Common Sense: Not a Christian Value.

The bottom line is the Christian religion is incoherent and the bible is patently absurd.  5 years ago I would have laughed at anyone who said this to me, and responded with something stupid like "not-uh, my pastor says god is love and Jesus was god and so he's perfect and..... blah, blah, blah."  The problem was, I didn't know any better, for obvious reasons Christians focus on certain parts of the bible and ignore others.  The fact is, however, the majority of the bible is filled with absolutely ridiculous bullshit, this realization was a major catalyst in my departure from Christianity.  I'm not going to go into a lot of philosophical or logical discussions here, I am simply going to appeal to good old fashioned common sense.  If you don't find the following examples offensive to your common sense, then you either don't have any, or you're so indoctrinated that obvious facts/truth escape you.  Remember, the bible was written by superstitious, ignorant, bronze age men who thought the earth was flat, that alone should cause some red flags.

Before I give you the list of ridiculousness, consider that the bible is said to be (by Christians) the most perfect book ever written, the pure word of god containing his will for mankind. However it is unclear, has contradictions, problematic verses and leaves people split on what it actually says.  Man has produced works of mathematics and science that hold up to hundreds of years of scrutiny with no or little room for improvement and only by the greatest minds doing extensive research, however the bible could be immediately improved by even the simplest minds by just correcting conflicting statements or removing the bits about being killed for mixing two types of material in your clothing.  Why does the bible not contain any of the knowledge that an omniscient being would have had, or really any useful knowledge at all? Wouldn't revealing something like germ theory have helped to substantiate the legitimacy of the bible as the word of god, while also saving lives and reducing suffering from disease?  It is obviously man made.


Now let's begin with a list of examples of the lunacy! (Not a complete list, just a smattering of good examples)

A. Animals were only given green herb to eat (Gen 1:30) and there was presumably no death before the fall. When then, did god design carnivores? Did he design them with venom, claws, and canine teeth because his creation was ultimately designed to fall into corruption?
B. Why would god create a world in which living things must kill and devour other living things in order to survive?
C. It takes an omnipotent god seven days to create the universe and then he needed to rest.
D. God names his garden Eden, a Sumerian word meaning "fertile plain?" Is Sumerian the Adamic language?
E. God doesn't remove the garden immediately, instead he waits choosing to guard it with a cherubim and a flaming sword Gen 3:24
F. God expects Adam and Eve to resist temptation when they didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they had eaten the fruit
G. Cain was afraid of being cast out because people who saw him would kill him. There were only three people documented on the face of the earth at the time. Everyone alive would have had to have been a close relative/ Gen 4:14-15
H. Where did Cain's wife come from? Gen 4:17
I. There were giants on the earth at one time. Gen 6:4 (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)
J. God destroys unborn children and all of the animal life in the flood for man's sin. Gen 5:5-7, 11
K. Noah and the animals survive in the ark with only one window for ventilation Gen 6:16
L. How did Noah feed the carnivorous animals?
M. How did Koala's get to Australia after the ark washed up on the mountain? (There is a very good evolutionary explanation with undeniable evidence including marsupial fossils found throughout the strata of North America, migrating through Antarctica and ending up in Australia, where they evolved into the multiple forms of marsupials as demonstrated in the fossil record and present day life of Australia.)
N. There were enough people to form nations in only three generations after the flood (144 years,) giving Noah's great grandson the manpower to build the Tower of Babel.
O. Exactly what was the result of God's confounding of the human languages? Why would some people move and others stay, did he think we wouldn't be able to learn foreign language or that we could actually build a tower to the heavens? Why doesn't he do the same to us now since we have achieved space flight?
P. There is no mention in the entire OT after Gen 11 of any event in Gen 1-11... The creation, the fall, the serpent, the flood, Babel etc.
Q. Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle.) Gen 30:37-43
R. Twins are being delivered. One puts out his hand and the midwife binds it with a scarlet ribbon to identify him as the firstborn. But he draws back his hand, and his brother is born first (thereby obtaining the rights of the firstborn son). Gen 38:27-29
S. Why didn't Isaac simply revoke his blessing of Jacob instead of blessing him again? Why would god honor the blessing obtained by deceiving a dying blind man?
T. God advises Moses through a pagan priest Ex 13:1-27
U. The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first-born---a most unusual situation.) Ex 12:30
V. The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000. Ex 12:37, Nu 1:45-46
W. God kills 50,000 men at Bethshemesh. This is several times as many as the entire population of Jerusalem at the time 1 Sam 6:19.
X. A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders. Dt 25:5-9
Y. Solomon's temple was only about ninety feet long by thirty feet wide, yet 153,300 persons were employed to build it. It took seven years to build. ~7,500,000 lbs. of gold and ~75,000,000 lbs. of silver were used. 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it. (Note: Inasmuch as there seems to be uncertainty as to the exact weight of the biblical talent, some estimates place the weight of gold at more than 13,000,000 lbs. and the weight of silver at more than 116,000,000 lbs.) 1KI 5:15-16 1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 1KI 6:38 1CH 23:4 1CH 22:14
Z. Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight. 2CH 7:5, 8-9

A1. 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.) 2CH 13:17

B1. Other Holy books quoted and sourced by the bible:
1. Book of Jasher Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18
2. Book of Wars of Jehovah Num 21:14
3. Laws of Samuel 1 Sam 10:25
4. Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41
5. Chronicles of Kings of Judah 1 Kings 15:7, 23
6. Chronicles of Kings of Israel 2 Kings 14:15, 28
7. Annals of King David 1 Chr 27:24
8. Histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer 1 Chr 29:29
9. Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chr 9:29
10. History of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chr 12:15, 13:22
11. Book of Jehu 2 Chr 20:34
12. Sayings of the Seers 2 Chr 33:19
13. Book of Enoch Jude 14

C1. A prophet of God to be consulted to find lost livestock 1 Sam 9:1-10:2

D1. God destroyed the people of palestine to make way for israel and justified their destruction because they were wicked. He never attempts to teach them his ways, seeing as Israel was not righteous or monotheistic either.

E1. The virgin birth is ignored by Mark and John. Jesus, Mary, nor Paul ever discuss it.

F1. Jesus stated that believers would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without experiencing any harm. Mk 16:17-18

G1. Jesus states that some of his listeners would not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom 2,000 years ago Mt 16:28, Mk 9:1, Lk 9:27

H1. Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. MK 11:12-14, 20-21

J1. Why does god want to torment some of his creatures for eternity because they displeased him out of ignorance or poor judgment? Why not just annihilate them? Wouldn't that be what a merciful creator would do?

K1. God allows Job to be a helpless victim, a wager in a bet with Satan

L1. Why did God choose to appear to Israel only? If he can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't he be bothered to appear to the other people of the world as well? Isn't he supposed to have no respect of persons?

M1. The city of New Jerusalem (where the residents of heaven reside) is only about 1500 miles square. RE 21:16

N1. Do not mix clothes of wool and linen together, and make tassels on your cloaks Deut 22:11-12

O1. Eating shellfish is an abomination Lev 11:10

P1. One cannot approach the altar of god if they have a defect in sight Lev 21:20

Q1. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean (football) Lev 11:6-8

R1. It is wrong to plant two types of crops in the same field Lev 19:19

S1. Abortion is condoned in the bible, contradicting the position of the majority of evangelical Christians.
1. If a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and the baby dies but she doesn't, he isn't to be killed and the punishment is to be left up to the husband. This means that an unborn child does not have the same value as a living person as murder of a living person elsewhere in the bible requires execution. Ex 21:22-23
2. Num 5:11-21 describes a bizarre ritual that is performed on a wife that is merely suspected of adultery to induce an abortion.
3. Hosea prays for god to cause all the ephraimite women to miscarry and god obliges. Hos 9:11-16
4. Moses orders the killing of all male children and women that are pregnant or that might even be pregnant to end the genetic line of an enemy. Num 31:17
5. God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "women with child shall be ripped up." Hos 13:16

Why would the most perfect and most important book directly from the lips of god not be able to be clearly correct? If man can produce mathematics and science that are nearly impossible to improve upon, why can god not give us a book that anyone could easily improve upon, especially considering he demands we believe it at risk of hell-fire?  Lastly, consider the errors that have occurred in translation of the bible, isn't every word of god pure and preserved to never pass away? Is god not able to keep humans from screwing up his master piece, or does he just not care?

It's simple common sense, anyone with half a brain can see the there are serious problems, so why are millions of people compelled to believe the Christian god is the one true god and the bible is his word?  Well, because so many people don't know any better, they accept what they're told and by their pastors, evangelists and apologists and frankly many of them are just stupid.  Consider the fact the ONLY way anyone can maintain the bible is true/the word of god is either by lying about it, or making excuses for it.

Seriously people? The word of god? Come on now...

The problem(s) with deism.

I am going to split this up into 3 or 4 parts, this topic could turn out to be lengthy, and one of the best writers I know reminded me to keep it short or risk losing people's attention, or boring them to death, and I don't want to do either of those things. Anyway, last nigh we discussed confirmation bias, tonight we launch into the facts about why there isn't actually any proof, at all, that any gods exist. Yes, this includes your god too, if you're unfortunate enough to still believe in magic.

The only way to establish the existence of anything, supernatural or not, is through evidence of some sort. Very few religious people actually acknowledge they don't require evidence for their beliefs, those that do are called presuppositionalists, and/or Calvinists and they're a special brand of arrogant. Anyway, the majority of Christians, if asked would provide reasons, or evidence for why they believe what they believe. This fact provides a common ground for us to work from actually, we both believe that evidence is required to support an assertion. The problem lies in how we define evidence, but I think with just a little open mindedness we can get past this.

Why is evidence important? Why I'm glad you asked! For the sake of this discussion I am going to compare and contrast religion and science so if you don't understand the differences, you soon will. Science puts forth falsifiable theories that can be tested and proven to be wrong and this is done by making predictions. A scientific theory (such as atomic theory, or evolutionary theory, the theory of gravity, etc) puts forth predictions that, if the the theory is correct, we should expect to find certain conditions to also be true. Predictions about how chemicals will interact with each other, for example, are based off of atomic theory and electron behavior. While we have never seen an electron, our falsifiable theory makes consistent and reliable predictions about how electrons will behave in chemical bonding and we have used this theory to produce everything from medicine to household cleaners. These predictions are useful in helping us to understand the nature of the universe and behavior of elements of nature, and make advances with this knowledge. Religion on the other hand is not a falsifiable theory that produces useful predictions, it is a belief system. Religions look at areas where we do not have answers (or complete answers, or where we didn't used to have answers and now we do, but they don't accept them) and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge. And we know, as I said earlier, we can't actually know anything without evidence, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Is there any positive evidence for the existence of god, any god? The answer is a resounding, unequivocal, no, there is no positive evidence that any of the thousands of gods humanity has put their faith in over the millennia exist, or ever did. The thing most commonly cited as "evidence" by believers is what is referred to as the "god of the gaps" argument, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. For example, life exists, we can't account exactly for how life began, therefore god did it. This is not evidence, this isn't even logically sound. To assign responsibility for the existence of life on this planet to god(s) take a HUGE and skips over a nearly endless list of other possibilities. Using that logic it is equally likely that aliens put us here, or that we're fecal matter from our friends the extinct pink unicorns... The bottom line is, it isn't evidence, no matter how bad you want it to be.

All of the arguments for the existence of god rely on negative evidence, usually stemming from gaps in scientific understanding, again this is belief, a fairly silly belief at that, it's not knowledge. This makes belief in god non-falsifiable, and as we now know a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not testable, and falls flat as evidence or "proof". Some people resort to another, and even more ridiculous tactic they call evidence, which is saying "you can't prove he doesn't exist" this is known as onus probandi. You can't disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, a computer simulated universe, Russell’s teapot, or any of the thousands of gods and mythological creatures in existence either, again this is not positive evidence. I also can't prove you’re not joking about your belief in god, and you can't prove I'm not god, or that I can't fly, or that I don't have omniscience or that I can’t predict the immediate future with 100% accuracy. Without positive evidence for these things, there is no reason to believe in them. There is no reason to believe god is responsible for the things we do not understand any more than there is a reason to believe the flying spaghetti monster might be, or that everything is just a dream. No one can disprove these positions because they are non-falsifiable, but there is no reason to believe in them either, without evidence.

This logic is why religion is flawed compared to the scientific method, faith asks you to ignore evidence based on foregone conclusions and it is almost always non-falsifiable - that is to say there are no parameters that could be met or conditions that would exist to show that the argument is wrong, making it non-testable. Faith also offers no reliable predictions and is therefore functionally useless. Good science, on the other hand, draws conclusions after the evidence has been examined, is falsifiable and testable, continues to examine it’s validity when new evidence is presented, and is useful in that it makes accurate predictions. Much to the dismay of the faithful around our planet, as our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. This leads to things like limiting education, access to books, television and the internet and other deplorable tactics religious leaders use to keep people hooked. We're seeing some of this today in our country, look at the ridiculous assertions made by people like Bachmann, Santorum and this new "war on women" phenomena.

Again I've probably written too much, so in conclusion I believe it's important to remember that the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If I were to claim that there is an invisible dragon breathing heatless fire in my garage, the skeptic should consider three conditions. Has the area where evidence would appear has been exhaustively examined? Does no evidence exists, or is all of the evidence is inadequate? The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show. If these three conditions are met, then the thing either does not exist, or it is functionally useless to believe in it's existence. Until positive evidence for the existence of a god is brought to light, it is not only functionally useless to believe in one, it's dangerous, it's downright harmful to spend your life investing your time and energy into something that doesn't exist. I heard someone say this once and I think it rings true now, "why be born again, when you can just grow up?"


Goodnight.

Confirmation Bias.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs (such as religion). For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations, for example: the existence of humans 'therefore god' argument).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. This explains why hell/eternal torture and the fear that those threats instill is such a powerful motivator.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.  This is one of the main reasons people cling to their religious beliefs, even though they have been comprehensively proven to be false, and not only proven false but shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be downright ridiculous. For example, the erroneous belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old, or that the universe was created in 6 days, this is absolutely false, there is no doubt about this fact. Any argument to the contrary is done out of ignorance or because some other psychological force is in control, such as fear.

The implications here are pretty plain, in matters of religious faith/superstition, if you believe something is true, the tendency is to work from the conclusion instead of working towards a conclusion. This is counter-intuitive, in most areas of your life you probably use evidence to establish facts about the world around you, but in regards to religion and faith, there is no evidence, that is the nature of faith. Faith is believing something is true in spite of the fact there is literally 0 evidence to support the belief. So you see why this is problematic, I hope. Consider why you believe what you believe, if you are religious that is. In every case you're working away from a presupposition, you've already decided the answer so by nature the ONLY way for you to support your conclusion is to make inferences that you think would lead to the conclusion.  For example, the universe exists, therefore, god did it. Or I feel happy when I sing songs on Sunday morning, therefore, Jesus did it. It is a HUGE step to say the only answer to why you feel joyful when you sing or why we exist is because a magical, invisible man in the sky did it. If you have one reasonable bone in your body, you must acknowledge that using this logic absolutely anything is permissible as the reason "why". I could say the reason I feel happy when I hear music is because it was invented by a race of now extinct pink unicorns and they knew how to make a person smile. There is exactly the same amount of evidence to support my pink unicorn theory as there is for your theory about god, none. Confirmation bias is one of the major reasons you draw the conclusion that god did it instead of extinct pink unicorns.

I am going to lay out the problems with prepositional logic and confirmation bias as simply as I possibly can and attempt to show why and how you must approach your beliefs if you want to do so rationally.

If you are a theist - you are claiming that the nature of god is knowable, and, indeed, you know it. However there are thousands of other god’s you easily disregard, and have never even considered seriously.  For example the pagan gods such as Abellio the Celtic tree god, or Malakbel the the Arabian vegetation god or the gods of other contemporary religions, such as Islam (Allah) or Hinduism (too many to list).  Also, you must consider the fact that there are millions of people who easily disregard your god/mirror your feelings towards their god who are outsiders to your faith or members of other faiths (aka they believe the same way you do, using the same "proofs" yet you regard their beliefs as unreasonable, impossible or likely even ridiculous). You must also consider that your choice of god is very likely determined by culture and birth location and a result of simple childhood indoctrination. This is evidenced by localized religions, such as salt lake city's Mormons, the bible belt's protestant Christians, India's Hindu's, Ireland's Catholics etc.  Furthermore, children are not religious, they are only the children of religious people. They do not have the mental faculty, life experience, or knowledge to contrast with what they are being told is true of the world. Look, for example, at the children of the Westboro Baptist Church who stand with signs at protests saying that “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” I doubt any of those children would have been doing that if they had not been born into such a sick, sick family.

Another method one can use to test the validity of their beliefs, or religious faith in general is called, The Outsider Test for Faith (OFC) as defined by John Loftus: What if you had been born in Saudi Arabia as a Muslim baby and were able to examine the Christian faith with a healthy amount of skepticism as a Muslim? If yours is truly the religion designed by god, shouldn’t it hold up to skeptical scrutiny? “Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating." (Loftus) If you acknowledge you probably would have remained a Muslim in these circumstances - there is a high probability your belief is simply an accident of birth and culture, or at the very least not the result of careful, objective reasoning. If you believe the "evidence" would have convinced you to convert to Christianity, that means one of two things: (1) You believe you have solid, objective and falsifiable evidence that can be examined through the eyes of a Muslim and still be self-evident. Why then don't more Muslim's convert or consider the Christian religion as a serious alternative to Islam? Where is this evidence and why doesn't it seem to convince people who aren't born into Christianity by accident of birth? (2) You are delusional in regards to your faith, which is not so much a virtue as willingness to believe something that there is no evidence for whatsoever. In fact, this is not a virtue at all, this is willful ignorance and frankly I find it despicable.

Another way to approach this is to assume that I have never heard of god, Jesus, or the bible. I ask you to explain to me what make your particular brand of magic somehow superior to all of the others? Remember, I have never even heard of god so you will have to start from scratch and explain this in a way that will seem reasonable to someone who is not familiar with the basic premises of your religion. I am curious how it all began, so you’ll need to start by telling me about how god spoke the universe into existence in six days, created Adam from dust, created Eve from Adam's rib and placed them in the Garden of Eden before they ate the fruit from a forbidden tree of knowledge, causing god to cast them out of the garden so that he could guard the tree of eternal life with a flaming sword and a cherubim, because if they ate of it they would live forever. Be sure to explain how we can know this is actually factual but the Samoan creation story is just mythology.

Anyone who is willing to consider their faith (Christianity/Islam/Mormonism/Jehovah's Witness/Judaism, etc) critically can only come to one possible conclusion, that is that there is no evidence to support their beliefs, and therefore the only justification is blind faith. Regardless of what some people say, blind faith is never, ever a good thing. September 11th is evidence of that fact, as are the crusades, the inquisition, the wholesale murder of women accused of witchcraft, hatred towards homosexuals and the current assault on women and their rights from the religious right. These are only a few of the reasons why blind faith is dangerous. So if you believe that a magical sky man invented by primitive Shepard's and desert nomads created the universe 6,000 years ago. And a talking snake tricked a woman made from a rib into eating a magical apple that doomed billions of good people to an eternity of torture in hell, or anything equally as ridiculous, I beg you to take a critical look at WHY you believe what you believe.