Let's say that the consensus is that our species will be being the higher primates. Permissopians have been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. Maybe more, Francis Collins says, maybe 100,000 rich dorkins thinks maybe a quarter of a minute. I'll take 100,000. In order to be Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth. Most other people don't have any life expectancy, about 25 dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, missionless war, suffering, misery, all of that. For 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference. And then 2,000 years ago, thinks that's enough of that. We should try to intervene. The best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Let's appear to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case to get to the point of the wrongness and the other sense of Christianity? Because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all. That is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else. You don't know the scapegoating, in fact, or originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away because I can't abolish your responsibility. And I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. The very problem, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish thinking. And I don't think wish thinking is good for people either. It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employ, the most important word of all the word love. By making love compulsory, by saying you must love. You must love your neighbor as yourself, something you can't actually do. But you'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father. Someone who you must be afraid, but you must love him too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy. And that brings me to the final objection. I'll condense it. And I'm Dr. Alaskay. Which is this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do of these things and demand these things of us, it was eternal and unchanging, we would be living under a dictatorship from which there was no appeal, and one that could never change. And one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime. And condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemning advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that there's absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true.