Dialogue on Reasons for Atheism

This past weekend, a Nigerian guy who was apparently disgruntled with Roman Catholicism decided to tear off pages of a Bible and blaspheme Jesus on social media. This triggered emotional reactions from many Nigerians and a number of atheists came out of the woodwork to spew their vitriol at the Bible.

I responded to the comment of an atheist named Marvin, and during our exchange another atheist from Europe, named Charley weighed in, but through it all, my starting question was never answered. All I got were rabbit trails and ad hominems.

****
Marvin: The truth is this guy is right. He has figured it out and sooner other Nigerians follow in his foot step and stop believing in a fictitious enslaving fake god the better for all of us. But Nigerians will never understand, they will rather be comfortable believing something that doesn’t exist.

Victor: FYI, the guy who tore the Bible is pagan, not an atheist. His savage attacks on the Bible notwithstanding, he still believes in his tribal gods and ancestral spirits. But my question is this: Can you give me a positive reason/assertion for atheism?

Marvin: Yes. The notion that the Christian god is the real god is as old as…well as old as it is. Muslims also claim Allah is real and Buddhists too and Jews and all the other 4,300 religions in the world. But one thing they all agree on is that 1+1 is 2. Now if they agree that the existance of one true god is as easy as the answer to 1+1. Again do your research about Christianity and Islam, you will see how bogus they both are.

Finally, read the Bible…not the parts laid out by your pastor or daily devotionals, read your Bible from beginning to end and read it with common sense and ask yourself questions and do your research on it. Intense research. Do you know it takes an 11 day hike from Egypt to Canaan, but it took the Israelites 40 years. Ask yourself what lions and other animals ate before sin came into the world. The Bible says grass. Think.

Victor: I didn’t ask for reasons why you don’t believe in Christianity, the Bible or Islam. Is it possible for you to give positive reasons for why you believe as you do without running down something (or anything else)? My question is: Give me a positive assertion (or reasons) for atheism. Will the universe self-destruct if an atheist doesn’t run down Christianity or the Bible to try shore up his view?

Marvin: No. In everything there is good and bad. Christianity was created to keep people in line and control them, and it has worked. There are bad atheists and good atheists so the world won’t end as long as there are people striving to suppress the bad in the world.

The thing with Christianity is that it gives false hope in an afterlife and so people are lazy and reluctant to innovate as evident in Nigeria. But when someone realizes this and figures out that there is no hell and all that stuff – someone like me – all strings are loosened and all I wanna do now is try to make Nigeria a great nation with science and tech.

Victor: Since you are unable to defend atheism without attacking Christianity one way or the other, are you telling me that there is no positive reason why one should be an atheist except for the purpose of bashing Christianity and the Bible? If yes, that means atheism lacks a positive assertion – a key element of proof – and must be rejected by all rational persons.

Marvin: Oh you want me to defend atheism. Alright, Christianity aside. Look at world innovators in science and all other aspects of life, more than most of them are deep thinkers and atheists. Now the purpose of being an atheist is not to bash religion, although that is inevitable. See the thing is religions reassure us that they have all the answers.

Like Christians say they serve the perfect true god and now it is the duty of the atheist to look at that statement and scrutinize it and if it lacks fault then believe me there would be no atheists but now it does. It has a lot of faults and flaws and lies and so we have no option but to attack it and create the awareness that it isn’t as it claims to be.

Victor: I find some holes in your first claim. The vast majority of scientists are theists in one form or the other. Atheism doesn’t own science or have a trademark over it. In fact, science itself started out in a Christian milieu (Europe) and for 3 centuries, scientists – who were Christians – didn’t see any conflict between theism and science.

Science, good as it is, has its limitations because it starts with unproven axioms just as any other imaginable belief. And the idea that atheists scrutinize things carefully is short of the mark. Atheists accept a thing because some scientists say so – and there’s never an end to the propositions that they have to accept by faith.

For example, no scientist has been able to show why life is here or demonstrate where it came from. None of them have been able to demonstrate how the big bang occurred and by which laws and mechanisms it took place or explain how atoms have the inherent powers to do what they are alleged to have done.

Many theories and claims are thrown all around and you blindly accept them by faith. So your position is no more rational than ours. Again, I fail to see any positive assertion for atheism in all you wrote. Ergo, it’s irrational. All you do is bash Christianity and the Bible to cover the illogic of atheism.

Marvin: No sir, you’re wrong. Those people were not theists. Do your research well. You’re getting it all wrong. Yes there are people that are atheists for the sake of it because they are just too lazy to bear the burden of belief but there are others who are because they know the truth…they study and study and research and figure things out, yes science is all about trials and errors and eventually victory. That’s why me and you can be able to talk to each other today. But imagine if the world was only filled with religious people…

Charley: Atheism is a realisation, not a religion. Religion sets illusionary boundaries, confines people in an unprogressive state. Holds back advancement and keeps mindsets stactic and unproductive. If atheists bash Christianity more than the other religions, it’s because Christianity invades people’s personal space and they go to extra lengths to make those who do not live by their standard to do so by imposing their views on government policies and they do not understand that religion is personal commitment.

Victor: Marvin, you wrote that “Those people were not theists.” This makes me question the extent of your “research” in this Information Age. Here are some examples of Christian/theist scientists and their fields:

Acoustics: Joseph Henry (1797-1878), Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)

Aerodynamic/Aeronautics: Francesco Lana de Terzi (c. 1631-1687), George Cayley (1773-1857)

Anatomy: Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564)

Antiseptic Surgery: Joseph Lister (1827-1912)

Astronautics: Robert Goddard (1882-1945), Hermann Oberth (1894-1989)

Atomic Theory: Roger Boscovich (1711-1787), John Dalton (1766-1844)

Bacteriology: Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Biochemistry: Franciscus Sylvius (1614-1672), Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794)

Biology, Molecular: Oswald Avery (1877-1955), Geroge Wells Beadle (1903-1989)

Botany: Otto Brunfels (1488-1534), Carolus Clusius (1526-1609), Carol Linnaeus (1707-1778)

Calculus: Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665), Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Chemistry: Robert Boyle (1627-1691), Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901)

Computer Science: Charles Babbage (1792-1871), George Boole (1815-1864)

Electrochemistry: Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), Humphrey Davy (1778-1829), Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Embryology: Julius Caesar Aranzi (1529-1589), William Harvey (1578-1657), Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694)

Entomology: William Kirby (1759-1850), Henri Fabre (1823-1915)

Genetics: Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Victor McKusick (1921-2008)

Histology: Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694), Marie Francoise Xavier Bichat (1771-1802)

Immunology: Edward Anthony Jenner (1749-1823), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Microbiology: Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680), Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723).

Neurology: Charles Bell (1777-1842) etc.

(Source: Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? Dave Armstrong, 2010)

yes science is all about trials and errors

Yet you’ve made it your dogma! You refuse to consider that there are limitations to what science can fathom, explain or analyse. This is one of the rational problems of atheism – making science the final determinants of knowledge and existence. Whereas science starts with a number of axiomatic propositions which have to be accepted by belief:

1. That the external universe exists and is not illusory.
2. The universe observes scientific laws and is not chaotic.
3. These laws apply to all times and places.
4. These actual or potential realities can be tested or observed.
5. That our senses can be trusted to provide us with reliable data with which to conduct these experiments. It’s Christianity – which you detest so much – that provided these starting premises and that is why modern science began in a thoroughly Christian environment and a high percent of scientists today are theists.

“Atheism is a realisation, not a religion. Religion sets illusionary boundaries…”

This is one of the blighting fallacies atheists throw around – lumping all religions into one big irrational pile without distinguishing one from the other. You don’t even stop to think that Buddhism is basically atheistic. The same goes for Taoism. The Unitarian Universalist is also an atheist-friendly religion.

Just throwing around the word “religion” works well for propaganda, but in the world of facts, do us a favour, tell us which religion did what.

“Holds back advancement and keeps mindsets stactic and unproductive”

Interestingly, Joseph Stalin supported the quack pseudo-“genetic” supposed “science” of Lysenkoism, and even had scientists killed who rejected it and preferred mainstream genetics which Gregor Mendel established. So much backwardness there.

Do I need to also talk about how the atheistic Khmer Rogue had thousands of educated Cambodians killed because they wanted to rule over illiterates rather than enlightened people? These are just some of the evil fruits of atheism and it’s curious these aren’t mentioned in your anti-Christian, ultra-condescension handbooks.

“it’s because Christianity invades people’s personal space.”

No Charley, it’s because Christianity intimidates you and grates against your moral depravity (one of the end results of atheism). If an ideology is not impeding you, it won’t bother you the least. Yet it’s this same Christianity that campaigned against pornography (which objectifies women), abortion, racism, slavery and stood for the traditional values of family and marriage. But now that you want to embrace all those evils, Christianity gives you the creeps: if gives you sleepless nights.

That’s why atheists spend the whole of their lives bashing Christianity and the Bible, whether online or elsewhere without any positive contribution to human life. Thank God for [David] Livingstone, [Mary] Slessor and a host of other Christian missionaries who came over to Africa to stand against the barbarism that our traditional religion wrought (in addition to their contribution to education, hospitality and welfare).

Atheists would rather pride themselves on their false superiority over theists and rehash their twaddle on every social media page. You bash Christianity because you are all cowards, sitting in a Christian-founded nation instead of growing a pair and standing against Islam.

Go to any Islamic nation and practice your atheism there; go burn a Quran or speak against Muhammad if your atheism is skin-deep.

***
Charley:Theists from one delusion to the other. Oh wow! A job well done, look how great the country is, couldn’t have been more awesome. Morality and the bible are opposites … If you need the bible to be a moral person then I got news for you, you’re already a s***y person. The bible condones slavery, misogyny, sexism, abrupt murder, tribalism etc. So it’s a crime against humanity to associate the bible with morality.

Victor: The very Bible you bash is what gave you the freedom you enjoy in the West today, but now that many of you no longer want to follow it but want to engage in bestiality, homosexuality, abortion and whoredom, you attack it as savagely as you wish.

This same Bible you hate was what put a stop to infanticide, cannibalism, mistreatment of widows, ghastly monarchical rites, demonism and other evil traditions in Africa. It opened the door to civility, education and advancement.

If you had been in Africa way back then, you were either a slave trader or would end up in someone’s cooking pot. Atheism suits you. It enables you to live as you wish, mistreat people as you desire and sleep around without any sense of moral accountability. Even our forefathers weren’t atheists and we don’t want that foreign ideology.

***
Marvin: We don’t attack buddhists and the rest cos they don’t cause problems like Muslims and Christians. We all know how ridiculous those other religions are but we are focusing on the 2 main religions…

Victor: Marvin, you have no positive assertion for atheism. You only embrace it because it suits you and creates an outlet for you to vent your hate against Christianity. Keep at it. But here is my deduction: if Christianity is Y and atheism is X, you can’t prove X by attacking Y. Atheism doesn’t become true by default because Christianity goes down. Each has to stand on its own assertions. This is the fallacy I see you resorting to all through this exchange.

When it comes to bashing Christianity, you are zealous, but when it comes to answering the defects of atheism, you are out of your depth. Be rest assured, I will never accept a “realisation” without a positive reason.

That one rejects Christianity doesn’t logically entails that one must reject theism as you presume. So all I see you exercising is fideism – faith in faith – atheism is true because you want to believe it’s true, otherwise, Christianity is the ideal. That’s irrational. Sell it to the gullible. Nice chatting with you guys.

Advertisements

Arguments for God’s Existence

Renowned atheist and author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, once said that faith is “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…[It’s] belief that isn’t based on evidence [and] the principal vice of any religion.”

Contrary to his baseless misrepresentation, faith – to a large extent – is an important part of our lives. We plant crops with the assurance that the seeds will sprout. We accept employment hoping to get paid and obtain loans, expecting to pay them back. Since none of us have seen God, nor were we present when the universe came into existence, whether we believe in God or not, our views largely involve a degree of faith.

The uncertainty of atheism is evident in the fact that none of its claims explain how the Big Bang allegedly started the process that led to it and by which laws and mechanisms it came to be. None of them definitely tell us by what conceivable process life arose on earth. None of them can explain how the energy that comes from the sun is being carefully controlled in order not to spiral into decay or disorder as the second law of thermodynamics state. All they have are different theories – which atheists have to put faith in – none of which are convincing.

It takes more faith to believe these than to believe God sustains all things by His power. It takes a whole lot of faith to believe that atoms and cells could do the remarkable things they did by their own self-generated power or by an explosion that occurred 15 billion years ago than to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

The ancient Babylonians, Persians, Celts or Aztecs believed their objects of metals or sticks could control the weather, create life or sustain the earth, yet today atheists believe virtually the same, that atoms had such amazing powers to form all things without any supernatural aid.

Biblically, “Faith is…the evident demonstration of realities not beheld” (Heb. 11:1). Our faith in God is based on evidence. On the other hand, the atheist’s faith is based on science which (as a variant of philosophy) starts with unproven axioms – just as every imaginable belief system does. Many great historians, scientists and legal experts have become Christians, not by emotion or a mystical experience, but by verifiable evidences and sound arguments.

In Philosophy, an argument means a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. Most atheists will say “No religion has yet shown me any evidence for God’s existence. We are all ready to change our minds for evidence.” These are mere empty and dogmatic claims. It’s also based on the empiricist view of atheism that unless something is experimentally observed, its a myth. How many of the evidences Christians (or other theists) present are atheists ready to accept? They don’t even regard them as “evidences!”

One even needs to ask some of these purported ex-Christian atheists how many Christian theological, apologetic or philosophical works have they read? Most of them have not even seen one let alone crack it open. These folks disdain and ignore evidence and then turn around to say no one has presented any evidence rather than admit that they are trusting in their own dogmatic inexperience of what they seek. Such blind belief rivals that of a fanatical cultist. Denial is a hallmark of dogmatism.

In Christian theology, there are several arguments for God’s existence:

1. Cosmological argument

The term cosmological comes from the Greek word cosmos meaning “world.” This argument is based on the fact that the world exists, and since something can’t come from nothing, there must be an original cause for the world’s existence. Every effect must have a cause. So, by examining the evidences of the cosmos, we can conclude that God exists. Every house surely has a builder (Heb. 3:4)

2. Telological argument

The word telological comes from the Greek word telos, meaning “end.” This argument is based on the order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. From the way the universe is ordered and usefully arranged, there must be an Intelligent Cause behind it – which is God (Ps. 8:3-4; 19:1-4). Where there are evidences of intelligence, purpose, and harmony, there must be an Intelligent Designer behind it. It’s irrational to attribute intelligence, complexity and orderliness to random chance.

3. Anthropological argument

The Greek word anthropos means “man.” Thus, contrary to the secular humanists who sees man simply as a biological being, the Bible presents man as created in the image of God. This image of God in man is spiritual, not physical (Gen. 1:26-28; Eph. 4:24). Man is not just a physical being, but also a moral being with a conscience, emotion and will. As a work says “A blind force…could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator” (Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1977, 28)

4. Moral argument

This is related to the anthropological argument which acknowledges that man has an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality. Where did this sense of moral justice from? Random collisions of molecules in man’s brain? Absolutely not. If man is only a biological creature, why then does he have a sense of moral obligation? It is the height of folly to attribute moral standards and concepts to any evolutionary process. The only satisfying answer is that God has placed a sense of moral justice within the human race and it distinguishes us from all other creation (Rom. 2:14-15)

5. Ontological argument

This argument is distinct from the preceding ones because its deductive and a priori; it begins with an assumption and then attempts to prove that assumption. The term ontological comes from the Greek present participle ontos and means “being” or “existence.” The ontological argument is philosophical rather than inductive.

The argument reasons that if man could conceive of a perfect God who does not exist, then he could conceive of someone greater than God, which is impossible. Therefore, God exists. This argument rests on the fact that all men have an awareness of God. Because the concept of God is universal, God must have placed the idea within man. Anselm (1033?- 1109) was the first proponent of this view. In the thinking of some, this argument has limited value, and few would affirm the usefulness of the ontological argument (Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press: Chicago, 2008, 187).

I also need to point out that most atheists have this almost stultifying habit of putting belief in God on par with belief in tooth fairies, leprechauns, Easter bunny, Santa Claus, unicorns and imaginary friends etc. These are fundamentally silly analogies. Even a rational person can distinguish between the two.

There are innumerable, logical evidences (and defenses) proving God’s existence than man-made, superstitious folklore. God has made His existence so clear to millions of people, that it is more plausible and rational to accept that the universe came about by His power rather than “random chance.” It’s left for man to either accept or deny them.

On Christmas and Unsound Arguments

At every Christmas period, the social media is often awash with anti-Christmas zealots. The spectrum ranges from dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists to heretical sects (like Jehovah’s Witnesses) to Hebrew-Roots adherents who present Hanukkah as a viable alternative.

Here, I will be responding to the unsound sticks of one Femi Aribisala who heads the Healing Wings cult.

Since 2012 when I first came across Femi Aribisala’s articles, he has carved a niche for himself as a critic of the Bible, Christianity and Christian holidays. His articles are often well-circulated by Muslims and other anti-Christians who are always eager to throw any media propaganda trash at the Bible.

I will be responding to his article titled “Why Christians Should not Celebrate Christmas” and I appeal to all those who loll out their tongues at his write-ups to double-check them and think critically before accepting his claims. His words will be in bold.

Jesus never told anyone to celebrate his birthday. If he wanted to do so, he would have told us when and how. He did not.

Typical anti-Christmas talking point. This argument presumes that every celebration that is not directly commanded by Christ must be an innovative error. Did Mr Femi receive a command from Jesus to start writing newspaper articles before he did? Did the Lord command him to start his “Healing Wings” group? Did Jesus tell him when and how? I’m sure He didn’t.

In the same vein, the Lord Jesus doesn’t have to command His birth to be celebrated before it’s deemed acceptable. Celebrating Christmas is a personal decision, and as much as non-essential matters are concerned, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).

God does not structure us into a labyrinth of rules or produce Christians on a factory assembly line.

Moreover, we know from the Scriptures that the early church never celebrated Jesus’ birthday. There is no such record in the Acts of the Apostles. We are told to remember the Lord’s death (Lk. 22:16) and not to celebrate his birth.

This is straight out of Watchtower writings. The hypocrisy here is that Aribisala believes apostle Paul was never a true Christian, that the Epistles are his perversions of Christ’s teachings. Yet the very Acts of the Apostles he is appealing to offer credible evidence to the contrary. If the book of Acts is a reliable account of the early church, it must also be reliable enough to prove apostle Paul was a true Christian.

Now, if Jesus’ birth was as insignificant as this man wants us to believe, the Gospel writers wouldn’t have recorded it. Christ’s conception was announced by an angel; His birth was heralded by angels and His infancy was protected by God. The events surrounding His birth were fulfillment of Bible prophecies just as His death.

Aribisala goes on to parrot the Jehovah’s Witness argument that celebrating birthdays is bad because Pharaoh and Herod executed people on their birthdays (Gen. 40:20-22, Mt. 14:6-11). Nice try, but Pharaoh and Herod were basically evil people who killed people on every other day, not just on their birthdays.

December 25 celebrations actually started with sun worshippers during the time of Nimrod, the man who supervised the building of the tower of Babel. His widow, Semiramis, said to be queen of heaven had a son called Tammuz; venerated by many as the god of the sun.

This drivel is straight out of Jack Chick’s tracts and comics. For example, in their crusader comic, The Force, we read: “The queen of Babylon (Semiramis) ordered the world to celebrate the birth of her son, ‘Tammuz.’ He of course, was the sun god, Baal…” (p. 26).

This sensational story suffers from a host of problems:

a) There is no Biblical evidence that Nimrod supervised the building of the tower of Babel. The Bible says little about him and there’s no historical record of him. The Jack Chickian tales of Nimrod starting a religion or killed by Shem should be taken with a pinch of Abakaliki salt.

b) Nimrod didn’t live in the same century as Semiramis, so it’s impossible for them to have been husband and wife. No reference work – Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Judaica, Encyclopedia of Religion or World Book Encyclopedia – puts Nimrod and Semiramis as contemporaries let alone as a couple.

c) Semiramis was never worshipped as a goddess or the queen of heaven. In fact, there is no trace of Semiramis in Sumerian or Babylonian records. She ruled over Assyria, not Babylon and lived in 9th century BC.

But worship of the queen of heaven goddesses predates Semiramis by many centuries. For example, an inscription on Asherah shows it dating as far back as the 18th century B.C. (Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, Myth of the Goddess, 1991, 454).

d) Tammuz was a Sumerian deity who was a lover to Inanna (later Ishtar) and a child to Enki and Ninsun. Tammuz is never described as an actual person and never mentioned as the son of Semiramis or Nimrod in any standard encyclopedia.

It’s a shame that a writer would still be publicly peddling an old, discredited fiction in this Information Age.

It was believed Tammuz died on December 22 and rose from the dead three days later

More powdered sparrow eggs from the stables of Hislop and Chick. The Easton’s Bible Dictionary under Tammuz says: “In the Chaldean calendar there was a month set apart in honour of this god, the month of June to July, the beginning of the summer solstice.”

Fausset’s Bible Dictionary says “An annual feast was kept to him in June.” Aribisala obviously has a very poor information source at his disposal.

Emperor Aurelian of Rome proclaimed the sun god Tammuz to be principal patron of the Roman Empire on December 25, 274 AD. The date corresponds with the winter solstice when pagans celebrated the renewed power of the sun.

Aurelian’s institution of the pagan festival on this date seems to have been to rival Christians who observed the date.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes an old tradition that fixed the date of Christ’s birth by counting 9 months after March 25 (or April 7), the vernal equinox on which some early Christians celebrated His conception giving rise to December 25.

Early church writers before Aurelian, like Julius Africanus “argues in his Chronicle (A.D. 221) for a date in the winter, December 25” (Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Christianity, 1999, 251)

December 25 had no significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian. Thomas Talley notes that although Aurelian dedicated a temple to the sun god, “the cult of the sun in pagan Rome ironically did not celebrate the winter solstice nor any of the other quarter-tense days as one might expect” (Michael Anderson, Symbols of Saints, ProQuest, 2008, 42-46).

Constantine … forced all the pagans of his empire to be baptised into the Christian church … December 25, the date of Tammuz’s alleged rebirth was then designated as also the birthday of Jesus.

There you have it. Constantine forced all pagans into the church, even though the emperor himself is depicted on the Arch in Rome sacrificing to pagan deities!

This man is using one myth to prop up another myth, but he missed one fact: setting up a Christian holiday to replace a pagan holiday is not equivalent to marrying Christianity to paganism. What ancient pagans did on December 25 has no relevance to what modern Christians do on this date.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.” Jeremiah 10:3-4

This is allegedly condemning the Christmas tree, but these folks all stop the quote at vs. 4. Verse 5 says “Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.

This is referring to gods made out of wood. Nothing here describes modern Christmas tree.

The same scenario is described in Isaiah 44 about carpenters shaping wood “in form of man … that it may dwell in a shrine … he makes a god, his idol; he bows to it and worships it” (vs. 13, 17).

That pagans in the past worshipped a tree doesn’t mean Christians who decorate a Christmas tree today are doing the same thing. I don’t see Christians bowing and praying to Christmas trees. If they were idols, no one would be throwing them out in the trash after a while.

[Pagan Greeks] used it [decorated trees] to worship their god Adonia. They claimed Adonia was killed and brought to life by the serpent Aessulapius

What has this man been reading? National Enquirer? Aliens? Adonia is the name of a festival, not a god. The proper name is Adonis.

Asklepios (Latin: Aesculapius) is a Greek god of healing and medicine depicted holding a staff with a coiled serpent. Again, Aribisala can’t get simple spellings or facts right. The feast of Adonia was not celebrated during winter and obviously not with “Christmas trees” either.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary says “A festival in honor of Adonis was celebrated at Byblus in Phoenicia … It took place in July, and it was accompanied by obscene rites.”

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says “The women of Gebal used to repair to this temple [of Venus] in midsummer to celebrate the death of Adonis or Tammuz.”

Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible says the river named after Adonis “was fabled to run blood at his festival in August. The women of Phoenicia, Assyria, and Judea worshipped him as dead, with deep lamentation, wearing priapi and other obscene images all the while.”

That Aribisala had such chutzpa to publish this gobbledygook on at least two national newspapers speaks a lot of volumes. He seems to know his fans on the social space too well – ignorant, gullible and fanatical. But there is one thing I’m certain of, if you have truths on your side, you don’t need to bend facts or resort to fictions.