Is God Just Pretend?

I was born an atheist, just as every other person, animal and life form in the universe has been and will forever be. Indeed we are all born without religious indoctrination making us all non-theists from birth. Because we are born atheists (free from all knowledge of Gods) we do not come into this world with preconceived ideas of religious dogma. These ideas are learned later in life and are usually introduced by a parent or religious institution. Without some outside influence in their life, most people would not adopt religion on their own.

Most likely the reason for someone being Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim or some other religion is because their parents were also of that same faith. It is not like they actually put a lot of thought in deciding what religion to be, in fact they did not pick their religion at all, their religion picked them. For example, had the Christian been born in Iran, instead of the United States, chances are they would have most likely been a Muslim, not a Christian (but they would believe just as strongly in the Muslim faith as they do their Christian faith now). A religion picks the person it will attach itself to based on Geography in large part.

People learn of religion the same way their parents did and their parents before them, through repeating the same dogma that was handed down to them from their parents. Of course no matter which religion someone ends up inheriting either at birth or later in life, it is always taught to them to be the "One True Religion." Just as a person of strong Catholic belief thinks they have found the "One True Religion," so does the person of strong Muslim faith; they both can't be right.

I am an atheist for the same reason I am an Azeusist (someone who does not believe in Zeus) because there is no proof for the existence of Gods...not one, not any. Besides, if there be such a thing as a God, he must have known (since it is said that God knows all) I would be an atheist ahead of the time of my birth; and if that be the case, what right do people of faith have to question their Gods judgment anyway?

Mike Wasdin

You may or may not agree with what is presented here. I think it's important to ask yourself what you hope to get out of it? If the goal is to seek knowledge, even if it takes you places that you may find uncomfortable, then by all means continue. But if you are only interested in reading material that furthers your own self-interest of propagating a belief that you have, and there is no amount of knowledge or evidence that could sway your belief or cause you to reconsider, then stop now and save yourself a lot of time. You can continue about your day knowing that your mind has not been subjected to anything that might chip away at the safe little world you have created for yourself.

If there is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would sway your opinion or cause you to reconsider your position, then what possible reason would you have for trying to gain knowledge or further your education about this or any other subject? If you are convinced you know all there is to know already, then you should cease trying to further your education at all on any subject and just tell yourself you have reached the maximum capability and capacity of your mind, and it is closed for any further progress from this point forward.

If your beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand up to challenge or the slightest scrutiny, would this really be something you would want to continue to believe in anyway? Are your senses so delicate that you are not even willing to listen to someone Else's point of view, because the mere thought that someone might disagree with you causes an immediate desire to place both hands over your ears, and close your eyes while repeating loud chanting noises as to avoid listening?

However, if knowledge and understanding are what you seek, and you are bold enough to follow this road no matter where it might lead, then read on and ask yourself what makes more sense to you.

I do not profess to have all the answers, nor the truth. I simply will lay the facts out as we know them to be and let you decide for yourself what sounds more rational and logical. I cannot force you to believe anything, nor would I try. I would hope you possess the ability to weigh the evidence and decide for yourself if there is A Case Against God.

But of course that will be up to you to decide...

Since man first crawled from the cave he has been on a quest for knowledge. Not having the ability to understand the universe early man invented Gods to explain their world. There were Gods for everything, from water and fire, to Earth and the cosmos. Thunder and lightning meant that the Gods must be angry and if it rained they were sad. This would all seem to make perfect sense for the mind of a caveman since they were not capable of conceptual and rational thought. They simply replaced one unknown for another in their world. Rain = Gods sad, Thunder and lightning = Gods angry. This "caveman logic" explained everything they needed to know and because of their limited logic and reason worked fine for them.

Just as in the movie 'The Gods Must Be Crazy,' when a native in the Kalahari Desert encounters technology for the first time--in the shape of a Coke bottle. I found this to be very amusing, but I also began to see parallels between his thought process, and that of the modern day Theist. Both are using caveman logic to explain their world. The native using caveman logic thinks, "bottle fall from sky, must be gift from the Gods" and the modern day theist thinks, "see that that tree, that proves God." Both of them simply have replaced one unknown for another, but still have not answered where these things came from.

It is easy to understand how this method of replacing one unknown for another was passed down through the generations as a means by which to describe our world. It is also easy to see how someone of such limited capacity could accept this line of reasoning to define their world.

As mankind evolved, mans logic and reason evolved as well. This "caveman logic" did not seem to work as well as it once did. Science and math had now replaced "caveman logic" and we demanded proof for the things we believed in. Through using logic and reason, and applying science and math we replaced caveman logic and learned:

Rain = Gods sad, was replaced with science and we learned that rain is caused by: Precipitation that forms when cloud droplets (or ice particles) in clouds grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud. If these large water drops or ice particles do not re-evaporate as they fall farther below the cloud, they reach the ground as precipitation.

Thunder = Gods angry, was replaced and learned to be caused by: The sudden expansion of the air around a lightning bolt's path. The deep rumbling and sharp cracks of thunder are produced as the air around the lightning bolt is superheated - up to about 54,000° Fahrenheit (about 33,000° Celsius) - and rapidly expands. This rapid expansion creates an acoustic shock wave that manifests itself as thunder.

Through science and math and by using logic and reason, man had replaced "caveman logic" and was able to explain his world in more rational and sensible ways. Man now relied on the rules of evidence to validate a claim and demanded proof for things he was willing to say he believed in...except in one area.

Where faith was concerned "caveman logic" seemed to still be the method at which to explain our world. God was proven in the mind of a theist simply by pointing to a tree, flower or an insect. This "caveman logic" was more than enough proof in their mind and it did not matter that all they had done was to replace one unknown for another, to them the question had been answered and it was not up for debate or challenge.

It is sad that with all of mankind's greatest achievements that we have still not crawled that far beyond the cave...and caveman logic.

The quest continues...

Atheists are amongst some of the most hated people in the world, but why? Many people misunderstand the term "atheist" and associate it with Devil worshiping or people that sacrifice small farm animals. This of course is completely ridiculous. Theists do not have a higher moral code than do atheists. Indeed no one has ever killed in the name of 'no God,' yet many have killed in the name of a 'God.'

Theists will argue that someone like Stalin was an atheist and that he killed in the name of atheism, but this is false, Stalin killed in the name of communism. In fact, Stalin actually rejected Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In short Stalin opposed Darwin's theory in favor of Trofim Lysenko's Lamarckianism

Atheism is not a belief system, it's a rejection of theism...nothing more. Atheists do not worship Satan anymore than we would any other God or demon. Indeed an atheist rejects God and Satan as well. Because an Atheist does not believe in God, this does not mean that we do not believe in anything as some theists will claim. A belief in nothing is known as nihilism (Nihilism is a philosophy of an extreme form of skepticism: The denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth; nothingness or nonexistence). I am not a nihilist...I know I exist.

Other than a non-belief in God, atheists are free to believe in whatever they choose. For example you can be, male or female, white, black or any other race , gay or straight, a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or an Anarchist, you can literally have any other philosophy you like and still be an atheist. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is the rejection of theism...period.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a belief in nothing. Atheists simply reject the notion of God based on the evidence, but I can say with certainty I believe in a lot of other things, even things I cannot see like air and gravity (both of which can be measured and proven)...I just require proof for those things.

Atheists do not have a special day once a week that requires they get dressed up, and then gather for meetings with their friends to compare fashion, and discuss magic, folklore, Gods, Demons and the existence of things outside the natural universe. They do not have a handbook with special rules to obey, talk to imaginary friends or worship idols...those people would be called theists.

Atheists do not disagree on atheism. Many will confuse what I just said to mean atheists do not ever disagree. Of course atheists are free to disagree on almost anything except atheism itself. As I said in the beginning, atheism is not a belief system, it's a rejection of theism...nothing more. If you disagree with atheism, then you are not an atheist period.

Now let's contrast that with theism, which is a belief system. You can be a theist and disagree on many points about theism itself and what it means to be a theist. A Catholic and a Baptist for example are both theists, but disagree on exactly what that means, which is why there are so many different sects of the same religion. With atheism that is not a problem as all atheists agree they reject theism, making our position one that is not only more definable, but agreeable as well. Just trying to define theism and what it means is hard enough, finding two theists that agree on what it actually means is next to impossible...even within the exact same sect.

What does it mean when someone claims they are an agnostic? Some claim that agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-is unknown or unknowable.

I don't agree with this view when it relates to theism, nor do I accept that people can claim to be an agnostic as it relates to theism. You are a theist if you believe: One God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation. If you do not believe this, you are a non-theist...or said another way, you are an atheist. A lot of people mistake theism with deism. A deist believes: In the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation. Many of the founding fathers were mistakenly thought to be theists, when they were actually deists.

So when someone says they are an agnostic they are usually unknowingly saying they are an atheist. For an "agnostic" to say I don't really know, so I am not willing to say for sure, is admitting they are not a theist (someone that does claim to know) so by default this makes them an atheist.

People who refer to themselves as agnostic do so because it sounds warm and fuzzy, and the word agnostic is not as looked down on by people of faith as is the word atheist. To most people of faith the word atheist is a vile and offensive word, so some people would rather use a less offensive term to describe their beliefs, as not to offend anyone.

I am agnostic in a lot of areas, but one is not towards theism. I could be convinced that I am an agnostic when it comes to things for which I can't study with any certainty like, do space aliens really exist? I would call myself an agnostic on this because I can't say with any certainty one way or the other. But if the question is, am I open to the idea of virgin births, talking snakes, someone being turned into salt, a man living in a whale, zombies being resurrected, and all the other absurdities of the Bible, then the answer is no, I am an atheist towards this.

Are agnostics equally open to the idea that fairies may orbit Jupiter? I mean they can't know for sure because perhaps the fairies are invisible or perhaps the fairies are too small for us to observe with the naked eye or telescopes. Do they also claim to be agnostic toward these fairies? If so what about Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, Superman, or the thousands of other fictional beings? Of course they don't tell people that they are agnostic towards these things. No they accurately label themselves as being atheistic toward the fairy hypothesis, as well as all the others because the probability that these conjured up, man-made ideas are true is very low. Just as low as the possibility that the imagined "Gods" from the old man-made Bible are real.

You can't be a little pregnant...you either are or you are not. I would say the same for theism...you either are or you are not.

We call ourselves atheists so that we can make it crystal clear that, while we're open to certain mysteries of the universe, we are not equally open to Gods as most people understand them. Atheism simply means you reject theism, but it does not limit you from any other religious or spiritual belief. For example, you could be a Buddhist or a Deist and be an atheist.

Agnosticism just seems a little intellectually void to me as the term relates to theism, because the person is claiming they are having a hard time deciding if the belief of theism seems plausible or not. There is no middle ground as it relates to theism. You are either a theist or you are not a theist, and if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

The Webster Dictionary defines faith as:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So if we were to combine the meanings given in the second definition it would mean faith is: a belief and loyalty to a God, which is the traditional doctrines of a religion, and a belief in something for which there is no proof, but that you have a complete trust in.

When a theist says they have "faith" in God, they are really saying they have a belief and complete trust in something for which there is no proof of. Faith by definition is a belief in something that cannot be proven, so when a theist claims to have complete faith in a God, they are admitting they believe in a fictional being. How then could they claim to have proof in something that is not real? Faith is just that, faith. If it was anything else it would be called something other than faith. If you are a person who has a faith in God, you are admitting that you believe in nothing.

Fear of the unknown can be a frightening thing. So people believe because they want to have hope that there is something better beyond this life. No one likes to believe that this could be all there is. I will admit I would rather be wrong and the theists be right because their heaven (in some ways) certainly sounds like a nice place to be, but I cannot accept this on faith alone, I require proof.

People of faith in the past have asked me before, if I do not believe in God, then what do I think will happen to us after we die? I answer this question the same as I would answer any question that I do not have enough knowledge to answer, I say "I don't know". Of course I wait in anticipation of their reply, which is usually something like, " see you just admitted you don't know!" It is true, I don't know, but neither do they. They have fooled themselves into believing they do, and that when they die they are going to a much better place where there is no pain and suffering, a place of complete happiness...a place called heaven. Of course they do not really know what will happen to them after they die anymore than I do, they simply believe in something that they were convinced of, and to them it's a fact.

I don't know what happens after we die or what it will be like. If I had to guess though I would imagine it will be a lot like what it was before I was born, and I don't remember that either. It makes more sense though that we might go back to the same state of non-existence that we were in prior to our birth.

No, theists have no more greater knowledge of what happens after death than do atheists, we just choose not to replace one unknown for another one...or said another way, we do not make up fairy tales to make up for our lack of knowledge. There are things for which we do not know and understand, we may one day, but as for now we do not, and atheists accept this fact.

"Philosophy gives us unanswered questions; religion gives us unquestioned answers".

Theists will tell you they have proof of God. It's usually something like pointing to a tree or an insect. Next they will ask you to consider all the delicate and complicated intricacies of these things. They will then ask how could these things have come to be without God? Of course to anyone else that actually is capable of intelligent thought, this does not prove God anymore than it might prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster created these things.

All the Theist has done is replace one unknown with another unknown. Think of God as "X" in a mathematical equation. If you were given an equation to find out what "X" is and you simply made up a random number as your answer, would you have solved the equation? Of course not, all you have done is replace one unknown for another. Actually their math is even worse than this example, because they are claiming "X" equals "Y"...okay so what is "Y" then? They have answered the question with another question.

I do not like to use the word "proof" because it is used in so many ways and by so many people who really have no proof at all. Theists will claim they have proof of God, but of course they do not. I would say though that there is more evidence to support that there is no God. There is a lot of evidence to back this up on the website God is Imaginary but of course everyone will have their own definition of what evidence is, and people of faith will most likely dismiss all of this without even considering it...as it would destroy their beliefs if they did.

Of course there are things for which we do not know the answers to, but making up answers to fill this lack of knowledge is not an intelligent way to try and define these things. Would it not be better to just admit there are things we do not have enough knowledge to understand yet, rather than try to replace this lack of knowledge with equally unknown answers?

In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the "burden of proof" would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this of course is how it should be.

Most things in life operate this way...except in the area known as religion. I get asked all the time to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can't prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first, so it stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.

If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed, because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can't prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.

Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to this claim?

Should we question the things we have been told to believe or should we just believe them without evidence out of fear of punishment from some cosmic cloud deity? If we were to treat faith and religion in the same manner as we do with matters of the legal world and our justice system, what would happen if using those same rules of evidence that we do in any other judicial matter we put God On Trial?

What evidence could be presented to validate this claim? Many would say the Bible, but the Bible is not proof of anything. Do you know anyone that actually witnessed God or Jesus? As far as we know there are four main people that can testify on behalf of these stories, but they are nothing more than anonymous fictional characters with no last names. The entire story relies upon 4 men who all we know are named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. I say they are anonymous because nothing else is known about them.

Imagine a police officer filing a police report about a crime and naming four people named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark...no last names, no addresses, no phone numbers...nothing more than just first names and then to make it worse, these 4 anonymous people cannot be called upon to even testify because no one knows where or who they are. Would this case hold up in court? Would this case even be charged by a competent district attorney?

If this case was brought to trial, who would we call as witnesses? What evidence could be presented other than the written testimony of 4 anonymous men that no one knows anything about or how to locate them? Could God Himself be called to testify on His own behalf?

If we were to examine and treat this as we would any standard judicial proceeding this would be laughed out of court, so why is this any different? All other things in life we require evidence for except this one thing, why?

There are more than 730 established Religions in the world which are broken out into more the 3200 different sects. Christianity, for example is 1 of the major religions but has more than 200 sub sects, each with their own unique traditions and interpretations of the bible.

The actual number of religions is much higher than this even because a religion can be defined in so many different ways, so there is no way to know exactly how many religions may exist, but even with the example above, how can you be sure you have selected the "one true religion"?

If your eternal salvation relies on you not only believing in God, but the one "true God" how can you be sure you have made the right choice? What if the God you believe in is the wrong God. Would you suffer the same fate as the non-believer if you did believe in God, but happened to not believe in the one "true God"?

Of course most theists believe that they were fortunate enough to select the one "true religion" out of the many religions of the world. As I said earlier, they did not pick their religion, their religion picked them. I know many will argue this point with me by saying they went through several religions before deciding on the one "true religion" they currently belong to now. That is not that impressive though. Moving from a baptist faith to a different Christian faith is akin to saying you once thought Breyer's Vanilla ice cream was the best, now you think Ben & Jerry's is the best.

The truth is had you been born in for example Iran, you would be most likely a Muslim, and if you would have been born in India, you most likely would be a Hindu today. But I can say with certainty that you would believe one of those to be the "one true" religion, just as those people do, instead of the one you have now had that been the case. Of course people's arrogance will never have them admit to this, but of course it's true. Geography had more of a decision in your religion, that you did. I will say it again, you did not pick your religion, it picked you.

A Catholic believes they are saved because their God is the one "true God", but then so does the Muslim, the Jew and the Hindu. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. Each one of these people of faith are convinced that they were fortunate enough to be able to determine not only what the one "true religion" is, but also the one "true God" as well, but it is not possible that all of them are right, so what about the ones who are wrong?

The Catholic is certain the Muslim is wrong, just as the Muslim is certain the Catholic is wrong, and of course the Jew thinks they are both wrong. Even among the same faiths such as Christians, they can't all agree either, which is why there are over 200 sects of Christianity alone.

Would picking the wrong God be just as bad as not picking one at all?

Theists will say that everything needs a creator, but then who or what created God? Theists will try to make the claim that God has always existed or that He created himself even after also making the claim that everything must have a creator. If God existed before the beginning of time, how did He exist? How could something exist before there was something to exist in? Theists seem to be the one's making the claim that nothing created something, not atheists.

This same claim would not be accepted if a theist were to ask an atheist who or what created the Universe and an atheist were to answer that it just created itself. Then why is it that this same claim is acceptable to them when it comes to explaining how their God came to be?

Theists like to make the claim that atheists believe that there was a Big Bang and then everything was just created. This of course is not true and nothing more than an attempt by theists to discredit Evolution. The Universe was created through millions and millions of years of evolution, not all at once. Anyone that is really interested in learning the truth about Evolution should read The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins.

So, why is the same argument good enough to a theist when trying to explain the existence of God to an atheist, but not good enough when an atheist using that same argument is trying to explain the existence of universe, matter and energy to a theist?

Theists say that anyone that accepts God will be forever saved from a life of torture and misery. The problem with this is most of the world never heard of God.

There have been billions of people that have died in the last two thousand years never hearing a word about God's existence. They would all be burning in hell, if the Bible and churches are to be believed. They are all condemned to eternal suffering only because they were born in some area, far away from Jerusalem and never heard about this Christian God. Only because they never had a chance to become Christians, as Europeans "discovered" those continents some 1500 years later.

What about all the people that were born and then died hundreds and thousands of years before Christ? Are they doomed simply by chance of being born before Christ?

What about babies that died before being old enough to understand the requirements for eternal salvation? What about animals that are not capable of the comprehension of a God? What about societies such as Aborigines and other people who were never given the opportunity to know the Christian God? Are all these people simply doomed by chance?

It would seem logical that God would inform them of His existence, if he didn't want them to go to hell. Could this be an all loving God?

Most theists will say Gods true nature is unknowable, that we can never really know what or who God is. This is actually one of the only things that I would agree with. Only things that exist can be known, if something is unknowable, it means that it does not exist.

Let's use the example of a " ". What is a " " you will probably ask? Good question, because I have actually said nothing, which would be the only thing that could possibly be unknowable. Once you name something or give it characteristics it becomes knowable. The fact that a theist gives this mystical creature a name "God" and then tries to describe it automatically makes it knowable because if something can be described it can be known.

So in reality if "God" is unknowable it means he does not exist, so when someone moves their lips and utters this strange sound known as "God" it is as if they have said nothing at all, much like " " would be...I have said nothing.

So either God is knowable, or God does not exist. So, is this God really The God Who Wasn't There?

When theists are presented with a dilemma such as all the ones I have raised here, their go to response is "free will". This is not only a cop out, but not even an acceptable answer. A theist cannot truly believe they have free will while at the same time believing God knows their every thought and action.

If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, that would mean it is predestined. It does not matter that you have the option of changing your mind, because in the end, God would still know what your final decision would be. Even if you were to change your mind 1000 times, God would still know what your final decision would be. If God knew yesterday that today I would eat cereal for breakfast, am I free to not eat cereal today? The problem is of course if I am free to not eat cereal today, God would have been wrong in knowing that I would eat cereal today.

If someone knows in advance what you will do, you do not have free will because it was decided ahead of time what you were going to do. Although you might have convinced yourself that you had free will in your decision, you did not because God knew before you did what you were going to decide.

Either we truly have free will and God (or anyone else) does not know what we will do tomorrow, or we do not and our future has already been decided.

Free will does not answer any of the dilemma's I have placed here, so if you use free will to try and explain any of this, I will discredit your answer based on your not having free will and your misunderstanding of the meaning of free will.

Theists claim that without God, man cannot have a moral code for which to live by.

If that is true, why don't atheists go around the world killing people? Atheists do not believe in hell, don't believe in the Bible. Their everyday behavior is not guided by fear of God or hope for salvation.

As illustrated above there is nothing moral about God. God is by moral standards a sociopath and a maniac. Statistics have shown that atheists exhibit a higher standard of morality than do Christians and other people of faith.

In countries were religion plays less of a role in government there is less crime and war. In countries were religion plays a larger role or in a theocracy such as many middle eastern countries, crime, murder and war are much more common. You can actually be killed in many of these countries simply for committing blasphemy.

Religion is, historically speaking, one of the worst generators of evil in this world. In our history, nothing has been the cause for more wars, bloodshed and crimes than religion. Some believers say that Hitler was an atheist. That is not correct. In his book Mein kampf, he mentions God many times and expresses his belief in Christianity.

Can we look to the Bible for examples of morality?

Genesis 19

In verses 30 to 38, the story describes how Lot's two daughters got their father drunk on wine, engaged in sexual intercourse with him on two successive nights, became pregnant, and eventually gave birth to two sons Moab and Benammi. Their sons are described as founding the Moabite and Ammonite nations.

And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in and lay with her father: but he perceived not neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. And the next day the elder said to the younger: Behold I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine also to night, and thou shalt lie with him, that we may save seed of our father. They made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in, and lay with him: and neither then did he perceive when she lay down, nor when she rose up. So the two daughters of Lot were with child by their father. [Genesis 19:31-36]

It doesn't really get much more blatant than that. The two daughters had sex with their father, Lot, in order to preserve his family line. Incidentally, this all happened shortly after they had fled from Soddom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by God for its immorality - ironic?. After the events described above, Lot had no memory of it (maybe it was the liquor) and nine months later the daughters gave birth to two sons, Moab (father of the Moabites), and Ammon (father of the Ammonites).

So is this something we should embrace and promote? No doubt there are some good teachings that can be found in the Bible such as to not kill, steal or commit adultery, but it is very hard to believe that God himself really meant these things when God violated so many of his own laws, and besides are these rules things that mankind did not already know? Did someone really need to be told that it is not acceptable to rape your neighbors wife or kill them?

With all the murder, rape, theft, assault, pain, and misery in the Bible, I am surprised it does not have a warning label on the cover warning parents of its content.

Watch the video "Proving that the Bible is repulsive" and then ask yourself if the Bible is a moral guide?

Theists will agree that God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing. In other words he is an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect creature incapable of evil. But is this possible? If he created everything did he not also create evil?

If he can do anything, can he create a rock even he cannot move, or a mountain too high for him to climb? This of course creates a problem either way someone answers it. If he can do these things, then he has created something he cannot do, as in move the rock or climb the mountain. If he is not able to create these things, then he also faced with an impossibility and something he cannot do.

Jeremiah 32:27 and Matthew 19:26 says that God is omnipotent (all-powerful). But Judges 1:19 says that the Lord was unable to help the men of Judah drive out the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. But, in Joshua 10:12, God makes the sun stand still in the sky so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. One would have to ask themselves, "if God can make the sun stand still for Joshua to attain a military victory, why did he not do something as simple as destroy a few iron chariots?

I guess iron must be like Kryptonite to God?

If he is all good and he is all knowing, then he would know when something bad was going to happen, if he allows it, he cannot be all good.

This is a simple logical proof that omnipotence and omniscience is not possible.

Without thinking, believers trust in something that was said to them, or what they read, without really thinking about it. If they were told, countless times that God is almighty, and if most of the people around them believe it, then the believer does not have a reason for doubt and will not think about it rationally. He or she is just repeating learned phrases.

In the Bible, God more than once revealed what the future holds. As He is perfect and all knowing, that is to be expected of a God. Again, He knew that Eve would eat the fruit; He knew He would send the great flood, that He would send Jesus, that many would not listen. Why did he even create Adam and Eve, the snake and the tree of knowledge if He knew with absolute certainty what would happen? He, in fact, set them up.

If this is true, then He knew from the beginning every person who would believe in Him and deserve to go to heaven. He knew from the beginning who would be evil and who would go to hell. He knows in advance, what every person on Earth will think or do during their lives. He knew that for all the people that ever lived, and He knows it for every person who will ever live. He knew that the majority of them would not meet His standards.

Why would a Father who loves his children condemn them in advance to an eternal agony in hell?

Why put us on Earth in the first place? He could have just sent all the souls to heaven or hell before He created Earth.

If God is all good, then why do unborn children die? If God knows everything in advance, then he knows when something bad is going to happen, if he does not stop it, he can't be all good. Of course one would first have to ask, why does God let bad things happen to begin with if he is all good?

If life begins with conception, He has killed or allowed a completely innocent being to die that has never had a chance to be born. It committed no sin, as it has not even had a chance to be of this world yet.

If He planned that child to die, why did He put it into the mother's womb in the first place?

If the baby died so that someone else would be punished, wouldn't that be evil? Is it just to kill an innocent baby to punish someone else?

What would be the purpose of creating a world where you were doomed before you even had a chance to live?

According to the Bible God created the world in 6 days and then he rested on the 7th day. Does this sound like the work of a perfect and all powerful God? Although by human standards 6 days sounds quite impressive to create an entire world, but by all powerful Godly standards it fails, and the fact that he required rest only makes this assertion even less Godly.

If God can do anything, why would he need anytime at all for creation. He should have just been able to think it into existence in the blink of an eye, and this should have been such an easy task that rest would have not been required. The fact that it took him some time and that he required rest shows that he is not all powerful.

After He created something, God saw that it was good. Why did He have to double check his work? A perfect being with a perfect plan and execution does not have to check the results of his actions.

Moreover, looking at the world and seeing how much pain, grief and misery there is, how can it be "good"? The almighty God should have seen that it would not be "good" ahead of time eliminating the need to wipe it out and start again.

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, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE)

So which one is it?

A) He is not benevolent and almighty.

B) He is not a God.

C) Both A and B

If he is not any or all of these, why call him God?

Some believers say it's better to believe than not because that way you don't have anything to lose. Non-believers will go to hell, believers will go to heaven.

Nevertheless, if God is all knowing, then He knows if a person's faith is not sincere. He would know if a person is doing things only to avoid going to hell and is trying to deceive Him wouldn't He?

Also if believing God was important wouldn't believing in the one true God be just as important? What if you believed all your life, but you believed in the wrong God?

I would think if your eternal soul depends on this you better hope you were able to select the one true God out of all the religions in the world, if not you may find yourself in the same place you believe all the non-believers will end up.

The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.

If this is the case, why does God hate amputees?

If you are woman God hates you. If you don't believe me see for yourself in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Ecclesiastes 7:27-29

Leviticus 12:1-5

God hates many things, in fact the list of things God hates is much larger than that of the things He loves. About the only thing that God really loves is burnt offerings (burning flesh). We have already determined that God hates amputees and homosexuals, but he also hates women. In fact one of the things God seems to have the most problems with is women, which again seems odd since if He created them, He must have known in advance that He would not have been pleased with them.

I personally don't understand how a woman that has actually ever read the Bible would want to devote her life to it. Luckily for the Church, most of their flock have never actually read the Bible. I would imagine if more women actually read the Bible, the amount of women atheists in the world would be much larger than it is today.

Here are a few examples of His hatred towards women, but there are many more examples of this in the Bible

Rape My Daughter Please-

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

Silence The Woman!

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.

Women Shall Not Speak

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

If one ever wishes to find an explanation of woman's inferiority to men, one only has to look in the Bible. Paul makes clear and delineates the importance of woman recognizing her place, "ad nauseam."

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

This nonsense goes on and on throughout the Bible. If you are a woman, this alone should have you reject the Bible and the "God" that wrote this rubbish.

Over the course of centuries, the Bible has been translated many times from several languages. Translations of translations were used to translate it again. How can we believe it is a word of God?

If you know more than one language, try translating ten sentences from a random book into that language. After a few days, try translating that same text back into your native language, then note the differences.

If you take into account that the same person translated those words within a few days, what do you think are the differences in translation of a book as big as Bible by the persons of unverified skill, over the centuries? Multiply that with number of translations.

Here is one example that is easily seen:

2 Kings 8:26 states: Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 22:2 states: Forty and two years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem

Another example would be in history of our own country. We have all been told for example that Paul Revere rode through town on a horse to warn the people that "The British are coming, the British are coming!" Do we know if this actually happened? Were any of us there to see it? Do we know anyone personally that saw it? This is an example of something that was a mere few hundred years ago that was translated down through history and I would be willing to bet that even though something like this most likely did occur, it was not in this exact manner that it happened. At least though we do have portraits, documents and many other artifacts that can somewhat substantiate this story, or at least make it believable.

Contrast this with the stories of the Bible that were translated hundreds of times, over thousands of years and in many different languages. Is there even a possibility that it could be slightly or even completely wrong? Suppose we were to add to the story of Paul Revere that while he riding through town he encountered a talking snake, that offered to give him a ride in his new chariot called an automobile, and instead of yelling the British are coming, the talking snake offered to let Paul Revere use his cell phone to call them instead. Would this same story sound as convincing as it does in it's original form?

Before there was a book called the Bible, there were scriptures, called Cannons. It was voted on which of these cannons would be used in the Bible and which ones would not be used. The Bible and all its contents were voted on...by men. Had the vote been different, what Theists believe to be the word of a God would be entirely different today.

The Catholic Church changed the Bible on purpose as well. They cut out some of the parts that didn't suit their purpose (check for Codex Sinaiticus on the internet).

Christians don't behave in accordance with many things that are written in the Bible. Why, isn't that a word of God?

Does a believer himself decide what parts of the Bible are true, and which is an allegory? Why not? This is another example how believers just repeat the same things people around them do, without thinking.

Well, if we are to believe Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18), every detail of the Old Testament should be followed.

However, believers just chose to ignore parts that are inconvenient. Here are some examples:

Exodus 21:17 - If someone curses his father or his mother they shall be put to death

Exodus 21:20 - If you beat the slave to death, you should be punished (Bible approves of slavery)

Exodus 31:14 - The one that works on Sabbath shall be put to death

The common response of a believer is that some things are meant as an allegory. They seem straightforward to atheists. If you curse your parents, you should die.

Even if they were an allegory, why would God leave such shrouded instructions? Wouldn't it be better if all was clear and not subject to a discussion?

Finally, who are we to say what God meant as an allegory and what He meant as it was written? Can a priest say that? He is just a man, he can make mistakes.

Can the pope say it?

The church says the pope cannot be wrong. He is infallible. That is not true, for more on this keep reading.

The believers most often do not think about questions like this. They were taught to behave in a certain manner and they do it automatically.

As we already said, God knows all our thoughts, all our desires, all that we need and all we deserve or will deserve in the future.

In addition, God has a divine plan. He did not create the world without a clear picture as to what He wants. As God is a perfect being, the plan is equally perfect. It is elaborated to the tiniest detail, all the way down to the last atom. After all, it is a perfect plan right?

Considering this and prayers, we have two possibilities:

a) The thing a believer asks for is already in God's plan

b) The thing a believer asks for is not in God's plan

If the prayer is in accordance with the Plan, a believer will get it regardless if he or she prays for it. If what he or she asks is not in accordance with the Plan, he or she will not get it no matter how long he or she prays.

So, the question arises, why pray at all?

The hard work of one, has always done more than the prayers of millions.

Let's try an experiment in praying. Let's flip a coin 20 times (make it 100 times if you want statistically better data). Make notes how many times you got heads or tails.

Now, take a coin and pray to the Jesus Christ to make every flip heads side up...pray hard. If you need help ask a believer to pray with you.

Gather your family and friends and ask them to pray for it. You didn't get your prayer fulfilled did you? Maybe you even got less heads than the first time you flipped it.

After you have compared the data, prepare another coin, but before you start flipping pray to your car, your kitchen table, or to your toothbrush. Pray hard and then start flipping.

The odds are you got near 50-50 ratio all three times, you were flipping. You didn't get 100 heads. Not praying, praying to Jesus Christ and praying to a random object got you nearly the same results.

Time and time again...nothing fails like prayer.

The Christian Church teaches us that all non-Christians will end up in hell. It is not important if they were good persons or bad, if they helped others, did good deeds, and were an inspiration to other good people... They will go to hell.

On the other hand, the worst criminals in human history, serial killers, rapists, torturers will end up in paradise if they repent before death.

Hitler, the most negative person in the newer western history could be in heaven right now, laughing, because he repented just before he died. Coincidentally Hitler was not an atheist, but in fact a theist and gave many references to God in his speeches as well as his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

The Church, of course, profited many times because of this handy rule. Many people throughout history gave all of their assets to the church in exchange for a last minute pardon.

Jesus, as a son of God, is as perfect as God is. How is it possible, then, that he so failed at his mission on Earth? His mission was to spread the word of God and to save us from our sins.

If he is perfect, his mission should have been accomplished perfectly. Nevertheless, looking at this world during history and today, we can easily see that he failed miserably. There are many religions, even more sects. Christians are not even the majority among people on this planet. Even worse, not even all Christians can agree about religion and God; far from it. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses... they are all Christians.

His message of peace was ignored by the church itself, so how will it not be from the rest of the humankind?

People in America and Australia only heard of His existence many centuries after he died, Jesus never visited them to spread the word of God.

How is it possible that he did his mission so poorly, despite his perfection and his perfect knowledge of human species?

Dying on the cross, Jesus said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Would a person dying voluntarily for us say those words? Those words more likely would suit a person whose plans did not develop as he/she imagined it. A person who did not think he or she would find him or herself in that position.

How can Jesus save us if he can't save himself?

Adam and Eve have sinned and God cast them out of paradise.

It's just to punish someone for a sin they have committed. However, why punish all of their descendants? What kind of God would punish the great-great- great-great- great-great- great-great... grandsons for the sin an ancestor did?

How would a believer feel if he or she was punished for his or her father's sins? How would he or she feel if someone remembered the sins of his or her grandfather and punished him or her for them? What if they punished the children for it?

Would he or she be able to describe that person as someone merciful and full of love?

Even in the Bible itself, it is written that children must not be punished for the sins of their fathers:

Deuteronomy 24:16 - The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.

So why original sin?

As Genesis 6:5-7 states, a perfect God, which in advance knew what kind of world and men He was creating, in the end was not pleased with His creation. Therefore, He decided to drown everybody except Noah, his family and the animals on the Ark. How is it possible that an all-knowing God, in the end, is not satisfied with His creation? He must have known how it would turn out.

Homosexuality-

The Church teaches us that homosexuality is dirty, unnatural and sinful.

By observing nature and animals on this planet, men noted more than 450 species that practice homosexual relationships. They never noted a homophobic behavior among those species.

Only humans feel homophobia, mostly because they were raised that way, in Christian spirit.

It is no wonder, as the Bible (Romans 1:24-32) states that lesbians and homosexuals deserve to die.

But how could a God that created everything and knows everything be angry with something that He not only created, but knew in advance that he would do, and what the results of that creation would be? Did he change his mind later? Does not seem like the work of a perfect God to me.

There are many places in the Bible where it is wrong, or is simply contradictory to itself. Here are only a few examples; you can easily find many other on the internet:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27: Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9: Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27: Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19: Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27: Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19: Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27: Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22: Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Both versions can't be correct if God were to be perfect.

There are more contradictions than I can list here. Doing a simple Google search you can find many more.

According to the Bible, Earth is about 6,000 years old.

So, how do we explain the abundance of fossils that scientists have proven are much, much older?

Using radiometric dating and stratigraphy, scientists have determined the age of our planet and have shown that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Some believers would say that science was wrong before. That is true. Nevertheless, radiometric dating and stratigraphy are hardly the only methods scientists use. Radiocarbon dating method, Samarium-neodymium dating method, Rubidium-strontium dating method, Potassium-argon dating method, Uranium-lead dating method, Uranium-thorium dating method...The list goes on.

Fossils enable us to see how species evolved during hundreds of thousands of years.

But evolution can be observed on much shorter time periods as well. All serious scientists will confirm organisms change during time. This can best be seen in case of viruses and bacteria that multiply very fast compared to bigger animals. Faster reproduction means better chance of mutation. That is why you can read about a strain of bacteria that is resilient to antibiotics. It mutated and adopted in order to survive.

Of course, the Church does not recognize evolution, despite much scientific evidence, because it contradicts the Bible. Let us not forget, it was the church that taught the Earth was flat and at the center of the Universe, not science. When scientists tried to contradict this, they were jailed or killed.

After so many proofs, clinging to the 6,000 years story is just stubborn and shows a lack of intellect.

Many theists will insist that Evolution has not been proven (although some churches are finally accepting this as fact) even though it has been. Of course most theists hold on to their belief that Evolution has not been proven, because if they admit otherwise, they also would have to question their belief of Creationism. If they are wrong about Creationism, then their entire belief system is finished, and they are not about to let that happen, so they deny Evolution. Yes, Evolution is real and has been proven, and many times.

Theists love to misrepresent what Evolution really is. Richard Dawkins explains Evolution in this short clip Why are there still Chimpanzees? Of course there is a lot more to it than this and there are many books and videos that you can get that will explain exactly how Evolution works.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this section, because many theists will simply dismiss it anyway. At some point they will have no choice but to finally accept this, much like they had to accept that the world is not flat, nor is it the center of the Universe.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve. They were the only members of the human race on the planet.

Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, two boys. Cain killed Abel, so that left Adam, Eve and Cain as the only members of human species on the planet.

The Bible states Cain married and got a son, Enoch.

Wait a moment.

Whom did he marry? There were other people on the planet? Where did they come from? If God created them, why hasn't the Bible stated it?
Perhaps, Eve had more children and Cain married his sister?

And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. [Genesis 4:16-17]

Cain was the first born son of Adam and Eve, and Abel was the second. In Genesis 4 we read how Cain kills his brother and is sent east of Eden where he marries a woman and "lays" with her. Because Adam and Eve were the first humans - from whom all people come - Cain's wife was his sister - and, consequently, all of the early Biblical relationships were incestuous (with the exception of Adam and Eve). Cain, incidentally, was the guy that caused so much trouble for the Mormon's who believed that the cursed "Mark of Cain" meant black skin, leading them to forbid blacks from entering the Mormon priesthood (God "revealed" that they were allowed to let black skinned people in to the priesthood in 1978).

When he spoke about his return, Jesus Christ said the following:

Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. {16:28} Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

He also said:

Matthew 24:30 - And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

He continues:

Matthew 24:34 - Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled.

Mark confirmed those words:

Mark 9:1 - And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Therefore, Judgment Day was supposed to happen soon after those words were spoken. "This generation shall not pass." Some of the people listening should have been alive when that happened.

Why didn't Judgment Day arrive shortly after? The Bible clearly announced it would.

Believers often say that God is testing us.

Everything bad can be explained as a test of one's faith. "My family died, they had to cut off my legs and now I'm blind as well... It must be God testing me."

Why would He have to test anyone? He is all knowing.

He does not need to tempt or test anyone with anything. He knows all the possible outcomes in advance.

As the story goes, there was an extremely righteous man named Job, who was very prosperous and had seven sons and three daughters. Constantly fearing that his sons may have sinned and "cursed God in their hearts", he habitually offered burnt offerings as a pardon for their sins. The "sons of God" and Satan (literally "the adversary") present themselves to God, and God asks Satan his opinion on Job.

Satan answers that Job is pious only because God has put a "wall around" him and "blessed" His favorite servant with prosperity, but if God were to stretch out his hand and strike everything that Job had, then he would surely curse God. God gives Satan permission to test Job's righteousness.

All of Job's possessions are destroyed; the 500 yoke of oxen and 500 donkeys carried off by Sabeans, the 7000 sheep were burned up by 'The fire of God which fell from the sky,' the 3000 camels were stolen by the Chaldeans and the house of the firstborn collapsed, due to a mighty wind, killing all of Job's offspring, but Job does not curse God, but instead shaves his head, tears his clothes and says, "Naked I came out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return: Lord has given, and Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of Lord."

Once again, why a test in the first place? Wouldn't God have already known the answer to Satan's question? Can God really be that petty that he would have allowed Satan to tempt Him?

Once again we see the sociopathic behavior of "God".

Saint Catherine of Alexandria is a Christian saint and martyr who supposedly had been a noted scholar in the 4th century.

It is said that she visited the Roman Emperor Maxentius, and tried to convert him to Christianity. She succeeded in converting his wife, the Empress, and many pagan philosophers whom the Emperor sent to dispute with her, but not the Emperor himself.

In fact, the Emperor, who tried to convince Catherine that Christianity is false, failed as well, and he ordered her to be put in prison. When the people who visited her converted, she was condemned to death on the breaking wheel, an instrument of torture.

According to the story, God himself intervened and the wheel itself collapsed when she touched it.

So she was beheaded.

Wait, what?

She was beheaded.

What happened to the divine intervention that should have saved her? Did God want to save her or not?

The most unbelievable story in the Bible is the one about the Great Flood. More unbelievable even than story about someone who appeared to be dead and then came back to life.

It is so unbelievable that we will first think about the flood itself, and then about Noah's ark.

God sent a Great Flood because people were sinful and evil. Considering He is almighty, why didn't He just kill them and make them disappear? Why send a flood and complicate matters?

Were all the people so sinful? Newborn babies, little children as well.

Why didn't He kill only the people, not the animals and plants?

Forty days and forty nights is a long time for a flood to last. Why did He need so much time to create a lot of water?

Why did He torture all living creatures by drowning them? Couldn't He give them a more merciful death, considering He is merciful and He loves His children?

Genesis 7:19 states: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

In order to cover Mt. Everest that is 8848 meters (9676 yards) high in 40 days, water had to raise over 15 centimeters (6 inches) a minute worldwide.

The quantity of water needed to cover the whole planet in that matter is roughly 3.5 times greater than all the water in all the oceans on the planet. Here is the math, for those who want to check it out:

According to Wikipedia, volume of world oceans is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometers.

Formula for volume of the sphere is as follows:

Our planet is not a perfect sphere; its radius varies from 6,353 to 6,384 km. For this calculation, we will use average value of 6,368.5 km.

The radius of the planet covered with water is normal radius plus the height of the Mt. Everest: 6,368.5 + 8.8 = 6,377.3 km.

To calculate the volume of water needed to cover the Mt. Everest we must subtract the volume of our present planet (6,368.5 km) from the volume of imagined sphere covered in water with radius 6,377.3 km.

Volume of our planet: = 1,081,383,762,433 km3

Volume of imaginary sphere of water: = 1,085,872,731,246 km3

The difference (in fact, the volume of water needed to cover the whole Earth) is 4,488,968,814 km3

As the volume of world oceans is 1,300,000,000 km3, the quantity of water needed to cover the whole planet is 3.45 times greater than all the waters of today's oceans combined.

Of course, this is a simplified calculation. Land mass would lessen the quantity of water needed, but slightly. To compensate, the altitude of Mt. Everest used here is 8,800 meters, not 8,848 and "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail" Bible mentions were not taken into account.

After the flood ended, where did all that water go?

According to the Bible 8 people 600 years old (people also lived to be 900 years old in Biblical times) constructed a wooden ship large enough to carry 2 of every life form in the world; a magnificent accomplishment indeed.

How large would a ship have to be in order to accommodate the many millions of mammals, reptiles, birds, insects that are on this planet? By best estimates, there are between 10 million and 50 million different species on Earth. That would mean Noah would have had to build an ark large enough to house between 20 million and 100 million species.

How did Noah manage to gather all of the species, from all over the world? Some of them live only on other continents that were unknown to men at that time? What about the different climates that would be needed for different species? Can polar bears, which require a cold climate, coexist with elephants, which require a warm climate? Was the ark climate controlled?

Of the millions of species of insects, arachnids, and other bugs on earth, and how did they survive for such a long period when some of them have a lifespan that is measured in hours?

Where did he get all of the food; they didn't all eat the same things? How large would the ship have had to been in order to store all the food for all the animals for a period of 40 days?

How did they manage to take care of that many animals, feed them? What about all the waste that would have been produced? What about some of the animal's special diets? For instance, pandas eat only bamboo plants. What did the carnivores eat; lions, tigers, dogs or other animals?

What happened to all the plants on the planet? They died as well, because they were drowned.

What did the animals eat once they got off the ark? Plants are gone. Other animals are gone. Herbivores have nothing to eat; carnivores can eat only animals that survived. Why didn't the carnivores eat the herbivores?

What happened when some of them became sick; was Noah also skilled in veterinary medicine? Why, among the thousands of types of dinosaurs, were only crocodiles and alligators saved? After nearly a year at sea, how did he manage to put them all back in their respective places?

Where did all the water (enough to cover Mount Everest at 29,000 feet) come from? Why did the massive influx of fresh water not kill the ocean creatures, which require salt water in a certain salinity, temperature, and pressure range?

Which was it, two or seven?

Ge 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Ge 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Didn't anyone else have a seaworthy boat? After all, they would only have to care for themselves, not two (or maybe seven) of every beast on the earth. Any oceangoing fishing boat would do.

Given that some parts of the Bible are to be taken as literally true and others are metaphors or parables, how do you decide which is which? Is a passage true until you decide that it doesn't make sense? Is it possible that the life of Jesus is a parable itself - a collection of stories gathered about various people and things, melded together to teach a moral lesson? How do you know for sure? The stories of creation and Noah's ark are presented as history, not parable - why was God not more clear in delineating which is which?

There is also no evidence any of this ever happened. Just as with Moses spending 40 years in the desert with three million Jews, there is not one shred of evidence to support this. If millions of people had been in the desert for that many years, would there not have been some archaeological evidence to support this?

I want 'god's' job. What other profession in the universe would you get all the credit and none of the blame? If something good happens, then you would get all the credit, but if something bad happens, well that was someone else's fault.

God, considering He is all knowing, always knew that He would create us and He knew what results that creation would bring.

He must have known that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, that He would send the great flood, that He would send Jesus Christ, and that majority of the people on Earth would not be Christians.

If He knew all that in advance, why didn't He create a different world; or different people who would not be so flawed and would not act so badly? He could have created a world where all people would believe in Him.

Knowing all this in advance and letting it happen anyway would be an act of futility at best. Why would anyone do something like this?

If God is almighty and all knowing, He should have been able to create a perfect world.

Is this the best He could do?

The Catholic Church is one of the richest organizations in the world. Clergy own countless real estates, cars, stocks, huge amounts of cash.

They constantly asked rulers throughout the history to give them property and buildings, and asked the believers to give them a share of their incomes. On top of that, they asked them to finance buildings and reparations of churches.

Even today, the Catholic Church does not pay taxes and gets huge amounts of money from the secular authorities every year.

The Majority of priests live in abundance while believers around them often do not have enough to live a normal life.

The Church teaches us that in this life we should be good, humble and meek. Those who live their lives according to the Bible will be rewarded with eternal bliss and life in heaven.

This life is not important, the afterlife is.

If that is so, why do priests interfere in secular issues so much? They comment on political happenings, they tell people who they should vote for, who they should love and who they should hate. They take the right to mess with parts of people's lives that have nothing to do with church and religion.

The answer is they do it because it suits their purpose. Behavior they propagate will always strengthen the Church's position or gain it some material gain.

They use their position of authority to believers to promote their secular interests and all this happens while they are preaching that earthly goods are not important.

During history of humankind, nothing caused so many violent deaths as religion. How many people died attacking someone's faith or defending it?

Remember the crusades. Crusades were nothing more than pillaging raids in order to expand Vatican's influence and were blessed by the pope.

Remember countless wars between Catholics and Protestants throughout Europe during 16th and 17th century.

In order to fight against various sects and preserve its power, in the 12th century church founded the Inquisition.

Over the next several centuries, Inquisition tortured and killed thousands of people, many of which were innocent or guilty for crimes that do not deserve death penalty.

The Inquisition tortured people with the blessing of the Pope. The very Pope church declares infallible.

Between 15th and 18th Century, in the name of religion and the church their believers burned tens of thousands of innocent women and men because they were accused of witchcraft. Sometimes, a reason good enough was ginger hair, but they often burned women that collected herbs or did not behave according to Christian dogmas.

1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: "for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."

Remember Hitler and his persecution of Jews.

Remember wars between Catholics and Orthodox. Recent example is war in Croatia.

There are too many examples. The human race would be better off if religion never existed.

The Catholic Church has been teaching us for centuries that the Pope is infallible. Jesus Christ himself guaranteed his infallibility to Peter.

History however, teaches us that this not correct. Popes have often made mistakes during history and performed evil deeds. You can find more details regarding this on the internet; here we will only mention the Inquisition and well-known case of Galileo, who was proclaimed a heretic because he said that the Sun is in the center of our solar system, not the Earth.

If the Pope were infallible, he would know that Galileo was right. In fact, that would be incorporated in church doctrine.

It is a fact that the Pope is only a man with all his virtues and flaws, like everybody else. Pope Urban VIII at the time of Galileo's trial knew nothing of planets and space. Therefore, he made a mistake.

The Church, with the infallible Pope, should be sure about their teachings, the things they propagate as absolute truth. If someone asks an inconvenient question, they mostly ignore it. If they must answer it, they come up with an answer that is not very plausible, but it fits their vision of the world.

However, sometimes they have no alternative but to admit they were wrong. Here are a few examples:

For centuries, priests claimed that Earth was flat. They pursued "heretics" that dared say different. When science undoubtedly proved that Earth is spherical, they changed their teachings.

They also claimed that Earth was in the center of the universe. They changed their opinion.

How is it possible that infallible Pope did not correct them?

Telling us that the Pope is infallible, the Catholic Church wants to convince believers in something that is just not true, only to strengthen their position.

The Vatican Bank or The Institute for Works of Religion is located within the Vatican and answers to cardinals whom in turn answer only to the pope.

Only recently, people dared to investigate the affairs of that bank. In the last couple of decades, the Vatican bank has repeatedly been under suspicion for illegal activities, but no one has ever been charged because the key people in the Church have diplomatic immunity.

In the year 1968, the bank hired Michele Sindona who started laundering mob money.

When Pope John Paul I became Pope in 1978 and pointed to the illegality, he died after only 33 days in the office.

The people who survived the Holocaust unsuccessfully sued the Vatican Bank. They lost because the Vatican has legal immunities.

In the year, 2009 and 2010 the Vatican Bank was again under investigation for money laundering.

Of course, church officials always had immunities, always have been declared innocent and denied the charges.

Christianity is nothing more than a recycled version of Paganism. Long before anyone had ever heard of the Christian God or Jesus, many other religions especially the Pagan religion had stories very similar to the Jesus story. For more on this watch "The God Who Wasn't There."

Most of the Christian holidays were actually stolen from the Pagans, such as Christmas and Easter.

Do you know why Christmas is on the 25th of December? The origins of Christmas lie in the Pagan festival of the son of Isis , which took place on December 25th. Partying, drinking and gift giving were traditions of this feast in ancient Babylon . If a person such as Jesus actually did exist, he would have most likely not been born in December at all, but sometime in September or October.

Christmas coincides with the winter Solstice (Saturnalia), which honors the God of Agriculture--Saturn. This celebration existed many, many years before the 'birth of Christ.' In January they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season is marked by much merrymaking. The tradition of Mummers was born in ancient Rome . The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who would travel from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.

In northern Europe , many of the traditions that are considered part of the Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The Pagans of northern Europe celebrated their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the Pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.

Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule means 'wheel,' the wheel being a Pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Holly berries were thought to be a food of the gods. The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all of the northern European winter solstices. It was customary for live evergreen trees to be brought into the homes as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were often carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.

In the year 350, Pope Julius I declared that 'Christ's birth' would be celebrated on December 25th. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it easy for Pagan Romans (who were the majority at the time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion was a bit easier to swallow, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

Christmas (Christ-Mass) as it is known today, began in Germany , although Catholics and Lutherans disagree about which church celebrated it first. Not that this is surprising, as they rarely agree on anything. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany .

Easter also has Pagan roots. The name Easter is the English derivation of the name Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of love and fertility. As with all mythology, there is always a correlation between the myths of the different cultures. In the Teutonic myth, the goddess is known as Ostern. The Phoenician name for this goddess is Asterte. The Europeans know this story as the resurrection of Christ.

The link between all of these myths is the concept of death, the underworld, resurrection and fertility. One part of the Ishtar myth describes how Ishtar descends into the underworld and is killed (crucified) there. As a result of Ishtar's death, the earth became infertile and neither birds, beasts nor humans mated. As the story continues, she was resurrected (sound familiar?) through magic incantations. Remember, this story emerged hundreds or even thousands of years before 'Christ.'

Uruk was Ishtar's holy city and was called 'the town of the sacred courtesans.' She protected prostitutes there. Is it any coincidence that in the story of Christ, Mary Magdalene was his good friend and a prostitute, and was the first on the scene of the resurrection? Mythology is there to reveal themes in this case, death, rebirth and fertility is the main theme. Christ, like Ishtar, was represented as God, who died into the underworld or tomb of earth, and was later resurrected by some miraculous power. It also describes the seasons of the year where there is no life, no vegetation, then at some point the seasons change, and abundant life springs forth from the fertile earth.

As the myths go, Christ was crucified, Ishtar was killed by her sister, and Astarte was forced to sacrifice herself as a gift to the sea. In all of these stories, the one sacrificed ended up coming back to life from the womb of the earth and being re-born. Christ was symbolic in that he represented the rebirth of the people.

All of this was long before the word Christ was ever uttered. Does all this sound very coincidental?

Eggs and Bunnies are a celebration of fertility. Eggs were sacred to many ancient civilizations and formed an integral part of the religious ceremonies in Egypt and the Orient. The mystic egg is the symbol of generative life. Babylon hatched the Venus Ishtar, and fell from the heavens to the Euphrates . Dyed eggs were sacred Easter offerings in Egypt . Christians have mixed the two stories to achieve what is known as Easter today.

Do you know who this is based on these characteristics?

1. Born on December 25th

2. Born of a virgin

3. Birth was accompanied by a star in the east

4. After his birth was adored by three kings

5. Teacher at 12

6. Baptized/Ministry at 30

7. Had 12 disciples he traveled about with

8. Performing miracles: 8a. healing the sick, 8b. walking on water

9. Known by many names: "Lamb of God", "The Truth", "God's begotten(?) Son", "The Light", "The good Shepard"

10. After being betrayed:

11. was crucified

12. Dead-for 3 days

13. Resurrected

Most people will answer Jesus, and although these are characteristics of Jesus from the Christian myth, here is something most people including Christians are unaware of, these exact characteristics were those of Horus an Egyptian God representing Light, worshiped around 3000 BC...yes 3000 years before anyone had ever heard the name Jesus as it relates to the Christian myth.

This is not the only God either that has similar characteristics, and these Gods were all hundreds and even thousands of years before the Christian myth of Christ. The Christian story is not even an original story, it was stolen from a mixture of Paganism and other religions that had similar Gods long before there was a religion known as Christianity.

Here are a few others:

Attis (Greece, 1200 BC) - Attributes 1, 2, 11, 12, 13

Krishna (India, 900 BC) - Attributes 2, 3, 8, 13

Dionysos (Greece, 500 BC) - Attributes 1, 2, 8b + Turning Water into Wine, 9 ("God's son", "Alpha and Omega", ...), 13

Mithras (Persia, 1200 BC) - Attributes 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 9 ("The Truth", "The Light"), Day of worship: "Sunday"

Is all this just a coincidence or is the entire Christian story a completely fabricated fairy tale, just as these other myths before were also fabricated?

Let's examine four different fairy tales.

Since there is nothing to substantiate the incredible claims made in the Bible, as well as the many other religious books of other faiths such as the Mormon, Muslim and Jewish religions should we just believe these claims without evidence? Is the belief in these things something that should be considered as the grounds for good mental health?

All religions have a story to tell. They are also remarkably close in detail. Let's examine how close these stories are and consider this when deciding the validity of the story. I will be using information from the website "God Is Imaginary".

Understanding religious delusion

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

There is a man who lives at the North Pole. He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves. During the year, he and the elves build toys. Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys. He puts the sack in his sleigh. He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer. He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one. He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
He leaves toys for the children of the household. He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house. He does this all around the world in one night. Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

"But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

"How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

"How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

"Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

"How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

"How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

"Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.

These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now let me show you another example...

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

I was in my room one night. Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright. Next thing I know there is an angel in my room. He tells me an amazing story. He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York. On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America. These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people. Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home. Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them. Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again. I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago. And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people! I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?

You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Imagine that I tell you this story:

A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business. A very bright flash of light appeared. A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times. Then the man asked, "What should I read?" The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before." The man ran home to his wife. While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel. At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams. Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said. Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth. The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there. The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.

[Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

Now let me tell you one final story:

God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world. Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God. God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby. In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus. As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said. This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God. But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion. His body was placed in a tomb. But three days later, the tomb was empty.
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places. Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again. Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc. This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die. The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks - see this proof.

Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today - see this proof.

Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyze prayer and find that prayers are never answered - see this proof.

The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions - see this proof.

And so on.

In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.

You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."

No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:

Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.

Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.

Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others.

Killed by God

Genesis chapter 7> God killed every living thing on the planet except Noah's family- ?

Genesis 19:23> Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah- ?

Genesis 19:26> God turned Lot's wife to a pillar of salt for the unforgivable crime of looking over her shoulder- 1

Genesis 38:7> God killed, Judah's firstborn- 1

Genesis 9:10> God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground- 1

Exodus 9:24> Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt smiting both man and beast- ?

Exodus 12:29> All the firstborns in the land of Egypt- ?

Exodus 14:26-27> He drowned the Pharaoh's army- ?

Leviticus 10:1> Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire- 2

Numbers 16:27-33> Earth opened up and swallowed the people and their families because they were rebellious- ?

Numbers 16:32-35> Killed 250 people that offered incense- 250

Numbers 16:49> Plague God sent- 14,700

Numbers 21:6> Fiery serpents killed much- "much"

Numbers 25:9> Plague sent by God killed Baal worshipers- 24,000

1 Samuel 6:19> They looked into the ark of the Lord- 50,070

1 Samuel 25:38> Nabal- 1

2 Samuel 6:6> Uzzah, for taking hold of the ark of God as he tried to hold it for the oxes shook it- 1

2 Samuel 12:15-18> God kills David's baby- 1

2 Samuel 24:15> God sends a pestilence for David sinned- 70,000

2 Kings 1:10-12> God sent fire from heaven- 51

2 Kings 2:23-24> God sent bears that killed children that mocked Elisha- 42

2 Kings 17:25> Sent lions to kill the conquerors- ?

2 Kings 19:35> Angel killed Assyrians- 185,000

Total kills: 344.121 + the ones that were unknown + all the people on the planet + hundreds of thousands others later

His followers killed quite a few people as well

Killed by people instructed by God:

Exodus 32:27-29> Men that worshiped golden calf- 3,000

Genesis 34:25> Simeon and Levi slew all the males- ?

Exodus 2:12> Moses saw an Egyptian beating up a Hebrew. As there were no witnesses, he killed the Egyptian- 1

Numbers 15:32-36> Man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day was stoned- 1

Numbers 21:3> The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel who killed them all- ?

Numbers 25:4> Moses took all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun- ?

Numbers 25:8> Phinehas killed 2 people- ?

Numbers 31:17-18> All the Midians except virgins- ?

Deuteronomy 2:33-34> Sihon and all of his people- ?

Deuteronomy 3:3-6> All the cities in the kingdom of Og in Bashan- ?

Joshua 6:21-27> All the people in Jericho but Rahab the harlot- ?

Joshua 7:19-26> Akan and his family that had nothing to do with his stealing- ?

Joshua 8:22-25> All the people in the city of Ai- 12,000

Joshua 10:28-11:20> Joshua destroyed many cities, killing everyone: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron- ?

Judges 1:4> Canaanites and the Perizzites- 10,000

Judges 3:29> They killed Moabites- 10,000

Judges 11:29-39> Jepthah sacrificed his own daughter on the altar after God gave him victory in battle- 1

Judges 14:19> Spirit of the Lord came upon Samson and he slew thirty men- 30

Judges 15:15> Samson slew a thousand men- 1,000

Judges 16:27-30> Samson, with the help of God, brought down the house upon himself and other people- 3,000

Judges 20:44-48> People of Benjamin- 50,100

Judges 21:10-12> Every male and non virgin female in- Jabesh-gilead ?

1 Samuel 4:10> The Philistines killed 30.000 soldiers- 30,000

1 Samuel 18:27> David and his soldiers killed 200 Philistines- 200

2 Samuel 10:18> David killed men of 700 chariots and 40.000 foot soldiers- 41,400

2 Samuel 11:14-27> David set up Uriah to die- 1

2 Samuel 18:6-7> David's army killed 20.000 men- 20,000

1 Kings 20:27-30> Syrians killed by the children of Israel- 127,000

Total killed by and for God : 307,733 + millions +??? of others

In the last two thousand years and up until today, every day wars are waged in the name of religion. People are being murdered, crippled and prosecuted because they have different opinions on religion and which one is the one "true religion".

God is not great and if such a creature exists I would not offer my praise or worship of it...in fact quite the opposite. If mankind is to ever crawl beyond the cave, and if we are to ever have peace on this planet or any other, we must first kill the "God" meme. We must learn to embrace logic and reason as the means at which to understand ourselves and our universe, and reject faith as nothing more than an undesired by-product of a prehistoric period in our evolution.

We must kill "God" before "God" kills what's left of humanity.

We must ask with boldness if such a creature could actually exist or is this just the work of men from a mystical and superstitious period in time?

I have talked to many people in my lifetime and I can say with certainty that most of them do not really believe in God, even though they will say they do. Most people have doubt, and how could they not? Does it fit within the standards of good mental health to believe in many of the things the Bible mentions? Am I correct to conclude that this is nothing more than a mental disorder?

Through time mankind has had many Gods and ended up rejecting most of them at some point. Indeed I say that most people are atheistic when it comes to beliefs in Gods... I just happen to believe in one less God than do many of those people.

No doubt this statement will offend a lot of people...those people being theists. Even so statistics and studies show that atheists are just more intelligent than are theists. This is not surprising really.

If we examine were the more religious people of this Country are located, it is an area known as the Bible Belt. This is also an area that most would agree is less educated than say the north (New England for example) and the west (California and the west coast). It is not a coincidence that less educated people also happen to live in an area known as "The Bible Belt" and highly noted institutions of learning such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton happen to not be in "The Bible Belt".

To believe in something for which there is no evidence for and to accept it because you "believe it" takes an incredible leap of faith, and only a person prone to gullibility would do this. These people would have to lack the same intelligence and intellectual abilities as someone who requires proof for things they accept and give credit to, so of course it makes sense that the less educated a person is, the more likely they would also be a person of faith.

This does not mean that all theists are uneducated or stupid, but they certainly lack the same intellect and skepticism as the atheist does based on their ability to be so easily duped.

The good news is atheism is on the rise!

A couple of hundred years ago it was unimaginable that someone would not believe in God. Today, many people reject the existence of God. Why?

The percentage of atheists and scientists who do not believe in God varies from source to source. You can find this information on the internet, but the facts are Atheism is growing faster than is any religion. Atheism is not a belief, it's simply a rejection of theism based on the evidence.

However, this question is not only about those percentages.

More and more people reject faith because the level of education is rising. It is easy to tell a story about God to illiterate peasants and have them believe and accept these stories as the truth; especially if threat of death is involved. It is much harder to do the same with educated people who know and understand science.

Mankind has really only advanced in the last 200 years, when you consider the vast period before this time as compared to the last two centuries. Not much really happened until the age of machinery and this was due to our advancement in areas of science and math...not faith. What has faith produced in the area of human growth? Faith tried to teach us the world was flat and the center of the Universe, science taught us this was wrong. We have advanced because science has advanced and proven religion to be wrong.

We are also growing at an exponential rate as well, which means will will know more this century than all the centuries before it. If religion is an equal source of eduction, why is it that as religion declines, intelligence rises? In the dark ages when religion ruled over science we knew nothing of our world, and what we thought we knew was wrong.

Religion has retarded mankind's ability to think and has been a negative influence on our society as well. There is not one positive thing to be gained from promoting this fairy tale. If you choose to continue to believe in this, you are just not that intelligent.

Of course, this doesn't mean all educated people are atheists and that all uneducated people are theists. Many factors determine what a person will believe: heritage, upbringing, experiences in life, type of personality... Nevertheless, unquestionably the percentage of atheists is bigger among people with higher education level compared to that of the lower educated population.

Yes, 'god' does move in mysterious ways, but his followers move in even more mysterious ways; dementia, psychosis and euphoria, just to name a few.

Let's be honest, we all know that God is just pretend. You did not make it this far in the article to not have your rational mind slapping your irrational mind to its senses. Religions are nothing more than stories (fairy tales) created by superstitious people from long, long ago. If these same stories were to have been introduced in modern times such as the 21st century, I am certain very few people would actually believe them.

I have detailed many claims about the Bible, God and religion in general and I have asked the reader to ask themselves if this really sounds logical in the real world...the world we live in today. Does the concept of talking snakes, virgin births, coming back from the dead, and all the other absurdities really sound like something that describes good mental health?

I invite anyone to pick any of the topics I have addressed here and debate me on that subject. Please note that by debate I expect more than "you're wrong" or "you're stupid". If you have nothing constructive to add, it would be best to just say nothing at all...at least then I will only assume you are a fool...instead of you opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Yes...God is just pretend!