The Antichristian Phenomenon

I often come across statements like the following: “Prove x” or “Prove not x” – most often in the form “Prove God exists” or “Prove God doesn’t exist” (I will be using this example throughout the article). I get a bit tired about this because people do not seem to understand when something can be proven, when it can’t be, what the restrictions of evidence are and when something is a scientific question or not.

Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

After c0nsulting a little with Waldheri I decided to edit this post properly to make it more cohesive and actually present the problem at hand in a more focused light. This article will deal with the problem of Christianity’s belief that God is an omnipresent being and how it contradicts Descartes’ argument of the seperation of mind and body and that Christianity is in fact, not a monotheism but a pantheism.

Anyway, let’s start off in the beginning with Genesis and the creation of the Earth:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1
Nowhere does it say that God made “the heavens and the earth” out of any form of matter. This passage has in turn made the assumption that there was nothing in the universe before God’s Creation, as it is a “beginning”, before God’s Creation there was nothing. Obviously God, while omnipotent, cannot make something out of matter which doesn’t exist, so let’s just ignore that for a while and assume that it is possible that God can make matter out of nothing and that he popped the Earth out from his arse (we are in fact God’s diviniely poo!) and thus, the Earth is created. Without the need of overquoting Genesis, it is made clear that God made the Earth into what it is today and that we are all a part of God’s creation:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27

Therefore that we can draw the conclusions that not only is the Earth immaterial but also supernatural, and that God is indeed everywhere, and in humans too:

In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God,
for whom and through whom everything exists,
should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrew 2:10

This idea strongly disagrees with the Cartesian dualism, formed to explain the relationship of God and humans, because in Descartes’ philosophy it is not possible that the body in this case, can have a two-way relationship with the mind. But if this is not true, then it is not possible for God to be everywhere and everything and this obviously directly questions God’s omnipotence.

Now, what defines Pantheism is that there must be a force, almighty or not, present everywhere and in everything and this force should be conscious and even preferrebly, sentient. This very much agrees with the Christian God, because we are shown that God is very well possible to make demands and have emotions on his own. For example maybe the one of the most blatant examples are the 10 Commandments where God more or less demands his followers to live after these rules or they will be cast into eternal Hellfire:

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before ^[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything
in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children
for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

6 but showing love to a thousand {generations}
of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter,
nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals,
nor the alien within your gates.

11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,
or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:1-17

God even states himself that he is a “jealous God”, I guess we must congratulate him in his truthfulness. Now, the hardest concept to maybe grasp would be that of the universe not being physical as Descartes claims it to be. The reason I have already mentioned before, namely that if God is a supernatural force, then God is also nonphysical, and since the universe is a part of God himself, then the universe too, is of nonphysical and supernatural matter. Therefore the only conclusion can be that Descartes made a false dichotomy based upon the assumption that our universe is made out of physical matter. But, but, isn’t it made physical as in that we can touch and feel it? Yes, indeed we can, but it doesn’t matter if we assume that the physical is actually sprung out of the nonphysical and even less so if assuming the physical and the nonphysical is the same or if there is a heavy communication between the two where we cannot discern when the physical ends and the nonphysical begins. Descartes’ argument rather means that there can be no communication between and therefore even the slightest union is thus, impossible. However, as shown, there is a great flaw in his logic as presented above which he failed to see, even though he based his entire theory upon Christianity itself and its dualism. Christianity is not a dualism, it’s a monism and even more it is a pantheism and not a monotheism as has been previously believed. While certainly the idea of monotheism is supported in Pantheism too, thanks to the Trinity, it actually matters little since the focus no longer lies on the Trinity and in the existence of Jesus being God’s son. This becomes rather self-evident if we are to understand that God is omnipresent and as such, we can go even a step further and argue that Christianity actually believes us to be our own personal gods since God is indeed inside of us, and this gives us the power and will to use the God inside of us to do as what we see fit; hopefully into making our environment a little nicer to live in for others.

Was this better Waldheri? I am still waiting for your reply.

Well, since we are now just two days away from the 25th of December, a day celebrated by one third of the world as the (supposed) day that symbol of Christianity was born, I feel that I should speak about a subject, actually a practice, so useless in nature as well as so grotesque in design.

I don’t know about other places, but here in my country there is a tradition every Christmas and Easter- the well-known tradition of rebirth, of being born once more under the blessings of Christ. I call them “seasons of rebirth”. I’m sure many people, from different places, know what I’m talking about.

But what does this “rebirth” consist in, and who are “the reborn” ?

(more…)

Atheists and other non-theists/non-Christians across the blogosphere are struggling with a difficult question: what do you tell a child about God and religion? And now, a particular and even more difficult question: what do you tell a young child dealing with death?

Friendly Atheist pointed to this dilemma, with his post on the subject (you can see my response to his post and to the general question below), and a link to an article in which a writer talks about a friend who brings up the question of children and death. He writes:

My colleague Margaret Watson warnend me against filling Zoe’s young head with Godless thoughts. Margaret’s dad died when she was nine, and her faith was a great comfort for her, because she could believe that he was waiting for her in heaven. “And, being Catholic,” she said, “It meant that there was still someone I could call Father.” I can’t argue with that. You’d have to be a brutally militant atheist to tell an orphaned child that we die and that’s it.

So what do you tell a child about God and death? Do you treat it like Santa, and risk turning them into a theist? Do you let them figure it out on their own? Do you answer with brutal honesty?

I’d like to offer my own answers, as well as invite the other writers here to answer them, in this post.

Blue Linchpin: I think telling a child a lie to make them feel better will do nothing but cause more grief later on. It’s better for a child to learn to deal with death and grief early, instead of lying and delaying the inevitable. It will only result in the child losing trust in their parents and adults, and having to deal with the loss anyways. I don’t think refusing to lie to a child and cause more pain later on is horrible and militant atheism. What’s the best solution? Honesty, I think. “I don’t know” is probably the best answer, and letting the child know that this is how life works but that their parent WILL continue to live on in certain ways: if I were a parent trying to explain this, I would tell them that the dead parent has become a part of everything within the world, from the air to the trees to the ground, and that they continue to live on in this way, and be with us, even if we can’t see them. This would probably instill respect for the world and all things while comforting them and allowing them to deal with death realistically. Neither is it a lie: naturally our bodies recycle and become a part of the world, though unfortunately this is slowed thanks to pointless burial traditions.

Db0: A child does not need to be told fairy tales to pacify it and it’s doubtful that having the fairytale of heaven will do much to help this going. If the concept of heaven was enough to avoid sadness, you wouldn’t see all the people in religious funerals crying their soul out, but rather, they would be celebrating their brothers and sisters going to “a better place”. There’s also the fact that the child might grow even more sad if they think their loved ones might go to Hell instead. Just imagine if the child later on in life learned of a “mortal sin” which is certain to take you to hell and that their loved one used to do?

Personally I would take an Epicurean view on this subject. You can expain easily that all humans eventually cease to live, one way or another. But that should not necessarily be a matter of sadness. As long as one’s life has been good, then they have already been rewarded by the mere act of living. And if their life has not been good, then at least this unpleasant existence has ceased for them.

We, the ones that remain, can always keep them alive in our memory and remember and enjoy the good times we used to have. Being sad about the good time we may have had in the future is nothing more than self-punishment.

Waldheri

It’s a hard question of course, and one that I think has been an ally to feel-good superstition for as long as human history. One answered in countless ways to ease the grief of family and friends. I don’t see any reason to infatuate in the modern religious notions associated with death, or even any good reason to ease the grief of death. Death <b>is</b> the end, and should not be downplayed to something less bad, or imagined as only a part of existence. People say death is a part of life. It isn’t, it is the end of it, it’s opposite. Some superstitions, including Christianity’s, make death almost something to look forward to – the perfection of heaven as opposed to this flawed physical world. Not a very good thing at all, something that can even make people blow themselves up given enough false promises. No, death is bad and we should all realise it. Even if life isn’t always rewarding, it trumps the emptiness of death. Existence here and now is all we have, and we should make the best of it. Only because of our actions in human life we have a chance that the idea of us will be immortal. When person X dies and a child asks “Where has X gone?” I can only answer “Away. X does not exist outside of us anymore. X only exists in our memory of X. Even though we will never make new memories of X again, X will remain a part of us.” It is the best thing we can offer as a comfort for the loss of somebody.

It’s been a slow time over at the ACP. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much of an activity going on around here. Perhaps I should get my cat ‘o nine tails ready to provide some…incentive.

Fortunately, in this slow period, someone decided to send us an email to explain why we go wrong. This is a historical moment as we haven’t actually received any such thing until now. I think it deserves a post of its own.

Our contact is Jonathon who by now has sent two different emails. He seems to be open to communication so in the spirit of openess, I will post the discussion here so that they rest of you might join in. I will provide the email as it was sent with my replies (which I’ve already sent back) in between. Feel free to comment on any part you wish. (more…)

In the previous article I made references to this site: http://www.everystudent.com/, which brings forth new and modern “arguments” for the existence of god, and why is Jesus the only way for eternal happiness.

This second part is centered on two main aspects: the nature of the Christian faith and the incredible and grotesque lie in the context of Christianity- “free will”.

This article in particular caught my attention: http://www.everystudent.com/wires/twokinds.html

For me, this says it all about the TRUE nature of the Christians and their “faith”. So, it is not about being happy, altruistic, finding peace in your heart, adhering to a lifestyle that would give you joy. It is exactly the opposite. It is about forcing yourself to believe something and to adhere to some rules that don’t have any meaning to you, struggling daily with natural urges that you try to deny and blame on “the Devil”, a ville oppression against your own mind and spirit, and, most of all, a speculative and opportunistic  way of living.

You heard right: Christianity is the most egoistic, opportunistic and oppressive of beliefs. It has nothing to do with “compassion, love, altruism”. The true essence of Christianity is as follows: give up your own beliefs, your own free thought, your own mind and  bodily urges in order to adhere to a belief system, to some external rules and thinking ways, written in an ancient book. Why? Because it is SAFER ! Because you don’t want to risk going to hell or whatever after you die.

In my opinion, this is the worse case of weakness and of fear of taking responsibility for your actions. Ever since Pascal brought into discussion his (in)famous wager, it has since been used by Christians as a POWERFUL and INDESTRUCTIBLE argument for believing in their god.

Of course, the infantile nature of this argument is so evident that it is more like a source of humor and comedy, than an argument of any kind. The Christians have the incredible courage to say that (even if they were to accept the obvious- that there is no proof for the biblical claims) there is a 50% chance for their god to be existent and that it is a safer bet to accept him in order to avoid eternal punishment. What the Christians forget (or maybe don’t know, since many like to live in ignorance, as a requirement of their christ) are the other thousands of religions that have the same roots and similar myths, just like Christianity. And many also appeared way before the bible did. So why is this Jehowa more special than other gods? The real chance for the Christian god to exist (if we were to accept this wager) is actually somewhere around 0.001%.

Another outraging thing about this way of thinking is that Christians claim that “if there is no god, they have really lost nothing”. And here is where I ask: what about those countless and worthless hours of worship,  the fact that you denied what you loved the most, that you let go of your true convictions in order to become the slave of some nebulous beliefs and of a system demanded by an idol, non-existent god ? That sounds pretty much like ruining your spiritual integrity, and still you say that you have nothing to lose.

Anyway, back to my point: the Christian moral system and faith, although it may look shiny and polished on the outside (to some, at least) is no more than a rotten carrion on the inside. A terminal disease for your mind, not a cure. You are actually forcing yourself to engage in acts that have no meaning to you. The so-called good deeds are really nothing but shallow, heartless acts, done out of fear.

Such is the true nature of Christianity.

Now, about the second part, the free-will. References: http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/yesno.html

Well, this was really (initially) a desperate attempt to explain the fact that people engage in harming acts, even though they were supposedly created in a perfect world, by a perfect creator. Even worse, a noble and vital aspect in a person’s development- free will- that is being in control of your mind in order to follow your own path and build your own system in life, is systematically turned into a weapon that inflicts guilt. Because our evil free-will, we keep bringing plagues upon this world. It is because our free-will, because we do not let the Great Nonexistent govern us and because we want to follow our OWN belief-system in life, that natural disaster, wasting diseases, famine, deaths etc happen. If someone is dying painfully from a terrible disease, remember that WE are responsible for it, because we use our free will to refuse to subscribe to jesus.

That’s how Christianity works, and that’s what free-will is in Christian teachings- the greatest source of evil.

Of course, these theologians still want us to think that god is reasonable, he is a democratic ruler, not some tyrant who rules with an iron fist, but a permissive god who lets us choose if we want to follow him or not, to believe in him, or not. Yet, immediately afterward, they offer another example, of what will happen to those who do not follow god- that is they will burn…in HELL !!!! This makes Stalin, for example,  look like a very sympathetic figure indeed. He didn’t force anyone to adhere to the misery creating fantasy of a system that he brought. You could have easily chosen to be a dizident those days. Of course, you might have also very well ended up in the Gulag, along with your whole family as a result of this. The Christian god is no different than this. How can anyone have the nerve to talk about you being allowed free will, as long as there is a gun pointed towards your head ?

In conclusion, free will and Christianity are two aspects that can never be put in the same room. For us irreligious people,  free will is the boosting engine for our own mental progress. In Christianity, free will is the root of all evil.

Anyway, that’s all for today. I don’t know if there will be any third part to this. I’ll keep on writing more articles independent from this “under siege thing”.

PS: Myth on the same step with the law of gravitation ? HAHAHAHAHA

I have been reading many debates between irreligious and religious people concerning the argument of intelligent design. These debates, from what i have seen, are endless, because neither side has the sufficient arguments in order to finish off the other. And so, these debates go on, but with the religious side always having a moral advantage, because of the incapability of the others to disproof their claims. Before i start explaining further, it should be noted that when i’m referring to “religious” i mean the supporters of the three dominant religions: christianity, islamism and judaism. Since i live in a christian environment, i shall use the word “christianity” as a key-word for all three religions.

(more…)

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in his “Thus spoke Zarathustra” that “God is dead! And we have killed him!”. While I admire very much Nietzsche’s philosophy, I think we should dig even further into this matter. We never put a finger on God, our hands are clean! God committed suicide ! He’s dead, by his hand!

I won’t bother with the Old Testament, when he was just a tribal god, similar to so many others, and “inspired” by the other gods “who didn’t exist”. Let the Jews worry about that. I’m talking about when he was “promoted” to a universal god, for all human beings. Suddenly he changed his old ways and decided to use other methods. He appeared to us in the form of a bastard son and made his new rules heard. Now the whole human race became his “chosen ones” and bloodshed , mass exterminations and crushing the infidels were no longer required. Suddenly he spoke of love, peace and tolerance between people.

Jesus (as he is portrayed in the Bible) appears as a peaceful, passive being, devoid of any pride or ego. He asks us to love our neighbour, to love our fellow humans how we love ourselves and to grant permanent forgiveness to those who hate, hurt or do us wrong, no matter how much wrong. We always have to forgive and never resist when we are attacked, insulted or beaten.
Also, the rules about chastity are even more tightened. Now, not only sex before marriage or cheating on your partner is sinful, but even looking at someone of the opposite sex and secretly desiring him/her will be treated as a deadly sin. The same will be said about verbally insulting someone and calling them “fools”. This is God’s new ideology that we must follow in order to achieve eternal happiness. This ideology brought by Jesus is more than just an ideology. This is what God represents. This is God.

But then we see how God inflicts wounds on himself when, just chapters after he told us not to call people “fools” he does so himself. He goes even further when he attacks the merchants selling things in the temples. His passivity and friendly attitude suddenly changes, and doing so he put another nail in his own coffin. If Jesus was the wisest man alive, why didn’t he use his infinite wisdom in order to peacefully convince the limited minded merchants to leave the temple ?
Tolerance is abandoned again when he calls those who do not listen to his teachings “vipers and vermin “. Where has “love thy neighbour” gone? Surely no one speaks this way to his neighbour when he loves him, right ? Even when he does something wrong. But Jesus seals his fate, as God, when he calls for eternal punishment in hell for the infidels, who do not follow him. Rightful and goodhearted actions are deemed nothing without faith in Christ. Without this faith, we all go to hell. This is the moment God renders his ideology obsolete. This is when God committed suicide. He is the one who asks for unlimited forgiveness, but he is also the one that offers unlimited punishment for limited sins done during a pathetic lifetime of few years that don’t even matter in the whole context of history.
It is obvious that God cannot follow his own rules. His words are contradicted either by other words or by his actions. If one who does not follow these rules deserves eternal death and God himself cannot follow them, he sentences himself to death: He commits suicide. We are innocent. As such, his ideology is rendered pointless and useless to us.

But even after his suicide, God still has followers. They call themselves “Christians”. but what is a Christian ? Nietzsche wrote in “The Antichrist” that the only Christian in human history died on the cross. Again, I go even further and say there was never such thing as Christian, since no one ever followed the rules required by the suicidal god to achieve this title. If we go on the streets and ask 1000 people the question “what is a Christian and what does it take to be one?”, it is guaranteed that we will get exactly 1000 definitions. The truth is that after God committed suicide, the people performed an autopsy on him and dissected him, each taking a part, the one that suits him/her best. We will find out that some don’t consider sex before marriage or sexual lust a sin at all. When we bring to them the lines quoted above, they either say that they are not important or they are just a figure of speech. To some, who consider themselves fundamentalists, they don’t find anything wrong in rejecting atheists and people who don’t believe what they believe. Or, why don’t we try hitting one of these Christians in the face. Will they be real Christians and turn the other cheek, while, perhaps trying to talk to us rationally, or will they do like a “mere human” would and hit back?

Also, who actually believes in this shallow, senseless emotion called “love for everybody”? Do you really think someone actually experiences this “love” for everyone in the world ? No! Some of them might have the guts to say something like this. But they are just words. They couldn’t care less if 2 blocks away there was a car accident and some people died. But what about loving Christ more than your wife/girlfriend/mother/father etcetera? Does anyone even think of Christ when they are with someone they love? Christian teachings are very incompatible with human personality, that’s why no one can follow them. Like I said, the only thing Christians can do is take God apart and reassemble him in the way they choose.

Let’s face it, for every “Christian” there is a Jesus who fits their own interests and interpretation. There are orthodox Christians, catholic Christians, protestant Christians, Jehova’s Witness Christians, and another million kinds of Christians, but no actual Christian. There never has been.

In the previous installment of this series I ended at the destruction of Sodom. The rest of Genesis contains some stories about the descendants of Abraham down to Jacob, father of twelve sons who would later become the fathers of the twelve Israeli tribes living in Egypt that would later find themselves enslaved: Prepair for the book of Exodus.

However, before we enter Moses, I’d like to write out some general conclusions I have made from reading Genesis. These mainly concern the biblical god (“God”). Although Christians often portray him as an altruist, the god I’ve read about is definitely not. He appoints Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as his servants and demands they act like it if they want the Lord to help them. We’ll see the same kind of egoism in Exodus, but that’s for later. The thing I was annoyed with the most in Genesis is that right in the first book it is made clear that one is not to question the Lord. The stories of the Flood and Abraham almost sacrificing his son illustrate this very well. Noach and Abraham never stop to think about the motives of this authority figure. Questioning authority is a cornerstone in skeptical freethinking. I will also note that God will make damn sure that he gets his fix of destruction while still upholding a forgiving and good-willed façade. God: “I will not utterly destroy a city if just ONE of its inhabitants is innocent of crimes I will not disclose! … Quick, Job, get out so I can destroy the city!”

Enter Moses
I’m sure you’ve heard the story. The pharao has commanded all first-borns to be killed, but Moses’ mother hides her baby in a basket along the bank of the Nile. The pharao’s daughter takes little Moses in and so he is able to grow up. After killing an Egyptian for beating a Hebrew he flees to Midian where he is taken in by Reuel/Jethro and is given Zipporah, one of Jethro’s daughters, as his wife. Some time passes before god has satisfied his sadistic needs and decided it’s time to free “his people” – meaning those unlucky enough to have born in one of the Israeli tribes, having to undergo genital mutilation after birth – and Moses is appointed his side-kick. Moses fears he lacks charismatic skills and God agrees and commends Aaron to join his brother Moses. Moses, his wife Zipporah and his children travel to Egypt. Along the way, the famous foreskin incident takes place, in which Moses is saved from God’s wrath by his son’s foreskin.

Exodus 4:24-26
At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched {Moses’} feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone.

Magic and God’s sick hunger for death
Instead of sitting down and talking like adults, Moses and Aaron are sent by God to show off some magic in the hopes of impressing the pharaoh. It becomes clear freeing the Israeli slaves is not the main objective for God: He simply feel likes showing of his mad skillz (Exodus 6:3-4). And so the show begins. God starts off with his weak staff-into-snake routine the pharaoh’s sorcerers (yes, that’s what it says!) are able to replicate. The water-into-blood routine was likewise equalled by the pharaoh’s magicians. The same happens for the plague of frogs. Finally God brought something new into his act, and transformed the dust into gnats through his proxies Moses and Aaron. Still, the pharaoh didn’t let the Israeli people go. Flies ensued and boils that plagued men and cattle alike. The pharaoh began to understand he was no match for God, but God made sure he could continue his sadistic act until the very end by preventing the pharaoh let the people go (Exodus 9:12).

And so God enjoyed himself greatly, raining hail down on Egypt. “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.” God says in Exodus 10:1-2. The heavenly maniac hasn’t performed his biggest act yet, and among the locusts and darkness he makes sure the pharaoh doesn’t spoil it (Exodus 10:20, 10:27, 11:10). Having made sure it would get this far, God now feels it is time to bring out the fireworks, and kills off all the innocent people who happened to have been the first to leave the womb. God breaks his spell of the pharaoh’s mind and the Israelites are free to go.

God had one more trick up his sleeve, however. By making sure the pharaoh decides to hunt after the Israelites (Exodus 14:4), he can perform one more miracle for the world – a last violent encore to add to the slaughter already committed. He made sure the Israelites didn’t choose the shortest path to the promised land; hell, there wouldn’t be a sea to split along that way! And so, even after the Egyptian slaughter, god’s hunger for death was finally stilled when he drowned the Egyptians after making sure the Israelites were able to traverse the Red Sea.

And returning to my opening paragraph, Exodus accounts again for the fact that God is not altruist at all. As if the gratification of his hunger wasn’t enough, the price for freeing the Hebrew slaves from Egypt was high: God demanded all the firstborn male that would see the light of life thereafter, men and cattle alike, to be his property. This means sacrifice, people. But not to worry, God will make sure you’re kids are fine – for the right price, tha tis. “Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.” (Exodus 13:13)

Next up in Reading the Bible Part 3: Commandments and laws

Stephen Law has thoroughly pwned the little ignorant theist who was certain he’d proven that god exists. Only he was doing it using circular logic and unargued premises.

I was a bit surprised that this site even existed anymore, as anyone with even a passing familiarity of philosophy or logical arguments can punch holes through the kind of logic employed there. Indeed, the Antichristians took much pleasure in skewering the silly arguments presented therein more than one year ago when it fell to our attention.

Unfortunately back then, Sye (AKA Canuckfish) did not stick around to argue his point, although we’d have certainly been less challenging than a professional philosopher like Stephen.

Nevertheless, reading the discussion was…cute. Like watching a 12-year-old trying to play chess against Kasparov. You can’t help but cringe at the bad moves and laugh when the former insists that “moving the rook diagonally is correct”.

Anyway, head over. Have a laugh. Nothing else is going to change anyway since the theist in question seems incapable of comprehension, no matter how excplicitly he’s been proven incorrect.

Perhaps later on Stephen might wish to take on the Crossexamined blokes who seem to employ similar arguments (Logic cannot exist without God). They’re still pathetic in argumentation but there’s more, lets say, “fish to shoot in the barrel”