If the Judeo-Christian Islamic God is omniscient, then there can be no free will. If he knows exactly how the future will play out, free will cannot exist. If God knows the next sentence you will utter, then everything is predestined. If this is the case, then how can we be mad with anyone when they do something that disappoints us? It was God’s will that the incident occurred. Free will and godly omniscience are incompatible.
“If you don’t believe in the Christian God, there’s nothing to inhibit you from committing a crime. You can be a moral monster! Nothing stops you from committing heinous acts.” I hate it every time I hear this! Atheist are still subjected to the same social and psychological guidelines that hedge any society. We are still social animals and this trait is the result of evolution, not our choice. Why is it that Christians feel they have the high ground when it comes to morality? Have they READ the Bible? What say you?
Since all religions are dissimilar and require different propitiations to God, they are not compatible with each other and therefore there can only be one true religion. Ignoring the relatively minor group of people who actually chose their religion, what are the odds that the religion you were born into is the only true religion?
This is the problem with Christians. They play games with their false logical reasoning and move the goalposts in an argument when the Atheist is close to scoring a point. A perfect example is when you try to disprove the Christian God and they state, “are you saying that A god does or cannot not exist?” They add the indefinite article so that you must disprove every god in order to disprove THEIR God. This is truly a farce and it needs to be addressed by the Atheists community.
If God is in union with the churches, then why does he allow the molestation of children under the supervision of Priests? If God can do all things, why doesn’t he make sure that his Churches are ethically clean?
Belief in a religion or a religious ideology is the same as the sense of taste. In our entire lives we need evidence in order to live. We do not jump off a cliff because the evidence shows that of we drop an apple, it falls to the floor. When we are pulled over by a police officer, we need to show evidence that we can drive the car legally. We need evidence at the end of the week to substantiate our claim for our wages via timesheets. When we travel internationally, we need evidence that the little ones that are in tow are really part of our family. When we cross the border back into the United States, we need evidence that we are citizens of this great nation.
However, when we focus on religion, it becomes similar to taste. A religion can make you suspend all need for evidence and forces you to depend on belief to satiate our evidence seeking faculties. We believe because it makes us feel good. Soda is a prime example. We generally love the taste of soda but a study has found that a few ounces of soda is linked to an increase of cancer.
Will this stop everyone from drinking soda? No al all, because it tastes good and it makes us feel better. We do not see the damage that soda can do to our bodies and we continue with its consumption. Religion takes a similar avenue. We continue because it makes us feel better and all of the evidence in the world that God does not exist will not change our minds. Religion just tastes too good to stop. It satisfies our pleasure zones and allows us to continue to believe in this nonsense.
What say you? Is this analogy accurate or am I way out of line?
We went back. We went back to the “truth.” Afterward, many things happened. Some of the things that occurred I choose not to explain in this book for the sake of being terse and succinct. The main point of religious contention however that allowed me to pivot out of the “Witness Organization” was the situation that occurred with the birth of my second biological son (3rd son), Preston. Preston was going to be born with a rare heart condition known as “Transposition of the Great Arteries,” also known as TGA. Without going into the finer details, the layman explanation of the condition is that the heart was fine, but the arteries, the plumbing of the heart, was inversely installed. The oxygenated blood that was meant for the body was re-pumped back to the lungs, and the deoxygenated blood destined to be replenished with oxygen in the lungs was redistributed into the body again. In essence, he was going to choke to death almost as soon as he left the safety of the womb. He would die in minutes, hours or days. If there were sufficient mixing in the heart (something that occurs in almost all newborns), he would live a month or two tops. The diagnosis of TGA was a death sentence. A baby born with TGA, if no remedial is done, will die. It is certain death.Herein lies the issue. The Jehovah’s Witness organization does not allow the use of blood transfusions. They use the bible as evidence that God would not allow such a thing. If a Witness were to proceed with a transfusion, they would be disfellowshipped, the most severe form of excommunication that exists. Here is the defining moment for me personally. My wife followed her own path to emancipation, and I am happy to say we all met at the same destination of peace. We found the best doctor in the world to do the procedure, Dr. Jan Quaegebeur and the procedure in his hands had a 99% success rate. We discussed with the other doctors that we needed this to be a bloodless surgery, and they agreed to do their best. They gave our son blood expanders and would recycle his blood as required. However, the day of the surgery came and Dr. Q, as he is called at the hospital came up to us and said that he would do the best to avoid a blood transfusion but that he could not guarantee a bloodless surgery. There is a certain amount of blood required in the blood pump before it can operate and being that Preston was two weeks old, he did not have a lot of blood available. I kept saying out loud “this is supposed to be a bloodless surgery!” but my loving wife intervened and said, “Please do whatever it takes to save our son” and she signed the requisite waivers. I felt relieved that my wife made the tough decision but also ashamed. Did this false religion mean more to me than my son? See chapter 4 for a more in-depth view of this situation under the discussion of “Social Compliance.” I feel that in the end, I would have caved in and accepted the procedure with blood, but I will never truly know. I only know that I have Dr. Q and my loving, intelligent wife to thank in saving the life of my son. A blood transfusion was, in fact, necessary or the chance for death was certain. I never wanted to broach the subject again, but my wife did and one day asked “Are you ok with my decision for a blood transfusion?I pick the life of my son over God”. I agreed with her decision, with the weight of my shame in full view of my facial features. I thanked her for doing what I was not ready to do, save our son over God.The damage was done, however. There was a point where I may have allowed my son to die for the cause of religion. This was tantamount to a mother of a radicalized Muslim being happy that her child was martyred for an Islamic cause. I will carry this burden of disgust for the rest of my life. I hope Preston will forgive me when he is older and hears this part of his story for the first time. The surgery was a success! He healed wonderfully and is now a rambunctious 6-year-old. In addition to the second chance my son was given, I was given a second chance in life as well. I felt the connection with the parasite of religion sever. Unfortunately, I continued to attend the Kingdom Hall, not out of belief in God but out of necessity. My friends and family were there, and the roots that I grew in the new neighborhood we moved to was entrenched with the religion. I was invested in the “truth.”
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. – Genesis 7:4.
If God initiated the flood because man was wicked, why did he have to kill off all the animals, creatures that did not sin? What did the animals do to deserve this punishment, the extinguishing of their lives? Why God?
Religion loves to deploy magic whenever science deconstructs religion. When science picks religious beliefs apart, religion turns to magical incantations in order to convolve faith and reality. Evolution? God did that. The creation of the universe out of nothing? God did that. Who created God? God is eternal.
How long should we allow such sleight of hand to be the response to such questions? How dare theists use such childish rebuttals as responses to these important questions! What do you think?
Excerpt from The True Nature Of Human Nature
As a final nail in the coffin of the creation account, let us examine a definitive hole in the creation mythos on day five. On this day, birds are created, alongside the animals in the seas. On day six, land animals are created. However, again in using the fossil record, we find a glaring hole in this account. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. Fossil evidence establishes that dinosaurs and birds had congruent features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, were nest-builders and had similar digestive behaviors. Archaeopteryx is a classic example of a fossil that fills a missing link gap.
This brings us to our inevitable dilemma. Land animals are clearly created on the sixth day, after birds! This runs in direct opposition to what Paleontology has shown us! We can even ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution because the bible does not subscribe to this fact. Let us examine the fossil record. Fossils in lower layers died longer ago than specimens found in higher layers. It can be viewed as the earth tree rings. When do you ever find a bird fossil at a portion of the earth’s strata lower than the first land animals? Never! It never happens! Therefore, you can exclude all of the overwhelming evidence that science has culled together, such as similar bodily characteristics, habits, conclusive DNA evidence (it is scientifically proven that a T-Rex and bird are a closer match DNA-wise than an alligator, a reptile) and the fact that feathers developed in the fossil record with dinosaurs and no other such animal. The layers of the stratum show that the land animals came first and that birds came after. There is no way to provide confluence to the text. It is irreconcilable.