Premature History of Christianity

I recently got an email from a Christian friend asking me a few things:

“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”
And
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”
And
“According to statistic, ‘n third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”
(these questions aren’t exact, but I’ve taken the individual questions out of the main idea.)

First:
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”

Just to be clear, I never said Jesus didn’t exist (or at least, if I did, I intended different). I said, or intended to say, that Jesus probably didn’t exist. And if he did, not in the way Christians think.

This is slightly harder to explain because you have to stop assuming that Jesus existed in the first place. The real question is: what proof do you have that Jesus existed in the first place? The pressure shouldn’t be on me to disprove you; it should be on yourself (any Christian) to prove because you make a claim.

To make things clearer:
Hypothetically I think there are rats in my house. I tell everyone. Some people believe me, some don’t. But then I become paranoid and call the exterminator. He comes and checks the house out. He looks around and doesn’t see any sign of vermin. He tells me this. He tells me that there probably aren’t any rats in the house. I tell him that he should disprove that there are rats in the house. He can’t because there is always the possibility. But because he does not find any rats, droppings or walls being chewed, he does not really believe me.

The same can be said of Jesus. The only real indication that Jesus ever existed, is the bible. As you may well know, the Bible is not a very accurate source of history. It might be true, but until further proof is found, I will continue to doubt Jesus’ existence.

For example: No single document, written before 97 AD, and referring to Jesus, has been found. There were MANY documents in Jesus’ times. That is why we know the exact history of Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and all their family members and friends and enemies. The Romans were a bureaucratic lot. The kept records of criminals. Jesus, a well known criminal, could not be found in the Roman records by any historian to date. There were, however, a few references to “so-called-messiah’s” and cults. These cults were about 60 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Jesus apparently lived from 6BC to 30AD, if you believe the church.

But despite this, I still think a prophet called Jesus likely lived. He probably rallied people and spoke about peace and love, but united the people against the Romans and caused much violence. Why else would the Roman authorities seek him out if he was merely preaching love and peace? Rome was famous for its freedom of expression and religion, as long as it didn’t threaten the laws of Rome and lives of Roman citizens.

But then, as happens so often, the story was exaggerated and mythtified. Just think about Gilgamesh. He was one of the first kings, but the myth tells that he was king of the entire world.

I can make the educated guess that Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December.
Mostly because Solstice – a Roman, and therefore almost worldwide holiday, invented long before Christianity – is celebrated coincidently at the same time. At this time, they celebrate the birth of Sol/Mithras.
I can also guess that Jesus didn’t die during Easter. It’s also at exactly the same time as the widely celebrated Passover.
What I suspect, is that the Christian Empire tried to suppress “pagan” and “heathen” holidays, but didn’t succeed, so they decided to absorb the holidays instead. This is common practice, even if it isn’t intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Second:
“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”

The “bible has more errors than facts” is not an invalid argument, but I’ll try to make do without it anyway:

Like the above argument, I can simply ask this:
“How do you prove that Jesus was resurrected?”

If I claim that there are unicorns, I don’t tell people who disbelieve me that they should disprove unicorns. They don’t have to, because there is not a single reason to believe in unicorns. The responsibility is on my shoulders to prove the unicorns.

Why is it so important that Jesus was resurrected in any case? If you believe the bible, many people have been resurrected. What makes Jesus’ resurrection so special?

Third:
“According to statistic, a third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”

According to “statistic”? Statistics has nothing to do with this because the data is old enough to be historical, and not statistical. But I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, your ‘statistics’ are completely erroneous. I would like to find out where you got those ‘facts.’

A large part of Europe DID become Christians, you are right there, but they became Christians at about the time Emperor Constantine became a Christian. This was almost 300 years after Jesus’ supposed reincarnation. Constantine killed and tortured many people because they did not want to convert to Christianity. And he killed all Christian sects which was not Roman Catholic.

When threatened with torture, crucifixion or death, people have a tendency to miraculously convert.

Here is a good indication of the spread of Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spread_of_Christianity_in_Europe_to_AD_600.png
Read the part at the bottom for a guide to the map.

As you can see, there were absolutely no exceptions in the Roman Empire by 600AD. People didn’t have a choice. They were forced into the religion and their children didn’t know any better because that is how they were raised. The Jews somehow survived and the Muslims were killed during Crusades. All other religions were absorbed or killed.

You are right; something did cause the spread of Christianity: The threat of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Replying to Person X

Replies to Person X

It seems someone finally had the guts to take me on. But not on the blog. Let's call this person, "Person X."

"Why do you attack Christianity?" Person X said.
"I covered this in a previous blog."
"You said they are the biggest, but they aren't. There are more Muslims than Christians. Just think of all the countries which are completely Muslim, compared to the countries, like America, which are only partially Christian."

Like? Iraq, Iran, Egypt? All very small countries compared to the entire Europe and North and South America as well as India and many parts of Africa. USA, for example, boasts a 78% Christian nation. Nonetheless, here is proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldreligion.png
(There are several links to more pages in the article. Try the links if you are skeptical.)

But Person X would now say: "Even if Christianity is the biggest. Why did you have to attack Christianity instead of just explaining your way of thinking without attacking?"

Now how would I go about explaining that?

"Hi. I don't believe anything stupid. I believe in what's right!"
And all the Christians in the room go:
"HEAR HEAR!"
Because they won't understand. If I did not say why I am NOT religious, people (who keep asking me questions which I answer in my blog) will think I'm simply trying to be rebellious. They won't understand at all.

Person X also said:
"Don't you realise that you hurt people by making them doubt their religion?"
This is the most laughable of the lot. Let me use an extreme example which I'll elaborate on: Slavery.
"Don't you realise that, by abolishing slavery, you hurt many people. You take away the jobs of people who used to trade in slaves!"
First:
I did not force anybody to read my blog. I only told them how to get there. Therefore, anyone who reads my blog is doing so at their own risk.

Second:
If someone starts crying (a true story I heard) just because I stated the truth and asked questions no one else had the guts to, is it really my fault? Or is it the fault of the church for making you so vulnerable to simple logic?
If a girl is molested by her father from a young age and thinks it's normal, is it the police's fault for locking him up? Is it offensive to tell the girl that her father is a criminal? No. It's the father's fault for molesting his daughter and telling her there is nothing wrong with it.
That is exactly the same way I see this situation. The church lies to you and to itself. And by exposing these lies, I am not at fault. The church is at fault.

Another example:
In France, the Royal families and rich people oppressed the other 99% of the population. Then, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and many others published articles and books about democracy. At the time, the royal family told him that his works were offensive. After all, he criticized the system. And if you criticize, you are wrong. It's not the system's fault, it's Jean-Jacques Rousseau's fault! Some people even went so far as to storm the Bastille and revolt against the King and Queen, resulting in the first democratic country in the world.

How offensive!!

Like Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that Feudalism was wrong, and many others (like James Somerset, an English slave) believed that Slavery was wrong, so do I believe that Christianity (all theistic religions actually) is wrong.

I know I am going a little overboard, comparing myself to the great Jean-Jacques, but the idea is similar.

Third:
When I say, "I think Chelsea is a bad soccer team." Some people get emotional but they can present facts such as: "Chelsea won the League last year, as well as many tournaments and they are currently second on the league ladder." We can argue quite objectively about it.

The same can be said of politics, the weather or any other subject. We can talk about it, change our mind, let other people influence our thoughts and be honest about it.
But when it comes to religion, I have to tread carefully because I might offend someone. When I insult someone ("Your mother is a whore and your father smells of elderberries"), it offends them. That part I understand.
But when I tell the truth, or even ask a simple question, such as "the bible contradicts itself. Which parts are true and which parts are not?" I might offend someone. That part, I don't understand.

I don't say something false. Most people KNOW that the bible contradicts itself; they just don't want to admit it.

Person X also told me: "If you didn't make that blog, and if you didn't tell everyone that you are an atheist, people wouldn't have reacted that way and thought bad about you."

Thank you for stating the obvious; but let me answer the underlying question in that statement:

I want people to react.
Just like Jean-Jacques Rousseau wanted people to react (they eventually revolted), so do I. I want people to talk about my blog and read it. I don't force them, but I want them to read it.
Currently, Person X is telling me that I should not rock the boat; that it is better for me to let things go on as they are because there is nothing wrong.
Person X has obviously not read my blog. There are major problems, and I am trying to inform people about them.

If you hear about a father molesting his daughter and telling her that there is nothing wrong about it, will you say: "We can't interfere. We mustn't rock the boat because it might offend the father or the child." Or will you try to inform people about this problem and tell the girl that what the father is doing is wrong?

Person X also told me: "If I was being discriminated against, I would try to put a stop to it, but you are not being discriminated against, and you don't have to offend people." (Person X said many things in a single sentence, but something like this popped out.)

I am being discriminated against. People hear about me being an atheist and they are shocked and distant, no matter what I do about it. And I'm not going to hide it and pretend that I am wrong.

Someone even once said: "No. I don't like him because he's an atheist."
That person didn't say: "No, I don't like him because he preaches against sin and sins himself." Or
"No, I don't like him because he talks bad about people behind his back like I am doing right now."

That person said:

"I don't like him, because he's an atheist."

And I'd just like to finish this with a bang:

Person X told me: "You aren't being discriminated against. It's not like I go around talking bad about you behind your back."

If my sources, my ideas about the patterns you follow and my memories about stories you've told me yourself, are correct; I can simply say this:

I find it hard to believe you.

P.S. I've tried my best to keep your identity anonymous. If I've made any mistake in this blog, or if you'd like to comment on anything I've said, please email me.

Confidence in Ignorance

In this post, I’m exploring the reasons behind religious people’s confidence, despite their lack of evidence.

Or rather, the oft quoted line:
“Believe as a child.”

Why do religious people (from here on referred to as Christians) think it is a good thing to trust in something you have absolutely no idea about?
Example:
“I believe that when I die, I will go to heaven.”
“What makes you think this is true?”
“I have to believe like a child.”
“Yes... but what made you believe this in the first place?”
“Jesus himself said that (bible quote)”

So... the only way to get into heaven is to believe without proof. What this implies is that there is no proof, no assurance or even any reason to believe in heaven (or God or Jesus). When I was in Sunday school, they used very effective and imaginative stories to tell us that we have to believe in Jesus/God/Heaven, even though we can’t see him. The church indoctrinated us to believe in things even if, no, especially if there is no proof.

I cannot believe I (and many others) did not realise this sooner. If they teach us:
“God is unknowable. We don’t know what he/she/it is like. There is no way to understand God; therefore we won’t. That’s it people. Oh, and we help people and teach manners and life lessons.” I would probably see the benefit of such a church. I wouldn’t mind attending a service or two for inspiration, and maybe donating money. But the problem with this “church” is that it won’t last very long and it won’t be able to control people as well as a Christian or Muslim church.

The reason that the most powerful religion in the world is Christianity is because of a kind of evolution. Survival of the fittest.

Think about it this way:

If there is a church which has good ideas, but does not control its flock (call them sheep, because it complements their mindset) very effectively, this church will fail in a short period of time. A church with bad ideas (think about any cult) which is good at controlling its sheep, will probably last longer then the one with good ideas.

Christianity and Islam are very similar. The reason for this is that the recipe they are following is very effective:

Draw the sheep with stories about being nice to others
Indoctrinate the sheep to think that lack of proof is a good thing
Control the sheep with somewhat obvious laws
Mix in a few stupid laws which increases your control over them
Justify everything by saying that it came from a holy book
Accuse all non-sheep of being wolves out to kill the sheep

It’s slightly more complicated than that, but I think you should get the idea at this point. Christianity and Islam and other major religions did not survive and spread so effectively because any of them is the “one true religion.” They survived because they are good at controlling their sheep.

And this joins with my first question:

Why do Christians think it is a good idea to trust in something they have absolutely no proof of?

And this is the most obvious answer I can think of:

If Christians weren’t sure about themselves, despite their lack of evidence, they would not have survived. The Christians who had questioned their beliefs or was uncertain, probably “died out.” The Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Catholic Church in general helped a lot on this subject. They literally tortured any person who was unsure. They guided the “evolution” and strengthened faith.

This belief in something without proof is what people call faith. Without faith, a Christian is not a Christian.

“Believe as a child,” is a very simple summation of religion.

till, I cannot get my mind around this concept.

People think that you should not only believe that there is a God without question (that idea I can understand) but also the story behind the Ark, Moses, Mary, etc should not be questioned. In fact, anything a reverend or bible says is right. And if someone or something seems to contradict the reverend, then the reverend is right. I’m surprised there aren’t more corrupt reverends who abuse their power for personal gain. I suppose the 7 year course in ethics and philosophy and bibliophily helped them fear divine retribution for such heinous crimes.

Reverends are people too. They might claim that God speaks directly through them, but they still prepare speeches and quotes from the bible and examples and sometimes make mistakes. If God was speaking through a reverend, I doubt he would make a language error.

I’d just like to finish this post with a very appropriate quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

Homosexuality, abortions and the death sentence

There are, luckily, people out there who listen to me. I don't necessarily want people to fall on their knees and come to the realisation that there is no God. I want people to think about their own religions and think twice when they give the bible as a reason. Or if they make the assumption (as Christians is wont to do) that everyone believes in God.

Science does not disprove God. It simply disproves the bible, and many Christians believe in the metaphorical sense of the bible.

I want people to make the assumption that Science is true, and that Religion could be true.

I want people to stop forcing their beliefs unto others. If it's a personal choice, why do people keep forcing their personal beliefs unto others? Teachers who teach using religion (this is illegal), politicians who make laws based on their own religion (it's called separation of church and state for a reason), presidents who attack countries because their god told them so, and many other disappointing events. And then there are the people who kill others or force them to convert to Islam through violence. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437871&in_page_id=1770)

Now, on to the real topic. This is a touchy subject, but I feel I must express my opinions:

Homosexuality:
I'll be talking about homosexuality (and most topics) in the male tense. It makes things simpler and avoids confusion. I have not forgotten about the women. In fact: My mother is a woman.

Let's take a look at what homosexuality is.

A man loves another man.

This is surely worth stoning! They are corrupting our society by falling in love and expressing their love for each other in private! They are destroying our laws and they want to give everyone AIDS!

What have homosexual people done wrong?

First off, I think they cannot help it. There probably people out there who can help it, but I think the majority can not. Why would people be gay if they could help it? Think about Pastor Ted Haggard. He is a very famous religious man in America. Recently, though, it came out that he is gay.

Now let me put this in perspective:
Let's pretend for a moment that it is completely against your beliefs to climb on a boat. You tell everyone that it is sinful to get on to a boat because you believe it to be so. Other people think that it is okay to get on the boat, but you disagree.

If you had absolutely no inherent feelings of getting on the boat, would you do it? I wouldn't. But if you cannot help yourself, and your gut (/sexual part of your brain) is telling you that to get on the boat is RIGHT, then you might just get on the boat.

But let's assume homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it wrong? Homosexual people are the same as heterosexual people. They just get aroused by a different gender. Why is this a crime?

But people sometimes say: "Gay people are immoral."

Let's assume that morals means showing respect and adhering to the law.
First: This is called stereotyping. And it is just as stupid as saying "all black people are stupid" or "women can't drive."
Second: There are more hetero people who are immoral than gay people. Think of a prison. The majority of people in prison are hetero (although a few of them turn temporarily gay because of their sexual frustration). The phrase: "Hetero people are immoral," would, in fact, be more accurate (depending on how you view things).
Third: Even if the majority of homosexuals were immoral, that would still not make it wrong. The immoral acts (if it is against the law) are wrong. And those acts should be punished. But you cannot pre-emptively punish an entire group of people because many of them are immoral. That would be like giving children corporal punishment every morning because most children are naughty.

Abortions:
I, personally, have one or two things against abortion. To be honest, I think it's wrong to kill. But I eat meat. And I will continue to eat meat as long as I enjoy the taste. But I will never eat something which is self-aware.

I believe in freedom over the "potential" life of someone. That's why I would give people the right to use contraceptives and to masturbate. These people also waste "potential" lives. Yet many Christians do it.

I can't think of an effective way to convince people that abortions is right, so I'll just point out one or two things:

Let's pretend there is a woman who becomes pregnant. She wants to get an abortion. Do you really think she will love or care for the child? I would probably not abort a child, if I was a pregnant woman, just as I would not have sex with another man, but I still give people the right to choose for themselves. This is called freedom.

Almost all Christian people are completely against abortion. But these same people are often for the death penalty. I don't understand this. Either you consider life to be more important than freedom, or you don't. Make a choice.

I choose freedom. Although, when you kill someone, you are taking away their right to live. I'll explain below:

Death Sentence:

Let's look at this hypothetical situation. It may seem like an exaggeration, but it is very effective:

You are carrying a pistol and you are sitting in a restaurant. You see a man heading into the restaurant with a pistol. He starts executing people with a single shot to the head. You can either shoot him with the pistol, killing him, or you can leave him and let him continue murdering. What would you do?

This really happened, but that is unimportant.

Now consider a murderer who shows no remorse and proves himself to be less than human. He proves that he will always continue killing people if he gets the chance. Will you lock him up for 20 years and let him out on parole and then allow him to kill more people, or would you give him the death sentence?

This is really the extreme cases, and that is my point exactly. The death sentence should be used sparingly, such as in New York. No one in New York has been executed for the past 15 years, because they have not deemed it necessary to do so. But they have the option if someone like Charles Manson comes along.

If the deaths of several people are avoided by the death of a single, guilty, person, then it should be considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

Evolution, Part 2: Anti-evolutionists

Notable human evolution researchers:
James Burnet, Henry McHenry, Svante Paabo, Jeffrey H Schwartz, Erik Trinkaus, Milford H. Wolpoff, Charles Darwin, JBS Haldane, Leonard Shlain, Richard Dawkins, Alister Hardy

These are all the researches on HUMAN evolution. There are hundreds of other respected and learned biologists specialising in evolution. Wouldn't you think that it's likely that, if evolution was wrong, it would be proven to be wrong, at least within a hundred years of its lifespan? No, because evolution isn't something like the theory of gravity or quantum theory which explains things we cannot perceive. Evolution is very simple (see previous blog).

"But," says non-believers, "there is an alternative. Intelligent Design! (from here on referred to as ID)"

So let's take a look at ID:

Notable Intelligent Design Researchers:
NONE

mmm... that's very strange indeed.

Okay. Maybe I just can't find a name. Why don't you try it? Really, go ahead.

So maybe the people who invented discovered ID just didn't want to give up their names because they were so honourable and modest. (ha!) Let's look at how normal scientific (remember, ID is claiming NOT to be religious) theories are recorded and made available:

The discovery is made, such as with evolution, and then it is given up for PEER REVIEW.
Google defines peer review as: the process by which articles are chosen to be included in a refereed journal. An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication.

Therefore, if anyone "creates", for example, the theory of relativity, he then gives it to other experts in the field (in this case physics experts, or in evolution's case, biologists) who evaluates the entire theory and tests it for himself. This process can be done by anybody who wants to do it. That is the beauty of science. If someone publishes a theory (after peer review) then any person off the street can test the theory for himself and try to disprove it. Or improve upon it. There are no patents which makes mathematic formulae illegal to use because someone else invented it. Science is truly free.

So through what processes did ID go?

Guess.

"To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Surprise, surprise.

Okay... maybe no one has had the chance to research ID properly? Or the money?

"The Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted."

Whoops...

Okay... maybe this is just an evil plot by scientists who are against ID? The true Christian scientists are probably oppressed by the evil ones. Let's get a REAL Christian scientist to defend ID for us! And that is, of course, what ID proponents did. They got Michael Behe (see link below for more). Behe is an educated, respected (by some) Christian Scientist. He made a court case for ID. Let's see what he said:

"But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.""

WHAT? Did Michael Behe, the biggest ID supporter in America, and a very smart man (*cough*) just admit that Intelligent Design is a completely fictitious invention?

People are completely against evolution, but only because it is slightly too complicated too demonstrate with a simple diagram (such as showing the planets' orbits). It makes them uncomfortable because they want to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that God created everything in 6 days.

Saying ID (which tries to tell us how and when and why the earth was created) is the alternative to evolution, is like saying (unproved) biology is the alternative to dentistry. Evolution does not prove the age of the earth. Evolution simply explains how the animals that live today, came to be what they are.

Other methods predict the age of the earth. No, carbon dating is not the only way to tell the age of things. To quote:
"Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material." (See bottom of page for more info)

And even if radiocarbon dating was "inaccurate", it's accurate enough. It's inaccurate to about 60 000 years. But if it predicts that the earth is 4, 5 billion years old, then the earth is most likely more or less 4, 5 billion years old. Radiocarbon dating predicts that the earth is "at least 4.404 billion years old." Other dating methods (using the sun's rate of growth, meteorites, planetary orbits, I don't know how exactly, read the link at bottom of page) place the solar system, including the earth, no more than 4, 567 Billion years old. They have decided upon 4, 567 Billion years and it's the closest they are going to get any time soon. Mostly because they are probably right.

And another thing:
Many, many scientific theories make sense if the earth was 4, 5 billion years old. Scientists still debate or even argue about the exact age of the earth, and the stubborn ones about the age of the universe (see Nobel Prize for Physics 2006). But they usually differ by no more than a few hundred million years. All of them (with one or two religious exceptions) think of the earth as older than 4 Billion years. But religious people (usually uneducated) believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's a difference of about 4,567 Billion years.

That's a big difference. It's like on person saying:
"I believe an Olympic swimming pool is about 50 meters in length. At least 49,9999999m. I used measuring tape, a ruler, an engineer's scale, gauge blocks, ultrasound distance measuring devices and a laser rangefinder. But I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong if you submit evidence which contradicts me."
And the other person says:
"No. My sacred text tells me this pool is 0,00005m long. And ultrasound distance measuring devices are completely inaccurate! You can't rely on them!"

And then this person invents a "scientific theory" to PROVE that the swimming pool is 0,000005m long. And when he cannot prove this, he says that people should accept that there are "alternatives" to ultrasound distance measuring devices.

But I'll stop here, and tell you that if you actually took the time to research ID (mostly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) you'll see that is complete and utter bogus.

Problems with evolution:

Peter suggested to me that I talk about evolution's emotional impact and people's problem to cope with it. Thanks, Peter, for the suggestion.

Why are people against evolution? Evolution does not disprove God. 200 years ago, Galileo discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. This made the church uncomfortable, because the Bible clearly states that this is not so. But the church had to give in, because Galileo was right.

There are other examples. Airplanes is one. Evolution is another.

Why would someone think that science is more knowledgeable than the Bible when it comes to planetary orbits, but not when it comes to biology?

Evolution does not disprove God any more than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun does. Sure it contradicts the bible. But the bible contradicts itself. It even has the stupidity to say that Pi is 3 and that light and dark was created in one day, and water(I think...) the next. This does not disprove God or the good aspects of Christianity.

Logic disproves God.

Evolution is JUST ANOTHER THEORY. Just like the theory of gravity or the magnificently complicated theories of Stephen Hawkins. The theory of gravity was discovered by Newton, who was a Christian. And Evolution was discovered by Darwin, who was also a Christian. Just because they have different beliefs about God than I do, does not make them wrong. They were both brilliant, incredible men who changed the world. And they did not think that their own theories disproved God. So why does anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

The Ten Commandments and Premarital Sex

Today, I am taking on morals in religion.

More Specifically: The Ten Commandments and sex before marriage.
I'll also refer to two hypocritical Christian role models who are not the exceptions.

First off, the Ten Commandments: (there are differences here, but it's basically the same)
1. I am God and you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5. Honour your parents
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife

Let's begin.
1. I have explained why there is no God. Let's assume I am wrong and there is a god. Why would he have to make laws forbidding worship of other gods if he really is the only god?

2. See 1.

3. Wrongful use of the name of your God? What would constitute "wrongful?"
Using his name as a swearword? Who would do that? And why? People swear. They swear very colourfully and imaginatively. People who use the thing they worship and deem to be above all else as a swearword are just stupid. That's like me using my father's name as a swearword. The ONLY reason I can think of that people use the expletive "Jesus Christ!" is because the 3^rd commandment forbids it.

4. Jesus himself reminded us of the stupidity of this law by working on a Saturday. For those of you who don't know, The Sabbath is on a Saturday. SUNday is the day God created the SUN. The FIRST day. Someone has just decided to change it. Because they had God's holy permission. Don't ask.

So... how many shops are open on a Sunday? There are millions of people who work every Sunday. Are they going to hell? Or will their mortal sin be forgiven? Why aren't people allowed to work on Sundays? Because it is decided by the bible. And the bible is never wrong (see "the bible is a work of fiction," a previous blog).

5. Why should I honour my parents? I only honour people who deserve it. My parents are intelligent and caring people who have cared for me my entire life. They deserve my respect.

But if I was raised by a father who abused me, I would not honour him. Even if he was my only source of income. (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/0225Mormon-Memoir-ON-CP.html)
The fifth commandment has been created by lazy parents who do not want to teach their children themselves. They want to refer to the bible and tell them "honour me cause the bible says so."

6. This is the most obvious of rules. The Jews escaped from Egypt and then created the Ten Commandments. What a coincidence (wouldn't you say?) that Egypt also had laws against murder and theft? The bible is not the basis of all morals. Some people tell me: "If it weren't for the bible, I wouldn't be as good as I am."

Let me ask you this:
If you see a man hitting a little baby, will you think "God tells us not to harm others; therefore I must feel bad right now." Or will you simply feel instant grief at such a sight? Empathy and/or sympathy are emotions built into the human brain. Primates and other intelligent mammals have it as well.

7. This is very subjective, and I won't go too far into this topic.
All I'm going to say is this:
If what you do does not (directly or indirectly) hurt any person, is it really wrong? I can agree that it is wrong to deceive someone and that person would be hurt if he/she finds out. But what if both parties agree to go their separate ways and experiment for a while? I know of a few couples who have done this. They say it has deepened their love for each other. They are exceptions, of course, but you cannot make rules which does not fit everyone and assume that it will.

And besides, no primates, and almost no mammals, are monogamous. Why are we the exception? I can love more than one person. In more than one way. I'm not going to deny people my love and attention just because someone else has "reserved" it. Do not try to twist my words around. I will never willingly deceive someone I love.

8. Refer to 6.

9. You shall not lie? Okay... So you can swear, hurt people by telling them exactly how ugly, stupid, etc. they are. But you can't lie? You can vandalize public property, torture small animals, hit children and women and force others to believe what you think is right. But you can't lie? What if you get into a situation where you will hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth?

Lying is normal. The effect and the reason for the lie is more complicated, but not all lies are evil.

10. WOW! So women are property now?
Let's disregard that sexist comment and assume that it refers to coveting things in general.

Google defines covet as:
"Wish, long or crave for."

If I did not covet living in a better home, eating good food and making a difference in this world, I would not have worked hard in my life. In fact, I would just have to sit there and be happy with what I have until I die of starvation. The bible tells us we may not covet. If human beings did not covet, the capitalist system would have fallen apart. Because no one would want anything MORE out of life. They would just resign themselves to whatever fate they are given.

The human race itself is dependant on greed.

And, to finish off the 10 commandments:
The list is incorrect.
The original Hebrew text says:
"You may not kill a Jew."
"You may not steal from a Jew."
Etc.

So the 10 commandments are in actual fact extremely bigoted and racist.

Next: Sex Before Marriage.

Why? Why do you want to wait until marriage to have sex? I can understand if someone waits until marriage for a good reason, but no one has given me one.

"Don't you want your wife to be a virgin?" is the best answer I've been able to get from a person.

My answer is: I don't care. If I marry someone, it will be because of her (or his, if I was gay) personality, intelligence and, to a degree, (I have to be honest) looks. It will be a combination of factors. "Pure" sex is not one of them.

To me, sex is an expression of love and devotion. I will not have sex with someone I don't feel strongly about, but I won't tell people that they can't have sex with anyone they want. If you say sex with any person you want is wrong, why would it be okay to make out with anyone you want? Both are expressions of love and lust. The one carries a higher risk of infectious diseases and children.

According to http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html there are only two reasons why we should not have sex before marriage.
1. The bible says so (and the bible is always right)
2. There is a risk of STD's

If I breathe close to someone, I also risk infecting that person. Does that make it wrong to breathe when people are nearby? No it doesn't.

Another problem is that people say that relationships built on only sex, have a higher chance to end in divorce. OF COURSE it will end in divorce. It's built on only sex. Sex is just one part of a relationship. People who depend on only one aspect of a relationship are doomed to failure. But that does not make sex wrong. People who love their partner (or partners) in more than one aspect, are the ones who are more likely to have a lasting, meaningful relationship.

And the web sites keep saying that sex is NOT wrong, even though they keep telling everyone about the "evils of sex." It should only be practiced between husband and wife. Did you know that marriages used to be secular (not religious at all). The Romans (as far as I can tell) invented weddings. And then the Jews changed the custom to fit their own needs.

And then I'd like to end this blog with a short comment on a photo I saw recently.

It was a photo of two girls kissing intimately. I focused on the low quality cellphone photo and recognised the pair of girls. They are two very committed and well known Christian leaders. They believe in the Ten Commandments. They believe that "homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell."

And they kissed each other.

At first I found this extremely funny. Then the implications of that photo dawned of me. And it became very sad.

These are hypocrites. Not exactly the worst kind of hypocrite, but definitely very high up on the Hypocritic scale. They not only believe that homosexuality is wrong. They also preach it. And then they kiss each other.

Usually I try to stay objective, but right now I'm making a slight exception:
What pisses me off most of all is that they are not the exceptions. Most Christians I know believe that homosexuality/premarital sex/lying/cursing/hurting people/etc. is wrong. But they still persist in doing exactly what they tell others is wrong. And I, who actually obey my own laws, am looked down upon by these hypocrites.

Next blog, I'll be taking the side of evolution.

My sources for this blog:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

A Reasonable Attack on God

Let's define God.

God is a being which transcends (exceeds) all laws and limits. He is all knowing, all powerful and all loving. God created everything. This is the common summation of God.

Some believe that God created everything in 6 days and others believe he created everything in 6000 years and the more intelligent and realistic people believe that he caused the big bang and "guided" the universe to create the sun, the earth and life and then "guided" life itself to evolve into humans.

I'm going to assume the latter, (the last one) because I'm trying to convert the intelligent people of the world. Those who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old, still have to come to terms with the fact that science is right. Or, at least, more so than the bible. Who here believes that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth? Science, when trying to describe the real world, is more successful than religion. Religion (if you believe in it) is more successful at describing the afterlife, but shouldn't be applied to the real world. but I digress...

Okay, so God is above everything. He created the universe. But who created God? Did he just... exist? Some of you will say "yes" at this point, so let's move along.

Okay... so the big bang is the start of the universe. But what caused the big bang?
Does the universe just... exist? Some of you will say "no, God did it," at this point, so let's move along.

So God "just exists" and the universe does NOT "just exist." Why? What makes God so special that you can apply logic to EVERYTHING except him?

"God is beyond reason and we cannot begin to conceive his way of thinking."

Then why does religion pretend to do it? The bible describes God to us. The bible even goes so far as to tell us what God thinks, what he wants, what makes him happy or sad and what his home (heaven) looks like. It even tells us what he wants us to do:
Worship him.

If I was all knowing, all powerful and all loving, I wouldn't send people to hell just because they don't worship (try to talk by praying, offer their entire lives, force their beliefs unto others, etc.) me. I'd make the world... well... habitable.

Which brings me to my second point: Why is the earth such a bad place? Christians can usually ignore this by not reading newspapers or thinking too hard... or at all. Have you ever seen real poverty, experienced death or suffering?

Every year, more or less a million people in Africa die of Malaria. They just die. (I'm going to focus on this point, but the same could be said of AIDS, Influenza, Floods, Poverty, Droughts, etc.)

Imagine all the people in a high school. That's between 1000 and 2000 children. If an entire school were to be killed in a day, it would be a tragedy. Now imagine a sports stadium. The world over, EVERYONE would hear of it. Now imagine 20 of those sports stadiums. That's how many people a year die of ONLY malaria.

And most of them (according to the Christian religion) go to hell. Because they don't know who this Jesus guy was. More than 60% of the world (that would be more or less 4 Billion people (alive today, not counting the future and the past) will burn for all eternity in a lake of fire because they don't know about or believe in Jesus. About 90% (wild guess) of them never even had the chance to get to know Jesus.

So, if God exists, why does he punish people for something they don't do?

"Because he gave us free will," some of you rationalise.

So let's get this straight. God created the universe and everything in it just because he wanted to create humans. (Isn't that a very conceited way of reasoning?) And then he gave us a badly designed body and free will. Then he created various ways for the world to kill and torture us (Virii, Diseases, Natural Disasters...). And then he told a SINGLE MAN(Abraham) about Himself so he could go out and spread the word to people in his area. Because He loves us?

Ha!

And if he WANTED us to worship him, not have sex before marriage (did God invent Marriages?), not covet, etc.
Why did he make us WANT to have sex so much, covet everything we don't have, etc.

All I can conclude is one of two things:
God does not exist.
Or
God hates humans. (NOT all-loving)

And why would he create a universe 94 Billion light years across just to create a semi-habitable space about 0, 00000000000000000001(I can't find the real number, so I'll use this) light year across? If he really was all powerful and really wanted to create the universe just for humans, wouldn't it be more logical to create a completely habitable place? Or at least 1% habitable? Compared with the 0, 0000000000000000001% habitable.

Yet again, I can conclude one of two things:
God does not exist
Or
God is stupid. (NOT all knowing)

And all powerful?

How do you know this, if God is unfathomable and cannot be described? How does anyone make the claim that God is all knowing/all loving/all powerful. The ONLY reason to believe this, is that other people make this claim, and you believe them.

God never demonstrates that he is all powerful. People only say
"God is all powerful!"
"Why?"
"Because He said so."

They, of course, use the same argument to prove his existence.

Here are four interesting links to pages you should watch/read.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Economic_impact

www.stupiddesign.net

Why I am against Religion

This entire blog will be an attack on any dangerous religion. Buddhism, for example, has nothing wrong with it.

Here we go.

These are two very good videos. They are short and to the point. The only problem is that they assume that you are intelligent.
http://godisimaginary.com/video1.htm
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm

The bible is extremely false. Try reading this website:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

If you don't understand what atheists are all about, read this website:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ - I don't know if this is true or not, but I suggest all visitors to read it.

All the famous celebrities who are atheists:
http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Now, some of you may wonder why I'm making this blog, so I'll make it clear:
Religion is a pox. It is a plague. It is wrong (which I'll try to prove in subsequent posts) and it causes massive problems. In 313 A.D. Constantine became a Christian and killed off all other religions. He practically made it illegal to be a non-christian. Then the roman empire collapsed. But the Roman Catholic church remained. For more than a thousand years, we lived in the DARK AGES. The time when the church was the ultimate ruler. Since 1800, we have achieved flight, incredible mathematics, economics, technological breakthroughs that would have seemed like magic to people 50 years prior and much more, in less than 200 years, we went from dreams of flight, to the moon. All thanks to people who were brave enough to go against the church.

Like, for example, Galileo. He suggested the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun. The church almost killed him. Nowadays, things are not much different, except that the church's power is fading.
example:
"The entire process of life can be explained through natural selection. I will call it... evolution!"
"Humans didn't come from apes!"
"Fossil evidence, as well as evolution, suggests that it did."
"No it doesn't!"

and so forth.

I think religion should be allowed. I believe in freedom of religion. What I DON'T believe in, is people forcing their beliefs unto others. It's one thing to correct someone. It's quite another to tell him that he will burn for all eternity in a lake of fire because he loves men more than women. Or (even more ridiculous) because a girl had sex. Sex is, in all respects, an act of love and passion. But let's not go into that right now.

Children, especially, should be protected. Children trust adults. They trust them completely. It is an evolutionary advantage, with dangerous side-effects. The side effect is, if you tell a child a lie, he will believe it. Try it one day. But make sure you don't lie about something important. Like, for example, what happens after you die.

I'll demonstrate how dangerous the bible can be:
"I think same-sex marriages should be allowed."
"I don't." - this person is completely at liberty to disagree, but...
"Why not?"
"Because.... I... er... the bible says."
"Well... apart from the bible, do you have any reason?"
"I... just FEEL it."
"But feelings are dangerous. And you base your feelings on childhood experience which is, to be frank, stupid."
"but... the bible..."

Obviously this is an exaggerated demonstration, but the situation is similar, most of the time.

At this point, you might think: "but this person does not harm anybody."
Au contraire!
This person harms gays. How would you feel if you live in a society where a holy book (which may not be questioned) tells you that you are wrong and that you must be killed? I imagine it would be much the same as being black during apartheid. The "white god" protected the white people and allowed them to say that blacks are inferior.
Extremists are not the only problem. They blow themselves up and harm other people, but they do this because they believe the opinions of (often) more peaceful men.

People don't always realise that they force their beliefs unto others, but it happens. Often. What scares me most of all is this:
If I put a large poster on a public wall, proclaiming that all people who don't agree with my religion (if it is Christianity) will experience eternal pain, then I will be applauded. If I put up a poster which says:
"Jesus was wrong." (note, Jesus said that he will be back to kill all sinners within the next generation.) then people will tell me I will experience eternal pain.


So... what are the advantages of religion in THIS world?

Next blog, I'll be taking on the bible itself.