Is God Just Pretend- Part 2

The Unknown God

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

There have been billions of people that have died in the years leading up to the story of Jesus and the formation of Christianity. Those people would have never heard a word about the Christian God's existence or Jesus. Would all these people be burning in hell for simply having the misfortune of being born somewhere else or in a time before Jesus? Are they all condemned to eternal suffering only because they were born in an area, where the Christian story was not known and they were never familiar with the Jesus story, nor had they ever heard about this Christian God? Are they doomed because they never had a chance to become Christians, as these continents were not "discovered" until many centuries later?

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

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


The Unknowable God

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

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

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

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


Is God Omnipotent?

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

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

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

I guess iron must be like Kryptonite to God?

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

The premise of the believer is "Don't think, don't question, just believe." Most people of faith have never given any rational thought to the things they believe, they believe it because their Bible tells them it's so, or because they read it somewhere else or their priest or their preacher told them to believe it. They then simply repeat what they were told or what they read and assume it to be true. After hearing and repeating this dogma over time, it leaves little room for doubt in their mind that it's not true or at least open for discussion and critique.


Is God Omniscient?

God, being the all perfect and knowing being that He is according to the Bible has foretold the future many times in the past. Through His omniscience He knew in advance that Eve would disobey Him and eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. He also knew that there would be the need to destroy the world He created with a great flood and start all over again. He knew in advance that all of mankind would disobey Him and there would be a need for Him to send His son (himself) to die for everyone's sins (that He knew in advance of) before creating us. If this is the case, why would he go to all the trouble to do all these things in the first place if he knew it was going to be a failure? By doing this, did he not almost set mankind up for failure?

If this is true, then He knew from the beginning every person who would believe in Him and deserve to go to heaven and which ones would not.

If God was aware in advance of our every thought and action from the time we were born up until the time of our death, and He knew all this for every person that had ever been born or would ever be born, while at the same time knowing in advance we would never be able to live up to the standards for which he placed upon us, would this not be an act of futility?

Why put us on Earth in the first place knowing in advance that we would fail and fall short of his plans for us? Would a Father who loves his children condemn them in advance to an eternal agony in hell? Would this be someone deserving of our love and respect?


Is God All Good?

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

Is it possible that a newborn baby that has barely had the opportunity to to draw its first breath be guilty of sin already? What sins could this baby possibly be guilty of? If God is all good, then why do unborn children die? If His plan was that this child should die, then why would He place this child into the mother's womb in the first place only to have it die before having a chance to live? If the baby died for the sins of someone else, would that be just or loving?

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


Is God Efficient ?

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

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

After His creation, God looked it over and saw that it was good. Would a God have to double check his work or would he have known in advance what His creation would yield? An omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent God with a perfect plan and execution should not have to double check the results of His work.

By looking at the world around us and seeing how much pain and suffering there is, how could God have thought it to be 'good?' It would seem that an omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent God would have seen that it was not 'good' ahead of time eliminating the need to wipe it out and start again.


Then Why Call Him God?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus, philosopher ( c. 341-270 BCE )

So which one is it?

A) He is not benevolent and almighty.

B) He is not a God.

C) Both A and B

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



Is Religion Really Moral?

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

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

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

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

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

Can we look to the Bible for examples of morality?

Genesis 19

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hedging Your Bet

Many people of faith will claim that it's better to believe than to not believe because believers have nothing to lose. This thought of course being If you believe then you will go to Heaven and if you do not you will go to Hell.

This would mean of course that it is possible to fool God and have Him think you believe in Him even if you don't. If God is all knowing, wouldn't He know if a person's faith is sincere or not? Would He also know if a person is doing things only to avoid going to hell and is trying to deceive Him? Also if believing God was important wouldn't believing in the one true God be just as important? What if you believed all your life, but you believed in the wrong God?

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

But is there really nothing to lose by believing? What about your intellect, credibility and self-respect? Is it a sign of intellectual ability as well as good mental health to believe in things for which there is no proof of? I also do not see anything virtuous about believing in something as immoral as the Bible.



God Hates Women

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

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Ecclesiastes 7:27-29

Leviticus 12:1-5

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

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

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

Rape My Daughter Please-

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

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

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

Silence The Woman!

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

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

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

Women Shall Not Speak

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

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

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

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



The Word of a God?

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

During the Bible's inception and throughout it's existence the Bible has been translated many times from many different languages. Not only was the Bible translated from early manuscripts called Canons, but these translated translations were then translated again. With each translation things were not only left out, but other things were added that were not in the original Canons.

For example if we were to try translating several sentences from a random book into a language other than our own, and then at some future point tried translating that same text back into your native language, you would be able to see the difficulties that would arise from this. Now also factor in that these translations were not performed over a few days, weeks or months, but over many hundreds and even thousands of years and by people of varying grammatical skills, and then multiply that by the number of translations that this book went through before becoming what it is today. Could you be certain of the authenticity of the finished product?

Below is an example of just one Biblical translation that is clearly a mistake:

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

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

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

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

Now factor in the fact that the church decided on what would be used and what would not by voting on them. Of course they voted to leave out the parts that did not serve their purpose, as well as add others that did. More on this can be found by doing a Google search of the "Codex Sinaiticus."


Should We Take The Bible Literally?

If the Bible is considered to be the word of God, why do many people of faith not take the Bible literally? Is it up to the individual person of faith to decide what parts are to be taken literally and which parts are not to be? If it is up to the individual to decide, how do they know which parts to take literally and which parts are nothing more than an allegory or suggestion?

According to Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18), every detail of the Old Testament should be followed, but people of faith often decide which parts to follow and which parts to ignore.

Should we take these passages as literal, allegory or mere suggestions?

Exodus 21:17 - "If someone curses his father or his mother they shall be put to death." (This would be an instant death sentence for most all teenagers).

Exodus 21:20 - "If you beat the slave to death, you should be punished." (Just one example of the Bible approving of slavery).

Exodus 31:14 - "The one that works on Sabbath shall be put to death." Should we kill every person that works on Sunday (or Saturday depending on your flavor of religion) if God commands it?

Of course most people of faith would never take these things literally because they themselves know these things could never be taken literally, but if they believe the Bible to be the undeniable word of God, under what authority are they choosing to ignores these commandments? These do not seem to be suggestions or allegory, but instead literal commandments from the God of the Bible, but many people of faith take it upon themselves to disregard the parts of the Bible that seem "irrational" as things they do not have to follow.

Why would God not make it perfectly clear which parts were commandments and which parts were mere suggestions or allegory? If this is something our eternal salvation is dependent upon, shouldn't He have been much clearer on this and not leaving this open to such interpretation? Also who are we to decide what parts are to be taken literally and which parts are not? If it is not up to each of us, then who gets to decide, a priest or the Pope? These are all questions most believers have never thought about. They were taught to "Don't think, don't question, just believe."


This article is continued in, Is God Just Pretend Part 3