
I don’t always use the Lord’s name in vain… but when I do it’s because it’s the only goddamn thing he’s good for
And that, is that is the goddamn truth.

Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
From the picture it looks to me like the heavenly father is certainly helping a fowl of the air to get a meal. I guess the bit that says “Suffer the little children” was meant literally.
Love? Show me it.
I love this cartoon, it’s so… like life. You’re raised in a good Christian home, you go to Sunday school, you get spoon fed a fantasy version of the Christian God which, quite frankly, isn’t described in the Bible. Anywhere.
Then you grow up and you read the Bible cover to cover and you come to the startling realisation that this God you were told of as a kid not only doesn’t exist but that it is, in fact, a really good thing that it doesn’t. As described in the Bible the Christian deity is a jealous, murderous, psychopathic, genocidal, baby murdering asshole and we’re all better off not having to deal with that kind of mental, especially on an omnipotent scale.
In hind sight, comparing Yahweh to Dr. Evil is perhaps a bit unfair… to Dr. Evil.
A friend tweeted the picture below this morning and what a beautiful story it tells. Well, literally, it tells a story. A true story. Sometimes true stories are the best kind.
Here’s a quick excerpt:
Dear Christians:
God here. I thought I would take the time to personally explain my absence in the Aurora shootings. While I was at it, I thought I would also explain my absence during every other murder, massacre and crime that has ever taken place in World history, and every war, in every famine, drought and flood.
You see, I do not exist…
Behold, for your enjoyment, the god’s own truth:
Edit:
Click here for the text version, courtesy of Chad Kettner at http://losingmyreligion.ca
Dr. Richard Dawkins reading a passage from his book The God Delusion. A brilliant book in my opinion.
The video was uploaded by bdwilson1000, a YouTube <insert appropriately nouned verb here> of impecable taste. I think I might have watched every video he’s ever uploaded.
I read a post by Rosa Rubicondior about a conversation that Dan Barker had with a guy called Jason Gastrich and you should probably go read it since it’s great.
Anyway, it got me thinking and I’m writing this mostly to firm up my understanding of the concept.
The basic premise is this: a god who knows the future is a god without free will, with limited power. A god cannot both know the future and be omnipotent, have free will and make decisions.
Why this is, is pretty straightforward; I’ll try a simple example.
Lets assume Yahweh, in the year 1500 BCE, knew for certain that on December 21, 2012 the world was going to end by an asteroid hitting the earth. Let’s assume he told a man called Moses to write this down in such a way that it would form part of the Talmud and later the Bible, as a prophecy. So Yahweh makes a prophesy in 1500 BCE that the world ends in fiery Armageddon in December 2012.
Fast forward to July 26, 2012. Yahweh knows on this day that the world is going to end in fiery Armageddon on December 21 by an asteroid strike and he tells a guy called Harry Llama this inconvenient truth through a vision. Now, Yahweh has been absolutely, infallibly correct about the fact of the world ending December 2012, every day for 3512 years, or about 1.2 million straight days.
Harry Llama, a bit perturbed about this revelation, gets together a whole bunch of good Christians on the 27th of July and, as the Holy Bible prescribes, they pray together to Yahweh to stop the asteroid from destroying the earth.
Now Yahweh has a bit of a dilemma. If he chooses (assuming he has this choice…) to avert the disaster and cause Armageddon to not occur at the prophesied time at the prophesied place then he would have been wrong for 3512 years. If Armageddon does not occur, Yahweh would not in fact have known that the event would occur – he would have been flat out wrong for 3512 years. This means he is not omniscient.
If Yahweh is guaranteed to be omniscient, he then can not do anything to avert the disaster as this would cause him to not be omniscient since averting the disaster forces Yahweh to be wrong, it forces him to not have known something. If Yahweh can not do something, it means he is powerless, he is not omnipotent, he has no free will.
Now, this example aside, it applies to absolutely everything an omniscient god might know. If a god is omniscient – and therefore prescient – it cannot also be omnipotent and have free will or free agency.
If a god knows for certain the outcome of a future event and then causes the outcome of that event to change, it never knew the certain outcome. If a god knows for certain an outcome and cannot change the outcome, it is not omnipotent and does not have free agency.
The god of the bible? By definition, it does not exist.
… and let’s face it, it says it is right there in the Bible (Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 6:15) and it is also unchanging (Psalm 102:27, Hebrews 1:12, Hebrews 13:8) then… what was it jealous of before it created the universe? Jealous in anticipation of things to come!? Seems to me there’s a couple of psychological issues that need to be worked out there. Putting a fundamentally insecure super-being with unlimited power in charge of any universe seems like a really bad idea to me.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Science and the scientific method has given us… virtually everything. It is responsible for our lifespan doubling, for the internet, for medicine, for anesthetics and pretty much everything else. Look around. Everything you see is the result of the scientific method being applied to the world you live in and my personal favourite is anesthetics (a quick look at the horror that used to be medicine before the invention of anesthetics is enough to convince me that time travel is, in fact, a really terrible idea).
The scientific method is a profoundly successful process for investigating the world and is the underlying force of all human advances for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The scientific method is:
a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge
The techniques of the scientific method consists of a process with a number of steps to go through to arrive at a scientific theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
These steps include:
A question that naturally arises for me centers around what religion – Christianity specifically – looks like when you study it with the scientific method. Interesting, I suppose is an answer. Infinitely boring is probably another answer. It depends rather heavily on what you would like to do with the outcome of the investigation. I’ve also argued before that the scientific method can and should be applied to everything, including the claims of religion, ghosts, the supernatural as well as finding God.
Looking at Christianity one might formulate the following question:
Does the Christian God as described in the Bible exist?
I think that is a fair question. It is after all the crux of what a billion people alive today allege to believe. I concede that it’s also a pretty big question and this short post won’t necessarily do it justice to it entirely but what the hell, let’s have a go. For the sake of a feeble attempt at rigor, let’s define some of the properties of the God in question by using the Bible as the source:
- Omniscience (all-knowing) – John 16:30 the apostle John affirms of Jesus, “Now we can see that you know all things.
- Omnipresence (all-present) – Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
- Omnipotence (all-powerful) – All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” Jesus said in Matthew 28:18
- Eternality (no beginning or end) – John 1:1declares of Jesus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
- Immutability (unchanging) – Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
I propose the following hypothesis:
The Christian god does in fact not exist.
I think it’s a perfectly valid hypothesis. Certainly one could propose the converse but I have a hunch that this one is more likely than the alternative so we will investigate this statement.
What predictions can be made based on the hypothesis that the Christian God does not exist? After considering the implications I feel that the following are reasonable predictions of phenomena that might be observed if the statement “the Christian God does not exist” was true:
These predictions should now be tested to see if what they describe would happen is inline with reality: are the predictions true or not? So let’s test the predictions:
1. Christians who believe they converse with the deity in question would not agree or even be able to generally agree on the wishes of the deity [if the deity does not exist]
Do we have any empirical evidence to support the prediction that in the absence of an actual deity as the source of information that Christians would have fundamental disagreements as to the wishes of the deity? Yes, I think we do have some empirical evidence that we can put forward.
It is impossible to argue against the fact that Catholics, Baptists, Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses have irreconcilable differences when it comes to their religions even though all four proclaim to literally worship the same deity and use the same book – The Bible – as its only (except for LDS who have additive reference called the Book of Mormon) divinely inspired true reference.
2. There would be inconsistencies and contradictions in stories and texts alleged to be dictated or inspired by the deity [if the deity does not exist]
Empirical evidence for this prediction exists in spades within the book considered by Christians to be the holy and in some cases, literal words, of the creator of the universe – their God. I will list a couple of obvious contradictions and inconsistencies and link to a graphic that illustrates a huge number of them.
MATTHEW 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
LUKE 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
JOHN 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
Clearly all three scenarios could not have happened even if one assumes against all available evidence that at least one had to have happened.
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
It is not possible to interpret SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE as THREE YEARS OF FAMINE under any circumstances.
3. Edicts on behalf of the deity would be inconsistent and change with time – they will evolve with society [if the deity does not exist]
We have a lot of empirical evidence where the ‘official representatives’ of the Christian deity have changed their minds with time motivated by scientific and societal advances.
We have shown that the Church has implicitly withdrawn her condemnation of heliocentrism, so that Catholics are not directly guilty of heterodoxy or disobedience if they hold that the earth revolves around the sun.
However, even thought the Bible explicitly approves of slavery and even provides instructions on how to manage slaves:
4. Morals and morality would be inconsistent and change with time – they would evolve with society
Changes in the official Catholic view on slavery and the slave trade not withstanding, many if not most of the instructions for conduct in the Bible are no longer observed by Christians.
A couple from the Bible might include:
The distinct lack of Bible motivated killing to be found (myself as an atheist being alive as an excellent example) in the western world is empirical evidence that many of the instructions above are not being obeyed by Christians. Since by Christians’ own measure their God does not change and since many Christians use excerpts from surrounding passages to justify things like discrimination against homosexuals I think a clear case is made that once all or most of the instructions were once obeyed and now only some are obeyed and in the future perhaps none will be obeyed – in line with social reformation.
What is our analysis of the empirical evidence we have found to show that the predictions that were made by the hypothesis were true and in accordance with reality? I think that we have enough evidence to say that the hypothesis that the Christian God, as described in the Bible and commonly accepted by most Christians, does not exist, is likely to be correct.
Christians are not all speaking to the same God since none of them can agree on what this God actually wants, likes or prefers. The Bible was not inspired by or written by a being with the properties that Christians and Christianity assign to their deity since it is full of inconsistencies and contradictions which is to be expected if it were not inspired by or written by the Christian God. Christians who have spoken on behalf of their God and who have not been corrected by that God have made statements in approval of or against things that were later a reversal of earlier positions. Christian positions on issues have changed as additional information has been learned and as society has changed which is in line with the Christian God not existing. Instructions given by the unchanging Christian God to his followers are no longer being followed by Christians as those instructions are contrary to what is acceptable to society – morals have evolved – which again is a predictable and expected phenomenon if the Christian God did not exist.
Note that the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist is not a concrete, incontrovertible proof that the Christian God or any other god does not or can not exist. That the Christian God does not exist is only the most likely explanation of the way things are in light of the information and evidence that is available. New evidence might change the explanation, negate it or it might further bolster it.