Posts by PrimateDave

posted

26
There are no atheists in a foxhole
by The wanderer in
1. jw
2. friends
 "there are no atheists in a foxhole"old soliders' adage this discussion was brought about by curiosity as to why in-.

dividuals have become atheists seeing that at one time they.

professed a belief in god.. the intent is not to argue, debate, or incite to riot.
PrimateDave

Wanderer, Greetings.

Perhaps what you are getting at is how people without a belief in superstition face death. I admit that I don't like to think about death, but I know that it will happen someday because it is simply how the universe I live in works. Perhaps that is one reason that I went along with my belief system for so long despite my reservations, not only of the WTS teachings, but also of the Bible's contradictory teachings. I simply don't want to die. It seems to be a cruel trick of the universe to give us sentience and intelligence, the ability to "know" and yet unable to stop the inevitable. My post in reply to hambreak's comment that "god is love" was not without purpose. I, too, once believed that god was love, but couldn't reconcile that belief with what I was actually reading in the Bible itself. Dr. Long's book put into concrete words the many subtle doubts that I had before.

What will I be thinking at the moment that I think that death is inevitable? Perhaps regret that I won't get to know what happens next. Should I suddenly call out to Jehovah? I think not, knowing what I know now about the Bible and its god. Another atheist once said that a Jew facing imminent death doesn't suddenly cry out to Jesus. A Christian in the foxhole doesn't suddenly cry out to Allah (yes, I know that it is supposed to be the same god and all that). So, the point is why would an atheist suddenly cry out to an unseen divine being any more than he/she would cry out to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Finally, I would have to say that I had to break from the WTS and the Bible at the same time. Being a Witness is all that I have known in my life. Perhaps, had I been a convert from Catholicism or something like that, I would have just been happy to drop being a Witness and go back to the old belief system. By breaking free from the Bible, I realized the real function of religion in society.

Dave
26
There are no atheists in a foxhole
by The wanderer in
1. jw
2. friends
 "there are no atheists in a foxhole"old soliders' adage this discussion was brought about by curiosity as to why in-.

dividuals have become atheists seeing that at one time they.

professed a belief in god.. the intent is not to argue, debate, or incite to riot.
PrimateDave

LOL @ Caedes! Especially the illustrations of the Law of Moses!
26
There are no atheists in a foxhole
by The wanderer in
1. jw
2. friends
 "there are no atheists in a foxhole"old soliders' adage this discussion was brought about by curiosity as to why in-.

dividuals have become atheists seeing that at one time they.

professed a belief in god.. the intent is not to argue, debate, or incite to riot.
PrimateDave

The scriptures say that god is love, but what do his actions prove him to be?

From Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter9.html)

************************************************************

The Darker Side Of God

If you ask Christians to describe their quasi-chosen god of worship, you’ll often hear such descriptors as “wonderful” and “loving.” This choice of selective designation seems commonplace within the Christian community. In fact, most churches ignore the Old Testament all together so that the members feel comfortable propagating this view. Fueled by such blatant omission, this lengthy chapter will fill the void by offering a look at the volume of horrendous acts performed or directed by the darker side of God. However, you shouldn’t interpret this chapter as an attempt at an exhaustive record of every violent act attributable to God because such a review would require another book all together.

Upon completion of reading this chapter, you should realize that God was a mass murderer among other things, often directing others to rape and kill for him. He also distributes sinister laws and explains what punishments will ensue if someone deviates from his wishes. What’s worse, the ultimate penalty for disobedience is Hell: eternal torture of unfathomable proportions. Even if we ignore the previously discussed scientific problems debunking the notion of an affiliation between divinity and the Bible, you should still feel resistance against worshipping this particular Hebrew deity after learning of the details emphasized over the next few selections.

God’s Genocidal Wrath

Without any conceivable doubt, I firmly believe that the Hebrew god is the most evil character of all time. Starting with the book of Genesis, we learn that he’s an insanely angry deity. Of the many atrocities committed in the Old Testament, God is usually the sole participator. The Genesis authors record the first such instance in chapters 6-8 as the account of Noah’s flood.

The reason that God decides to drown the entire world, killing nearly every living person and animal on earth, is his belief that people are evil and unworthy of existence (Genesis 6:5). So what if they were evil? As Lenny Bruce once exclaimed, “The fault lies with the manufacturer!” God allegedly created humans, yet he faults us for being guided by our desires, instincts, and natural tendencies. Since he’s supposedly omniscient, God realized how we were destined to turn from the beginning. He must also have realized that his lament would fuel the urge to destroy his precious creations, only to leave himself back where he started. Even so, he creates Adam, yet hundreds of years later, he drowns nearly all the men, women, and children on the face of the earth because he deliberately chose not to make us to his liking the first time.

Even if we suppose the adults deserved to die slow and torturous deaths, what association could we conceivably make between their decisions and the adolescent victims of the flood? Couldn’t God have just placed the innocent children and animals aside for a while so that they wouldn’t drown? If not, how about a humane death at the very least? Drowning is a horrible way for people to die. As a result of hopelessly treading water for hours, their muscles burned due to large amounts of lactic acid production. Once they finally gave up, went under, and held their breaths, acidic carbon dioxide eroded their lungs until the unbearable pain forced them to inhale where there was no air for them to breathe. The water brought into their lungs robbed their bodies of oxygen, causing them to go numb. As water violently rushed in and out of their chests, the currents eventually laid their heavily breathing, slowly dying bodies at the bottom of the ocean. The inhaled water caused their lungs to tear and bleed profusely. As their blood supply dwindled, their hearts slowly came to a halt. Even so, their brains continued to process information for another couple of minutes. They were patently aware that death was imminent, yet they could do nothing to speed it or prevent it. I imagine that their final reflections would have been on what they did to deserve such treatment.

As you see, drowning is not a quick and painless death. Regardless, this is what God did to every man, woman, child, baby, and animal on earth because he made a mistake! To make matters disgustingly worse, the flood accomplished nothing! The omniscient God realizes after the flood that a man’s imagination is evil from youth (Genesis 8:21). He seemingly allows us to be evil to this day, just like those he purportedly drowned in the flood. Even if this was the sole befuddled and immoral act carried out by God, I’m positive that I couldn’t bring myself to worship him. However, this is only the beginning of his mass-murdering spree.

Another genocidal operation courtesy of God takes place in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Above these cities, he creates a rain of burning sulfur to kill every inhabitant, save Lot and his family, because they’re deemed evil by the almighty judge, jury, and executioner (Genesis 19:24-25). Now, refer back to the points illustrated in the previous paragraph. God should have assumed the responsibility of taking measures to prevent these actions from somehow becoming necessary. He even remembered that men were evil by nature after the flood. Did he suddenly forget his opinion when he destroyed two entire cities of men, women, and children? Again, we should sincerely hope that this all-knowing deity would learn to take some of the blame in these situations. Like drowning, burning is not a quick and painless death. Fortunately, these people didn’t truly feel any pain because the tale is an obvious work of fiction. If you travel to the locations around which historians believe these cities are based, you’ll effortlessly discover balls of sulfur forming naturally on the ground. In other words, as is the case for Noah’s flood, we have the likely inspiration for the imaginative tale.

Another Planned Genocide

In Exodus, we find God coercing Moses into becoming his spokesperson for freeing the Israelite slaves from the Egyptian Pharaoh. Moses initially points out that he’s a terrible speaker, but God’s reply to this passive resistance is a set of rhetorical questions in which he takes credit for making people deaf, dumb, and blind (Exodus 4:10-11). Some of these handicapped people are a burden to others, and many die without ever demonstrating independence. Nevertheless, God takes great pride in this achievement. Most of us typically find people who relish in the misery of others to be deeply disturbed. Instead of correcting these atrociously boastful deeds, God seemingly leaves it up to us to develop ideas for combating transcendentally induced handicaps. Ironically, with advances in medical science, we’re making genuine progress against God’s wishes. His yearning to make certain people handicapped is useless, evil nonsense. Evidently, it’s a successful argument because Moses decides to accept the offer.

In the meeting among Moses, Aaron, and the Pharaoh, God doesn’t want his Israelites to go free without a fight. Instead, God instructs Moses and Aaron on exactly what steps to take so that the Pharaoh will initially become too stubborn to allow the people to leave. Obviously, God only wants an excuse to “bring forth [his] armies” against Egypt in order to punish the entire country for the decisions of one man to hold his chosen people as slaves (Exodus 7:1-14).

The plagues that God carried out against Egypt as a result of the Pharaoh’s decision were turning the river to blood; sending an abundance of frogs, lice, locusts, and flies; killing every cow belonging to the people; inflicting boils upon all the citizens; creating a hailstorm to destroy their crops; instituting three days of darkness; and killing the firstborn male child in every household across the country. The darkness, boils, frogs, lice, locusts, and flies were quite punishing, but they wouldn’t necessarily ruin anyone’s life. The cattle slaughter, river of blood, and downpour of hail ruined the Egyptians’ sole water and food sources. Worst of all, God once again feels the necessity to eradicate thousands more innocent babies, children, and animals because one man was too stubborn to free his slaves.

On the escape route, Moses miraculously parts the Red Sea and crosses safely. When the Egyptian army pursues, the waters regroup to drown the soldiers and horses (Exodus 7-14). The omnipotent Hebrew god could have easily freed the people and spared thousands of lives, but, of course, he doesn’t do things this way. One can only assume that he took sinister pleasure in murdering Egyptian soldiers for following orders from their superior officers. Thankfully, modern scholarship tells us that these events never took place either. I’ll explain the logic behind this comforting declaration in Moses And Other Historical Fabrications.

God revisits the plague concept when he dishes one out on his chosen people for following Aaron’s orders to worship a golden calf (Exodus 32:35). Recall, however, that Aaron was one of the two men to whom they owed their freedom. Why would God punish his people for actions that they didn’t realize were “wrong,” especially when they had implicitly learned to trust the person giving the orders? This debacle seems to have shifted Aaron over to God’s bad side because God later kills his two sons for building a “strange fire” (most likely meaning that they let a forbidden item burn) (Leviticus 10:1-2). No matter how many times I read passages like this, I’m always amazed how God kills people because they do something silly like build a displeasing campfire, but as we will soon see, he allows them to rape female prisoners of war.

On the subject of fire, God later sets some of the desert wanderers ablaze for complaining about their difficulties (Numbers 11:1). Keep in mind that they were now wandering around the desert for decades doing absolutely nothing after having been slaves in Egypt for centuries. When they complain about having no meat for nourishment, God provides them with a circle of quail three feet high and a day’s journey wide but immediately plagues and kills a handful of them for grumbling (Numbers 11:31-34). Later, the people become increasingly irritated over being homeless. In fact, circumstances are so miserable that they actually want to return to Egypt as slaves. Subsequently, Korah leads a group of 250 other upset individuals to stand up to Moses. Needless to say, they all pay for their mutiny. God opens the ground under Korah’s household and sucks everything he has, family and all, into the depths of the earth (Numbers 16:31-33). The remaining council of 250 are burned alive (Numbers 16:35). Does the punishment fit the so-called crime? Does God have any compassion for their situation? Obviously not, on both accounts.

When the Israelites were upset that Moses caused those 250 people to die, God sends a plague to slay an additional 14,700 (Numbers 16:41-49). To close out the Pentateuch, God exterminates a number of his people who fall down and worship the gods of Baalpeor. A subsequent plague kills another 24,000 (Numbers 25:1-9). At least these people may have had some idea that what they were doing would result in a punishment…

For The Sins Of Another

God’s episodes of murdering innocent individuals for the faults of their leaders, fathers, or other ancestors are not uncommon in the Old Testament. Jephthah asks for God’s assistance in killing the children of Ammon and promises him the first person out of his house upon his return as a burnt sacrifice if he will agree to aid with the massacre. God concurs and lethally delivers the children of Ammon into Jephthah’s hands. When Jephthah returns, his daughter, an only child, makes her way outside to welcome him home. Two months later, Jephthah regretfully fulfills his promise by burning his daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11:29-39). Why would God allow a man to offer an innocent person as a reward unless God also intended for certain people to be mere possessions?

While David is King, he decides to conduct a census: a horrendous sin in God’s eyes. As punishment for his poor decision, he is to select among seven years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, and three days of pestilence. Unable to choose from the offered catastrophes, God picks the three days of pestilence that result in the deaths of 70,000 men. Women and children weren’t mentioned, not that the Bible considered them to have any real value in the first place. Again, God murders enough people to fill a sizable city for the “sin” of one man. David subsequently cries out to God and asks him why he wants to murder innocent people who had nothing to do with the decision to execute a census. Of course God doesn’t provide an impossible answer for this sensible question, but his reasons scarcely seem morally or ethically justifiable (2 Samuel 24:10-17).

David also desires a woman named Bathsheba even though she’s married to one of David’s soldiers. Driven by his lust, David orders her husband to the front lines of a battle so that the enemy will take care of his problem. God then becomes extremely angry with David for this relatively petty crime. Once the new couple has a child, God afflicts it with illness for a week before watching it die (2 Samuel 11, 12:14-18). Yet again, God exterminates an innocent baby for the actions of the father.

At one point, God sends a famine upon David’s followers. When he makes an inquiry to God for a justification, he’s told, “It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites” (2 Samuel 21:1). Saul died years ago, yet God just now decides to punish people who had nothing to do with the decisions of their former leader.

David’s new son, Solomon, turns away from the Hebrew god and decides to worship other deities. Solomon’s decision infuriates God, but he isn’t punished because God recently came to like David. Instead, he punishes Solomon’s son by taking away part of his land when he comes to power (1 Kings 11:9-13). Once again, we see the impossibility of being free from God’s anger even when living in total obedience to him. In essence, Solomon’s son was divinely punished before he was ever born.

Next in the line of father-son reprimands is the account of King Josiah. “And like unto him was there no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him. Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath…because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal” (2 Kings 23:24-26). The passage speaks for itself. Yet again, God punishes a seemingly perfect person for someone else’s transgressions.

God’s Novel Method of Murder

Instead of directly murdering people or using his followers to execute similar commands, the apparently insatiable God begins sending animals to kill those who displease him. On one occasion, he has a lion kill a man because he refuses to hit someone (1 Kings 20:35). God sends his lions out again to kill a group of people who were new to Samaria. The reason for this atrocity is their lack of worship, even though they were never informed of the proper worship methods (2 Kings 17:24-26). However, this supposedly insignificant detail didn’t halt God from killing them. He had to have known that he would eventually murder this party, but instead of properly instructing them, God just kills them. There’s not even a miniscule resemblance of justice in the Hebrew god.

In an exploit of inconceivable irrationality, God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life, but an entity capable of these inane activities could certainly change his mind and banish all of his worshippers to Hell. Christians never have to justify such passages because, of course, they never read them!

A Few More For Good Measure

God commits another reprehensible act when Abraham and Sarah are journeying through Egypt. According to the story, Abraham knows that if the Egyptians see him with his beautiful wife, they’ll have to kill him so that she won’t have a defense when they rape her. To avoid such an incident, Abraham devises a plan in which Sarah is to proclaim that they’re only siblings. Thus, they can have their way with her while sparing Abraham’s life. The Pharaoh eventually has a sexual encounter with Sarah, provoking God to send plagues upon him as punishment for sleeping with another man’s wife (Genesis 12:11-17). How, exactly, did God expect the Pharaoh to know she was a married woman? Was he supposed to be omniscient as well? God would have never punished the Pharaoh if Sarah wasn’t the possession of another man. Based on the treatment of women we will see in Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix, God certainly wasn’t teaching the Pharaoh to value the opposite sex; God unjustly punished him because of his ignorance.

Later in Genesis, we learn of a man named Judah who has three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Seeing as how Er is “wicked in the sight of the Lord,” God kills him. For what reason God found him too evil, we could only speculate. Of course, there’s no reasonable guarantee that Er would have incurred a death sentence from an impartial jury. Following the slaying, God dictates Onan to impregnate and marry Er’s wife in order to continue Er’s family line. Since Onan seemingly believes in freewill and doesn’t feel that he should be required to do something he doesn’t want to do, he spills his seed on the ground instead of finishing intercourse inside of her. “And the thing he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also” (Genesis 38:7-10). Again, the omniscient God should have known that Onan would fail to comply. Because God should have also realized that he would have to kill the disobedient Onan, why did he order him around in the first place? Does he now feel the need to have an excuse before murdering an innocent person? Was Onan destined to exist only as God’s slave? Are we all God’s oppressed pawns, created only to be shifted around for his amusement? Onan’s fate hardly seems just by enlightened standards.

The Ark of the Covenant was a sacred item that God demanded everyone to refrain from touching. The ancient Hebrews commonly believed that God even played the part of a genie by residing in the ark on occasion. Thus, when the Philistines steal this precious piece, God obviously becomes enraged. As they’re carrying it through different cities, God inflicts severe cases of hemorrhoids on all the inhabitants. Why God doesn’t just zap these thieves and return the ark to the Israelites without harming additional innocent bystanders is beyond me. Unbelievably, 50,070 people eventually die at the hands of God because they simply look into the ark (1 Samuel 4-6). That’s the equivalent of a moderately sized modern city dropping dead just for looking at something God didn’t want them looking at. It’s difficult to imagine a creature that can unleash punishments more evil than that, but God is continuously setting new standards for himself.

Once we see the ark in transit again, the cart and oxen transporting it move over a rough spot in the path and nearly shake the prized object to the ground. Out of what we could only consider pure reflex, Uzzah, who was accompanying the ark, places his hand on it to keep it steady. Uzzah’s instinctive, split-second decision to prevent God’s home from falling angers God enough to eradicate him from the earth (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

Since God commits scores of violent acts randomly throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, let’s look at a few examples. After delivering the Amorites into the hands of Joshua, he sends down a hailstorm in order to kill a large portion of the people who flee from battle (Joshua 10:8-11). God assists in the war between Barak and Sisera by surrounding Sisera’s army and forcing them to dismount from their chariots. Because of his intervention, Sisera’s entire army faces imminent death at the hands of Barak (Judges 4:14-15). God causes the Midianites to kill one another (Judges 7:22-23). He confuses the Philistines and causes them to kill one another (1 Samuel 14:20-23). He inflicts a number of people with blindness because Elisha asks him to do so (2 Kings 6:18). He causes a seven-year famine without specifying a reason (2 Kings 8:1). God kills Jeroboam because he’s the leader of the enemies (2 Chronicles 13:20). He kills Nabal without specifying a reason, but it’s probably because David desires his wife and other belongings (1 Samuel 25:38). God sends an angel to kill 185,000 men in an Assyrian camp because they’re enemies of his people (2 Kings 19:31-35). He plagues Azariah, a man labeled as a good King, with leprosy for the remainder of his life because he allows people to burn incense in a location displeasing to God (2 Kings 15:1-5). This is another great example of an overbearing punishment for breaking an asinine law. Some of our fellow humans were obviously destined to meet death early in life without any chance of redemption in God’s eyes.

Counting just the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea incident, the ark gazers, the plagues, the census, and the battles in which God directly participated, I estimate that this terrible creature claims to have murdered one to two million people. Regrettably, we still haven’t discussed any of the instances in which God orders his people to kill others or when he “delivers armies” into the hands of the Israelites to be annihilated in battle. By this point in our discussion, God has already joined the elite company of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Zedong as the largest mass murderers in history.

Following God’s Alleged Commands

When God wished certain people dead thousands of years ago, he was never confined to his own omnipotent powers. You might even agree that God was at his worst when he recruited others to assist with the scores of slaughters in the Old Testament. As initially difficult as it might be to accept, God often provided his followers with orders leading to outcomes even more horrific than before. This section will discuss the specific commands given by God and the consistently tragic results that follow. Try to keep everything in perspective. These aren’t numbers; they’re human beings.

Recall the setting of God dishing out a plague over the golden calf worship. Immediately prior to the plague inflicted upon his people, God had ordered Moses and his loyal followers to “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.” Three thousand men died at the hands of their peers in addition to those killed by the second punishment (Exodus 32:26-28).

Later on, a group of followers from Moses’ camp observes a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Since such a despicable act was illegal in those days, they escort him back to Moses and inquire how they should handle the incident. Moses answers them by declaring that God is proclaiming, “the man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.” Following what they gullibly assume are God’s commands, Moses’ cult members take him outside the camp and stone him to death for picking up sticks on a day that he wasn’t permitted to do any work (Numbers 15:32-36). As you will soon realize, God encourages the Israelites to beat their slaves and rape women captured in warfare; picking up sticks on the Sabbath, however, will anger him enough to warrant a death sentence. Astounding!

God advises Moses on a number of matters related to his appointed leadership. He is to cast any menstruating or leprous person out of the camp because God doesn’t want to be around those “dirty” people when he descends for a visit (Numbers 5:1-3). In other words, God wants no association with those who are more likely to need assistance, medical or otherwise. God also orders Moses to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan before destroying their possessions (Numbers 33:50-52). However, he should offer the people of distant cities a chance to become his slaves before killing them. If they refuse, the Israelites have the duty to kill the men and take the remaining people as plunder for themselves. In the cities that God delivers as inheritances, Moses should “save alive nothing that breatheth” because the helpless victims were taught to worship other gods (Deuteronomy 20:13-18).

In two subsequent pillages, God delivers Sihon, King of Heshbon, into the hands of Moses at the battle of Jahaz. The Israelites murder him; conquer all of his cities; and murder every man, woman, and child residing within those cities per God’s instructions (Deuteronomy 2:32-35). Likewise, God delivers Og, King of Bashan, into the hands of Moses at the battle of Edrei. The Israelites faithfully obey their orders by murdering all the inhabitants so that they could acquire the land (Deuteronomy 3:1-4). This noble god orders Moses to kill anything that moves, and as the incredible list of wars in the Old Testament takes place, God’s followers would continue to do exactly as their unimaginably harsh leader commands them.

When Joshua informs the Israelites of God’s decision to deliver the city of Jericho over to them, they topple its walls and kill every living thing in the city, except for a single harlot on espionage missions, before burning it to the ground (Joshua 6:16-24). Afterwards, God orders Joshua to infiltrate the city of Ai because he’s delivered it in likewise fashion. The Israelites also set Ai on fire and kill the 12,000 inhabitants running for their lives. The King of Ai is taken prisoner and later hanged (Joshua 8:19-29). Following the victories at Jericho and Ai, God commands Joshua to go on an unbelievable killing spree. The Israelites subsequently murder all the men, women, and children in Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish (along with the King of Gezer and his armies assisting Lachish), Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. Not a single life was spared during these invasions (Joshua 10:28-40).

When word spreads of Joshua’s rapid conquests, a considerable number of cities combine their armies to attempt a victory over Joshua and Israel. The number of resistance forces is “as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude,” but God promises to deliver them all to Joshua. Indeed, God remains true to his word and “They smote them, until they left them none remaining.” Joshua then burns their chariots and brutally cuts the hamstrings on their remaining horses (Joshua 11:1-9). After the battle, the Israelite army marches into all the unprotected and defenseless cities that had offered their armies in resistance and kills every living man. In Hazor, the army kills every man, woman, and child before setting the city ablaze. One can only speculate on how many hundreds of thousands of lives God orders Joshua to take in these assuredly disputable accounts.

Following Joshua’s death, God proceeds with his war strategies when the Israelites face Benjamin’s army. As a result of God’s unorthodox command, 22,000 of his own people die in the first battle. The next day, he orders them to face Benjamin once again. This time, they suffer an additional 18,000 casualties. Phinehas, feeling a bit hesitant to lead another hopeless skirmish, asks God if he should take command in another attack against Benjamin. God affirms Phinehas’ inquiry and promises him a solid victory. In the ensuing battle, the Benjamites suffer 25,100 casualties (Judges 20). In this short series of campaigns, God orders his own troops into two battles that his omniscience tells him they won’t win. On the first two days of this monstrous war, during which he wasn’t about to lift a finger to help, he saw to it that 40,000 of his own people would become casualties of needless warfare. Incidentally, the death of a single person initiated these hostilities.

Centuries later, when God “remembers” what the Amalekites did hundreds of years prior to Saul’s leadership, he orders Saul to journey to Amalek where he is to decimate every living thing in the city. Saul only partially obeys by killing every person but saving a few of the best animals for himself. My guess is that he was unaware of how enraged God becomes over such trivial matters. God subsequently revoked Saul’s crown because of his unwillingness to follow exact orders (1 Samuel 15). To me, however, the issue of Saul’s crown isn’t the one of major importance. Personally, I feel that the omnibenevolent God should not have held the people of Amalek responsible for the enterprises of their distant ancestors, but God and I are obviously in constant disagreement.

In a series of miscellaneous ethnic cleansings, God delivers Jerusalem to Judah and the Israelites. They kill 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites in Bezek (Judges 1:2-8). Later, God accompanies Judah when he destroys the cities and kills the inhabitants of Zephath, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron, and Luz (Judges 1:17-26). When Ehud announces that God has delivered the Moabites into the hands of his chosen people, they march to Moab and slay 10,000 men (Judges 3:26-29). God delivers Sihon and the Amorites to be murdered by Jephthah and the Israelites (Judges 11:21-23). God delivers twenty men to be slaughtered by Jonathan (1 Samuel 12:14). As God orders David to exterminate a few Philistines delivered into his hands, David does so and takes their cattle as well (1 Samuel 23:2-5). As God orders David to kill more Philistines recently delivered into his hands, David accepts God’s gift once again and kills more Philistines in two additional battles (2 Samuel 5:19-25). God delivers the Syrians to the people of Israel in order for them to murder 100,000 foreigners. Twenty-seven thousand Syrians escaped but were killed when a wall fell on them (1 Kings 20:28-30)! Likewise, God delivers the Moabites into the hands of Israel once again. The army of Israelites destroys the city of Moab along with an unknown number of its inhabitants. These instigations force the King to kill his own son as an offering in order for the hostilities to cease (2 Kings 18:27)

When God witnesses certain members of Israel turning from him, he decides to assist the tribe of Judah. God then kills the King of Israel and enables Judah to kill 500,000 Israelite men because the Judeans “relied upon the Lord God of their fathers.” Abijah, their leader, takes the cities of Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephrain (2 Chronicles 13:15-20). The supreme being forces Abijah’s son, Asa, to face Zerah and his staggering army of one million Ethiopians. Asa asks for God’s help, which is willingly provided. In the battle, God strikes down great numbers of the Ethiopians, perhaps killing some himself, and forces the rest to make a full retreat. Asa then chases them back into their homeland and plummets all their cities (2 Chronicles 14:8-15).

God later becomes angry with his followers when they ridicule his messengers. As punishment, he sends the army of Chaldees to kill all the occupants of Jerusalem. Control of the region now falls to Persia (2 Chronicles 36:15-23). Why does God force his worshippers to suffer through all this needless trouble when he’s just going to hand the land over to someone else?

As you may have already guessed, God didn’t confine the impact of his seemingly perpetual rage solely on humans. Animal sacrifices seemed particularly important to this fiendish character. Strangely enough, this is one deity out of many that seems pleased with aromas emitted by burnt flesh (Genesis 8:20-21). In fact, Leviticus chapters 1-9 are thorough instructions on how to perform animal sacrifices. The graphic details contained therein are potentially nauseating and not for the weak of stomach.

For every category of sin, God has a specific ritual that he wishes us to perform. His authors tell the readers how to break animal necks, what parts of the animal to burn, what organs to extract, where to sprinkle the blood, how much God thoroughly enjoys the spectacle, etc. If you’re genuinely interested in how gruesome the Bible can be, I would encourage you to read the first nine chapters of Leviticus. There are several additional passages throughout the Bible providing complete and ridiculous instructions for these crucially important animal sacrifices, but this lengthy manual definitely serves as the most memorable example. Numbers 18:19 further declares that animal sacrifices should be performed forever. Have Christians finally appreciated the insanity of God, or do they just not read their Bibles anymore?

An estimate on the number of victims who paid the ultimate price in wars that are claimed to be instigated by God is hard to determine, but I would imagine it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of two or three million. All together, God may have been personally responsible for as many as five million needless murders. I’m sure there are several battles and/or plagues that I omitted, but I trust you get the general message of this section. The Hebrew god is a mass murderer, plain and simple. Moreover, these estimates still don’t include all the deaths resulting from petty religious bickering that continues to this day. On the brighter side of things, however, there’s no reason to mourn for the previously mentioned victims of God’s brutality because the vivid human imagination was certainly the source from which the authors derived all these accounts. Thus, these slaughters were extremely unlikely to have taken place as recorded in the Bible. Again, we will see overwhelmingly persuasive evidence to defend this position in Moses And Other Historical Fabrications.

God’s Rules And Regulations

In addition to all the previously mentioned atrocities, God hands down a nightmarishly inhumane code for his creations to live by. In fact, there would literally be millions of murders committed every day if God still had his way. I’ll certainly admit that a few of the more sane guidelines are acceptable, but many are definitely not within the bounds of justice and humanity. Those are the ones in need of a serious impartial review. A few examples allegedly handed down by God follow.

Anyone who goes uncircumcised is to be exiled from his people (Genesis 17:14).

If a man has sex with a menstruating women, both are to be exiled (Leviticus 20:18).

A man who marries a mother and daughter must burn in a fire (Leviticus 20:14).

If two men have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).

If a mother and son have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:11).

If a man and daughter-in-law have sex, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:12).

If a man has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:15).

If a woman has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:16).

Anyone who attacks his mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:15).

Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).

Anyone who commits murder must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).

Anyone who commits adultery must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22).

Anyone who commits perjury must be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).

Anyone who commits kidnapping must be put to death (Exodus 21:16).

Anyone who disobeys a judge or priest must be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).

Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2).

Anyone who does not worship God must be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13).

Any strangers approaching a sanctuary must be put to death (Numbers 17:7).

Any prophet who tries to turn you against God must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5).

Any prophet who makes a wrong prediction must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

Family members who tempt you with other gods must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

If an ox gores someone, the ox and its owner must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:29).

Anyone who claims to talk with spirits must be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27).

A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Any woman who has had premarital sex must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:21).

Anyone who worships another god must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).

Anyone who curses or blasphemes must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:14-16).

Break the neck of your donkey’s firstborn or kill a lamb instead (Exodus 34:20).

If a city worships other gods, kill everyone in it and burn it (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).

Let’s begin by considering the adultery law. While cheating on a spouse is certainly one of the most selfish acts a person can commit, being unfaithful is nothing deserving of death. Some couples even encourage each other to commit adultery. If that’s what they want, their sex lives should remain their own business. Suggesting that this would upset a supernatural entity, one wise enough to create the universe in a week, only demonstrates the unenlightened beliefs held by that party. Since researchers have estimated that 50% of Americans commit adultery, does this mean that God really want us to stone 50% of America’s population to death? Likewise, about 25% of men are uncircumcised. For what possible reason would God ever care what a man’s penis looks like? Since there’s no conclusively proven health benefit from the procedure, one can only assume that God finds it aesthetically pleasing.

As for killing men who lay with other men, I really couldn’t spend enough time explaining the absurdity in such a rule. The majority of society looks down on this practice because the Bible forbids it, yet these same disapprovers break a number of similar rules detailed in the upcoming chapter, Absurdity At Its Finest. The love experienced between two same-sex individuals is genuine; the desire for the practice most likely originates at the genetic level; and, as was the case for heterosexual couples, a gay couple’s sex life should remain their own business.

All sons are rebellious at some point, but common decency tells us that this isn’t a sufficient reason to stone a child to death because such circumstances are perfectly normal during the maturation process. If the situation warrants a stern response, children should be disciplined and/or corrected on a case-by-case basis, not barbarically executed.

We shouldn’t needlessly kill animals because some wacko has sex with them. The helpless creatures obviously lack the capacity to make an informed choice in the matter. Many employees work on the Sabbath every week, a realistic necessity for a variety of professionals who preserve life and maintain order. Killing your family because they worship a different god isn’t a justifiable reason for homicide; that’s why it’s illegal!

The last time I checked, 67% of the world doesn’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, and about 45% of the world doesn’t even have the Old Testament in their preferred religion. Consequently, how many billions of people does God want us to kill now? If we are to murder someone who believes in a different god or a different interpretation of God, the Jews are to kill Muslims and Christians, the Muslims are to kill Christians and Jews, and the Christians are to kill Jews and Muslims. In essence, we can’t necessarily fault Islamic extremists for their radical actions because they’re obviously following what they’ve been thoroughly conditioned to believe are paramount, unquestionable orders. Of course, priority would dictate that all these killings should take place after those three religious sects take care of Buddhists, Hindus, and members of the minor world religions. Now that God has had his way, no one’s left alive to worship him. This deity was clearly an insanely reckless invention with a poorly conceived design.

These rules do not include any of the horrendously unconscionable restrictions placed on women in Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix or God’s slavery guidelines discussed in God’s Stance On Slavery. There’s such an extraordinary amount of unimaginable injustices against these two specific groups that I felt it was necessary to provide separate chapters in order to give their respective oppressions justice.

As you can tell from the list provided, God wants you dead for just about anything you do. While the “courts” carried out some of the sentences due to undoubtful acts of immorality, the punishments are extremely harsh and rarely reflect the severity of the infraction committed. Killing someone for murder and killing someone because his ox gores a bystander are two entirely different instances to consider. Of all the worthwhile messages that God could have included in the Bible to help us through life, he settles on a number of nonsense rules and regulations that he knew hardly anyone would still follow a short while later. Are these the likely decisions of an omniscient creator, or are they the likely product of a group of superstitious individuals playing on the gullibility of superstitious audiences?

God’s Psyche

While it may seem that the preceding sections were a sufficient analysis of the oft-ignored alter ego of God, we still have quite a bit more ground to cover in order to comprehensively investigate this cauldron of evil. The focus will now shift from God’s allegedly observable physical manifestations to the declarations and interpretations of “divinely inspired” poets and prophets contemporaneous with the Old Testament’s creation. We’ll try to tackle such issues as the human personality of God, his childish necessity to make threats, and the dark future according to this being.

We can answer many questions concerning the nature of humans by studying the things we say and do, and there’s no reason that we can’t apply this same principle to God if we give him the benefit of behaving in a remotely logical fashion. Moreover, this is especially true if he is, indeed, merely the product of human creation. Let’s reflect on the Old Testament once again to review some of God’s alleged statements and opinions in order to see what they might reveal about his personality. Of course, you should realize how facetious it is to say that we can learn about God rather than the authors molding him into their individual interpretations.

“He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins” (Joshua 24:19). Consider this observation: God becomes jealous when we do not pay him enough attention or when we like other gods better than him. If you are guilty of either of these transgressions, he won’t forgive you for making him angry. If we transpose God into a more human setting, we realize that his behavior is the quintessence of a spoiled child throwing a tantrum when you won’t look to see what he’s doing. This fair assessment is undeniably consistent with the remainder of God’s curiously immature actions throughout the Old Testament. Even so, the Bible does an about-face in the New Testament and says that the now silent creator does forgive you for anger-inducing infractions. This notion exemplifies qualities of a more respectable and desirable deity, thus the New Testament creator is the one on which Christians tend to place their focus. Well, which interpretation of God should we accept as the truth? You’ll no doubt see similar discrepancies reemerge in the upcoming This Way And That: Biblical Contradictions.

God places “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children…unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7). As you read the Old Testament, you should take careful notice of the aforementioned recurring theme of God forcing children to pay for the sins of their ancestors. I’ve probably worn the topic out by now, but this cannot possibly be considered a fair way of treating people. God undeniably admits that he creates an unfair system in which the righteous are not guaranteed freedom from his wrath due to the contingency of him punishing us for our ancestors’ actions. Thus, we can only conclude that God receives a sense of sadistic enjoyment from punishing people for things they didn’t do because there’s no true justification for anyone, deity or not, to treat others this way. Proverbs 16:4 even confirms this hypothesis by telling us that God made evil people so that he could punish them at some point in the future. It’s an incomprehensibly evil undertaking for God to make people behave a certain way just so he can entertain himself by torturing them for eternity. Furthermore, the excessive boasting and power flaunting by God literally adds insult to injury. In addition, the author of the second letter to the Thessalonians says God will cause wicked people to disbelieve the truth about Jesus so that he can send them to Hell (2:8-12).

We also understand that God wants Christians to suffer through life (1 Peter 4:12-19). Why doesn’t he make it less painful to follow him in order for more of us to understand the “true” way of being saved? If that’s not bad enough, God even hurts the people he loves (Hebrews 12:6). Now we have even more evidence that God doesn’t want to save some people from his punishment of eternal, perpetual damnation. However, let us not forget that this is the same deity who created his son to die an agonizing death on the cross in order to pay for everyone else’s sins. If God were human, psychiatrists would certainly have him locked in an asylum.

God goes so far as to place equivalent monetary values on human life for an offering that he requires everyone to provide (Leviticus 27:1-8). This is another prime example of the total disregard God reserves for his creations. We may not be omnipotent and omniscient, but most of us would never attempt to place a specific price on the value of a human life. Incidentally, we’re worth very little to him. This notion is especially true when you consider how readily he commands thousands of us to our deaths in the Old Testament. If you’re interested, men are worth approximately $100 US while women are only worth about $60 US in modern currency equivalents. If you want to know why women are less valuable than men, you’ll find out in the next equally disturbing chapter.

Job is an odd book in an odd place. While it’s believed to have been written in an era concurrent with the Pentateuch authorship, the fable appears much later in the Bible with the books of poetry. Regardless, Christians insist that we accept it as a literal work rather than a figurative one, thus we will review it as such. As a literal work, it’s a wonderful glimpse into the mind of the most primitive form of the Hebrew god. In the ridiculous tale, God allows Satan to torment the innocent Job by utilizing various methods of torture. All of this is just to prove to Satan that he couldn’t make Job curse the name of God. How nonsensical is that? God’s ego drives him to watch a good man be tortured because he feels the need to prove a point to an inferior entity of evil.

The authors of Psalms often glorify God for a number of despicable acts. The authors exalt God for giving knowledge on how to kill enemies in battle (18:34-42) and for literally bashing people who don’t worship him (2:9). The authors admire God for his plans to burn some of his creations to death (21:9-10) and for the murder of every firstborn male child in Egypt (135:8, 136:10). The authors praise God for his intentions to tear disbelievers into pieces (50:22) and for making a spectacle out of people who worship other gods (52:5-7). Why would anyone sing praises of such abominations except to score points out of obvious fear? This thought reminds me of the Iraqi government officials who started praising Saddam Hussein in July of 1979 as he read a list of traitors who were to be executed. Because members of the audience obviously didn’t want to be among those facing an imminent death sentence, they publicly demonstrate their loyalty to Saddam by shouting praises in order to preserve their own lives. The method works wonderfully now, and it seemingly worked many centuries ago.

Guidelines on how to secure a place in Heaven are finally set in the New Testament, but they remain inherently unfair and contradicting. Christians across the board believe that you’ll burn in Hell forever if you don’t accept Jesus as your personal savior (Mark 9:42-48). If we assume this belief to be factual, is it truly fair to a radical Muslim who has had the exact opposite notion drilled into his head since birth? Of course not. All God has to do for the Muslim is show him the error of his ways. Instead, the combination of God’s present silence and his Old Testament approval of violence lamentably provides the radical Muslim with the notion that it pleases God when people fly airplanes into buildings. The murdering Muslim simply hasn’t been instructed otherwise.

Just Empty Threats?

God invariably makes threats that if you do this, he will counter with that. Let’s look at a few Old Testament examples and determine if his retaliations are justifiable. The first of which would be to not harass any widows or orphans because God will kill you with a sword (Exodus 22:24). As in the previous section, we see a continuity of God administering unfit punishments for minor crimes. If you try to rebuild Jericho, your oldest and youngest son will die (Joshua 6:26). While such an extreme measure of revenge could hardly be warranted, God affords everyone ample opportunity to avoid his insane wrath in this instance. If you don’t worship God, he’ll sever your arm, revoke your eyesight, and curse you with a premature death (1 Samuel 2:31-33). Similarly, he’ll wipe you off the earth if you observe other gods (Deuteronomy 6:14-15). If you take it as far as hating God, he’ll totally destroy you (Deuteronomy 7:10). I think these punishments are starting to creep over that arbitrary boundary known as “fairness.”

However, we see a small incongruity in making these threats. If God’s orders were to kill anyone who disobeys these divine commands, why would he personally need to administer these punishments? Better yet, why isn’t God making good on these threats? Incidentally, shouldn’t God be angry with his followers for not killing people with different viewpoints? Regardless of the answers to these questions, we’re about to see God leap past any hope of inconspicuously remaining in the background.

If ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. And if ye will contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. And I will make your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. And I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. (Leviticus 26:14-39, reworded in Deuteronomy 28:15-68).

That’s quite a punishment for not believing in God. You’ll go blind; you’ll become sorrowful; you won’t be able to grow food; your enemies will become your leaders; you’ll run for no reason; you’ll have no pride, power, or strength; your land will go bad; your children and cattle will be killed by wild animals; your cities will empty; you’ll be struck by a sword; you’ll receive a pestilence; your hunger won’t be satisfied; you’ll eat your children; your places of worship will be destroyed; your enemies will take your land; you’ll become terrified; you’ll live with injustice; and then you’ll perish.

Thankfully, we can safely conclude that there’s no connection between reality and these transcendental threats because it’s obvious that God isn’t currently enforcing these punishments. Since unfortunate episodes perpetually manifest across the religious spectrum, it’s also safe to conclude that they aren’t transpiring due to the absence of God in the victims’ lives. Since the Hebrews contemporaneous with these threats lived in an unscientific and superstitious era, they gullibly but wholeheartedly believed that these events had a divine cause and effect relationship. As an obvious consequence of that unenlightened belief, the population rarely challenged these frightening warnings. What can we surmise about these intimidating statements? Two words: scare tactics.

In the quoted passage, God yet again exposes his childish behavior by listing a long series of punishments for failing to follow his commandments and not paying him enough attention. He sends his only son to assist us in carrying out what he feels is a positive lifestyle, yet he threatens to torture us for eternity if we don’t listen to him and follow his advice. Why is God overly concerned with how we act and how we choose to worship? Since this cruel deity supposedly made us exactly how he anticipated, he should definitely know what actions we’re imminently going to take. One would presumably think that an all-powerful and all-knowing god would have little regard for the opinions of his insignificant creations, turning instead to hobbies that one would think are more productive. It’s now obvious that our existence is nothing but a game to him, and it should leave the reader to wonder why he would subject us to this exhibition when he already knows the outcome.

The God Of The Future

It would be quite negligent for me to approach a somewhat comprehensive piece on this perspective of God but not include references for the hundreds of evil operations that the prophets claim he will implement sometime in the future. There’s such a wealth of despicable activities carried out or silently observed by God that I must once again force myself to share only a small portion of the most horrendous, inventive, or entertaining ones. Common examples of Godly justifications usually fall into one of the following categories: he has angry desires for revenge, people will turn their backs on him, or his followers will sin by finding new gods to worship. While most of the foretold events are yet to come, apologists must accept the prophecies as part of an unchangeable future because the passages are part of the inerrant, unalterable word of God. Since these promised catastrophes are imminent in their arrival, we can treat these events as though they’ve already materialized for the purpose of analyzing the moral justifications, or lack thereof, that God offers for his actions.

God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped (Isaiah 13:15-16).

God will punish children for the iniquities of their fathers and distant ancestors (Isaiah 14:21).

God will lay waste to entire cities and make the lands desolate (Jeremiah 4:7).

God will set people, animals, and even plants on fire because of his anger (Jeremiah 7:20).

God will send so much evil that people would rather be dead than suffer (Jeremiah 8:3).

God will give away the property of men, including their wives, to other men (Jeremiah 8:10).

God will kill young men, and their children will die from a famine (Jeremiah 11:22).

God will cause everyone to become drunk so father and son will kill one another (Jeremiah 13:14).

God will not hear the cries of the people or acknowledge their sacrifices (Jeremiah 14:12).

God will make people hungry enough to eat their own children and friends (Jeremiah 19:9).

God will burn entire cities with the inhabitants still inside (Jeremiah 50:32).

God will break people’s bones and knock their teeth out with stones (Lamentations 3:1-16).

God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance (Ezekiel 5:10).

God will be comforted by killing everyone with pestilence, plagues, and swords (Ezekiel 5:12-13).

God will lay dead bodies around idols and spread their bones around the alters (Ezekiel 6:5).

God will kill righteous men and forget their good deeds if they ever turn to sin (Ezekiel 18:24).

God will turn daughters into whores and wives into adulterers (Hosea 4:13).

God will kill children when they come out of their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 10:14).

God will tear people apart and devour them like a lion (Hosea 13:8).

God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods (Hosea 13:16).

God will sell the children of Israel into slavery in a far away land (Joel 3:8).

God will kill inhabitants of entire cities if they have a corrupt government (Micah 3:9-12).

God will consume every living thing from the face of the earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3).

God will send people to steal Jerusalem, rape the women, and enslave the rest (Zechariah 14:2).

God will send plagues on people and animals to rot away tongues and eyes (Zechariah 14:12-15).

The prophets warn us of the Old Testament God’s frightful, futuristic return to the earth, at which point he’ll initiate every category of curse imaginable on the people who ignore his commandments, refuse to worship him, or commit acts that he arbitrarily deems evil. It’s remarkable how he can randomly dish out such unfathomable punishments for reasons a typical person would consider lacking in foundation, yet he becomes terribly enraged when one of us follows suit.

God brings people into this world without a choice in the matter and expects us to do certain things, otherwise he’ll punish us severely without rest for an eternity. God’s omniscience must necessarily allow him to know which names will not be included in his book of life. Therefore, we can only conclude that he purposely brings people into the world with zero chance of avoiding Hell. Any deviation from this predetermined course would make God wrong, but since God cannot possibly be wrong, it’s impossible for us to deviate from the absolutely unalterable plan that he has already envisioned. Thus, Christians can only logically claim that we are exclusively involuntary pawns at the mercy of God’s whimsical decisions as to where we will spend our ultimate eternal destinations. This heartless exercise of brutality can only be the single most hateful crime any being could ever commit.

Now that I’ve had time to reflect upon these considerations, if I believed for one moment that it was possible for this god to exist, I would be the first person in church on Sunday morning and the last person out the door Sunday evening. I would swallow my disgust and worship the deity that I detested in order to accept the slightly more agreeable punishment of eternal praise over eternal agony. In our universe bound by reality, however, such a personality can only be a ridiculous creation from a deceitful set of individuals who were sadly unaware of the vicious monster they created.

The God Worshipped By Two Billion

God barbarically killed millions of people in the Old Testament because they weren’t “fortunate” enough to belong to the Israelite tribe. Had these alleged victims belonged to the lineage of Jacob, they obviously wouldn’t have suffered the full wrath of God. However, what chances did they realistically have of converting to worship the Hebrew deity when their own parents conditioned them to think according to their local customs? Even today, God’s evil demands require us to murder billions of non-Christians because their parents unknowingly continue to practice this same form of powerful conditioning. The consequences of obeying God’s directions should give us the presence of mind to refrain from following such orders without first analyzing the morality of the demands in question. Widely distributed directions from a fair god should be moral or have a satisfactory explanation. Otherwise, we may be repeating the same evil accomplishments of our ancestors.

What logic is there in the fact that the being who promises us eternal life because of his love for all humankind is the same entity who orders us to kill a variety of people for morally bankrupt reasons? The biblical god is not “wonderful” and “loving” as Christians claim because these unenlightened followers base such crude assessments on the more positive New Testament. The God of the Old Testament, on the other hand, is pure evil and full of perpetual anger; he even admits as much. No one who creates and needlessly kills millions of people can honestly be called “wonderful” and “loving,” deity or not. Certainly, most people wouldn’t think it was fair if they saw their fellow man being tortured just because his parents raised him with a different version of the creator. God even takes enjoyment in the fact that many people will never make it into Heaven. Regardless of your position on the issue, I believe we can all agree that God has quite a unique character about him, to say the least.

We’ve also come to realize that we can observe the following qualities of God: he exhibits immature rage when no one pays attention to him; he makes people suffer for what others have done; he has no regard for human life; and he tortures decent people for such reasons as winning bets with Satan. If we were to extract this behavior into human terms, we would most likely draw a comparison with that of a spoiled child. Because of an obvious state of fear and panic over similar reports heard by authors of the ancient Hebrew scriptures, they wrote and sang praises to this terrible creature thinking that such measures might assist in helping them escape his unconscionable wrath.

To top it all off, God conveniently ceased his murdering and slave driving when modern philosophers, enlightened thinking, and accurate historical records began to appear. However, Jesus did not invalidate the aforementioned rules and regulations with his teachings, as some apologists often claim, because the old laws were never intended to be cast aside. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:7). “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). Amazingly, the perfect Jesus also tells us that we should abide by the old laws established by Moses. Something is definitely wrong here.

*********************************************************

Dave
26
There are no atheists in a foxhole
by The wanderer in
1. jw
2. friends
 "there are no atheists in a foxhole"old soliders' adage this discussion was brought about by curiosity as to why in-.

dividuals have become atheists seeing that at one time they.

professed a belief in god.. the intent is not to argue, debate, or incite to riot.
PrimateDave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html (An introduction to atheism)

Dave
65
POLL: Do You Believe In The Bible or God At All???
by minimus in
1. jw
2. friends
at this point in your life, do you believe in god or any parts of the bible as being god's word???.

.
PrimateDave

The Bible is a man made book. The gods of the Bible are man made gods. So, no I don't Believe in God or The Bible.
Dave
10
Property is theft?
by Narkissos in
1. jw
2. friends
from one language or one continent to another very similar words often have very different meanings.

perhaps notions too.. one striking example (for a french user of an english forum) is the political/economical use of the notion of "freedom / liberty".. for instance, "liberalism" in current english seems to be fairly equivalent to "left-wing" (on almost any issue, whether moral, social or economical).

in french, liberalisme points to low state involvement in economic or social issues, which is clearly a right-wing doctrine.
PrimateDave

Quotes from http://anthropik.com/2005/07/the-right-to-property/

'The original draft of the Declaration of Independence outlined the "inalienable rights" of all men as including "life, liberty, and property." Benjamin Franklin convinced Thomas Jefferson to change the wording to "and the pursuit of happiness," simply because it sounded better, but the Lockesian philosophy Jefferson alluded to has remained the cornerstone of American thought.'

'For Locke, the right to property comes from the application of one's time, talents and labor to an object; it is that part of nature which an individual transforms into something useful and valuable. Thus, to rob a person of his property is to rob her of the products of her past--just as murder robs her of her future life, and slavery of her present liberty. All well and good, if one accepts a pivotal, unspoken assumption that nature has no value of its own and is free for our taking.'

'This certainly was Locke's assumption, and the assumption of all his readers. In their understanding, G-d had bequeathed nature to mankind's use. Humanity was destined to rule as the earth's masters, and nature existed only to serve mankind. In this context, Locke's philosophy makes perfect sense. To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism.'

'In a sense, then, Locke's property rights are already relying on circular logic: human property rights are dependent on divine property rights, so that we have a right to property because there is a right to property.'

'Once we have either a monotheistic deity, as Locke presumed, or at least a pantheon acting as one, then Locke's argument is at least tenable, if circular. Let us, for a moment, consider the theological implications of this monotheistic god that Locke supposes.'

'Such a god creates nature, thus making nature his "property" to do with as he pleases--including allow humans free access to it, if he so desires. Does this god know the ultimate outcome of such an arrangement, and of all the suffering and death that will be unleashed on the various plants and animals he has made, essentially selling them into slavery to another of his creations? If he cannot foresee this, he is not only not omniscient, but in fact incredibly short-sighted and rather dim, frankly. If he can foresee this, then his grant of such access means that he approves of such an arrangement--making him an evil tyrant. The implication of Locke's argument is either that G-d is stupid, or G-d is evil.'

Dave
6
Forget A, how about H word .... are things slowly getting out of control?!?
by zagor in
1. jw
2. friends
.

.
PrimateDave

After leaving Jehovah's Witnesses I no longer believe in Armageddon. Of course, I no longer believe in Jehovah either. We always used to speculate that Jehovah wouldn't allow man to destroy himself in a nuclear war. Well, now I know that IT could happen. Scary.
Dave
9
Did you ever say "Swear to Jehovah!"
by Kudra in
1. jw
2. friends
...instead of "swear to god!

all us kids in the hall did.

it really meant we were telling the truth.
PrimateDave

No. I would say 'do not swear at all, but let your "yes" mean "yes" and your "no" mean "no".'

Dave
18
What Factors led you to Write your Letter of Disassociation?
by The wanderer in
1. jw
2. friends
 what factors led you to write your letter of disassociation?quite a number of disassociation letters can be found .

on the internet.

some are lengthy, others get right to .
PrimateDave

I just didn't want to pretend to be a Jehovah's Witness anymore. I got to the point that I knew it wasn't the TRUTH, so why waste time at boring meetings and in uncomfortable clothes preaching to people who could care less anyway. Besides, it wasn't like I believed what I was preaching anymore. I was tired of the theocratic treadmill, my book study conductor always 'suggesting' I go in service more often, asking why I had missed a meeting.

So, I wrote my family a letter saying that I was DAing myself. I told the PO I was DAing myself, but I haven't sent a letter. I also told the PO that I didn't want to discuss my reasons for leaving. I just wanted peace. The fault lay with the WTS, not the people in the local congregation. No point in arguing, really. And that's what I said to my family. I'm out, and I just don't want to argue about it. When pressed by my family for some idea as to why I did this, I did give them a list of reading materials, but I know they won't read any of it. That's okay, because they are still willing to communicate with me, so I'm not cut off from them, which was my biggest fear of DAing myself. I lost my friends in the congregation, but at least I still have some family ties.

Dave
35
"Exactly like a thief in the night"
by Star Moore in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
PrimateDave

Very well, where is the "apostle" Paul right now? What promises has God made? An entertaining challenge, no? If you just quote scripture, you are forgetting that I too have read the Bible through from cover to cover.

From Dr. Jason Long' book Biblical Nonsense (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/)

*******************************************************

Poor Christian Reasoning

Perhaps the most aggravating ordeal in discussing religious theory is the burden of listening to logical fallacies used by someone with an opposing viewpoint. Logical fallacies are arguments outside the bounds of reality, commonly used by zealous defenders of their respective religions. While some of the arguments used by such an individual may seem sound or valid to a lay audience, especially one with beliefs deeply rooted in the debated system, this chapter should assist you in being able to recognize when such disingenuous methods of argumentation are used. In fact, the illogical attributes of Christianity itself prematurely handicap the ability for a Bible defender to use sound logic in defending his position. I will support examples of these poorly developed techniques with hypothetical religious arguments in order to reinforce the often-confusing explanations.

It’s important for the freethinker to avoid these faulty methods of argumentation in order to remain above an intellectually dishonest level. As the tools of logic and reason are on the side of those who don’t blindly delve into the comforts of false superstitions, there’s no foreseeable excuse to ever resort to the use of logical fallacies in the “defense” of disbelief.

Baseless Assertions

This section will discuss a variety of general arguments that use unreliable methodologies to arrive at a desired conclusion. The first example is argumentum ad ignorantiam, which means an argument from ignorance. This is a proposal that something is true (or false) because it has yet to be proven otherwise. A Christian might say, “The crucifixion is a historical fact because no one has found any documents conspiring to invent the story.” In the same manner, I could claim that Jesus had four arms. Since no one can solidly disprove my ridiculous assertion, the previous speaker’s fallacious logic allows my statement to be considered a historical fact. Needless to say, a lack of evidence against a claim doesn’t make the proposal a historical certainty.

Some apologists (those who defend a religious doctrine) will consider an argument more valid if the audience hears it more than the opposing viewpoint. We call this erroneous consideration an argumentum ad nauseam, which is an argument that depends on mere repetition. A speaker using this method of argumentation will go to great lengths in order to ensure that he voices his opinion as often as possible. Although the argument itself may be perfectly sound, it’s no more or less true the thousandth time that the speaker used it than the first. A silent form of this argument may be self-utilized when someone forms an opinion on the legitimacy of Christianity based on the abundance of related literary works. While Christian nations tend to publish extraordinary amounts of Christian material, the arguments contained therein do not increase in soundness based solely on the number of times that writers regurgitate the information.

Christians will often make arguments that imply something is true because society has generally accepted it as the truth for a lengthy but arbitrary period of time. This is an example of argumentum ad antiquitatem, which means an argument based on age. A Christian might say, “People have believed in God for thousands of years. This belief has existed for so long that there must absolutely be some truth to it.” Apologists of even older religions could also make such bankrupt claims, but such assertions would no doubt go unheard by a close-minded Christian apologist. In short, the age of the belief in question is independent from the legitimacy of the belief itself. Conversely, some Christians will argue that certain beliefs are true because they’re newer than others. This would be an example of argumentum ad novitatem, an argument from novelty. “Jesus Christ was crucified during the time of recorded history. Many people wrote about his death, and it’s much harder to forge such a record in this era. Therefore, the account is true.” Scholars have adequately disproven several modern beliefs, religious or otherwise, in the past 2000 years. While there may be an increased obstacle of difficulty in forging records of a modern event, a belief isn’t true just because it’s newer than others in the same field.

Apologists often cite the attributes and qualities of people during arguments as evidence to support an assertion. Let’s suppose there’s a multi-billionaire preacher who has dedicated his life to serving God. This hypothetical character might often be apologetically used as an example of how Christianity is more likely to be true than other religions. Because this rich individual obviously made many correct choices in life, his belief in Jesus, according to the apologist, only makes sense. We call such a ridiculous proposal argumentum ad crumenam, an argument based on wealth. If this rich man also believed in the Easter Bunny, the mythical rabbit doesn’t leap into the bounds of reality. Conversely, another Christian might consider a poor individual to be more virtuous since he isn’t preoccupied with materialistic possessions. Therefore, according to the apologist, we should hold his religious viewpoints in higher esteem than those of the common person. That’s an example of argumentum ad lazarum, an argument based on a lack of wealth. What if the poor man also believed in the Easter Bunny?

If a person is famous, Christians will often appeal to that individual as an additional example for the legitimacy of their religion. For instance, “Since the past few Presidents of the US have adhered to Christianity, it is certainly the most correct religion.” We call this absurd notion argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument based on authority. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were non-Christians, but this doesn’t mean the belief system is any less reliable. However, you should make an important discrepancy between this logical fallacy and the referencing of an authority on a given subject. If the speaker sufficiently explains the authority’s position, the proposal then becomes an acceptable supplementary argument. Cutting the debate short by exclaiming things like “you just need to read this book by John Q. Public” isn’t a satisfactory procedure because two speakers citing books back and forth all day would accomplish nothing.

If an ignorant debater considers a single person to be good evidence, then billions of people probably seem like pure gold. Argumentum ad numerum is an argument based on the number of people who believe something to be true. Christians often suggest that Jesus Christ must be an actual historical figure because close to two billion living people now believe that he is the son of God. However, over one billion people believe that Muhammad split the moon in half. Where is the imaginary boundary for the number argument to work? What happens when the world’s Muslim population inevitably exceeds the number of Christians? Will biblical apologists then accept Islam as the truth based on this reasoning? Of course not, and they shouldn’t. The number of people who subscribe to a religion doesn’t make the belief system any more or less factual than it already is (or isn’t). Similarly, argumentum ad populum is the use of a statement that appeals to some popular notion in society. A Christian might argue, “To insinuate that the Bible is a hoax is to call a countless number of our past heroes misguided.” Even though such a statement might successfully enrage the audience against the speaker’s opponent, it’s a blatantly dishonest but often unintentional utilization of the audience’s emotions to turn them toward a certain viewpoint. No matter how popular or widespread a religious belief can be, these qualities don’t add to the soundness of the facts.

Distorted Timelines And Irrational Congruencies

Those who overly claim that certain events are dependent and/or evident of other events commit logical mistakes as well. Thus, we’ll look at a few examples of these common fallacies in this section.

Christians often falsely attribute one event to another because they concurrently took place. This is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc, translated as “with the fact, therefore because of the fact.” An example might be a reference to a study demonstrating that crime rates have dropped steadily in an area over the previous two years because of increased church attendance. Note that this is a possible explanation for the drop in crime, but there’s no conclusively causal relationship between the two events. The person making the claim ignores other possible reasons why the crime rate may have dropped (e.g. an increased budget for the police department). A similar fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc, translated as “after the fact, therefore because of the fact.” An example along the lines of the previous proposal might cite the improved emotions in those who attend church for two years. An apologist might conclude that the improvement resulted from church membership, but this individual once again ignores a plethora of other possible explanations, such as lifestyle modifications or antidepressant medications. Both of these logical fallacies are more specific forms of non causa pro causa, which is an attempt to draw a link between two events without any good evidence of a relationship.

In addition to the previous unsuccessful arguments attempting to bridge two events, there are some fallacies attempting to create a link between two theoretical events. Denial of the antecedent is a form of argument that concludes a proposal isn’t true because it was implied by another proposal now proven to be inaccurate. A Christian could say, “The theory of evolution was dependent on modern man descending from Neanderthals. Since the Neanderthal descent hypothesis has proven to be false, the theory of evolution also fails.” While it’s true that scientists once speculated that Neanderthals could be ancestors of modern humans, by no means does this advancement in knowledge disprove the entire field of evolution. Similarly, affirmation of the consequent is a fallacious argument suggesting that if one event implies another event happened, the first occurrence is true because someone has proven the second true. A good example might be similar to this: “Jesus said that there would be war and famine in the last days of this world. Since we see prevalent war and famine, Jesus truly made this statement.” Events simply don’t take place for the sole purpose of fulfilling prophecies. Besides, I’d like to hear about a point in history void of these unfortunate circumstances.

I’ve actually known some people who have suggested that meditation is a form of prayer. Consequently, they think those who meditate are actually praying to God. However, individuals making this baseless suggestion fail to expand on why prayer is the same as meditation. They simply want you to accept the premise that they’re similar and accept the conclusion they provide. We refer to this irresponsible method of assertion as the fallacy of the undisturbed middle. Christian believers also tend to utilize such an inconsistency in order to harmonize a discrepancy between the Bible and known scientific data. The most common example is the timeline for the creation of the earth’s contents. These individuals may concede that the earth was created billions of years ago while simultaneously maintaining the accuracy of the Genesis account. However, both statements simply cannot be true because they’re in direct conflict. The speaker would need to justify this proposed harmonization in order to avoid making an erroneous and fallacious argument.

An often-used logical fallacy is ad hoc reasoning, or an explanation offered after the fact. It’s a common apologetic practice to fall back on an alternative solution once the foundation of the original position has crumbled. For example, a Christian might state, “There’s great evidence that the earth is only a few thousand years old.” Once someone exposes the error in such a blatantly false statement with the overwhelming counterevidence, the Christian might then say, “God made it look that way to mislead those who rely on their own opinions rather than having faith in his word.” The speaker has totally dropped the original indefensible claim and substituted it with an alternative explanation, one that only makes sense after the fact. In other words, the speaker is justifying the problem with an invented solution in order to protect his position.

Those attempting to obtain approval for an idea often unknowingly use the slippery slope argument. For example, a Christian might suggest, “If you take prayer out of school, children will learn to be less dependent on God throughout the rest of their lives. When the methods these children use to solve their problems fail, they’ll often result to other means that may endanger them. If they don’t end up getting killed, they’ll wander into a life of crime in order to fill their needs instead of turning to God.” I hope you can see why it’s called the slippery slope argument. The speaker insinuates that if we take a certain action, a cascade of other events will inevitably follow. As is the case here, the speaker typically offers no evidence on which to connect the series of crude assertions.

Miscellaneous Accidents

The logical fallacies included in this section are most likely the result of accidents or ignorance. We’ll discuss intellectually dishonest methods of argumentation in a moment. The first such accidental case is the reliance upon anecdotal evidence to prove a point. Such “evidence” is nothing more than assumed conclusions based on casual observations and personal experiences rather than honest and impartial scientific analyses. For instance, “Childbirth is the result of a divine miracle. There’s no other way to explain it.” On the surface, childbirth may appear to be beyond our comprehension. However, once a thorough study is made of the biological events leading up to childbirth, it should become an extraordinary but explainable natural bodily process.

Special pleading is another foolish and unsuccessful method of argumentation frequently used within the Christian community. This fallacy is committed when the speaker directs a plea toward his opponent or the audience in an attempt to win them over to the desired position. For example, a Christian apologist might say, “Only a small part of my opponent’s counterevidence works against my claim. If you ignore that small bit, my position stands unscathed.” While it may sound intentional, the speaker is most often unaware of the erroneous nature of his request. We can’t simply ignore or wish evidence away when we don’t like it.

A sweeping generalization is the act of applying a general rule on a specific situation. For example, when apologists often claim that most atheists have never read too far into the Bible, they conclude that one atheist in particular must not have read the Bible. While it’s probably true that the majority of atheists have not bothered with reading the Bible, it’s improper and prejudicial to apply this general guideline to a particular individual. Similarly, a hasty generalization is the making of a claim based on a limited number of examples. Imagine a story running on the news about three Muslims burning down a number of churches across a city. Someone committing a hasty generalization would conclude that all Muslims are radical terrorists. Likewise, apologists will also use a very similar argument known as the fallacy of division to make favorable remarks about their fellow worshippers. “Roger is a Christian. Therefore, he could not have killed Larry.” While the vast majority of Christians aren’t murderers, this statement underhandedly applies the overall quality of the group to a specific individual.

Many Christians truly believe that none of their peers would engage in something as heinous as kidnapping people to sell them into slavery. Once we’re able to convince an apologist that many slave traders were members of the Christian faith, he might alter the meaning of what it is to be a Christian by claiming that no true Christian would ever commit these acts of treachery. We refer to such desperation as the no true Scotsman fallacy. Even if the apologist’s definition of what he felt comprised a Christian included being unable to kidnap and sell slaves, he’s only offered a baseless and arbitrary guideline. Someone else could easily assert that no true Christian would ever tell a lie. Such a bold proposal would undoubtedly eliminate all two billion Christians at the blink of an eye.

Christian apologists will often use references to the natural world via the naturalistic fallacy for their justifications or condemnations of particular behaviors. In addition to quoting Bible verses condemning homosexual acts, they will often refer to the absence of these behaviors in the natural world. As a result, they will conclude that homosexuality isn’t a natural practice for humans. The problem with this argument is that the natural world doesn’t offer a glimpse at many of the things humans do. The use of birth control devices isn’t seen anywhere in nature, yet many Christians partake in this “unnatural” act. Such a counterpoint perfectly exemplifies why the argument goes down in flames. Incidentally, much to the chagrin of ultraconservatives, there are homosexual acts currently taking place in the natural world.

An extremely common logical fallacy often serving as the sole foundation of a Christian argument is petitio principii, more widely known as begging the question. This mistake occurs when the premise used to support a conclusion is as equally questionable as the conclusion itself. For example, “The Bible is the word of God. Because it tells us that accepting Jesus is the only way to enter Heaven, there’s no other way to avoid Hell other than accepting Jesus.” The speaker predicates his conclusion upon the premise of his argument being true. In other words, he bases the conclusion of non-Christians going to Hell on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. However, the premise is definitely a questionable one. A conclusion based solely on a questionable premise must, of course, be questionable as well. It would then be the speaker’s responsibility to provide proof for his premise or withdraw his conclusion.

There’s an interrogative form of begging the question called a complex/loaded question. This is where the speaker assumes certain facts when asking a question. “Are you still sending people to hell by convincing them to turn away from God?” The question contains a predetermined conclusion that turning people away from God will send them to Hell. Again, the speaker is required to present proof of a causal relationship between a disbelief in God and banishment to Hell. A one-word response will not satisfactorily answer the question even though the speaker has phrased it in such a manner.

Another similar logical fallacy is termed circulus in demonstrando, otherwise known as circular reasoning. Here’s a painfully common example: “The Bible is the word of God. Since God wrote the Bible, we know that it contains only truthful accounts. Since the truthful accounts are inspired by God, we know that the Bible is God’s word.” In other words, the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. If you can’t spot the enormous gaping hole in this argument, I’m afraid that I’m not doing you much help. The Qur’an says Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, but that doesn’t make it a fact. There must be good evidence to support these claims.

I find circular reasoning to be a particularly aggravating method of argumentation, especially when a Christian denies those with different religions the luxury to make the same bald assertions. It’s even common for apologists to make the extremely frustrating claim that relying on complimentary evidence, such as the discrete sets of scientific data yielded by radiometric dating and fossil deposits, is the same thing as invoking the use of circular reasoning. In other words, they believe the only validity that we can derive from these two tests is that one supports the other. This is simply not the case. Each test independently yields the same conclusion; therefore, each test reinforces the validity of the conclusion made by the other. No one is saying that the age from radiometric dating is true because it agrees with the age from fossil layers and that the age from fossil layers is true because it agrees with the age from radiometric dating; that would be circular reasoning.

When the going gets rough for Christian apologists trying to defend their biblical views, they’ll often say, “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.” They’re exactly right. Similarly, they can’t prove the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. However, they can be reasonably certain of its nonexistence when they make a judgment based on all available data. The proposal for the other party to disprove the positive assertion is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. It’s never the responsibility of the person denying the claim to prove otherwise, nor is it possible to prove something doesn’t exist unless we burden this hypothetical phenomenon with rules and logic of our universe (e.g. disproving squared circles). The person who makes the positive claim is always responsible for proving it’s factual. Whether or not you believe that a god who makes a magical egg-delivering rabbit is more ridiculous than a god who is pleased by the smell of burnt flesh is simply a matter of perspective. Each demands the same amount of proof.

Smoke And Mirrors

Unfortunately, many apologists use arguments that they know are wholly lacking in credibility. Perhaps some part of them even realizes the absurdity of their position and creates the need to resort to such tactics in order to defend their beliefs. This section will discuss those logical fallacies most often intentionally used under intellectual dishonesty.

A good starting example is the use of bifurcation, commonly known as the black and white fallacy. This is a way of offering only two possible answers to a scenario when there are credible alternative solutions. An individual practicing bifurcation might say, “Either Mark knew about Jesus and wrote the Gospel account, or he didn’t. Since Mark records Jesus’ miracles several times, we can conclude that he knew Jesus.” The problem with this particular statement is the lumping of Mark’s knowledge and authorship into one inseparable unit. The speaker ignores the possibility that Mark wrote about Jesus but didn’t know him, or vice-versa. There’s also an interrogative form of bifurcation known as plurium interrogationum. This fallacy is committed when the speaker requires a simple affirmative or negative answer to a more complex question. “Did the biblical characters exist? Answer yes or no.” If you wish to retort by saying that some existed while others didn’t, such a question requires a more detailed explanation for a satisfactory answer than the one word allotment provided by the speaker.

An apologist defending his position may even resort to force, argumentum ad baculum, as a way of getting an audience to adhere to his belief. This cunning individual might say, “If you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you’ll burn in Hell for eternity.” While the apologist obviously believes he’s speaking the truth, the statement by itself isn’t any truer than “If you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you’ll burn in Hell for blaspheming Allah.” However, this shamefully dishonest method is an appreciably effective scare tactic to use on a gullible audience.

A Christian speaker might also attack the credibility of his opponent by using factors unrelated to the credibility of the opponent’s position. An example of such an argumentum ad hominem would be this: “The man who stands before you is an atheist. He claims Christianity doesn’t have a good moral code, but I happen to know that he’s verbally abusive toward his peers.” Such an unwarranted attack against the opponent has no value toward supporting the issue of Christianity’s moral code. While the hostility doesn’t have any logical credibility as a valid argument, it speaks volumes about the credibility of the individual resorting to its usage.

An irrelevant conclusion is self-explanatory. This act of deception is committed when a speaker makes a conclusion that has absolutely no relationship with the point he wishes to defend. Perhaps a Christian wants to protect the notion of Jesus being the son of God. He might consequently say, “Jesus died on the cross for our sins. This took away all our sins and gave us eternal life. Many people have now turned to Jesus. This tells us that Jesus was the son of God.” Notice how the supporting ideas do nothing to prove Jesus was the son of God. The conclusion is, therefore, irrelevant.

A similar argument might have a non sequitur, the use of a premise having no logical connection with its proposed conclusion. For example, “Because Mark wrote a biography of Jesus, he must have been well versed in ancient Hebrew Scriptures.” The premise does nothing to support the conclusion, nor can you logically infer the conclusion from the given premise.

The immensely popular red herring occurs when someone attempts to introduce irrelevant material into a discussion. Suppose two sides are debating whether the followers of Christianity or Islam have committed the most historical atrocities. A Christian apologist might say, “Christianity hasn’t committed more atrocities than Islam. I know many loving Christian people who go out of their way to help others regardless of the religious faith to which the beneficiaries subscribe. Everyone in my church does volunteer work for the community. We’ve all donated our life savings to the homeless. You never hear about Muslims doing any of these things. Thus, Christianity hasn’t committed more historical atrocities than Islam.” In this instance, the speaker did nothing more than offer a few anecdotal evidences to support the notion that Christianity is a kinder religion than Islam. However, the speaker’s examples did not deal with the issue of which religion has committed more atrocities in its history. Whether or not Christians perform caring acts is entirely irrelevant to the debate. The speaker is deceitfully attempting to divert the audience’s attention away from the topic at hand by distracting them with irrelevant material.

Next, we have the cleverly titled straw man. This fallacy is committed when the speaker alters or misrepresents the position of his opponent in order to enable an easy but unwarranted attack. Suppose two sides are debating over the existence of the Hebrew god. After side one proclaims that he probably doesn’t exist, side two might reply, “You say that God probably doesn’t exist as though you had all the answers yourself. Tell us how you know the universe didn’t need a creator.” Notice how the speaker begins his retort by mentioning a specific god but quickly broadens his opponent’s stance to include a decoy position of atheism. Side one never claimed that a god doesn’t exist, nor did he say that the universe didn’t require a creator. Side two has maliciously misrepresented his opposition because side one only claimed that the Hebrew god probably doesn’t exist. There’s an obvious and crucial difference between these two positions.

Finally, no overview of poor logical reasoning would be complete without mentioning the universal reply. If apologetic responses repeatedly have no more value than “You just need to read the Bible to understand Jesus and God’s word,” you’re probably wasting your time trying to talk some sense into the speaker. Any statement capable of being recycled by another religion never qualifies as evidence. Change Bible to Qur’an, Jesus to Muhammad, and God to Allah to produce an equally irrational “special insight” assertion ready for Muslim consumption. If anything, belief only poisons the ability to make an unbiased judgment of the evidence. Similarly, we cannot consider personal experiences to be solid evidence for the legitimacy of a religious system because members of all religions claim to have the same experiences. How many times have you heard of God getting credit for curing someone’s cancer? Strangely enough, so does Allah!

Now You’re Ready To Understand

This chapter should provide you with a sufficient overview of disingenuous arguments commonly used by apologists to support their beliefs. Any Christian readers who have utilized these illogical methods of argumentation should understand why they are not valid. Likewise, anyone wishing to engage an apologist in biblical debate should always be very mindful to avoid utilizing these logical fallacies. This successful avoidance will no doubt facilitate the use of logically sound arguments. Thus, it would serve anyone well to memorize these fallacies and be able to explain why they are considered to be blatantly foolish methods of misguided argumentation. Now that you have a basic understanding of the common apologetic stance, let’s analyze the Bible, without relying on such desperate measures, to derive plausible explanations for its content.

*******************************************************

You probably didn't read all of that. Oh well. Try to think of it this way: it doesn't matter what I think about your beliefs. Believe what you want if it will make you happy.