Why Are Atheists “The Enemy?”

I was just reading/listening to Teresa Macbain’s story–


Religion so often does the opposite of what believers think.  It makes people intolerant.  Why does Teresa’s community that she gave guidance and counseling and encouragement and support to, turn on her this way and treat her like an enemy?  Do Christians view Jews as the enemy?  Or Buddhists?  Or anyone who happens to have faith in something else?   Then why are atheists the enemy?  And especially atheists who were previously Christians?

Tell you what, listening to Teresa’s story…struck a chord with me.  I haven’t become an enemy like she has.  I am not seen as a betrayer of the faith as she is.  But I have lost friends since I made it clear I can’t believe anymore.   I also find myself suddenly having to walk on eggshells worrying how much should I exult in this new feeling of freedom?  How much singing out and speaking out and shouting out with joy can I do before I am admonished for offending someone?

Really, all it takes to offend a Christian is to say the words “there’s no such thing as god.”  Say those words and they are offended, personally and deeply offended.

It’s not meant to be an offense.  If I went 40 years of my life thinking I have a horrible singing voice and always being ashamed to sing, afraid to sing…and then one day I’m told by a voice teacher I have a really great range and wonderful potential as a singer, I’m going to want to tell people.    The same is true if I go my whole life believing in something that makes me feel I can’t ever be good enough, that I was born corrupt and I need to do this and this and this to be good or to be loved…and then one day I find out it’s all a lie and I was born into this world exactly right and exactly as nature meant me to be–I would want to sing that news from the rooftops!  I’d want to  tell my friends, my family, people I care about whom I still see struggling in the dark.   And yet…it offends people.

No Christian, especially not the ones who live for Jesus and give their whole life’s work to serving Jesus like Ms. Macbain, want or ask to lose their faith.   It’s not a road believers take intentionally.  It’s a path they stumble on.

We’re not supposed to ask questions.  I know a friend who was kicked out of her church for asking too many questions.  Why is that?  If Christianity is true–if any religion is true–it should be able to withstand any questions put to it.  It should  not shy away from the new discoveries of science either, but rather welcome those discoveries as further proof of its unshakable truth.

Instead when I asked questions, the kind of questions that put parts of the bible or god’s actions or Jesus’ actions, into doubt, I was given the same pat answers: “we are finite beings; how can we possibly understand god?”  Or, “god works in mysterious ways.”  Or, “have faith.  God will reveal this to you in time.”

And then that time never comes.

I look at the bible and I wonder, how can this loving god that the Christians believe in order little children dashed to pieces or pregnant mother’s bellies cut open with swords?   How can this just and merciful god order a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath or…allow his followers to teach that women are worth only half as much as men and should be silent, should not wear jewelry or braided hair or… speak aloud in church, and daughters can be sold into slavery.

These are the questions that catch us unaware.  We are like everyone else, Christians going along with what we’re told, assuming someone bothered to do the research and confirm it’s all true.  We nod our heads and sing our songs and high-light the appropriate verses in the bible.   But then one day someone points out something in the bible we didn’t know was there.  Or maybe one day it suddenly dawns on us that it makes no sense that Satan would hate the people who deny god, his enemy, and would want to punish them.    Or that god would punish Adam and Eve so severely for simply being ignorant, for making a mistake, and not just them but all of humanity.

Atheists are not the enemy of anyone.  Atheists simply do not believe in the supernatural–and have lately been brought to the point that we aren’t so silent about it anymore after having to hear politicians who should know better declare our country a “Christian nation” when it’s not, or for that matter have  Christianity shoved in our face wherever we turn.  How does this make us bad people worthy of hate?  How does this make someone like Teresa Macbain worthy of being shunned by the very community she served and helped for years?

Once upon a time God created himself an enemy.  I’m not sure why.  A lot of pain and suffering would have been avoided if he hadn’t.   But he made Satan and then punished Satan for being made.  Sometimes I feel like Christians want to have an enemy too.  So they hunt down people who dare to not agree, and attack them, call them ignorant or evil–arrogantly tell them they’re going to hell–basically punish them for daring to be, just like gays, true to who and what they are.


Christian Blinders

When a Christian spouts off about all the other evidences and proofs out there that a biblical Jesus existed, other than, that is, the four gospels written by anonymous church-hired writers in the New Testament, demand they kindly provide these proofs.  Are they going to list Josephus or other Roman historians that either did not live during the time of Jesus or did not actually write about him per se, but rather the appearance of the new religion Christianity.

It is largely accepted that the few passages in Josephus that mention Jesus were added in later, as the paragraphs are out of context with the sentences that come before and after.   And even if a historian is found who lived during Jesus’ alleged lifetime and did write about him, all that proves is that a person named Jesus existed.  I believe in that part of the world, it is not an uncommon name.

All I ask for is evidence.  Christianity lost credibility for me when I realized that the bible is not true.  When I figured out that there were verses clearly put into it not because they were god’s teachings but because some religious group wanted to dictate certain laws and rules over the common people, and especially to subjugate certain people, most especially women, as is typical of all man-made, patriarchal religions.

Once I figured out that some verses in the bible couldn’t possibly be from god or god inspired, then all of a sudden the entire book became suspect.  How am I, with my puny little mind, supposed to weed out what is really from god and what isn’t really from god?   Between that and the blatant errors in the bible (god the all powerful can’t smite chariots made of iron?  Hello???), the bible stopped being, in my eyes, anything real.

Some Christians readily admit the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale or myths–legends, etc.  But they still believe.  I fail to see how the religion can have a leg to stand on if the bible is not true, if the story of Adam and Eve and original sin is not true?  Without that story of original sin there ceases to be a need for religion, or god, or saviors.  There ceases to be a need for Christianity.  This is the only reason why the Christian bible still has the old testament included–because they need that all important absurd story of talking snakes and the original sin.

Talk to a Christian, they will tell you about Christian writers who disagree.  Well, no surprise there.  I say, read the testimonials of learned Christians–men and women who went to Seminary and taught this stuff and knew the bible inside out and STILL unconverted–lost their faith–stopped believing.   These are the people I would be interested in hearing from.  Not the people who just say the same things I had to hear over and over and over–repeating the same well worn pages and hi-lighted verses, and ignoring completely the other three quarters of this book.

Before a Christian has the right to tell me their god is good, they need to read the entire bible.  They need to tell me how a good and loving deity does what the god of the old testament does, and answer the illogic of an all knowing god deliberately creating flawed human beings, and then punishing them for being flawed.

Questions I’d Ask Christians

Ultimatum.  The only way to heaven & eternal life is by the blood/sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Question:  What about small children, infants or (heaven forbid) fetuses yet to be conceived because mom and dad haven’t met?

Answer:  God is a fair and loving God.  I’m sure innocent children and babies (fetuses!) go to heaven.

Question:  what about all the people (Jews) who worshipped/followed God before Jesus came to earth?  (or for that matter what about all the people who worshiped the other godmen like Krishna or Mithras who claimed to be the only son of god, were born of a virgin, were crucified and rose three days later?  Was it their fault they were born before the REAL only son of god came?  Seems to me their hearts were in the right place–they worshipped the same thing, for doing the same thing.  How were those millions of followers to know it wasn’t the right only son of god?

Answer:  God works in mysterious ways.  Before Jesus came god let people into heaven if they said they were sorry enough times and sacrificed enough crops, animals, or in some cases, daughters or sons.

Question:  what about people in modern times who were born in other parts of the world where the majority of the population is Muslim or Hindu and that’s what they were taught since birth is the only right religion?  Are they to be sent to hell for believing their parents and their teachers and their culture or their religious leaders in their country?  Should they go to hell for not being born where the majority of Christians live–America?

Answer:  We have missionaries that preach to the uneducated third world peoples.  If they hear the word of god and Satan hardens their hearts to it, yes, they will go to hell.  The truth is out there.   They have to forsake these false religions they have been raised all their lives (just as we have been) to think is true, and follow what we believe instead, in order to make it into heaven.

Question:  If you were told by a Muslim or Hindu or anyone else of any other religion that the Christianity you have embraced all your life–that you were raised to believe all your life is true, is actually false, would YOU be able to forsake all you’ve been taught and become one of these other faiths?

Answer:  Absolutely not because Christianity is the only truth.

Question:  And you know this how?

Answer:   The bible tells me so.  And I know because I have a personal relationship with Jesus in my heart.

Question:  Do you think Muslims might feel sure because the Koran tells them so, or because they have a personal relationship with Muhammad in their heart?

Answer:  If Jesus isn’t in their hearts, then what they think is Muhammad is actually satan.

Question:  If Christianity is the only truth, why are there so many variations of Christianity?   Why do Four Square churches teach you d0n’t have the holy spirit in your heart until you can speak in tongues, and why do the Baptists teach that you must be baptized as an adult before the holy spirit will enter you and how come born again Christians say you must ask Jesus into your heart to be your lord and savior before you can really be saved–going to church or doing good works is not enough?     How is a person to know which Christianity is the right way?

Answer:  All who truly seek after God and truly believe Jesus is the only son of god and died for their sins, will be welcome in the kingdom of heaven.

Question:  But all these other people who seek god too, only the god they’ve been taught to believe in has a different name…they aren’t saved because it’s not the right god?

Answer:  Correct

Question:  What about atheists or agnostics who don’t follow or believe in any god?  Isn’t free will a gift your god gives all of us?   So then, if people accept the gift and exercise their free will…they are punished if they don’t make the right decision?

Answer:  Anyone who shuns god will go to hell, yes.

Question:  By that you mean your god?

Answer:  mine is the only god.

Question: Well, what about mentally ill people, or people incapable of comprehending things like god, salvation, Jesus, Satan, sin, heaven and hell?  Do they go to hell for not understanding?

Answer:  Who can know the mind of god?   Our god is loving: I doubt he’d send someone to hell like that.

Question:  Oh, ok, so he does make exceptions.  Interesting.  So um…if he creates someone mentally ill or otherwise unable to make the right choice–he won’t punish them for not believing, but if he makes someone flawed deliberately so they can’t make the right choice and instead don’t believe, that’s different.  Hmm.  So, how can you call it “free will” if there’s only one right choice a mentally capable person can make and…damnation forever if they make the wrong choice?

Answer:  God doesn’t force them to follow him.   He asks.  If they say no, that’s fine.  But then they don’t go to heaven.

Question:  They go to hell instead, and burn in torment forever.

Answer:  yes, exactly.

Question:  Even though god made them the way they are to be destined not to choose him?  He’d punish them for that?  Wow.  Tell me, could you love a god who sent your mother and father to hell for not believing the right thing?  Who sent your best friend to hell because he couldn’t believe something not supported by facts?  Imagine you’re in heaven and you can hear their cries and see their suffering every moment of the eternity in paradise you get to spend?  Would it still feel like paradise to you?   You could love a god who could do this?

Question–or even if god hardens your heart so it doesn’t bother you knowing that mortal human beings are being tortured forever and ever for making the wrong choice in their brief, flawed, mortal life–you could still love a god knowing he can do this?  To creations he made flawed enough to sin in the first place?

Because,Christian, I could not, and I would rather go to hell than worship a god like that.

Would This Feel Like Heaven?

This is something I often wondered growing up as I did, raised by a very devout Christian widow who…well…let’s just say it was very important to her that her children would go to heaven.   Which is why to this day I have never told my mom I no longer believe, and haven’t believed in what is now three years or more.

If I were to imagine heaven, it would be a place where there are no tears, no sadness, no heartache, no despair, no disappointment, no discouragement, no worry, no regrets, no hunger, no thirst, no loneliness, no yearning for things to be different.  Heaven would be all the best things I could ever imagine, like all the most breathtaking natural beauty the earth could offer, only so much more, the colors so much brighter, the sounds so much sweeter.  The air would be like standing in a grove of lilac trees, or in the center of a greenhouse filled with roses.  All would be so glorious you’d want to stand there forever, drinking it in, content to stay still in that moment forever.

As a Christian I had friends who were not, family who were not.  And it bothered me.  Really really bothered me.  My dad’s cousin Evelyn died, and she was an atheist who told me once to my face she had never sinned.  Because she did not believe in sin–which in her view was a man-made invention that made religion necessary.  So when Evie died, I was very sad.  I didn’t want to think of Evie in hell.  It upset me to think of such a wonderful loving lady in such a horrible place.

I have heard it said that hell is not what the bible describes in a literal sense.  Hell is to be eternally separate from God.  Hell is to be able to gaze across a divide at all the joys of heaven, and not be able to go there, not be able to be among all those happy people, but to be stuck forever and ever in a place apart from God.   That’s what hell is.

Now if I were one of those lucky people who managed to make it into heaven, and I looked across and I could see–or even if I couldn’t see, but I just knew, I had friends or family like Evie, in some other place, and they were suffering.  If I knew that because of choices they made in their life as puny and ignorant mortals they were doomed to be punished forever, unforgiven, to a place of despair, of sadness, of pain, of separation, of never knowing the utter bliss I was getting to enjoy…  Would that be very nice for me?  Would I be in heaven?  Would heaven be a happy paradise for me, if I knew across the divide there were people I knew and cared for, suffering–and doomed by my God to suffer forever?  Would that be a happy thing for me?

The only way I would find Heaven a happy place for me under those circumstances, would be if God made my heart very hard so I wouldn’t care anymore.   So I would regard those friends I once cared for and family I cared for as deserving to languish in agony and despair forever.   They would be like my enemy and I would feel how right it was for them to suffer for eternity while I enjoyed happiness beyond my wildest dreams.

If I had to have my heart hardened for Heaven to be a happy place for me–for me to no longer care about people I once cared for now having to suffer, how much more brittle and hardened would God’s heart have to be, considering he supposedly is merciful and “love” is one of his names?   For him to be merciful and loving by nature, and yet able to condemn billions of souls to eternal torment and still go on his merry way being happy in his paradise despite all that suffering going on….wouldn’t he have to shut his ears and harden his heart and cease to be merciful and loving?

He would no longer be a loving God.  He would no longer be a merciful God.  He’d be a cruel and unforgiving God–by so enforcing an eternal horrible punishment upon mortal beings who did for whatever reason, not jump through the right hoops while they were living, and so now they must suffer forever.

It would be different if the rule book were crystal clear and not subject to this interpretation or that interpretation.  But the rule book is not clear.  There are verses in the bible that contradict other verses.  The bible says Thou Shalt not Kill and yet time and time again God kills, or orders his followers to kill.   There is a verse that says not by works are you saved, but it is a gift from god, and there’s another verse that says good works are just a part of what you must do to have eternal life.  There’s a verse that says you should make it known what good works you do, and another verse that says you should keep it secret, and not boast.

Which verses are the correct ones, and which are not?  Why are there cities placed in the wrong countries in the bible?  Why was there a census mentioned in the bible shortly after Jesus’ birth, but the year is off–there was no census at that time per actual history?

If God’s good news is so important, so critical that the punishment is so horrible indeed for those of us who don’t hear or hear but don’t believe…then why isn’t God’s word perfectly clear?  Wouldn’t God insist on it being absolutely clear?  Without flaw?  Without human tampering?    And if our salvation is so important to God, why does he not simply make his existence fact, rather than keep us all guessing?   In all the world there is not one scrap of non-biblical proof of the existence of God, or Jesus for that matter.   Now if God is real, and if his good news is real, and if our salvation is so important to him, so we don’t end up in hell suffering forever while he, God, is forced to shut his ears and turn his back and never forgive–why isn’t evidence of his existence or Jesus’ existence, as plentiful to find as the bones of dinosaurs are?  Why doesn’t God appear and end the doubting that will ultimately cost so many eternal life?  Or for that matter, why did God make Lucifer in the first place, or human beings so fallable as to be capable of sin and then place them right where he knew his imperfect angel was lying in wait?

Or if God doesn’t want to appear?  If our salvation isn’t worth him revealing himself, why not perform the impossible to prove miracles really do happen?  Like, allowing the amputee who has been praying really hard, to have his lost arm or leg grow back?  Or give the woman who had her eyes gouged out by the chimpanzee, new eyes–regrow them in her head?   If God can do anything, these things would not surpass his power–and would leave very little doubt that the supernatural exists.  And yet he doesn’t.

Anyway, I have digressed and I’m sorry.  My point is, even if I were still a Christian, and even if I did make it into this paradise Christians look forward to.  It wouldn’t be heaven to me because I would know my Aunt Evie was being punished in hell–and she was a really neat lady who does not deserve torment and pain for all eternity.  So heaven would become hell for me,  knowing Evie isn’t there and knowing there’s nothing I can do to appeal to this merciless deaf God to hear her cries of torment and forgive.

That wouldn’t be heaven for me, and that would not be a god I would even want to follow.

The Bible & Seeing What You Want To See

Ever wonder what passages in the bible Hitler highlighted?   He was very serious about doing God’s work, and from what I read the German church regarded him as the embodiment of the holy spirit on Earth; they supported him.   So I suppose Hitler had a bible, and just like every other believer, went through and highlighted the verses he chose to believe as a way to justify it in his mind, he was doing God’s work.  Imagine his surprise when he died and found himself in hell.  For indeed if such a place did exist, he would be there, as would all people who did hurtful things to others and got away with it…which is probably why hell was dreamed up to begin with.

I had someone send me a link to some Christian website in response to my post where I listed a few contradictions of the bible.   Well, of course.  For every fifty verses I find describing wholesale slaughter and destruction ordered by or performed by God, the same few New Testament verses about how loving and merciful this god is, will be dredged up.   And that’s fine.  As someone else pointed out, it’s pointless and a waste of energy to try to argue or talk someone out of belief in myths.  I know it because for years people tried to point out the illogic to me.  I was only able to wake up to the non-highlighted bits in my bible, at my own time.  When my mind and heart were ready to see, I saw.

But it is interesting that the same book can contain verses commanding us to beat children with rods and stone our sons for being disobedient, can also create all these known interpretations of it like the Catholic interpretation, Presbyterian, Baptist, Protestant, Four Square, Lutheran, etc, etc., etc.   It just seems to me if God’s important message was so hugely important, it would be very clear, and only interpretable one way–the right way.  If our salvation was so important to God, why be so mysterious about it?   Why whisper it in our ears rather than thunder it across the skies?   Free will only works if we have choices, and I’m sorry but the vehicle God uses to get his good news across, is vague, contradictory, erroneous, misleading, and subject to being taken as a justification for good OR evil and everything in-between too.  If the message was so important to God that we hear it, if our salvation was so important to this loving God, I would think he’d make a point to be a lot clearer about it than this.  

Once upon a time hundreds of people died for daring to open the Ark of the Covenant.  Well, what about all these re-translated, mistranslated, translated into modern-speak versions of the bible from the original Hebrew?  God doesn’t mind his sacred word changed, deleted or rewritten?   And example– “the word interpreted as “virgin” in the bible is actually “young woman,” and yet everyone accepts the belief now that Mary was a virgin, and Jesus seeded in her womb by God.   In no place in the bible is Mary described as a virgin.  She’s described as a young woman.    This is a blunder that the church has been aware of for centuries and yet chooses to keep intact in the bible because so many people now accept this as part of the story as fact–conveniently used as evidence of Jesus’ heavenly origins.

Is the bible fact?  Did the disciples actually exist?   Did the disciples write the bible or some anonymous writers hired by the early Roman church and hiding behind fictionous pen names to give them credibility.   

I personally am amazed I dedicated thirty plus years of my life to something without first checking out how the book the whole religion is founded on, came to be.  In retrospect it seems it should have been my first undertaking.  Investigation.  Is it TRUE?   Before I dedicate my life to it.



Why do Jews Reject the Christian dogma of the

Virgin Birth?
(The Second Jewish Book Of Why)
(By Alfred Kolatch 1985)

    Based on Isaiah 7:14, Christians claim that the birth of Jesus was predicted long before the event. The verse reads, “Behold, the alma shall conceive and bear a son and shall call him Immanuel [literally, ‘God is with us’].” Although the Hebrew word alma literally means “young woman,” when the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) cites the verse from Isaiah, it translates Alma as “Virgin.” This translation is useful in supporting the contention that the miraculous birth of Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament.

   Jewish scholars reject the idea of the Virgin Birth because, they point out, in Isaiah 7:14 the word Alma is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-alma hara, meaning “the alma is pregnant.” Since the present tense is used, it is clear that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.

    Jewish scholars, supported by many Christian scholars, have also noted that the word alma in Isaiah 7:14 cannot mean “virgin” because elsewhere when the Bible wants to specify “virgin,” it uses the Hebrew word betula.

    When the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was issued in 1952, the words “young woman,” not the word “Virgin, were used for alma in its translation of Isaiah 7:14. This upset the Fundamentalist Christian community, which maintains that alma in Isaiah refers to the mother of Jesus, who conceived miraculously, without cohabitation with a man. These Fundamentalists expressed their vehement opposition to the new translation by holding burnings of the Revised Edition of the Bible.

Dear Theologian

This is from my favorite chapter in Dan Barker’s book, “Losing Faith in Faith.”   I found it online and thought I’d repost it here.  It’s long, but this chapter alone unraveled the last fraying strands of faith for me:


Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker
Chapter 19

Dear Theologian

Dear Theologian,

I have a few questions, and I thought you would be the right person to ask. It gets tough sometimes, sitting up here in heaven with no one to talk to. I mean really talk to. I can always converse with the angels, of course, but since they don’t have free will, and since I created every thought in their submissive minds, they are not very stimulating conversationalists.

Of course, I can talk with my son Jesus and with the “third person” of our holy trinity, the Holy Spirit, but since we are all the same, there is nothing we can learn from each other. There are no well-placed repartees in the Godhead. We all know what the others know. We can’t exactly play chess. Jesus sometimes calls me “Father,” and that feels good, but since he and I are the same age and have the same powers, it doesn’t mean much.

You are educated. You have examined philosophy and world religions, and you have a degree which makes you qualified to carry on a discussion with someone at my level–not that I can’t talk with anyone, even with the uneducated believers who fill the churches and flatter me with endless petitions, but you know how it is. Sometimes we all crave interaction with a respected colleague. You have read the scholars. You have written papers and published books about me, and you know me better than anyone else.

It might surprise you to think that I have some questions. No, not rhetorical questions aimed at teaching spiritual lessons, but some real, honest-to-God inquiries. This should not shock you because, after all, I created you in my image. Your inquisitiveness is an inheritance from me. You would say that love, for example, is a reflection of my nature within yourself, wouldn’t you? Since questioning is healthy, it also comes from me.

Somebody once said that we should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. My first question is this:

Where did I come from?

I find myself sitting up here in heaven, and I look around and notice that there is nothing else besides myself and the objects that I have created. I don’t see any other creatures competing with me, nor do I notice anything above myself that might have created me, unless it is playing hide-and-seek. In any event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything), there is nothing else but me in-three-persons and my creations. I have always existed, you say. I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than myself.

So where did I come from?

I know how you approach that question regarding your own existence. You notice that nature, especially the human mind, displays evidence of intricate design. You have never observed such design apart from a designer. You argue that human beings must have had a creator, and you will find no disagreement from me.

Then, what about me? Like you, I observe that my mind is complex and intricate. It is much more complex than your mind, otherwise I couldn’t have created your mind. My personality displays evidence of organization and purpose. Sometimes I surprise myself at how wise I am. If you think your existence is evidence of a designer, then what do you think about my existence? Am I not wonderful? Do I not function in an orderly manner? My mind is not a random jumble of disconnected thoughts; it displays what you would call evidence of design. If you need a designer, then why don’t I?

You might think such a question is blasphemy, but to me there is no such crime. I can ask any question I want, and I think this is a fair one. If you say that everything needs a designer and then say that not everything (Me) needs a designer, aren’t you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren’t you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn’t that circular reasoning? I am not saying I disagree with your conclusion; how could I? I’m just wondering why it is proper for you to infer a designer while it is not proper for me.

If you are saying that I don’t need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don’t need the design argument at all, do you? You have already assumed that I exist. You can make such an assumption, of course, and I would not deny you the freedom. Such a priori and circular reasoning might be helpful or comforting to you, but it does me little good. It doesn’t help me figure out where I came from.

You say that I am eternally existent, and I suppose I would have no objection if I knew what it meant. It is hard for me to conceive of eternal existence. I just can’t remember back that far. It would take me an eternity to remember back to eternity, leaving me no time to do anything else, so it is impossible for me to confirm if I existed forever. And even if it is true, why is eternal greater than temporal? Is a long sermon greater than a short sermon? What does “greater” mean? Are fat people greater than thin people, or old greater than young?

You think it is important that I have always existed. I’ll take your word for it, for now. My question is not with the duration of my existence, but with the origin of my existence. I don’t see how being eternal solves the problem. I still want to know where I came from.

I can only imagine one possible answer, and I would appreciate your reaction. I know that I exist. I know that I could not have created myself. I also know that there is no higher God who could have created me. Since I can’t look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a creator. Perhaps–this is speculative, so bear with me–perhaps you created me.

Don’t be shocked. I mean to flatter you. Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent–that is what your readers say. Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Help me out on this.

Of course, if you made me, then I could not have made you, I think. The reason that I think I made you is because you made me to think I made you. You have often said that a Creator can put thoughts in your mind. Isn’t it possible that you have put thoughts in my mind, and now here we are, both of us, wondering where we each came from?

Some of you have said that the answer to this whole question is just a mystery that only God understands. Well, thanks a lot. The buck stops here. On the one hand you use logic to try to prove my existence, but on the other hand, when logic hits a dead end, you abandon it and invoke “faith” and “mystery.” Those words might be useful to you as place-holders for facts or truth, but they don’t translate to anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. You can pretend that “mystery” signifies something terribly important, but to me it simply means you don’t know.

Some of you assert that I did not “come” from anywhere. I just exist. However, I have also heard you say that nothing comes from nothing. You can’t have it both ways. I either exist or I don’t. What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all? If I don’t need a cause, then why do you? Since I am not happy to say that this is a mystery, I must accept the only explanation that makes sense. You created me.

Is that such a terrible idea? I know that you think many other gods were created by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis. You recognize that such deities originate in human desire, need, or fear. If the blessed beliefs of those billions of individuals can be dismissed as products of culture, then why can’t yours? The Persians created Mithra, the Jews created Yahweh, and you created me. If I am wrong about this, please straighten me out.

My second question is this:

What’s it all about?

Maybe I made myself, maybe some other god made me, maybe you made me–let’s put that aside for now. I’m here now. Why am I here? Many of you look up to me for purpose in life, and I have often stated that your purpose in life is to please me. (Read Revelation 4:11) If your purpose is to please me, what is my purpose? To please myself? Is that all there is to life?

If I exist for my own pleasure, then this is selfish. It makes it look as if I created you merely to have some living toys to play with. Isn’t there some principle that I can look up to? Something to admire, adore, and worship? Am I consigned for eternity to sit here and amuse myself with the worship of others? Or to worship myself? What’s the point?

I have read your writings on the meaning of life, and don’t misunderstand me, they make sense in the theological context of human religious goals, even if they don’t have much practicality in the real world. Many of you feel that your purpose in life is to achieve perfection. Since you humans fall way short of perfection, by your own admission (and I agree), then self improvement provides you with a quest. It gives you something to do. Someday you hope to be as perfect as you think I am. But since I am already perfect, by definition, then I don’t need such a purpose. I’m just sort of hanging out, I guess.

Yet I still wonder why I’m here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds of natural laws that govern everything from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own. I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules, and a trillion other boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together, and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing in the universe for me to do. It’s boring up here.

I could create more universes and more laws, but what’s the point? I’ve already done universes. Creation is like sneezing or writing short stories; it just comes out of me. I could go on an orgy of creation. Create, create, create. After a while a person can get sick of the same thing, like when you eat a whole box of chocolates and discover that the last piece doesn’t taste as good as the first. Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? (I’m asking you, not the pope.) If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must compel myself, then I am a slave.

Many of you assert that it is inappropriate to seek purpose within yourself, that it must come from outside. I feel the same way. I can’t merely assign purpose to myself. If I did, then I would have to look for my reasons. I would have to come up with an account of why I chose one purpose over another, and if such reasons came from within myself I would be caught in a loop of self-justified rationalizations. Since I have no Higher Power of my own, then I have no purpose. Nothing to live for. It is all meaningless.

Sure, I can bestow meaning on you–pleasing me, achieving perfection, whatever–and perhaps that is all that concerns you; but doesn’t it bother you, just a little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? And if this is true, then isn’t it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for yourself either? If it makes you happy to demand an external reference point on which to hang your meaningfulness, why would you deny the same to me? I also want to be happy, and I want to find that happiness in something other than myself. Is that a sin?

On the other hand, if you think I have the right and the freedom to find happiness in myself and in the things I created, then why should you not have the same right? You, whom I created in my image?

I know that some of you have proposed a solution to this problem. You call it “love.” You think I am lonely up here, and that I created humans to satisfy my longing for a relationship with something that is not myself. Of course, this will never work because it is impossible for me to create something that is not part of myself, but let’s say that I try anyway. Let’s say that I create this mechanism called “free will,” which imparts to humans a choice. If I give you the freedom (though this is stretching the word because there is nothing outside of my power) not to love me, then if some of you, a few of you, even one of you chooses to love me, I have gained something I might not have had. I have gained a relationship with someone who could have chosen otherwise. This is called love, you say.

This is a great idea, on paper. In real life, however, it turns out that millions, billions of people have chosen not to love me, and that I have to do something with these infidels. I can’t just un-create them. If I simply destroy all the unbelievers, I may as well have created only believers in the first place. Since I am omniscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would have a tendency to choose me, and this would produce no conflict with free will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated simply by not having been created in the first place. (I could call it Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell.

You can’t have a love relationship with someone who is not your equal. If you humans don’t have a guaranteed eternal soul, like myself, then you are worthless as companions. If I can’t respect your right to exist independently, and your right to choose something other than me, then I couldn’t love those of you who do choose me. I would have to find a place for all those billions of eternal souls who reject me, whatever their reasons might be. Let’s call it “hell,” a place that is not-God, not-me. I would have to create this inferno, otherwise neither I nor the unbelievers could escape each other. Let’s ignore the technicalities of how I could manage to create hell, and then separate it from myself, apart from whom nothing else exists. (It’s not as though I could create something and then simply throw it away–there is no cosmic trash heap.) The point is that since I am supposedly perfect, this place of exile must be something that is the opposite. It must be ultimate evil, pain, darkness, and torment.

If I created hell, then I don’t like myself.

If I did create a hell, then it certainly would not be smart to advertise that fact. How would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or simply to avoid punishment? How can I expect someone to love me who is afraid of me in the first place? The threat of eternal torment might scare some people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love. If you treated me with threats and intimidations, I would have to reconsider my admiration for your character.

How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them? Could you live with yourself? Wouldn’t it have been better not to have brought them into the world in the first place?

I know that some of you feel that hell is just a metaphor. Do you feel the same way about heaven?

Anyway, this whole love argument is wrong. Since I am perfect, I don’t lack anything. I can’t be lonely. I don’t need to be loved. I don’t even want to be loved because to want is to lack. To submit to the potential of giving and receiving love is to admit that I can be hurt by those who choose not to love me. If you can hurt me, I am not perfect. If I can’t be hurt, I can’t love. If I ignore or erase those who do not love me, sending them off to hell or oblivion, then my love is not sincere. If all I am doing is throwing the dice of “free will” and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then I am a selfish monster. If you played such games with people’s lives, I would call you insensitive, conceited, insecure, selfish and manipulative.

I know you have tried to get me off the hook. You explain that Yours Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you explain. Well, who gave them their human nature? If certain humans decide to do wrong, where do they get the impulse? If you think it came from Satan, who created Satan? And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first place? Who created that susceptibility? If Satan was created perfect, and then fell, where did the flaw of perdition come from? If I am perfect, then how in God’s name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection? Someone once said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Here is the title for your next theological tome: Was Eve Perfect? If she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn’t, I created imperfection.

Maybe you think all of this gives me a purpose–putting Humpty Dumpty back together–but it actually gives me a headache. (If you won’t permit me a simple headache, then how can you allow me the pain of lost love?) I could not live with myself if I thought my actions were causing harm to others. Well, I shouldn’t say that. Since I think you created me, I suppose I should let you tell me what I could live with. If you think it is consistent with my character to tolerate love and vengeance concurrently, then I have no choice. If you are my creator, then I could spout tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy it. I would be very human indeed.

I have a thousand more questions, but I hope you will allow me one more:

How do I decide what is right and wrong?

I don’t know how I got here, but I’m here. Let’s just say that my purpose is to make good people out of my creations. Let’s say that I am to help you learn how to be perfect like me, and that the best way is for you to act just like me, or like I want you to act. You goal is to become little mirrors of myself. Won’t that be splendid? I’ll give you rules or principles, and you try to follow them. This may or may not be meaningful, but it will keep us both busy. I suppose that from your point of view this would be terribly meaningful, since you think I have the power to reward and punish.

I know that some of you Protestant theologians think that I give rewards not for good deeds, but simply for believing in my son Jesus who paid the punishment for your bad deeds. Well, Jesus spent only about thirty-six hours of an eternal life sentence in hell and is now back up here in ultimate coziness with me. Talk about a wrist-slap! He was not paroled for good behavior–he was simply released. (He had connections.) If my righteous judgment demanded absolute satisfaction, then Jesus should have paid the price in full, don’t you think?

Beyond that, it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice? If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the jail sentence for you? If someone burglarized your home, would you think justice was served if a friend bought you new furniture? Do you really think that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal responsibility? It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven who have avoided the rap for their own actions. Something is way out of kilter here.

But let’s ignore these objections. Let’s assume that Jesus and I worked it all out and that evil will be punished and good rewarded. How do I know the difference? You are insisting that I not consult any rule book. You are asking me to be the Final Authority. I must simply decide, and you must trust my decision. Am I free to decide whatever I want?

Suppose I decide that I would like you to honor me with a day of my own. I like the number seven, I don’t know why, maybe because it is the first useless number. (You never sing any hymns to me in 7/4 time.) Let’s divide the calendar into groups of seven days and call them weeks. For harmony, I’ll divide each lunar phase into roughly seven days. The last day of the week–or maybe the first day, I don’t care–I’ll set aside for myself. Let’s call it the Sabbath. This all feels good, so I suppose it is the right thing to do. I’ll make a law ordering you to observe the Sabbath, and if you do it then I will pronounce you good people. In fact, I’ll make it one of my Big Ten Commandments, and I’ll order your execution if you disobey. This all makes perfect sense, I don’t know why.

Help me out here. How am I supposed to choose what is moral? Since I can’t consult any authority, the thing to do, it appears, is to pick randomly. Actions will become right or wrong simply because I declare them to be so. If I whimsically say that you should not make any graven or molten images of “anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,” then that is that. If I decide that murder is right and compassion is wrong, you will have to accept it.

Is that all there is to it? I just decide, willy-nilly, what is right and what is wrong? Or worse, I decide based on whatever makes me feel good? I have read in some of your literature that you denounce such self-centered attitudes.

Some of you say that since I am perfect, I can’t make any mistakes. Whatever I choose to be right or wrong will be in accordance with my nature, and since I am perfect, then my choices will be perfect. In any event, my choices will certainly be better than your choices, you feel. But what does “perfect” mean? If my nature is “perfect” (whatever it means), then I am living up to a standard. If I am living up to a standard, then I am not God. If perfection means something all by itself, apart from me, then I am constrained to follow its path. If, on the other hand, perfection is defined simply as conformity to my nature, then it doesn’t mean anything. My nature can be what it wants, and perfection will be defined accordingly. Do you see the problem here? If “perfection” equals “God,” then it is just a synonym for myself, and we can do away with the word. We could do away with either word, take your pick.

If I am perfect, then there are certain things that I cannot do. If I am not free to feel envy, lust, or malice, for example, then I am not omnipotent. I cannot be more powerful than you if you can feel and do things that I cannot.

Additionally, if you feel that God is perfect, by nature, what does “nature” mean? The word is used to describe the way things are or act in nature, and since you think I am above nature, you must mean something else, something like “character,” or “attributes.” To have a nature or character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits. Why am I one way and not another? How did it get decided that my nature would be what it is? If my “nature” is clearly defined, then I am limited. I am not God. If my nature has no limits, as some of you suggest, then I have no nature at all, and to say that God has such-and-such a nature is meaningless. In fact, if I have no limits, then I have no identity; and if I have no identity, then I do not exist.

Who am I?

This brings me back to the conundrum: if I don’t know who I am, then how can I decide what is right? Do I just poke around in myself until I come up with something?

There is one course I could pursue, and some of you have suggested this for yourselves. I could base my pronouncements on what is best for you humans. You people have physical bodies that bump around in a physical world. I could determine those actions that are healthy and beneficial for material beings in a material environment. I could make morality something material: something that is relative to human life, not to my whims. I could declare (by conclusion, not by edict) that harming human life is bad, and that helping or enhancing human life is good. This would be like providing an operation manual for something I designed and manufactured. It would require me to know all about human nature and the environment in which you humans live, and to communicate these ideas to you.

This makes a lot of sense, but it changes my task from one of determining morality to one of communicating morality. If morality is discovered in nature, then you don’t need me, except maybe to prod you along. I saw to it that you have capable minds with the ability to reason and do science. There is nothing mysterious about studying how humans interact with nature and with each other, and you should be able to come up with your own set of rules. Some of you tried this millennia before Moses. Even if your rules contradict mine, I couldn’t claim any higher authority than you. At least you would be able to give reasons for your rules, which I can only do by submitting to science myself.

If morality is defined by how human beings exist in nature, then you don’t need me at all. I am off the hook! From what I have read, most of you have your feet on the ground with no help from me. I could hand down some stone tablets containing what I think is right and wrong, but it would still be up to you to see if they work in the real world. I think we all agree that grounded reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded deity.

This is a wonderful approach, but what bothers me is that while this may help you know what is moral in your environment, it doesn’t help me much. I don’t have an environment. I’m out here flapping in the breeze. I envy you.

Nor does the humanistic approach help those of you who want morality to be rooted in something absolute, outside of yourselves. It must be frightening for you who need an anchor to realize that there is no bottom to the ocean. Well, it’s frightening for me also. I don’t have an anchor of my own. That’s why I’m asking for your help.

Thank you for reading my letter, and for letting me impose on your busy schedule. Please answer at your convenience. I have all the time in the world.


Yours Truly

Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God

The Freewill Argument
for the Nonexistence of God

By Dan Barker

This article in Farsi.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, “in three persons,” is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can’t have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God “knows” what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow–because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does “nature of God” mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The “nature” that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the “nature” of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the “nature” of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. “Strength and aptitude” puts a limit on what any person is “free” to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don’t know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word “option” mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that “free will” with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a “free agency” for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange “person” with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

Dan Barker is PR Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and author of Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist.

Losing Faith In Faith by former minister Dan Barker

I have this book, and in fact Mr. Barker’s writings, along with others, have given me the key to unlocking my chains.  One of my favorite bits in his book, “Losing Faith in Faith,” I found online and thought I’d post below:

Dear Believer

The following open letter was reprinted from Losing Faith in Faith (1992).

by Dan Barker

ear Believer,

You asked me to consider Christianity as the answer for my life. I have done that. I consider it untrue, repugnant, and harmful.

You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost? Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions? Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin; Roman historian Seutonius said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died; and Buddha was supposedly born speaking. You don’t believe all that, do you? Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity?

I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voiced spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth … while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.

If you believe these stories, then you are the one with the problem, not me. These myths violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic. If you can’t see that, then you can’t separate truth from fantasy. It doesn’t matter how many people accept delusions inflicted by “holy” men; a widely held lie is still a lie. If you are so gullible, then you are like the child who believes the older brother who says there is a monster in the hallway. But there is nothing to be afraid of; go turn on the light and look for yourself.

If Christianity were simply untrue I would not be too concerned. Santa is untrue, but it is a harmless myth which people outgrow. But Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent. It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can’t tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature!

The biblical god is a macho male warrior. Though he said “Thou shalt not kill,” he ordered death for all opposition, wholesale drowning and mass exterminations; punishes offspring to the fourth generation (Ex. 20:5); ordered pregnant women and children to be ripped up (Hos. 13:16); demands animal and human blood to appease his angry vanity; is partial to one race of people; judges women to be inferior to men; is a sadist who created a hell to torture unbelievers; created evil (Is. 45:7); discriminated against the handicapped (Lev. 21:18-23); ordered virgins to be kept as spoils of war (Num. 31:15-18, Deut. 21:11-14); spread dung on people’s faces (Mal. 2:3); sent bears to devour 42 children who teased a prophet (II Kings 2:23-24); punishes people with snakes, dogs, dragons, drunkenness, swords, arrows, axes, fire, famine, and infanticide; and said fathers should eat their sons (Ez. 5:10). Is that nice? Would you want to live next door to such a person?

And Jesus is a chip off the old block. He said, “I and my father are one,” and he upheld “every jot and tittle” of the Old Testament law. Mt. 5:18 He preached the same old judgment: vengeance and death, wrath and distress, hell and torture for all nonconformists. He believed in demons, angels and spirits. He never denounced the subjugation of slaves or women. Women were excluded as disciples and as guests at his heavenly table. Except for hell he introduced nothing new to ethics or philosophy. He was disrespectful of his mother and brothers; he said we should hate our parents and desert our families. Mt. 10:35-36, Lk. 14:26 (So much for “Christian family life.”) He denounced anger, but was often angry himself. Mt. 5:22, Mk. 3:5 He called people “fools” (Mt. 23:17,19), “serpents,” and “white sepulchers,” though he warned that such language puts you in danger of hellfire. Mt. 5:22 He said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Mt. 10:34 (So much for “Peace on Earth.”) He irrationally cursed and withered a fig tree for being barren out of season. Mt. 21:19 He mandated burning unbelievers. Jn. 15:6 (The Church has complied with relish.) He stole a horse. Lk. 19:30-33 He told people to cut off hands, feet, eyes and sexual organs. Mt. 5:29-30, 19:12 You want me to accept Jesus, but I think I’ll pick my own friend, thank you.

One of Jesus’s many contradictions was saying good works should be seen, and not seen. Mt. 5:16, 6:1-4 One of his mistakes was saying that the mustard plant has the smallest seed. Mt. 13:31-32 The writers of Matthew and Luke could not even get his genealogy straight, contradicting the Old Testament, and giving Jesus two discrepant lines through Joseph, his non-father!

I also find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The concepts of original sin, depravity, substitutionary forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.

Finally, Christianity is harmful. More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason. The Church has a shameful, bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, heresy trials, American colonial intolerance, disrespect of indigenous traditions (such as American Indians), support of slavery, and oppression of women. Modern “fruits” of religion include the Jonestown massacre, the callous fraud of “faith healers,” recent wars and ethnic cleansing, and fighting in Northern Ireland. Religion also poses a danger to mental health, damaging self-respect, personal responsibility, and clarity of thought.

Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message? It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity — but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.

Not So Logical Testament…

Ever wonder why, in Christian bookstores, you can find so many versions of the New Testament by itself without the old?  Considering the importance of the story of Adam and Eve and the garden, which makes belief on Jesus Christ necessary, I find this odd.  Without this one event, the concept of original sin committed by childlike newly made humans of picking a piece of fruit that was forbidden, the entire structure of the Christian religion would fall.

I am no scientist or researcher.  I’m just someone with an average IQ trying to grasp the workings of this god.  But even I with my limited intellect can see something questionable in this creation story…a major contradiction… that the religion is founded upon.

God is all-knowing.  He can see the entire future and what is going to happen before it happens.   God is perfect.  This is what Christianity maintains.  He made humans  in his image.  That means the original humans would have been perfect too.  Or should have been.  Had God in his perfection set about to make a perfect creation.  But then he didn’t obviously.  Because a creation made in his image would be perfect.  Unless, that is, he failed?  Can God fail?   Or is everything he does, part of a master plan?

If God made humans in his image but didn’t do it right and they ended up flawed, corruptable, wouldn’t God have known it ahead of time that his creation was flawed and taken steps to correct the problem? If you are a sculptor making a figure out of clay and the arm falls off, wouldn’t you take the time to reattach the arm?  Or better yet start the sculpture over again so this time it has no defect, no weak point?

Clearly if God is all-knowing, he knew when he made humans that his creation had a weakness.  Not only did he know this, but he also knew ahead of time that humans would be tempted in the garden.  He would have to, because he is all-knowing and can see future events, yes?  So he would have known even before he made the earth or scattered stars across the sky that his creation mankind would fail him.  And since God cannot fail or make imperfection and/or mistakes we were made perfectly as he intended us to be–imperfect!   Human beings.  Perfectly (and purposely) made imperfect.

In the same way, God would have known when he made the angel Lucifer, that this angel was going to betray him, cause an uprising against him in heaven, and force God to cast him to the earth, thus creating his worst enemy and the cause of never-ending suffering on the earth.  And yet…God made Lucifer anyway, and, knowing ahead of time this angel would be flawed in his character, God could certainly have chosen to not make the angel at all, or perhaps remade Lucifer so he was as perfect as his other angels.  Because angels aren’t supposed to have free will like humans.   Therefore obviously it would be a flaw in that angel if it were capable of acting in defiance.   So twice now at least, God has made flawed creations.  Deliberately, because he’s all knowing.  First, by making Lucifer, who did have free will, (and then apparently other flawed angels who were capable of being turned to follow Lucifer).   And then of course with the creation of humankind, which God would have known ahead of time all the events that were about to happen.

He’d have known it when he made Lucifer, that this angel would fall, known it that Lucifer would become Satan and thus forcing God to make hell as a place separate from God for Satan and his followers to live.  God would have known ahead of time that Satan was lurking in Eden in the form of a serpent, would have known ahead of time that he put his flawed creation man in close proximity to this fallen angel and known ahead of time that the creation he had knowingly made flawed, would ultimately fail him.

If you were a ship-wright, and you made a little boat, and you decided to put a hole in its hull before placing it on a lake…would you be angry and surprised to return to the lake a few hours later and find the boat had sunk?   Would you become enraged at the boat, curse it, haul it out from the water and break it into pieces and burn it, blaming the boat for having the hole?

Essentially this is what God does in the Adam and Eve story.  He throws a tantrum when he “discovers” man and woman hiding their nakedness from him.  Yes, like he didn’t know ahead of time that man and woman would succumb to the temptation of Satan or didn’t know ahead of time that Satan whom he bungled the job of making correctly, would foil what I guess was his original plan (does God change his mind?) of having perfect immortal creations made in his image, in a garden to keep him company for all eternity?

Does any of this make sense?   So ok, another thing God knew ahead of time.  He knew because he had created human beings flawed, deliberately it seems, and Lucifer flawed, again, AWARE, and yet doing this anyway, that a gulf would be created between humans and himself.  And in fact from that moment forward humans would have to grovel and offer sacrifice and do everything in their power to make amends for the flaw that God had made in them, the flaw that God had made in Lucifer and in the angels who could defy God and follow Lucifer.  That’s alot of flaws for a perfect flawless being to create.  Which of course means they aren’t really flaws but part of God’s making that he did deliberately and knowingly.

So great.  Now he has outcasted flawed angels in this horrible place called hell because they did just as he had made them to do.  And we have a race of sentient beings who must forever give of their food, prosperity, time, energy, love…whatever…to appease this God’s wrath over the fact they too, did what he had designed them to do.

If you make a fire to burn and so it burns, would you then have a tantrum and punish it for burning?   Yet, isn’t that what God does with his creations he made flawed deliberately and so they acted as he made them to?  If you make a car with its steering wheel stuck all the way to the right so all it can do is drive in tight little circles…would you punish the car for having this flaw?   Why then does it make sense that this creator can make flawed creations, and being all-knowing as he is, being aware of the flaws as he makes these flawed creations, only to punish the flawed creation for doing just as he made them to?

A race of slaves, running to do God’s will for fear of being smited if they do not.   Giving to him in fire portions of their best crops and livestock, and all the humans after those first flawed creations inheriting that flaw, and having to do likewise…

All so God could send down his only son to be flogged, abused, and ultimately die for the fact we humans (and some of God’s own angels) were  made flawed by God, all to provide us a way to reconnect with God again and not have to make sacrifices anymore.  Christians call this a loving father.  What a role model for father’s everywhere, a superbeing who for generations planned and then oversees that it’s carried out– the murder of his own son.  All because…oh yes, that’s right, God knowingly made us flawed and therefore deserving of punishment, needing someone to die horribly so we are all washed clean in his blood.

Lovely image, that.  Isn’t it?   How odd it is that for this peaceful, loving God so often blood and pain and death are sang about and celebrated by Christians.

Did Jesus supposed sacrifice really free us of God’s judgement–God’s tyranny because certainly Satan never dreamed it up.  Free us of the horrible penalty we inherited from flawed primitives who made a mistake with a talking snake?  Christianity teaches we are born into sin.  We inherited original sin, Eve’s sin, and Adam’s, and our parent’s sin, and their parent’s sin, and their parent’s parent’s sin.  We are born corrupted and in need of fixing.  We are born flawed–more flawed creations God made deliberately, and the only way for us to avoid eternal torment in a horrible place called hell, is give over our lives to this God.   Oh, but we are given free will to choose!  And the choices?  Take a bullet in the head, or love me.  Jump into a vat of acid or love me.   Burn and suffer forever in endless torment, or love me.  How, may I ask, can this be called free will???

Why would i want to love or follow a God that deliberately and knowingly, made humans flawed and then blamed us, punished us ever since, for it?   Unlike every other living thing born on this earth, I am born broken until I beg God to make me whole again.

This is not in my view, the actions of a good and loving God.  I think if I were a very sadistic scientist in a lab and I wanted to, just for kicks, torment some rats, I’d do about the same things to them.  I’d genetically create rats with only three legs, not four.  I’d expect those rats to perform as well as or better than four-legged rats, and when they did not, I would punish them–throw them live, into a fire.  Then I’d make the offspring of those genetically engineered to be flawed rats, also born with three legs, to perish the same way, just for inheriting the desired flaw I made them to have.

These are just a few of the flaws I see in what really is the foundation of the Christian religion, a story that without it, there would be no need for Jesus Christ and belief in saviors, or for that matter a need to support churches, or spend our precious little time worshipping a bully who forced all this on us–put us in this position of dependency on him and his mercy, all on purpose apparently if he truly is all-knowing.  If God had made us correctly in the first place (and being perfect he should have been able to) and Lucifer, and those angels who followed him–we’d still be in the garden right now.  All this is according to his divine plan, Christians say.  Well then.  His divine plan was to make a flawed race of slaves and force us to surrender up our lives to him to keep from being damned forever for  having a flaw he gave us in the first place.

Does God Ever Heal Amputees?

I have found several rather hilarious websites addressing this question.   One Christian website tried to claim that yes, God heals amputees because it says in the bible he made the lame to walk and the blind to see.  Um…I can be made lame if I twist my ankle.  I am “lame” if I step on a nail.  I am lame if I’m born with a club-foot.   I am lame if I develop blood poisoning in my leg and it starts to turn gangrenous.   Being lame implies the affected limb is still there.  So I’m sorry, the biblical quote that Jesus made the lame to walk does not suffice as a satisfactory answer here.  Has God ever healed an amputee? 

Here’s a truly hilarious post I found.  I love how this person uses the word magic to describe God’s power.  How appropriate this term is when magical thinking is required to believe in such things.  Also, I love that this person so blithely gives God the credit (calling it a “bit of magic) for allowing doctors to fork out huge amounts of cash and time to go to medical school and get what is beyond so many of us to get–a license to practice medicine.   Apparently God sits up in heaven and determines in his wisdom (this is while he’s busy running the entire universe and/or universes), whether so and so be provided the brain cells to learn enough SCIENCE to help people, or that such and such corporation should be blessed with the raw materials it takes to make artificial limbs.

BTW.  artificial limbs do not qualify as healing anymore than putting a bandage on a cut would automatically make the cut healed.  Oh, and the comment that people would not be smart enough to heal or think up on their own the idea of replacing a limb with a prosthesis.  Interesting.  So what are humans intelligent enough to think up on their own?   Would toilet paper have ever been invented without God’s help?

Why do atheist claim that God doesn’t heal amputees when the evidence is right in front of them?

God heals cancer by magically making it go away. God heals illness by making people magically get better. God heals amputees by allowing corporations and doctors to obtain the knowledge to make artificial limbs, this is also a bit of magic because people would not be smart enough to think of this stuff on their own. Why do you people deny the evidence that is right in front of you?