. 

Hope you join us for that instalment. Cheers!

Ravi Zacharias Claimed to Be An Oxford Professor. No SERIOUSLY!

In my previous post, I documented briefly Ravi Zacharias' credentials fraud issue and directed you guys to the premiere researcher on the issue: Steve Baughman. I reached out to Steve and got the following response which he graciously let me quote:

"Thanks for keeping the issue alive. I quickly looked over what you sent and it looks good. I do think regarding Oxford the biggest deception on the part of Zacharias was the “I am now a professor at Oxford” I think that is far bigger than the issue you mention, “senior research fellow” thing and lecturing their regularly. Those are ambiguous enough to not get anybody excited. Of course they are deceptive, but nobody cares. The “professor at Oxford” , by contrast, is just a bald faced lie. I would mention that instead, if I were you.  It’s in one of my videos.  And Ravi admitted it in 2018 in a email to Warren Throckmorton, the Christian psychologist and blogger. - Steve Baughman."

I had simply forgotten that Ravi actually claimed to have been a professor at Oxford, while not having even been an employee there at any capacity. Imagine the guts it requires to lie so boldly while having an audience of millions about an issue that's so easy to check. I guess the research skills of his gullible evangelical audiences were worse than I had remembered! 

Ravi Zacharias Credentials Fraud Revisited

Given the barrage of sexual misconduct allegations (in fact, admitted as true by his own organization), you may be forgiven for not even knowing that Zacharias was once in hot water for credentials fraud. The extent of his sexual predatory behaviour (in fact, at least one incident was described as rape by the victim) was such that it really overshadowed not only his legacy (rightfully so) but also his previous, non-sexual scandals. 

So, I am sure some of you will vaguely remember some controversy about whether Zacharias was really a doctor (as in, did he earn a doctoral degree) or not, but I want to show, in two examples just how deceptive Zacharias was with information that can easily be checked. 

Before getting into it, I want to emphasize the following point: Zacharias did not need to lie about his credentials. This part may be the most damning of all as far as the credentials fraud scandal goes. We may feel sympathy for a person who lies about his credentials to get a job. Zacharias was listened to by millions who couldn't care less how credentialed he was. The whole situation shows that Zacharias must have been a pathological liar, inflating his CV when there was absolutely no reason to. 

There is a wonderful YouTuber and a musician, Steve Baughman, who goes by "FriendlyBanjoAtheist" online. I highly recommend you check out his YouTube channel, as it is the most comprehensive in exposing the deceptions of Zacharias. Here I will merely bring two egregious examples so you have a very concrete idea about the level of bold-faced lying we were faced with. 

Exhibit A

As Baughman documents, Ravi says the following in his book Walking From East to West (As you read this, try as much as you can to pretend that you are a neutral person reading an autobiographical statement about a person you know nothing about):

"I had spent a part of that year at Cambridge University in England... I was invited to be a visiting scholar, and I decided to focus my studies on the Romantic writers and the moralist philosophers. While at Cambridge, I also had the privilege of sitting under some great minds in other disciplines. I heard Dr. Stephen Hawking lecture, witnessing one of history's greatest scientific minds come to terms with his own philosophy of life... My professor in quantum physics was Dr. John Polkinghorne, a latecomer to Christ, who provided me with some powerful ammunition for my ministry in the years to come."

Now tell me, what does this sound like? Sounds like a top tier and tenured academic receiving an invitation to be a visiting scholar at one of the best Universities in the world, focusing his research on Romantic literature and moralist philosophy, who also happened to study under other professors teaching there at the time. That (or something like that) is the clear implication one gets from reading that passage. 

Now, what if I told you that Ravi Zacharias had never attained a doctoral degree in any subject from any University, had never enrolled in Cambridge University for any course, that Cambridge never bestowed him with visiting scholar status, and that John Polkinghorne was not teaching physics in the year which Ravi describes? Would you say that this man is being honest with his experience? Yet everything I just said is true. Ravi had a Bachelor's and an MDiv degree (a professional degree required to be a pastor in North America), but nothing higher. As Baughman documents, as of August 2018, Ravi admitted to having never enrolled in any course in Cambridge, and no evidence exists that Cambridge ever bestowed upon him the status of a visiting scholar. 

Exhibit B

As documented in this video by Baughman, Ravi Zacharias said the following: 

"I lecture at the University of Oxford three times a year, I am a Senior Research Fellow there. Although I live in Atlanta, I go to Oxford and lecture there regularly."

Again, we have a clear statement with a clear implication, a respected academic is an employee of a prestigious, world renowned university and a regular lecturer there. But, no prizes for guessing what comes next. Ravi Zacharias was never an employee of Oxford University in any capacity, and the "Senior Research Fellow" position was an honorary title bestowed by Wycliffe Hall, a connected but separate religious school from Oxford. 

Conclusion

How is it that this man could get away for so long with claims that raise so many red flags and are so easy to check and verify? Why is it that this sort of fraud did not have much of an impact on his career at all? If I claimed tomorrow that I was an elite member of the Navy Seals who was awarded two purple heart medals, people would not believe me for one second, unless they could literally find mainstream outlets documenting such a resumé. Yet Ravi's claims, while not amounting to stolen valor, are comparably ridiculous: a Cambridge Visiting Scholar/Researcher plus an Oxford Senior Research fellow who lectures in Oxford regularly. 

This is the problem with many fanatical followers of religious apologists. Zacharias, by the standards of American apologists at least, was fairly moderate, yet even here gullibility and the desire to have your pre-existing beliefs confirmed by any means, led to this guy being elevated to such a high degree that honest investigators like Steve Baughman were treated as tools of the devil. 

The solution to the evangelical problem of gullibility and the cult of personality that elevated a fraud like Zacharias is to institute critical thinking and a demand for objective, sufficient evidence. The day when that is preached in megachurches is the day when such frauds will be quickly out of business for lying so shamelessly. 

Who Am I? What Is This Blog About?

What's My Story

Hey there! Glad you stopped by. My name is Gregory Atkinson, you can just call me Greg (in fact, I insist you do, I've been Greg all my life). I have been an atheist since I was about 7, and curious about what are known as the big questions of life for about 25 years now. For the past decade I have found myself immersed in various online communities listening to theists (of various religious stripes) and atheists debate endlessly. I have been on countless platforms, lying to myself that I would eventually quit. One thing I have not really done though, is publish under my name. 

So, as I approach my twilight years (and finally tired of being accused of "hiding under a nickname", as if that made my arguments any less valid), lo and behold me:

And this is my dog. He is a good boy:

What Is This Blog About

Ok. Now you have met me (and my dog). So what will this blog be about? Well, the primary focus of this blog will be to document and write stories about religious nutjobs. A religious nutjob is a person who is so far gone from our point of view that we view any argumentation with them as hopelessly pointless. All we can do in the skeptic community is point and laugh and hope that cynicism will deter people from joining them.

Here, I will cover the scandals, the personalities, the allegations and everything in between that have befallen these folks.  I hope lots of hilarity will ensue. 

Secondary goal will be to promote strong atheist creators, whether they be writers or podcasters, and their arguments that debunk religion. I do not claim to be neutral. I was raised in a Western country, and the religions and the people I have encountered have not been equally distributed. Thus, I have no tolerance for people who ask me to devote equal time to Buddhism as I devote to Christianity. 

Disclaimers

As always there has to be a disclaimer. In my case, two.

First and foremost, this is an atheist blog, written by a strong atheist aimed and geared towards an anti-religious audience. If you are deeply religious, there is a high chance you will be offended. This might sound mean, but I am telling you upfront. I, of course, welcome anyone to engage with my postings here, but I do not want anyone to be under any illusions. This blog will offend you, and if you are someone who gets upset easily over this kind of content, it might be best to walk away. 

Secondly, while I will aim to be amusing and bring you all the drama and religious crazy stories we crave, I will avoid all forms of defamation. This will keep the content fun and enjoyable while steering clear of becoming a toxic place. If I write something negative about someone's character that is not stated as a personal opinion but as a fact, I will do my best to have evidence that would always hold up in a court of law. 

Engagement Rules

This applies to everyone, but especially if you are religious, please, do not try proselytizing here. You are welcome to comment, and even debate if other people are willing to listen and engage, but we (and yes, I get to speak for others on this blog) are not interested in being preached at. This is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You have a right to start your own blog and devote it exclusively to proselytizing to atheists. That is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and many of us would fight by your side to protect your right. You do not however have the right to preach to people who do not want to be preached at. Keep in mind also, that it is highly likely that we have heard every single argument you may want to try. Just accept that your arguments, for whatever reason, are simply not good enough to convince us of your particular god's existence.

Also, please remember, that even if you are an atheist "preaching" to us that religion is not bad and that it's actually a positive can become a form of proselytism. You are welcome to hold your opinion should it come up, but please, respect the fact that we have a different opinion than you.

I am making it as clear as possible that I am not here trying to create a neutral space for all views. Everyone is welcome but clearly this blog has a certain view and is geared towards a certain audience. If you do not like that, you are in luck as the internet is a big place and you can always find a platform or a blog that is more geared towards neutral debates.

Now that we are clear on the basics, let the fun begin!