A Journal for Western Man-- Issue V
Don Watkins III
Women need freedom from religion if they are to be equal, as we see from this passage.
In showing Jesus' true character I will present only two instances. There are more, but these are two of the most important.
1) Matthew 10:34; "Think not that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I come not to bring peace, but a sword."
2) Matthew 24: 34; Jesus here is speaking of his second coming; "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (also see Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32)
In this instance we see that Jesus is not only against making peace but is either a liar or is mistaken about his quick return. To sum up, the unknown writers of the four gospels are unreliable, the bible itself is self contradictory, and the character of Jesus is questionable. I would also mention that it is highly questionable that Jesus ever existed at all, but this will be addressed in a later paper.
Now, in rebutting all the basic arguments for God, including the bible I will actually offer up some arguments against a god's existence.
The problem of evil.
-There is evil in the world
-If there is evil in the world we can come to only three conclusions;
1) God doesn't do anything about it
2) God can't do anything about it
3) There is no God
If 1) is true than God is evil; it is just as if you were to watch a friend hang from a bridge and not try to help, even though you could. Some will say that God gave us free will and that God must let things such as this happen if we are to have free will. But, free will is not possible if God is all knowing.
The problem of free will and an all knowing God.
-God knows everything
-Therefore, he knows the past, present, and future
-Therefore, he has known, since before creation, every choice you were to make, everything you were to think, and everything that was to happen to you.
This leads us to two possible conclusions
1) God does not know everything
2) We do not have free will
If 1) is true and God does not know everything we run into this problem, he is not a God, just a really powerful "guy."
If 2) is true, the rebuttal of the problem of evil fails and if it is true that there is a hell, God is evil for creating a person he knew would end up causing harm to others and suffering eternally.
The problem of natural evil.
There is also the problem of natural evil, in which free will is not a concern. There are natural evils, such as earth quakes, cancer, and tornadoes, which kill people and destroy lives every year. If this is so, we come to the conclusions
1) God is evil
2) God is not responsible for these evils but does nothing to stop or prevent them.
3) God can't do anything about them.
4) God does not exist.
So, it is apparent that there exists an evil god, a God who is very limited in power, or there is no God.
Now, it is important, within the scope of theism, that God be omnipotent, or, all powerful. This is not possible for this reason, omnipotence is paradoxical. Why?
Let's ask God this question:
"God, can you build a wall which, even if you wanted to, you could never destroy?"
God: "Yes, I'm God, I can do anything."
Me: "But God, that means there is a wall which you cannot destroy."
God: "Oh, well, I mean, no, there is no wall which I cannot destroy, because, being all powerful, I can destroy anything."
Me: "But God, you can't be all powerful if you can't do something (i.e. build a wall which he can not destroy.)
God: "Then I guess I'm not all powerful."
But, let's, for the sake of argument suppose God can be, and is, all powerful and all knowing. In this case we can clearly see the conflicting nature of God. If God is omniscient, that would mean he would know his own future. If God knows his own future, then that would mean that he would not have the power to change it. Being that God is considered omnipotent (all powerful) this is a serious objection to his omniscient nature. However, if God was able to change his own future, that would mean that God would not know when he would make sudden changes in his future and what changes would result, meaning he is no longer omniscient. So, as you can see, the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence cannot be simultaneously held by God.
And now, just as the theist appeals to faith, we close with a quote from Dan Barker.
"'Belief in God is not intellectual. Reason is limited. The truth of God is only known by a leap of faith, which transcends but does not contradict reason.'
This is no argument. Admitting something is nonintellectual removes it from the realm of discussion. Yes, reason is limited: it is limited to the facts. If you ignore the facts you are left with nothing but hypothesis or wishful thinking. Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient or contrary evidence, which has never been consistent with reason. Faith, by its very invocation, is a transparent admission that religious claims cannot stand on their own two feet. Even if theism were a consistent hypothesis (which it is not), it would still need to be proved."
The invocation of faith also begs of the response, "well, you have to have faith there is no God." I can hear you laughing right now, but again, it shows how ridiculous it is to appeal to faith.
Atheism is neither evil, nor vicious, nor (as I have shown) is it even wrong. Atheism means accepting reality as is - without spitting in its face because you don't like it.