I mean, think about this; this poor little kid, who has no say what so ever in these affairs, will now spend her life being loved and worshipped by many. This sounds reasonably decent on the surface, but it completely deprives the child of a chance at a real, normal life.

This isn’t right and it isn’t healthy. She’s basically being used as a pawn by religious people. She’s not old enough to make any choices herself regarding this situation. Her parents are using her, her church is using her, everyone is using her.

She's going to be under the control of these religious-types until she hits puberty, at which point she gets the blessed joy of going back home. I rather doubt she will have spent the intervening years learning much useful, like science, math, history, etc. No, instead she'll apparently be learning all about rituals and religion, or as the reporter in the video put it, "... udergoing completely secret rituals..." Am I the only one who thought that sounded awfully like brainwashing?

That anyone would find this noble and wonderful is sad and distressing. Get a fucking clue, people! She's not a goddess! She's a scared, three-year-old girl who won't see her family for the next eight years or so. This isn't noble, it's just fucked-up.

This isn't the first time I've addressed idiotic Hindu beliefs. The only good and reassuring thing here is that at least it proves "Western" religions aren't the only ones that are really terrible and wrong.

So on Daylightatheism we have, instead, "Ten Questions to Ask Your Pastor". Go check it out!

By the way, as a side note, it's worth noting that the main reason this blog exists is because of Daylightatheism. I've been reading the site for almost a year now, and it inspired me to get into the blogging business myself after two failed attempts at blogging on Myspace and Geocities.

I'm not Catholic. I never have been. I was raised Methodist, but got over it at a young age, then flirted with Wicca and Bhuddism before landing at my current state of atheist. So I'm not overly familiar with Catholic doctorine, but like many people in our culture, especially the well-read, I've spent a lot of time picking up bits here and there about the Catholic faith, and I've come across one part that, even for them, is fairly unpleasant. Original sin.

No, I don't mean poking a badger with a spoon. I mean the notion that Eve, by eating the forbidden fruit, has tainted all of humanity, and we all suffer for her sins. As a result, we're all born in sin, and even newborns need to be baptised, or if they die as a baby, they will go to Hell (possibly Purgatory).

There's several levels on which ths is a fundamentally wrong concept, but for me the most interesting is this: how exactly did Eve sin? Yes, she ate the fruit she wasn't told to eat, but she didn't understand that she shouldn't. How could she? Until she ate the fruit, she didn't know right from wrong, or good from evil.

This is a very important point, because according to the doctorine of Original Sin, we're all being held rresponsible for the Bad Thing Eve did before she had the ability to know that it was bad. By eating the fruit, she learned it was bad. So we're being punished for her doing something she didn't understand she wasn't supposed to do. Yes, God told her not to, but how was she to know that by defying him, she'd be doing wrong?

Of course the very notion that we'd all be held responsible for a mistake someone made back at the dawn of creation really doesn't make sense, nor is it even remotely fair. What kind of just being would punish all of humanity for an error commited by someone several thousand years in the past? Something that no one for millenia has had any involvement in.

But as I've seen over the last few weeks with my Bible Project, the God of the Bible is anything but fair and just. He's an evil, capricious monster who is far more concerned with his own greatness than anything even approxmiating decent, moral behavior. I suppose the idea that Original Sin could originate with a church that worships such a creature should come as no surprise.

When we last saw our cosmic tyrant and evil-doer, God, he'd slaughtered thousands upon thousands of innocent people just so that he could have the Hebrews back to serve him as his slaves. He'd butchered an entire nation in a series of acts so horrible that, amazingly, they fail to leave any evidence in the historical record. Oh, well.

We begin this entry with the sight of the Hebews reaching the Red Sea. We all know what happens there, but before we get to the Cecil B DeMile epic, we have to put up with God being a dick yet again. See, he's concerned that Pharaoh might give up the chase. That he might stop hounding the Hebrews and just, you know, leave them alone. Well, God can't handle that, so he does the usual.

"Then I will harden Pharaoh's heart, so that he will pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, that the Egyptians may know that i am the lord." And they did so. - Exodus 14:4

And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he persued the children of Israel; and the children of Israel went out with boldness. - Exodus 14:8

Oh, good. So this next massacre will, like the others, be because God wants it to happen and not only doesn't prevent it, but goes out of his way to cause it. It's not even because Pharaoh chose to pursue the Hebrews, it's because God made him. Again we see God punishing someone for something he forced them to do.

Lest anyone think God might give the Egyptians any sort of a chance or, you know, forgiveness, don't. He doesn't, as we see here, during the Red Sea Pre-Game Show, as he tells Moses what's going to happen.

"But lift up your rod, and strech out your hand over the sea and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
"And indeed I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots and his horsemen.
Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gained honor for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen." - Exodus 14:16 - 18

Bloodthirsty fellow, isn't he?

So the Iraelites go across the empty sea, the Egyptians follow, they drown, a very, very good movie gets made.

Now interestingly some people have, over the years, tried to add a little logic and science into this. Since we all know it's impossible for the sea to just part like this, there must be a different explanation. So they say it wasn't the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds (cause, I guess, in Hebrew "red" and "reed" sound similar enough to confuse the two?). They say that it's a shallow swamp and a strong breeze might've pushed the waters back.

Right.

First, that's pretty unlikely. Second, if that did happen, where's the miracle? Where's God's hand in this? Saying that's what happened removes anything even remotely resembling God from the mix and therefore removes the point.

Next we have a line that gave me a chuckle.

And he took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty... - Exodus 14:25

Yeah, I rather imagine that would be fairly difficult. Rather like replacing a broken wheel with a log.

Moving on, we have the Egyptians begining their wanderings through the desert. A few million people, forty years, no archaeological evidence. Maybe they were just especially neat? Anyhow, we have a little song/poem here, some wandering, some mana, and some water. Then we get to this:

Now Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. - Exodus 17:8

Wait, who, what? Who the fuck is Amalek? Thanks to the efforts of humanity, we have Wikipedia which tells me:

According to the Book of Genesis and 1 Chronicles, Amalek (Arabic,عماليق,Hebrew: עֲמָלֵק, Standard ʻAmaleq Tiberian ʻĂmālēq) was the son of Eliphaz and the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:12; 1 Chr. 1:36); the chief of an Edomite tribe (Gen. 36:16). His mother was a Horite, a tribe whose territory the descendants of Esau had seized.

Oh. Ok. So... Amalek is a person? I guess that makes sense... I suppose. I mean, one person fighting against the entirety of the Hebrew nation, the one that God's been schleping around with. Right. Ok. Well, anyhow, Aaron goes off to kick Amalek back to the Copper Age and God makes Moses do this little song and dance where he has to hold up his arms for Aaron to win. What, arrows were in short supply? Later in the article, it becomes clear that the Amalekilites were a group of people, but that's far from clear in this part of the Bible.

And so it was, when Moses helf up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. Exodus 17:14

Of course, Moses' arms eventually get tired. One would think God could just magic away the lactic acid that's building up in Moses' arms, but apparently not. Thankfully the Israelites come up with an idea of their own where they basically support Moses' arms so they won't get tired. Ooookay. That makes sense, I guess? I mean, why does God need Moses to have his arms up in the first place, and second, once he has them there, why does God let him slip by with getting them braced upwards?

Either way, Amalek is defeated and God has this to say:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Josua, that I will utterly blot out the rememberance of Amalek from under heaven." - Exodus 17:14

Er... you don't blot out someone's existence and then tell your boys to write down that he existed. Just FYI.

Anyhow, we move onto the appointment of the judges and the acknowledgement that God isn't the only god around (Ex 18:11), then we have the arrival at Mount Sinai. Finally we get to that moment we've all been waiting for. The Ten Commandments! Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

"You shall have no other gods before me." - Exodus 20:3

So, right away, when given the chance to issue a commandment about loving each other and being nice and not fighting, what does God do? Right. Par for the course.

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the lord your God am a jealous God [no, really?], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third anf fourth generations of those who hate me,
but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments." - Exodus 20:4 - 6

Apparently all artwork all over the world that shows any people or animals is a violation of this commandment. Some might read it to say that you can't make them and worship them, but that's not what the text says. It just says you can't make them. Nice.

"You shall not take the name of the lord your god in vain, for the lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." - Exodus 20:7

Ok, well, this seems pretty straightforward, I guess. Don't say things like, "Goddamnit!", unless you actually want God to damn someone, though the old boy doesn't seem to need any encouragement down that path.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shall you labor and do all your work,
but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the lord your god. In it you shall do no work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle (?!), nor your stranger who is within your gates.
For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." - Exodus 20:8 - 11

Ok, so take a day off. That seems pretty reasonable. Of course from what I can tell, it's a day where you are basically supposed to sit around like a lump and do literally nothing the entire day. Yeah, that's productive. I think I'll stick with having two days off, having them on days other than a Sunday and doing what I please with them, thank you.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the lord your god is giving you." - Exodus 20:12

Greeting card makers must love this one round about May and June. Otherwise, what does "honor" mean in this context? Live a life they'd be proud of? Obey them in all things? Let them get away with murdering their children when the kids misbehave? Very vague and very pointless. I also note it doesn't say that parents should honor their children.

"You shall not murder." - Exodus 20:13

Most versions of this I've seen say, "Thou shalt not kill", but it is pretty clear from this and the rest of the Bible that it just means you shouldn't murder. Killing in the name of God is perfectly acceptable!

You shall not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14

Surprisingly reasonable! I have no problem with this one.

"You shall not steal." - Exodus 20:15

Presumably taking plunder from the infidel is perfectly fine, since I understand that happens a lot in the later parts of the book.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." - Exodus 20:16

No perjury! Again, no problem.

Youshall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." - Exodus 20:17

You hear that, all your right-wing capitalists out there? You aren't supposed to want what other people own! There goes our entire economic system down the drain!

These rules have their good points. Most of the latter ones are fine, most of the first ones aren't. People who are in favor of having them displayed in courtrooms like to point out that you can see them on side of the Supreme Court building. You can, yes. You can see the last five, which have nothing to do with God.

So nothing particularly notable in this portion of the project, eh? Just the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments. :) Sadly, from what I've already read of the next part, it sounds like I've hit the high point for now.

Next up, lots of rules!

*sigh*

I understand the desire to get the religious vote, but what about the atheist vote? What about us rationalists who believe strongly in seperation between church and state and find the idea of a political convention opening with a prayer to be rather offensive? About 13% of the American public are atheists. It's fine to court the religious, at least to a point, but please don't ignore us and don't sell the party's values down the tubes just to think you're improving your chances of getting elected.

There's a book that was about to be published soon called The Jewel of Medina. It's about Mouhammad nine-year-old wife. The one he fucked on their wedding night. Well, it was set to be published, but after some uptight professor in Texas complained, the publisher pulped it. The professor was afraid that the book would "offend" Muslims everywhere, and that was a good reason not to publish it (read here for a great editorial condeming this nonsense). She seemed to believe the book's publication could lead to the widespread violence we saw after the publication of the Danish cartoons mocking Islam.

While I can understand these fears, I certainly don't agree with the professor that the book shouldn't've (is that a legitimate contraction? Anyone know?), been published. The fact that it might cause offense is a great reason to publish it! People need to be offended sometimes, and everyone should have their ideas challenged (including me). If your beliefs are strong enough, they'll withstand any level of mockery. And anyhow, getting pissed off at someone for saying your religion is violent, like with the Danish cartoons, and then proving it by going out and being violent, solves nothing.

As for me, I'm willing and able to offend everyone's beliefs. If they don't like what I say, they don't have to listen. If they don't like what I type, they don't have to read it. But they haven't the right to tell me I can't type or say whatever I please.

The one bright side to this story is that apparently the rights to the book have reverted back to the author, so she can take it elsewhere and get it published. I hope she does. I know I'll read it if I ever get the chance.

This is... well, kind of creepy to me. I mean, one of these men will most likely be the President of a nation where government isn't allowed to engage in religious activity. Yet their religious faith is a major issue in the campaign. Very weird.

I also can't help but wonder where the secularists are on this. Why don't we have a forum being overseen by someone like Neil de Grasse Tyson, or James Randi, talking about things related to science?

I'd like to think it's simply because no one has made the effort to organize such a thing, but I have a feeling that even if they did, both candidates would decline to appear. After all, we wouldn't want Obama to have say that, yes, he does accept the theory of evolution. That might offend people who don't!

But on the off-chance someone out there in the scientific community hasn't tried to organize something like this, please do. The non-religious and religious alike deserve a discussion on scientific matters as they relate to politics.

I've seen various people over the last couple years using the term "militant atheist" (an example is here). They usually use this term to describe any atheist that raises their voice in criticism of religion rather than just sitting quietly at the back of the bus not making a fuss (yes, this is going to be one of those blog entries).

Well, I suppose they could be right, really. I know I'm quite millitant. I mean, I post up a blog entry every single day, no matter what (well, except for three days in April when I was traveling). I guess that shows some sort of regimented, militant mind-set. I suppose.

Anyhow, consider the following quotes from the article I linked to above:

In the world of religion, I've yet to see more infectious carriers than I've seen in the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. These evangelical atheists would have you believe that all our problems stem from all forms of religious faith.

Well, it is true that Hitchens wrote a book with a subtitle that says, "Religion Poisons Everything". That's not the same as saying all our problems stem from religion, but I guess it's close, kinda. I've never heard Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris make comments like that. Heck, even I don't think all our problems stem from religion, though quite a few certainly do, but even those mostly stem from the way it is practiced.

Another quote revisits and old saw.

... imagine a world without the infamous atheistic leadership of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.

It bears repeating here, something I've said before. These people were technically atheists, yes. But they were setting up forms of government based on worship of them and/or the state. They were merely replacing one form of religious behavior with another that was also not based on rational thought or scientifically proven facts (Lysenkoism, anyone?).

He also quote from a 2006 article by Bill Kristof:

[Kristof says]"Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals . . . churches support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur's genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest."

Ok, right. Those poorest parts of Africa... dominated often by the Catholic Church that won't allow people to use birth control to prevent the sort of large families that usually strand people in poverty. That won't allow condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. Oh, and Darfur is a religious mess. Christians versus Muslims. So basically what he's saying is that religious groups are there, often trying to fix problems caused by those same groups. That's very helpful. Of course, even then they treat the symptoms and not the disease.

Let me give you a little compare and contrast on the difference between militant religious-types and militant atheists.

Religious militants:

1. Knocked down the World Trade Center (conspiracy theories to the contrary not withstanding)
2. Engage in "honor" killings
3. Make women wear "bee-keeper" suits
4. Prevent people from having access to birth control
5. Prevent people from getting access to real sex education
6. Oppress gays
7. Praise insurgents in Iraq as a sign that God is punishing America for putting up with gays as much as we do
8. Murder, rape, oppress and generally violate the rights of people in: Darfur, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, India, most of the Middle East and most of the Muslim world
9. Talk about how the Jews are evil and trying to take over the world (Hitler was a Catholic, remember, and what he said wasn't any different from what the church had been saying at various volumes over the centuries)
10. Try to make abortion unsafe and illegal and have been known to murder abortion providers
11. Think the atheists are "evil beings, damned to eternal Hellfire"

Those are the top eleven I could think of with about two minutes of effort. I could go on, but won't. Please note, I'm not even touching on "way back" stuff like the Inquisition, the Crusades and other such appalling activities.

On the other hand, we have militant atheists, who:

1. Write snipey little books/editorials/blog articles about how much religion sucks (yeah, I linked to the same article twice. Deal! :P )
2. Insist the government obey the First Amendment
3. Think the religious are "a little odd"

I'm not seeing much of an equivilent here. Sorry. We don't go around murdering people in the name of our lack of faith. We don't scream and shout threats. We don't blow up churches. We don't give speeches about how the religious are evil people who need to be exterminated.

We are not even remotely militant by the standards of the religious militants.

Lest you think, by the way, that I have only criticism for the article I've been lovingly shredding, do let me call your attention to one line I thought was exactly perfect, right at the very begining.

Hate comes as an individual thought. Then, it's whispered in the ear of another. Sometimes, the whisper is rebuffed by the brave, and hate thankfully dies.

Sadly, what the author doesn't understand is that it has generally been religion that's been spreading those whispers as loud, angry shouts of division and hatered. Until those voices are silent, we'll keep having problems.

I read an article today about a judge who lead the courtroom in prayer before hearing cases.

Yeah, that's nice and Constitutional.

Frankly, there's no way this guy should be on the bench. He's behaving in a very inappropriate fashion. I don't care if every single person in his courtroom are also practicing Christians who think he's doing right, it's still wrong. It would be wrong for him to stand up and lead prayers to Vishnu, it would be wrong for him to lead prayers to Ahura Mazda, and it would be wrong for him to stand up there and give a short statement before each day saying there is no God.

I've said it before: religion and government must be kept aboslutely apart from each other. The only appropriate position someone acting as a representative of our government should take on religion while on the job is one of total neutrality.

This judge needs to be removed from the bench for this behavior.

First, to those who are taking this guy seriously, it's pretty clear he was joking around. I've no doubt that if it did rain, he wouldn't shed any tears and would probably make a couple semi-joking comments about God disaproving of Obama, but it's clear to me he wasn't being very serious in the video.

Second, as I've mentioned before on this site, prayer doesn't work. If you have an omniscent god, prayer serves no purppose (also, you have no free-will). If God is omniscent, he already knows if it is going to rain that weather (ha-ha), you pray or not. He also knows if you're going to pray.

So, yeah, this is silly all around, and I plan to ignore it, rather like I did with that idiot in Georgia who prayed for rain in his capacity as Governor of the state.

Check that and then read this link for my opinions on the concept of God as a jerk. :)

It's not a horrible question, really. What if I die, and it turns out that I'm up there at the Pearly Gates facing St Peter and having to hear why, even though I've lived a good life and done good works, I still get to be sent to Hell and punished for all eternity.

But this question begs me to ask the theists out there, "What if you're wrong?" What if you die and find yourself standing before Thoth, or you meet Charon, who wants to know how you plan to pay.

Suppose you see the Allfather, who asks why you haven't faced anyone in combat, so that you deserve to get into Valhalla. What if you die, and find yourself in the presence of Bhudda, telling you need to go back and try again? Heck, what if you find yourself in a black desert, standing next to a skeletal figure who says, I AM DEATH, NOT TAXES. I HAPPEN ONLY ONCE.

I could go on here, but the point is, yes, I might be wrong. There's a slim, outside chance there could be an afterlife, and if that's the case, and it's the Judeo/Christian/Muslim afterlife, I'm well and truly fucked, because God is many things, but just and merciful he is not.

Of course one of the hallmarks of the religious is they believe their version of the afterlife is the correct one, and their god(s) is/are the correct one(s). They are certain they are right, and are atheists to all deities but their own. They don't stop to think, "What if the Hindus were right?" (unless they are Hindus, of course, in which case they probably think that fairly often).

The religious go about their lives assuming what they believe is correct. I go about my life assuming what I believe is correct. The odds of me being right appear to be greater than the odds of them being right, as they have no proof of their position. Given those odds, I think I'll continue to believe I'm right, and if I turn out to be wrong, I'll hope like heck that whatever I face after death has a greater sense of mercy and justice than God does.

Also I can't help but wonder, what would most gods find worse? Someone who believes no gods exist, or someone who has been spending their lives worshiping the wrong god? From what I've learned of theology, I'm thinking they'd be more pissed at you than me.

And for those who would say, "Why not just believe? You have nothing to lose", might I direct you to this little article? Enjoy!

(all photos swiped from Wikipedia!)

Here begins one of the most evil series of acts by God thus far in the Bible. I understand he does a lot more evil things as the book goes on, but for now, this is king. Far worse, even, than the Flood, because this is pure, targeted evil that makes those involved think they might have hope, but in the end shows they don't. Even worse, it's all done to further God's arrogance.

The Plagues really start in Exodus 7:21 when God turns the Nile water into blood, thus killing everything therein. Somehow the people of the area don't wind up having a mass die-off from a lack of water.

But we begin the story proper with God gloating about what he plans to do.

And the Lord spoke to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord; let my people go, that they may serve me.'" - Exodus 8:1

Right off the bat we see that God doesn't want freedom for his people; he just wants them to be his slaves, and not anyone else's. Believe it or not, his behavior goes downhill from here.

"But if you refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all your territory with frogs.
"So the river shall bring forth abundantly, which shall go up and come into the your house, into your bedroom, on your bed, into the houses of your servants, on your people, into your ovens, and into your kneading bowls.
"And the frogs shall come up on you, on your people and on all your servants."'" - Exodus 8:2 - 8:4

"Presumably this is where the Egyptians ended up with their great fondness for grenouille," he typed in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

You know what this, and all other God's introductions to the Plagues remind me of? A Bond villian describing his entire plan to Bond before trying to kill him.

Interestingly we next see that God apparently has a touch of the Vegas showman in him.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch out your hand with your rod over the streams, over the rivers and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up on the land of Egypt.'" - Exodus 8:5

Clearly since God is, apparently, omnipotent, there's no reason Aaron needs to do this other than for effect. It's actually a decent touch to the narrative.

Well, Plague happens, and after it, there's another nice touch as the Egyptians round up all the dead frogs, and there's another decent touch to the story as a bit of reality intrudes on this horrible bit of fiction.

They gathered them together in heaps, and the land stank. - Exodus 8:14

So clearly when writing this, someone realized, "Oh, yeah, a shitload of dead frogs will probably start to rot and smell like... well, a shitload of dead, rotting frogs." It's a minor bit of attention to detaill, but a nice one.

I also can't help but remember a book by Terry Pratchett called Pyramids, wherein Djellybebi, a kingdom, not unlike Egypt, has a Plague, but they're a very small kingdom and even their plagues are so half-hearted the best they can manage is the Plague of Frog. *

Next we find out what God has in mind next. Lice!

... For Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod and struck the dust of the Earth, and it became lice on man and beast. Al the dust of the land became lice throughout the land of Egypt. - Exodus 8:17

You know, I could empathize with the nastiness of this. When I was a boy back around 1986, our family went on a big family reunion at Yellowstone during which myself, my sister, two of my cousins and a couple hangers-on wound up getting lice all at the same time. Yeah, that was fun to deal with.

Apparently Pharaoh doesn't like the lice too much, either, cause he decides to let the Hebrews leave. Little does he know that Captain Evil isn't going to allow that. At least not until he's killed a lot of people.

... But Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the Lord had said. - Exodus 8:19

Well, yes, the Lord had said that was going to happen, and lo!, it did, and what a great sign and portent that is. Of course it happened because God made it happen, just as he said he would! There's no reason for this other than God wanting to show off, and he does this at the end of every single Plague.

Next up we see God sending massive numbers of flies to pester the Egyptians, who were probably saying to themselves, "I really wish God would allow Pharaoh to let his people go so we, the innocents of this land, wouldn't have to suffer."

After the flies comes the next in the lists of God's crimes as he offs all the livestock the Egyptians own.

So the Lord did this thing [killed the Egyptian's livestock] on the nexxt day, and all the livestock of Egypt died; but of the livestock of the children of Israel, not one died.
Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go. - Exodus 9:6 - 7

Yeah, not too much to say to that aside from, "Barbeque!"

God moves onto a weird one next, giving boils to everyone in Egypt. They end up being so severe that in a mildly amusing image, the magicians of Pharaoh can't go and do their job, cause the boils are so annoying. A fairly harmless Plague, really, but still unpleasant.

Anyhow, let's stop a moment and take stock. At this point the Egyptians have no water (the Nile having turned to blood), bad lice, flies everywhere, stinking, rotting heaps of dead frogs, all their livestock are dead and on top of all that, boils. Man, all they'd really need to have happen next is for all their crops to be destroyed and, as a nation, they'd doubtless cease to exist.

... And the Lord rained hail on the land of Egypt.
So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, so very heavy there was non like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation.
And the hail struck throughout the whole land of Egypt, all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail struck every herb of the field and broke every tree of the field. - Exodus 9:23 - 25

Ah... well... crap.

Of course there's no way this was really affecting Pharaoh. Sure, by now the people are battered, thirsty and starving (a great formula for a revoltion that would've deposed the Pharaoh), but since he lives in a palace with servants and plenty of food, it doubtless didn't effect him very much. So really God is spending his time here punishing the innocent while ignoring the guilty (who he is forcing to be guilty by "hardening Pharaoh's heart" at every turn). How is this anything other than God being an evil prick? I really would like to know if any apologists out there have any explanation for his behavior being good and moral here.

Now we find even more evidence of God being a jerk by rubbing it in when it comes to Pharaoh.

So Moses and Aaron came in to Pharaoh and said to him, "Thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me." - Exodus 10:3

Now this is just cruel, given that Pharaoh had been willing to see the light a couple times before God put the scales back up over his eyes again.

Continuing to be an utter prick, God now sends locusts to Egypt.

And the locusts went up over the all the land of Egypt and rested on all the territory of Egypt. They were very severe; previously there had been no such locusts as they, nor shall there be such after them.
For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they ate every herb of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. So there remained nothing green on the trees or on the plants of the field throughout all the land of Egypt. - Exodus 10:14 - 15

Ok, seriously. How are the Egyptian people surviving at this point? All the livestock, crops and water have been destroyed by God. Yes, they probably had a large amount of beer set aside (beer best described as "Chunky Beer, the beer you can eat with a fork!"), but still. For those who don't know what locusts do, take a look at this picture of my grandfather, circa 1934.

He'd planted the corn himself as part of a 4-H project, and it had been doing well, until the day the locusts came to town. That is the sort of thing the Egyptians would've been left with. I'm sorry, but if all their crops were in that shape, the entire country would've died off and been conquered by their enemies. That this didn't happen speaks of the fictional nature of this story.

Moving along we find God plunging Egypt into three days of darkness. Anoying to be sure, but again fairly mild, especially to the last great big evil God is planning.

Then Moses said, "Thus says the Lord: about midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt;
and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the handmil, and all the firstborn of the animals. - Exodus 11:4 - 5

First, "about midnight"? Right.

Second, this is appalling. How can anyone worship a being who would even allow this, much less go out and actually do it himself? This is incredibly evil, cruel, immoral and wrong. Naturally one would assume Pharaoh would, at this point, back down. You'd think that, and possibly let it happen, unless you're an evil god like this one.

So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out of his land. - Exodus 11:10

Absolute evil.

God spends the next few verses warming up and telling the Hebrews, in great (annoying), detail all about what they should do in preperation of this great event (planning a party, it seems. God is the BC version of Martha Stewart, and if you're expecting a joke along the lines of, "Only less evil", don't hold your breath). Then God, doubtlessly drooling over the chance to murder innocent people, goes out on the town.

And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.
So Pharaoh rose in the night, he, all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead. - Exodus 12:29 - 30

Words alone cannot convey my disgust at this behavior. Not just the firstborn of Pharaoh, which would make at least some sense, but even the firstborn of the poor slobs in the dungeon who had, presumably, done something to piss off Pharaoh. Then the animals, too.

A quick side note about this: surely there would've been at least some places where there was not one dead. If you had a second son married to a second daughter, both their parents and older siblings were already dead and they had no children of their own, they wouldn't have anyone dead in their house. Just a thought to keep me from focusing on the mind-boggling evil on display here.

You know, every once in a while you'll hear some smarmy theist wondering why atheists are angry at God. Well, first off, we aren't. I can't be angry at that which doesn't exist. My question back at them is, given that you think he does exist, why aren't you angry at him for this crap?

At this point Pharaoh has had enough and God finally allows him to release his people from bondage. What a guy. The Hebrews, who had spent time borrowing stuff from their Egyptian neighbors in preperation for this day (and that's pretty sinister, really), up and leave town in rather large numbers.

Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children.
A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds - a great deal of livestock. - Exodus 12:37 - 38

Ok, so 600,000 men. If even half of them have a wife, mother or aunt tailing along, that's about 300,000 women. If each family has even two children, that's 1.2 million children running around. This is about 2.1 million people, at a conservative estimate.

HOW IN THE FUCK CAN THAT MANY PEOPLE WANDER THE DESERT FOR 40 YEARS WITHOUT LEAVING ANY TRACES?!

Simple answer? They can't. That's how you know this is fiction.

Next we find out the Israelites had lived in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40), and then onto a little bit about Passover.

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat it." - Exodus 12:43

So to all my Jewish friends out there, don't invite this goy to your Passover feast! You'll only piss off the Great Beard in the Sky, and as we've seen so far, this is not a fellow with a sense of humor.

Thus ends this section of my project and I gotta say, "Man, what an evil fuck!" How can anyone find this being worth of their adoration? We see here that not only does he inflict horrible plagues on perfectly innocent people, he also makes Pharaoh incapable of doing what he's told, and then punishes him for not doing what he's told! Words fail me, they really do.

Next up: we're off on the road to Judea!

* It was a very large frog, however, and got into the air ducts, keeping everyone awake for weeks.

Souls don't exist. Sorry. Conciousness exists, but it dies when the body dies; there's no proof otherwise. Some people are terrified of this notion, but I don't entirely understand why. Once you're dead, you're dead; there's not going to be any part of "you" that remains to be worried or feel adrift or anything like that. You won't go onto any great reward, but on the other hand, you also won't suffer eternal punishment for finite crimes.

Even if souls do exist, I don't see how you'd be able to transfer ownership from one person to another, or even sell it to the Devil, or whatever (though I never understand why, in movies and books, when someone sells their soul to the Satan, he screws them over. Why not do exactly what he says? Then the person who sold him their soul can go around telling everyone else what a great idea it is). Surely if you have a soul, it's yours and can't belong to anyone else?

I understand the attractive nature of the concept of the soul, but like any other religious/spiritual concept, there isn't any proof for it. I can easily understand how the idea evolved, but, well, absent proof I don't see any reason to go around assuming souls exist. Conciousness does, but we have to assume that ends when the body dies, since there isn't any proof that contradicts that notion.

Well, there's a fellow out there named Edward Current who has taken this to its logical conclusion.

Of course the problem with this wager is that it assumes that if God exists, he's too stupid to tell when someone's faking belief just to get into Heaven. It's invalid theology and frankly rather silly.

On the other hand, it makes for a fun video. :)

I've talked about this issue before, and I'm totally unsurprised there's a lawsuit pending now. Needless to say, I hope it wins. We really don't need the military to be a Christian army.

You know, Bill Maher is a man I respect on many levels, and I agree with him far more often than not. Plus he's funny as all get out. He once commented in one of his stand-up routines on the things that make our culture better than the medieval Islamic cultures out there.

The gist of it is that freedom is better than oppression, giving women rights is better than denying them, and if you really want to know about the difference between the two cultures, just understand that we don't make our ladies wander around in "bee-keeper suits".

To this I would add that won't think it's acceptable to murder your child just because she doesn't want to get married to the man you want her to marry. This is entirely unacceptable and allowing it continue within your culture puts it right on the borderline of being an invalid culture (to which I would add, for example, any culture that practices human sacrifice or cannibalism as a matter of course).

I'm glad to see this jackass is going to get what he deserves and hope he spends the rest of his wretched, miserable life rotting away in an 8' x 8' prison cell.

In America.

In 2008.

Something a little wrong here, perhaps?

The people involved in this are idiots in the extreme. I've decided I'm going to get my hands on some of these crackers and film myself flushing them down the toilet in protest of this nonsense.

Childish and petty? You bet! But so are they. Yet another example of a total lack of restraint on the part of the greatest force for evil in the world today.

This is interesting because many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and not Christians. This most definately includes Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was a great many things, and among those, it turns out, was theological editor. One day he was hanging around the house and decided to take a pair of scissors to the Bible. When he was done cutting out the parts that didn't belong, he was left with about 46 pages of what we now refer to as The Jefferson Bible.

I'm bringing this up today, because back on Saturday the LA Times had an article about it where they brought up a very interesting point.

The big question now, said Lori Anne Ferrell, a professor of early modern history and literature at Claremont Graduate University, is this:

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

Well, I'd say it would depend on the president. I have a wretched feeling that most of them, particularly our current one, would leave in much of the Old Testament and emphasize the parts about faith and vengence and violence, while leaving out the parts about helping the poor and the weak. It could be I judge too harshly, but that's how I feel it would likely turn out.

I haven't read The Jefferson Bible. I'm still too busy reading the regular one (next post in the series coming this week!). But I'll definately pick it up at some point, cause it sounds pretty darn interesting.

Anyone here read it? If so, what are your opinions?

Death is, at present, a needed biological process. From the point of view of the individual, particularly the one it is happening to, it's not a great thing, but for the species as a whole it is vital and necessary. It's not an entirely bad thing, really, but understandably most people aren't anxious to have it happen to them or someone they love.

The question of what happens after we die is something that's been speculated on at least as far back as the Neanderthals, who burried their dead in such a way as to indicate a belief in the afterlife. But what do I believe happens after you die?

Someone, I don't remember who, but I think it was Sammuel Clemmens, once remarked that he thought the experience after you die is the same as the experience before you're born, and I think that's likely, since there's zero evidence that indicates otherwise. I think my body will moulder, if it isn't burned as I'd like it to be (Viking funeral, here I come!). But the part that actually makes up me, my conciousness, I think that just... ends. There's no real reason to believe otherwise. I'd say this is a shame, and tragic and awful, but frankly once it happens, there won't be any me to feel bad about it. It'll be like going to sleep, only not waking up at any point.

Of course, this could all change should future generations heed my advice, but barring that, I just don't see any reason to believe we do anything other than simply end when we die. But really, that's not a bad thing, is it? No pain and suffering. None of the torment of Hell or the boredom of Heaven. You're just... ended. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But as a sample of his great writing, as well as his role as an atheist, I invite everyone to click this link and read what he has to say about the nature of gods. It's very interesting and illuminating.

This is unlike the Kingdom of Jordan, where they recently charged someone in another country with blasphemy.

Geert Wilders, the man in question, made a film critical of the role of violence in modern Islam, particularly it's links with terrorism. Apparently the film superimposes quotes from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks.

The fifty-six member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), seems to have no problem with this, and instead are "deeply annoyed" that the Dutch government won't force this guy to go to Jordan to face trial. They had this to say on the issue:

The decision ... encourages and supports the irresponsible defamatory style followed by some media outlets and instigates feelings of hatred, animosity and antipathy towards Muslims. - OIC statement

No, guys, that's not true. What really encourages and supports the irresponsible defamatory style that instigates feelings of hatred, animosity and anitpathy towards Muslims is the terrorists who use your religion to justify their acts and your lack of desire to really issue hardcore condemnations of this behavior!

This cannot be emphasized enough. If the OIC was a little louder in condeming terrorism, likely the "attacks" against Islam wouldn't be happening, or if they were, they wouldn't be as loud and forceful. But when there's a dearth of other Muslims standing up in public to decry these acts of evil, it falls on the rest of us to do so.

Beyond that, of course, the Dutch government is perfectly correct in telling Jordan, a moderate Muslim state, scarily enough, where to go on this issue. Freedom of speech is very important; far more important than a few people's hurt feelings.

Here's a quick last though to the OIC, the Jordanian legal system, and people in general who get offended at having their religion criticized: grow the hell up! Do you really think Allah is incapable of dealing with Geert Wilders if he really wants to, or are you just arrogant enough to assume you must be his agent here on the Earth?

Please understand that we believe our freedom of speech, and, yes, of religion, is far more important than your hurt feelings, and rightly so. Keep in mind that you're welcome to go to the Netherlands, or most any other country in the "civilized" world and protest the actions of Wilders to your heart's content. You can even, if you wish, make a movie showing Jesus making out with Satan. That's what free speech is all about.

Lastly, to the censors here in the USA: what I said to them applies to you, too. Our freedom to say and do what we want is more important than your ability to go around without your feelings getting hurt or without feeling offended. If you can't deal with that, tough. I know 56 countries where you'd likely feel more at home.

One of my friends nearly died today.

His name is Nick. He's one of the best, most durable friends, and occasional lovers, I've ever had, and given that in real life I'm pretty much just the same as I am on this site, you can imagine the kind of patience it takes to put up with me for more than a few minutes, much less being my friend for ten years, like he has.

He was on his way from Seattle to Las Vegas when the car he was in flipped. One of the other people in the car was killed. Nick had his arm outside the window, and apparently a good portion of the car landed on it. Somehow his other arm was hurt as well. The end result? It sounds like they were able to re-attach the pinky and ring-finger on his left hand. The thumb there was ok, but the other two fingers are gone. Same with the middle finger, ring-finger and pinky on his right hand, though again, the thumb (and index finger), on that hand are ok. From what I understand most of the soft-tissue on both hands was destroyed. If that means muscle and skin, as I suspect it does, this means he probably won't be able to use his hands ever again.

He's currently at a hospital in Las Vegas and has, from what I understand, four more surguries coming up. To say he's not in the best of shape would be an understatement, though at least he's still alive and kicking.

I'm concerned about my friend and certainly hope he comes out of everything ok, though realistically, being minus half your fingers and probably not being able to use your hands again implies a certain lack of "ok". I hope to visit him next week, assuming I can get the money together.

But despite my concern, there's a part of me that's very surprised that I haven't at any point, even considered praying to some diety to make it all better. All I've done is hope he has the best medical care science can provide, which is always a lot more than prayer can provide (anyhow, prayer for the purpose of requesting anything logically can't work).

Many years ago, I read some stuff about Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek. He was a pilot, among other things, and was flying a Pan Am aircraft in 1947 which crashed in the desert. What I remember most vividly about his re-telling of the story in the book, is that he said he never once felt the need to ask for the help of any gods. He was an atheist before it was cool, his comments about that stayed with me.

Anyhow, thanks for putting up with this little mini-rant. Everyone deals with their stress and concerns in their own ways. Mine apparently involves theraputic blogging. :)

Get well soon, my friend!

Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

Says who?

How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

No, but you might've just been honestly seeing something you didn't recognize or understand. Maybe it was in a weird lighting condition. Maybe you were drunk, since you don't exclude that. There's any number of possible answers, all of which exist within the realm of logical, proven science, and none of which need to rely on the supernatural.

Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

Ok, first, what? The second part of that doesn't make any real sense. Second, prayer doesn't do anything.

The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

Ok, and to you, that something is God. To me, that something is simply natural forces doing what they do. If a hurricane ravages New Orleans, it isn't because God is angry. It's because a particular set of circumstances happened out in the ocean, and now we're all swimming.

Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.

I could be very, very unkind here about this list, but I'll just say, "What's your proof?" Ants are pretty darn mindless, as are bees, yet they manage to create some pretty nifty structures.

Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.

Again, some grammar issues, though I suppose maybe this person's first language isn't English. If that's the case, hey, pretty impressive! Anyhow, I'm not sure you're right. As far as I'm aware, it's possible to monitor the parts of the brain that are experiencing memory, emotion, thoughts, etc, as they occur. Plus they can all be subjected to at least some scrutiny and proved to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. The same does not apply to God.

Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!

Yes, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is also a theory, as is the Theory of Gravity (which isn't quite the same as Gravitation, which is a hell of a good read!). What's your point? They're proven theories, as is evolution. I suggest a visit to Wikipedia, where you can read up on what a theory actually is. And, by the way, I'd hardly be the one tossing around lines like "a fairy tale for grown ups", given that what you believe has zero evidence behind it.

Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

Sure, there's plenty of good news to preach! You're not the construction of a petty, wicked, jealous god. Instead you're the product of a billions of years log struggle to bring our species into existence. Not a bad thing to be, really. Oh, and you're right. We atheists haven't proved there isn't a God. We also haven't disproved Russell's Teapot or the FSM (all hail His noodly goodness! RA-men!). But on the other hand you haven't proved there is a God.

How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?

Zero. I am no more angry with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god than I am with Thor, Zeus and Raiden (though he did always kick my ass in Mortal Kombat). I am also not angry at any other fictional characters, like Captain Kirk, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, Scooby-Doo or Michael Jackson.

Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?

Pot, meet kettle. Anyhow, we live in a society that is, basically, controlled by you religious types. If we don't speak up and fight back, we get trampled on. Sorry, but since you don't leave us alone, we can't leave you alone.

What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!

People. The egg (though obviously not a chicken egg at that point). Also, this does nothing to further your ideals here.

Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.

I am not sure what the point is here. You're right; the two things are not the same. It is possible that God exists. It's very unlikely, however, and all the evidence we have points to "no". It's also possible for you to jump off a very tall building, sprout wings, and fly away before you end up with the kind of death that results in a coronor's report with phrases like "impact crater", and "splash radius". It's possible for this to happen, but not bloody likely, and please, don't try it.

How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?

I am, unfortunately, only a layman in these things, and don't have all the details. I would point out, however, that is apparently has happened, since there is no proof otherwise.

How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?

See previous answer for the first part. As for the second part, that's a very good question! I am, as I said, only a layman, so I don't know for sure where it comes from, or even if we've figured it out yet. If we haven't, though, it's only a matter of time, and no reason to say "Simpsons God did it!"

What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?

So... you're amazed that we just happen to live on a planet that just happens to have all the tasty things we like to eat and drink? Why not be amazed that, by sheer coincidence, this planet just happens to be at the right place for life to exist? This is a total nonsense question.

Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.

Er... this is not a question, but a blatantly obvious statement. Meaning... what?

What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?

Argh.

What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?

Double-argh!

What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?

Dare I say... triple-argh?

What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?

Ok, read carefuly: we evolved on a planet where all these things are the way things are. So we ended up quite well adapted to them. It's safe to say if we evolved on a planet with liquid methane oceans, there would probably be people saying how amazing it is that we just happen to have these oceans right here where we need them! Frankly, this is like wondering why the Sun doesn't come out at night, when we really need the light (credit to Terry Pratchett).

The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

Well, no, this is not, in fact, true. I refer to you this article on Wikipedia, which contains a fine refutation of that nonsense.

We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

Yes, because things like sound waves, X-rays, light, etc, can be measured and verified. Supernatural forces cannot.

Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

First, that has nothing to do with evolution. Also, the tomato will rot and mold because of the various bacteria and such that evolved to eat it.

Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"

Yes, yes, much has been made of his allegeded deathbed "retraction" of his beliefs. The so-called Lady Hope Story has long since been disproved, though really, I don't expect the writer of these questions to accept that, or anything else I have to say, for that matter. C'est la vie.

Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

We would be accountable to ourselves and each other. This is like saying, "If I found out there was no God, I'd go out and rape and murder!" I have yet to meet a single theist who honestly believes they, personally, would go out and suddenly become evil if they knew there was no God. This is a very stupid argument.

If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.

True, that's because we have sentience, which so far, all other animals we know of lack. Anyhow, the smart-ass in me could make all sorts of remarks about how much like animals we still are, but why bother?

'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.

No, something we can't find a reason for usually gets described as "God did it!"

Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.

Those people are generally wrong, assuming we're talking about psychic nonsense and supernatural stupidity. Besides, any good scientist will always, and frequently quite cheerfully, say there's plenty of things we don't know yet, else why the quest to learn?

Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.

Name three, and Josephus doesn't count, since his lines about the subject have been proven to have been added later.

Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

Sadly, people are very gullible and trusting at times. Anyhow, why not make some comparison to atheists dying for their lack of faith in the Soviet Union and China?

Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

One might as well ask why it took 40 years for people to look around and say, "So, this Jesus chap. Think we should write down some stuff about him?" By the time 40 years had past, a great many of the people who would've witnessed the various alleged miracles would now be dead and unable to refute them.

From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.

True, and you know what? I can write a book about wizards living in England. The fact that it's set in a real place doesn't make it true.

Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

Buh? Please refer to this website for a detailed refutation of this very stupid comment.

The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

Some are, some aren't. We know, for example, that the Egyptians had Pharoahs and Pilate was governor of Judea. We don't know that Jesus existed or that the world was drowned in a bloody great big flood.

From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

True, and? They didn't have sufficient evidence at that point that would change their minds. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, virtually every serious scientist of the last century or so have not been religious.

Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.

Er... it can, actually. Sorry.

Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

Yes, and that's a great thing about science! It's self-correcting! We learn new things and develop new ideas, and those replace the old ones. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't change at all. The Bible has been largely the same since the Council of Nicea and that was quite some time ago.

Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

No, but, again, it also wouldn't disprove the FSM. And while as far as I know, it's true we haven't yet explained what made life start and why, I'm sure we'll figure it out in time.

The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.

Either that, or someone thought it made for better drama.

Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

Without being unkind, what you've said so far seems to deny the truth of that last line there. But ignoring that, we can actually recreat the effects people experience in NDE's by spinning them very fast in one of those g-force simulators. They pass out and often report the exact same things. As for someone spotting a blue-paperclip or being dead in a coffin for three days then coming back to life, prove it!

There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

And?

Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

He also said, "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one," and "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"

Ok... so... your point? This means that someone, you know, lied to the guy. A smart-ass in Hyde Park. Who woulda thunk it?

It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

For you, maybe. Anyhow, it's fairly easy to believe the world is flat and the Sun revolves around us until you know otherwise.

Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"

Assuming you mean Stephen HAWKING, again I ask, "Your point?" Besides, the universe doesn't bother to do anything. It just is.

We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

We also cannot confuse God with reality.

If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

No, it's like that cause we evolved to take advantage of the world as it is. Also, for myself, I certainly hope we're still evolving, but I doubt we are. We stopped changing to suit our enviroment once we learned how to change our enviroment to suit us.

Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

Could be, but I doubt it.

God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

Well, he could start by creating a universe where his existence isn't called into question by virtually everything we know about the way things work. That'd help. Some sort of public appearance would to a long way to fixing the problem, too. Perhaps an interview on 60 Minutes?

Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

Or, my personal favorite theory, he was a teaching tool made up by people who wanted to present a particular ethical agenda and understood that it's more compelling if you have a protaganist for your story.

Anyhow, that's that. 50 "proofs" that don't really amount to much and are easily dismissed. It's very sad to see people building their entire lives around a house of cards that falls so easily.