Monday, 15 December 2014

Is Pope Francis A Good Guy?

Pope Francis is gaining a lot of friends in the secular world with what seems like a 'progressive' approach to things such as atheists, the Big Bang, and Evolution. 

Back in May 2013 the pope caused a fuss when he declared that even atheists are redeemed by Christ. This was interpreted by many who thought the Pope was saying that through good deeds even atheists can get to heaven. But just hold on a minute. Redemption, and salvation aren't the same. 

There's a very informative article here by Stephen Kokx about the pope's comments. The gist - all people, including atheists, are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. All people, including atheists, are good, but, as stated by Fr. Dwight Longenecker in Stephen's article 'wounded by original sin'. The bottom line is that Pope Francis hasn't said anything new about atheists. We're still going to hell, unless saved by Jesus, for the crimes of Adam and Eve. (that Adam and Eve are fictional seems to not matter). 

So Pope Francis was lauded as being progressive and welcoming to atheists et. al.. He was, in fact, doing nothing of the sort and not changing the Catholic Church's position, but merely restating what it already was. 

More recently, in October of this year, the Pope made some comments regarding evolution and the big bang theory. 

These are the Pope's comments: 
"The big bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God. On the contrary, it requires it.
"Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of [divine] creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve."
The Catholic church doesn't have a great track record with accepting modern science as Galileo Galilei found out when he tried to tell them that Earth went around the sun. 

But people are suggesting this pope is progressive. Let's look at that. On The Origin Of Species was first published in 1859, some 155 years ago. Since that day has Darwin's work has been supported by mountains and mountains of new evidence. Accepting it in 2014 can hardly be called 'progressive'. 

Besides, evolution has been supported (kind of) by at least two of Pope Francis's predecessors as seen in the article here written by Doug Linder. Doug points out that Pope Pius XII was okay with the idea with evolution, as long as humans still got their souls from God. Pius was not 100% convinced by evolution and cautioned that people should not accept it “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.”

Pope John Paul II said: 
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.
As Doug points out, in the 46 years between Pius XII and John Paul II evolution, as far as the Vatican is concerned, went from being a possibility, to a fact. Pope Francis getting on board with evolution is not 'progressive'. He's very, very late to the party. 

In November this year Pope Francis put a motorcycle up for sale. He had been given it as a gift (why?) and as he had no use for it, he decided to sell it and donate the money to charity. The $20,000 bike sold for some $300,000. If I was going to be looked after for the rest of my life I'd donate a fancy bike to charity too. 

I've tried to find the net worth of the Catholic church but it seems impossible. I found one estimate at between 10 - 15 billion (from a 1965 edition of Time magazine) but estimating the wealth today couldn't even be done by the church itself. This article in the National Post from Toronto confirms the impossible task of estimating the total worth of the church, but does bring some things to light: 
  • The Catholic Church owns approximately a metric tonne of gold valued in 2008 at $22.4 million. 
  • The revenue of the Vatican in 2011 was $308 million. (expenses lead to this being a $27 million surplus. 
  • The Vatican has $10 billion in investments in foreign companies. 
  • There is an estimated $655 million in Vatican coffers. 
Add to this the 700,000+ square kilometres of land, and priceless works of art and it's easy to see why the Catholic Church is regarded as one of the wealthiest institutions on earth. 

This is not to say that the Catholic church does nothing, I'm aware that they do spend millions to help people, and so they should given they are set up in the name of a man who championed the poor and who urged followers who wanted to be perfect to 'sell your possessions and give to the poor'. It wouldn't be fair to compare the charitable donations of the Catholic church to those of large companies such as Google or Walmart which are set up to make a profit, or an individual who could have a change in circumstances and suddenly not know from where their next meal is coming. 

The Catholic church operates on a different level. They see themselves as moral teachers, a guiding light on the pathway to the lord. They preach about how we should look after each other but still retain billions in wealth. When you look at what the church has compared to what it does, whilst keeping in mind its foundations, it simply does not do enough. Nowhere near it. 

The last thing I wanted to write about is the cover up within the church of child sex abuse. In 2013 Pope Francis set up a commission into the sexual abuse of minors by priests but as shown in this article in Time magazine from February this year, the U.N. has demanded the the church do more, starting with the handing over of internal case files to proper authorities. 

It's very easy to criticise someone for not being 100% idealistic and when doing so one opens oneself up to criticism for not doing enough themselves from those happy to commit the tu quoque fallacy.  I'm not asking for or suggesting Pope Francis be perfect though. I, unlike some of his followers, am aware he is 'just a man'. 

However, this man has unimaginable resources available to him. He has hundreds of millions of dollars in a nest egg, doing nothing except growing larger. He has influence over hundreds of millions of people. Is Pope Francis doing more than his predecessor? Probably. Slightly. But when your predecessor does nothing, doing more isn't very hard. When it comes to the pope being a leader in modern times, the bar is set incredibly low. 

I'm sure Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is a decent bloke. If he were my neighbour and I was going on holiday, I'm sure he'd be happy to feed my dog and I'd be happy to let him do so. 

But as Pope Francis I'm not convinced Jorge is doing enough. This is not an ordinary citizen, living in suburbia, working 9 to 5. He should be leading society, not being dragged behind it kicking and screaming. To me he was 10,000 steps from where he should be and he's taken one of those steps and people are singing his praises as though he's cured cancer. 

Be pleased, if you must, that he's taken a step in the right direction, but remember that he's got a long way to go before reaching the final destination. 


This post was inspired by the diatribe by Noah Lugeons on episode 90 of The Scathing Atheist. You can listen to that episode here. I highly recommend subscribing to The Scathing Atheist podcast through iTunes or Stitcher. 

Monday, 8 December 2014

The Absurdity of hell

I've said before that there are pretty much as many versions of God as there are people who think gods are real. Same goes with Christianity. How many times to you hear 'Well they're not *real* Christians*? It is, as you most likely know, called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Hell, however, is pretty consistent in my experience. The most popular is the lake of fire, burning for eternity, torture kind of hell. The other I hear a less often, but often enough, is that hell is simply a separation from God.

When I discuss hell with Christian believers they tell me that God doesn't send me to hell, that it's my choice to go there. As though anyone would *actually* choose to spend eternity being burnt and tortured. They say the choice is this - love their god, worship it, believe in Jesus, repent, and end up in heaven or don't do these things and end up in hell. 

Of course God wants the former and not the latter, they tell me. But, and here's the catch, God can't prove himself to me, I have to believe of my own free will. It's all about 'faith'. 

They seem to forget here that this is a condition that God himself imposed. And it's a condition, given his omniscience, that he knows I cannot meet. 

You see I'm not an atheist by choice. I am incapable of believing any god exists, let alone the biblical one, because the claims do not reach a level of evidence that I can accept. I can no sooner believe a god exists than you, my reader, can believe that I'm 9 metres tall, have blue skin, 12 pairs of arms, and enjoy a weekly one-on-one meeting with US President Barrack Obama in the Oval Office. No matter how many times I asserted the above to be true you could not force yourself to believe it. (right?)

The same is true of me and the god claims I've heard. I have been told a god exists and that if I do not find salvation I will burn in hell. I have been told this with such conviction that I must, and do, accept that the person telling me believes what they are saying to be true. But no matter how they may state their position, without good evidence, *I* cannot accept it to be true. 

And God knows this. Well....if he was real, he would. 

This is where the absurdity lies. I'm expected to believe in a god which will send me to hell for not believing in him, even though he knows in advance that I can't believe in him. It's such a preposterous suggestion that I really can't understand how it has any credibility at all. Seriously, how can anyone accept this to be true? 

A being worthy of the status 'God' would know what it would take for me to avoid hell and end up in heaven with him and from what I'm told this is his major goal. Achieving this goal would be a trivial matter for anything deserving of the title God. But for reasons that he put in place himself, he refuses to do it. 

So here I am, an atheist who, according to some versions of theology, will end up in hell for the 'crime' of being unable to believe in a god who knows I am unable to believe in it. If there is a single person who genuinely believes that I deserve such 'punishment' I would be extremely surprised. The idea is horrific.

On top of this, the theists in question will tell me that this is the plan of a god who loves me. 

Yes. A god who loves me is going to allow me to spend eternity in hell. Of course this gets back to "He doesn't allow it, you send yourself." But it's an ultimatum. Believe in God/Jesus OR burn in hell. When you are unable to fulfil the first part of an ultimatum it's not a choice, you're not doing something 'yourself'. And to reiterate the god in questions KNOWS this is what's going to happen. 

When I left Christianity, Hell was one of the hardest things for me to give up. The idea of a god watching everything you do, judging you every minute of every day was so ingrained that long after I gave up the idea of 'god' the idea of hell lingered. It's a truly terrifying thing to believe and borders on child abuse to make children believe something so horrific. 

Today I am as confident that hell doesn't exist as I am that the sky is blue, grass is green and water makes things wet. Now I'm sure there's someone somewhere who can tell me something about the 'true' colours of the sky or grass, or how water affects things, but you know what I mean. 

Hell is absurd. A loving god creating conditions in which people end up in hell for eternity is absurd. 

Monday, 1 December 2014

What kind of god do you worship?

If you are a theist, you're most likely a monotheist. One of the approximately 3.8 billion people who follow the two big Abrahamic religions - either a Christian or a Muslim. 

That's over half the world's population. There are also about one billion Hindus but from what I know, which is not much, their gods don't operate the way the Abrahamic one does. 

So this post is really directed to the Abrahamic monotheists. 

What kind of god do you worship? I ask because I'm really not sure. From my experience the answer usually includes, but is not limited to, something like 'the all loving creator of the universe'. I've written before that from my experience there seems to be as many definitions of God as there are people who believe a god exits. Rarely do I find two people whose descriptions match exactly, even if those people believe in the same god, such as bible-god or Quran-god*

Say, for example, a tornado hits a small town and from the rubble a person is pulled 'miraculously' alive. Perhaps it's a mother, clutching her months old baby. Or maybe a building burns to the ground, dozens die, but from the ashes a man in his 90s walks free. He's cut, a little bruised, probably inhaled a fair bit of smoke, but by god he's alive, praise Jesus, praise Allah. 

Do you worship this god? This god who saved the mother and child, or the old man? If so, is it because he used his power to save these people? I do understand that if a super being bent what we know of the laws of physics in order to keep someone alive, that would be something to celebrate. I'm not sure I'd go as far as worship, but I can understand showing appreciation. 

It sounds great, on the surface. But it leads to me wondering the following: Do you also worship the god who sent the tornado in the first place? The god that put in motion the series of events that lead to dozens dying in the burning building? From what I'm told of Bible-god, and Quran-god, you must, because whichever one it is that you believe to be real, everything is part of his plan. He is 100% in control of all that happens. If God saved the mother and child from the tornado, surely this same god sent the tornado in the first place. 

Is a god that sends tornadoes knowing they will kill people, really worthy of worship? I wouldn't have thought so. 

One of the great quotes I've seen in the atheism/theism discussion comes from one of the hosts of The Atheist Experience, Tracie Harris. It was said in reply to a caller who was questioning the morality of atheists.

"You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a god who simply watches and says: "When you're done I'm going to punish you"  If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your god"

The inevitable response from theists here is the cry of 'free-will'. The claim that their god cannot do anything because it interferes with the free will of the rapist. 

Yes, really. As though the free will of a child rapist is more important than a child not being raped. I have three main problems with the cry of free will as a defence of child rape. 

1: The god which is described to me knows in advance that a person will one day become a child rapist. Estimates suggest as many as 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.1 An all-powerful, all-loving god could ensure that any future child rapists are included in this 50% and never again would children be raped, and the free will of all those non-child raping people is unaffected. 

2: I can't think of a single monotheist that I've spoken to that doesn't think God intervenes on earth. Biblical literalists think God put Adam and Eve here. Muslims think God spoke to Mohammed. Every (surely) Abrahamic follower thinks prayer achieves something. In the examples above God is rescuing people from disaster. God helps people pass tests, get jobs, find their keys. The god that most people believe in intervenes on Earth (in their minds). If God can influence human life so an already millionaire sports person can win another trophy, then *surely* the same god can influence human life so a child is not raped. 

3: There are many things we *could* do with our free will, but don't. We could bite off the legs off strangers. Any time I walk down the street I could have to be wary that someone will attack my thighs with their teeth. People simply do not have the desire to chew on other people's legs until they come off. If we're not born with this desire, surely god could make it so we're not born with the desire to rape children? 

Going back to Tracie's quote - God could stop child rape and chooses not to. The free will argument doesn't wash. 

Do you worship a god that allows children to be raped? If do you manage that? How can you rationalise worshipping an all powerful being that allows children to be raped? Okay, you believe a god was required to create the universe, but worshipping it? I'm not sure how you can get to that. 

I could list many, many things here that people would find truly awful, and keep asking if you worship that god, but I think the point is made. 

I know this post touches on the Problem of Evil argument but I'm not saying a god can't exist because there's evil. The question is as the title asks - What kind of god do you worship? From what I can see, every person who worships bible-god or Quran-god, worships a god that allows evil. 

There is no evidence I know of that could convince me the Abrahamic god exists but even if that evidence was one day presented to me, I know one thing for sure, I could not willingly worship it.  

I've wondered if Quran-god and Bible-god are to be considered the same God. Some will say they're the same, just interpreted differently. Others will call Bible-god Yahweh, and Quran-god Allah where Allah functions as a name rather than the Arabic word for 'God' which it is. I like to think of them as different gods who, to borrow from evolution, share a common ancestor. On a side note, I once read a tweet that read 'I don't believe in Allah, I believe in God.' Literally translating to 'I don't believe in God, I believe in God.'


Monday, 13 October 2014

Respect what, exactly?

We get told that we should respect everyone's beliefs. I've written here about how respecting all beliefs is a flawed proposition. 

I've wondered though, when we're told to respect theistic beliefs, what exactly are they asking people respect? 

I know theistic beliefs vary from religion to religion and even group to group and, let's face it, person to person, but there are a few consistencies throughout most, if not all of them.

One of the most common things I'm told is that without belief in 'God' I'm going to end up in hell. Some say that's eternal punishment in a lake of fire, others say hell is simply separation from god. 

Am I really expected to respect the belief that says I'm going to burn forever? I'm not sure about you but I can't work out what it is about that particular belief that I should be respecting. Of course, as an atheist, I dismiss that belief as the pure nonsense that it is. But if I were to entertain the idea for a moment, it's not respect that comes to mind, but disdain. How dare someone suggest that I deserve to burn in hell simply because I can't force myself to believe a story I find ridiculous. 

I'm also told that everything is 'part of God's plan'. Everything? Everything is a lot of things. I see sports people, actors, and other very rich individuals thanking God for their successes. Is he really part of it? Should I really respect an idea that suggests god helps the rich get richer whilst he ignores the poor? 

There was the recent case of a man, William Pooley, being cured of Ebola. Upon his release from hospital he thanked the doctors and nurses who looked after him, then William Pooley thanked God. 

If god actually played a direct role in William's recovery then William Pooley is truly blessed and it's amazing that a god would use his power to cure William of this disease. One assumes the god William is thanking is the same god who sent the disease in the first place. And it's also the same god who stood idly buy whilst some 2,400 people died from the disease. 

If one worships the god who saved William, one is also worshipping the god that allowed 2,400 people to die horrible deaths. A god that could save thousands, but chooses to save one? What am I supposed to respect here? His discretion? 

I've not come across an argument for the existence of god that is not fallacious. Usually it's argumentum ad ignorantiam aka Argument from Ignorance or Appeal to ignorance or personal incredulity. Basically it's saying that god must exist because he hasn't been proven not to or that the claimant can't think of anything other than god as the answer, therefore the answer must be god. 

The arguments are ill-thought out, poorly presented and not ever backed up with actual evidence. No one should be demanding that I respect such muddy thinking. 

Then we've got the good old Catholic church which I was brought up in. Rife with paedophilia, cover ups, and moving priests from church to church when their crimes are found out (never handed over to the authorities though). No sane person could expect me to respect this. No sane person could respect this. 

But what if the priest is actually a good bloke? (Never a woman in the Catholic church, of course. Something else I shouldn't be asked to respect). Even if he is a decent bloke he's still giving sermons to children about how flawed they are. How they're sinful and they need to make up for it. They instil the fear of hell into these children. Children are told that God is watching their every move, every moment of every day and should they transgress, hell is an almost certain possibility. That is, unless they're saved through Jesus. They're told that without Jesus/God they're worthless. I've heard from a child words such as "If I knew there was no god, my life wouldn't be worth living." If this doesn't border on child abuse it's only because it's already crossed over into that realm.  

Then there's the homophobia and sexism so entrenched in religion. We don't respect these things outside religion. Should I respect them just because someone throws 'religious beliefs' into the mix? I think not. 

It's often said - respect is something that is earned, not given by default. I'm yet to see anything about religion, that is exclusive to religion, that has come anywhere close to earning my respect. 

Sunday, 17 August 2014

Scientific world in shock! Evolution proved false.

The scientific world went into shock as tweets and YouTube videos once and for all disproved evolution. 

In a revelation that has the scientific world in shock, people on Twitter and YouTube have disproved evolution. It's news that will have repercussions for decades if not centuries. And not just for the scientific world, but for the larger population as well. 

You may be asking, and rightly so, how they have disproved evolution? Well in no uncertain terms, they've simply declared it to be false. 

A spokesperson for All Scientists, Professor Victoria Scott, said: "We are amazed. It's been 155 years since Charles Darwin published his ground breaking work 'On the Origin of Species' and we've been working in this field ever since. We've found millions of fossils and studied DNA, observed genetic changes, done countless hours of lab and field research and everything we've found points to evolution being true." 

Even the existence of monkeys? The professor laughs, "Yes, even the existence of monkeys." 

So given the mountains of evidence supporting evolution and the fact that no evidence points away from evolution one must ask, what happened? 

"Well, there were these tweets..." She stops here. A thoughtful and perhaps sad look on her face before continuing, "People were tweeting that evolution was, in fact, false. It was out of nowhere. Totally unexpected." I can imagine. I, like many of you reading this, was taught that evolution was true. 

Needing to know more, I asked Professor Scott what qualifications the authors of said tweets actually had.  

"None! None at all. This is what shocked us the most. Not only did these people have no relevant qualification, they actually knew very little about evolution at all. And what they did know, or thought they did, they misunderstood completely." 

I asked for some examples. "Well they think evolution means a monkey giving birth to a human, that individuals change species, such as a gorilla turning into a human in older age, and they expect to see a transitional fossil such as a crocoduck!"

Exactly how could tweets on their own could bring down over 150 years of scientific research? "Oh, it wasn't just tweets, it's YouTube videos as well. Many YouTube videos in fact." Like with the above mentioned tweets, Professor Scott pointed out that the qualifications and understanding held by the authors of the videos were non-existent. "As I said earlier, this is the most staggering part of this shocking revelation. These people are just not qualified! At all. But there it is, sometimes in tweets, sometimes in poorly put together 4 minute YouTube videos...evolution is simply false. Of course, I know you might be sceptical, and rightly so, but it's there for you to see just as well as I can."

Taking the professor up on this challenge I hit the internet and sure enough, she was right - a seemingly unending supply of tweets and videos declaring evolution to be false. It was right before my very own eyes. 

The must ask question at this moment - What happens now? "Well, there have been several meetings hurriedly convened, obviously. We're going to have to shut down biology courses at all the universities, research labs all over the world are going to have to be de-funded, just think about medicine" she says this apparently distracting herself. "We used to build influenza vaccines based on the idea that the virus evolves. Not any more. Back to square one on that one." She gives a chuckle at this though it seems more nervous than amused. 

Not wanting to get just one side of the story I went to some of the people declaring evolution to be false. The first thing I wanted to do was confirm that this amazing declaration was made without relevant qualification. Upon requesting the credentials of a number of these people I was told I was appealing to authority, that qualifications were just pieces of paper and that I was using an ad hominem attack. These people are rock solid. 

When asked for the reasoning behind the declaration that evolution is false I was told to look around me, that evolution is a mathematical impossibility and quizzed as to whether a rock could randomly turn into a person. I was in awe that while these people lacked any kind of expertise, they could know their subject so very well. I was getting out of my depth and knew that I would be able to find no chink in this armour. 

I asked Professor Scott how the scientific community could have missed this. "Well we don't deem to know everything, of course, we leave that to the faith community. We simply work on what we know, what we can demonstrate, and what we can verify. We have hypotheses that we test and get others to review our work. We operate within the realm of reality and stick to the scientific method. Simply declaring something false without reason is not really what we do so you'll have to forgive us for not ever thinking that might happen." It's a reasonable point. 

As we finished up our interview I asked Professor Scott if she was now worried about things like gravity and germ theory being declared false on the internet. "Yes, definitely. The internet is very powerful. There's no limit to what people will say on there. If a group of people suddenly declare gravity to be false...well we might all float off to space before we know what's happening!"  We share a laugh at her joke and I thank her for her time. As she leaves her phone rings, "I know!" she declared to the caller, "It's truly amazing."

I'm not sure what the final outcome of this ground breaking declaration will be but one thing we can all know for sure, the scientific world will never be the same again. 

Wednesday, 13 August 2014

I told you so

I get told that I should start believing now. I need to believe in order to avoid hell. I need to believe before it's too late! 

Not all, but a lot of people who tell me this tell me that their version of the god myth has sent them to me (of course they call their version of the god myth God). It reminds me a little of a story I once heard. I've found it called the Parable of the Flood, the Drowning Man, The Parable of the Three Boats and a few other names. 

It goes like this:
A man was trapped in his house during a flood. He began praying to God to rescue him. He had a vision in his head of God’s hand reaching down from heaven and lifting him to safety. The water started to rise in his house. His neighbour urged him to leave and offered him a ride to safety. The man yelled back, “I am waiting for God to save me.” The neighbour drove off in his pick-up truck.

The man continued to pray and hold on to his vision. As the water began rising in his house, he had to climb up to the roof. A boat came by with some people heading for safe ground. They yelled at the man to grab a rope they were ready to throw and take him to safety. He told them that he was waiting for God to save him. They shook their heads and moved on.

The man continued to pray, believing with all his heart that he would be saved by God. The flood waters continued to rise. A helicopter flew by and a voice came over a loudspeaker offering to lower a ladder and take him off the roof. The man waved the helicopter away, shouting back that he was waiting for God to save him. The helicopter left. The flooding water came over the roof and caught him up and swept him away. He drowned.

When he reached heaven and asked, “God, why did you not save me? I believed in you with all my heart. Why did you let me drown?” God replied, “I sent you a pick-up truck, a boat and a helicopter and you refused all of them. What else could I possibly do for you?”

There are a few versions of this on the web. I found this one here and left a comment here.

What my comment says is that an omniscient god would have known that the man would refuse help from the pick-up truck, the boat, and the helicopter. 

Why would an omniscient god send methods of rescue he knew in advance would be rejected?

The god of this parable would have known what form of rescue the trapped man would require to believe that the rescuer was god or a representative of. But he chooses to not send that form of rescue and to send three rescuers he knows will be rejected. 

This is how I feel when people on twitter tell me they've been sent by their god to convince me their god is real. He must know in advance that they will fail just as he knew the attempted rescuers would fail. 

So if this god is real and is really sending these people why does he choose people he knows, in advance, I won't find convincing? 

I said in my comment to the above story, it seems the god of this story had no intention of saving the trapped man. Likewise, if he is real and sending these people to me as they claim, it seems he has no real intention of having me believe. 

Sending rescuers that will be ignored or people that I won't find convincing is not the way one would expect an omniscient god to act. 

Am I really expected to believe an omniscient being capable of literally anything would behave in such a manner? Would an omniscient god really waste the time of the devout by having them talk to me when he knows they will not convince me of his existence whilst knowing what is required to actually convince me he's real? 

To me the only reason to do it like this is so if I actually do get to heaven and face god he can say "I told you so" which is, of course, a ludicrous proposition. The conclusion, obviously, is that just like the trapped man, the pick-up truck driver, the people in the boat and the pilot of the helicopter, the god behind these claims is fictional. 

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

I have a problem with the Bible

I'm an atheist tweeting to a choir, to borrow a phrase, of some 29,280 followers (at the time of writing), most of whom are fellow atheists, about my displeasure and confusion with all things religion. So a blog titled 'I have a problem with the Bible' is probably not going cause many stirs. 

But it's not the condoning of rape, the genocide, the murder, the slavery and the like that I'm going to highlight here, though yes, I have a problem with those things too. 

It's this: The bible is not convincing. 

Now some of you may want to interrupt here and say that there's some two billion Christians that will tell me (and believe me, they will tell me) that it *is* convincing. And therein lies the problem. Two billion Christians. There are 7 billion humans on this planet. That means if we did a survey and got instant results we'd find this - only 2 in 7 humans find the bible convincing. 

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't be one to say that truth is determined by the amount of people who support (or not) a claim. But when we're talking about whether or not something is convincing it's not as subjective as whether or not, say, a movie is 'good' or a cake is 'tasty'. 

Ultimately, yes, whether or not the bible is convincing is down to the individual assessing it but when looked at it on a population level if as many as 5 in 7 people are not convinced, we can safely say that's not convincing. For every 2 people that believe it, there are 5 who don't. Maybe you could say that it's not 'completely convincing', but it's 'convincing enough'. But is it? 

Really, this shouldn't matter. But this isn't the work of a movie director or cake baker. This is not a piece of art up for critique by a man wearing a jacket with elbow patches and sporting a beard sans moustache, it's not a sports person whose achievements, or lack of, are being discussed by the regulars at the local bar. This is, allegedly, the work of a god. 

A god that loves us all. A god that wants us to be saved*. It is a god that will, apparently, if we're not convinced by the bible story, allow us to be sent to a lake of fire, for eternity**.

2 in 7 is a terrible success rate when the consequences are so dire. 2 in 7 is a complete and utter failure when the author of the plan is omniscient. 

Opponents will now shout at me 'Free will'. And yeah, go for it. Tell me that this god character has allowed us to believe in him, or not, via our free will. Great. Fantastic. I don't question the free will part, I get that.

My question - why did he come up with a plan that only 2 in 7 people will accept via free will? Could god have come up with a plan that 5 in 7 people would believe? I would have thought so. How about 7 in 7? Tough, no doubt, but remember we're not talking human capabilities here, this is a GOD! My believing friends have been known to inform me that with god, all things are possible. If this is true, one must accept that coming up with a story that all people will believe whilst allowing us to keep our free will, is possible. 

So given the dire consequences combined with the claim that the bible is of omniscient origin...why doesn't it convince all people? Because it's made up, that's why. 

There are, no doubt, many people who've not been exposed to the bible so one may argue that these people are not unconvinced as such, they just haven't had the opportunity to be convinced. If you were talking about Jo Rowling trying to convince people that the magical world of the Potters, Weasleys, Grangers, and Malfoys was real then this would be an understandable allowance. How could the world's population be convinced that there was, in fact, a school of Witchcraft and Wizardry by the name of Hogwarts if they had never heard of such a place? Fair point. 

But again, we're not talking about things that are subject to human constraints. If needing to believe in Jesus as the son of bible-god is what's required to be saved then why doesn't bible-god make sure everyone knows about, and believes in, Jesus? Because it's made up, that's why. 

Keep in mind, this isn't something trivial. Believers will tell us that this is our eternal soul that's on the line here. This is not a case of leaving the milk out and it going off. It's definitely not something that you'd expect a god that loves us to leave up to chance. He wants me in heaven, he is capable of having me there. He knows exactly what it would take to have me there - reason. Yet, he provides me none, and he withholds that reason knowingly. 

There are any number of Christian apologists who will try to tell me there is reason and they will make up all sorts of new nonsense to try to justify the old nonsense that is in the bible. God created everything in 6 days you say? Well....a 'bible' day and what we call a 'day' aren't the same thing, don't you know? Back then, a day could have been an age! Ah huh. Sure. Funny how the bible didn't just say that, isn't it? 

I once asked a pastor why his god came up with a story that convinced him but not me. He said he didn't know. 

If the bible were truly the word of a god who loved us, who wanted us in heaven with him, and who made belief in this story the only criteria for getting into heaven, then it would be convincing to all people, not to only 2 in 7 people. It would be a sensible story whose plot was recognisable as truth to all people, not only 2 in 7 people. 

I can conclude nothing from this other than the bible is fiction. The condition of belief in it  for heaven is fiction. And that the god behind it who apparently loves me, but will let me burn in hell forever, is also fiction. 


*saved by Jesus from what he/God will do to us if we don't believe. Utter nonsense. 

**eternity? Seriously?