Belief in Nothing

 

"You don't believe in anything"
"You believe in nothing"

The above accusations are typical for the religious to make towards the Nonbelievers. However the Believers seem to be unaware that they believe in a 'nothing'. Below is an example to set-up my argument. Hypothetically imagine that I am serious, try to envision the way a person-of-faith would react.

 The description of God

God looks like:

 God smells like:

 God sounds like:

 If you were to lick God, this is what he would taste like:

God feels like:

That is the description of God that covers all of the five basic senses.

Most Believers would deny this as being accurate (like they deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being what God looks like). But they cannot prove that is not an accurate description. The prerequisite for knowing what something is not, is to know what something is (keep in mind, I'm talking about existing tangible descriptions). To believe in something, you must become aware of it; in other-words: one of the five senses would need to be able to sense it and there would need to be some sort of evidence (hallucinations cause problems in perceiving reality).

The majority of whom "believe", believe that their god cannot be perceived with the senses; unfortunately for them they fall into this trap, which exposes them. What is the difference between 'nothing' and God? The only apparent distinction is the perception of it. When all the details are put-forth, God and 'nothing' are the same.

It is possible that some form of intelligence is responsible for setting up this universe (although highly unlikely) — it is not the same-thing as what Believers claim to be aware of (if it was possible to be aware of, it would be considered fact). Believers "believe" in the historical accuracy of stories told in old books — but I'm referring to what God is, not what he is allegedly responsible for. Nothing is precisely how much they know about what they claim to believe in.



Can you really tell the difference between these two pictures below? — other then the mere words that label them (black is being used to represent the nonexistence of information).

(God)

(nothing)

Religious people claim that there is a difference; but in reality the only difference between the two is the labeling.  Nonbelievers believe in nothing in just the same way religious people do — but the religious refuse to admit it.

For the people that claim to have "felt" the presence of a god, then I strongly urge you to read my post on that subject: Experiencing a god's presence?

For the people that claim that God has "spoken" to people before, check out: Schizophrenic Inspiration

Catholic Hypocrisy

 

As Jesus was starting on his way again, a man ran up, knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked him. "No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; do not cheat; respect your father and your mother.' " "Teacher," the man said, "ever since I was young, I have obeyed all these commandments." Jesus looked straight at him with love and said, "You need only one thing. Go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me." When the man heard this, gloom spread over his face, and he went away sad, because he was very rich. Jesus looked around at his disciples and said to them, "How hard it will be for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God!" The disciples were shocked at these words, but Jesus went on to say, "My children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God! It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle."

Jesus' message is very clear: "sell all you have and give the money to the poor", "It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle". The level of hypocrisy in the catholic religion is unreal. It is not only the Vatican and the Pope which is being referred to. But also a large amount of their churches have a very extravagant appearance. The message Jesus was trying to make (or the people that wrote of him) was to give wealth to the less fortunate and being rich is looked down upon. For people that claim to be as devout as these do, they can't even follow basic instructions (they do the complete opposite). If even half the wealth and effort that was put towards these luxuries was instead put towards helping the poor, imagine how much good it would do.

Catholics always go-on about how great Jesus was, along with his message. But at the same time their leaders live like kings – if Jesus was a real guy, the sight of this would be sickening to him. Come-on Catholics, time to be more 'Christ-like', give away all your wealth to the poor! Rich people have a near impossible time getting into heaven remember! While I think religion for the most part is damaging and mere superstition. Jesus did have a good message here, and that message is being ignored for convenience. While being well-off is a good thing, an obscene amount of wealth is damaging to society, it detracts from it. The more wealth a person has, the less others have. Saying that the Catholic religion's wealth is 'obscene' is almost understating it. This is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.

The Bible on STD's/Menstrual Cycle

(Chlamydia Trachomatis)

This is a portion is found in Leviticus in the Bible and it discuses STD type infections and the menstrual cycle. It's rather long, but I feel worth the read.

The LORD gave Moses and Aaron the following regulations for the people of Israel. When any man has a discharge from his penis, the discharge is unclean, whether the penis runs with it or is stopped up by it. Any bed on which he sits or lies is unclean. Anyone who touches his bed or sits on anything the man has sat on must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. Anyone who touches the man with the discharge must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is ritually clean, that person must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. Any saddle or seat on which the man with the discharge sits is unclean. Anyone who touches anything on which the man sat is unclean until evening. Anyone who carries anything on which the man sat must wash his clothes and take a bath, and he remains unclean until evening. If a man who has a discharge touches one of you without first having washed his hands, you must wash your clothes and take a bath, and you remain unclean until evening. Any clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden bowl that he touches must be washed. After the man is cured of his discharge, he must wait seven days and then wash his clothes and take a bath in fresh spring water, and he will be ritually clean. On the eighth day he shall take two doves or two pigeons to the entrance of the Tent of the LORD's presence and give them to the priest. The priest shall offer one of them as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering. In this way he will perform the ritual of purification for the man. When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body, and he remains unclean until evening. Anything made of cloth or leather on which the semen falls must be washed, and it remains unclean until evening. After sexual intercourse both the man and the woman must take a bath, and they remain unclean until evening. When a woman has her monthly period, she remains unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her is unclean until evening. Anything on which she sits or lies during her monthly period is unclean. Any who touch her bed or anything on which she has sat must wash their clothes and take a bath, and they remain unclean until evening. If a man has sexual intercourse with her during her period, he is contaminated by her impurity and remains unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies is unclean. If a woman has a flow of blood for several days outside her monthly period or if her flow continues beyond her regular period, she remains unclean as long as the flow continues, just as she is during her monthly period. Any bed on which she lies and anything on which she sits during this time is unclean. Any who touch them are unclean and must wash their clothes and take a bath; they remain unclean until evening. After her flow stops, she must wait seven days, and then she will be ritually clean. On the eighth day she shall take two doves or two pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of the LORD's presence. The priest shall offer one of them as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and in this way he will perform the ritual of purification for her. The LORD told Moses to warn the people of Israel about their uncleanness, so that they would not defile the Tent of his presence, which was in the middle of the camp. If they did, they would be killed. These are the regulations about a man who has a discharge or an emission of semen, a woman during her monthly period, or a man who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is ritually unclean.- Leviticus 15:1-33 GNB

 For people at the time, this may have been decent advise; if you have problems like the above mention, you should try to be as clean as possible and take steps to avoid infecting others. But that is innate for most of us humans, a god hardly needed to tell people. There are three dead-giveaways that the all-powerful creator of the universe is not responsible for this advice. Firstly the part about killing doves or pigeons; animal sacrifice is a very primitive act — obviously we know now that it does nothing to help with an infection, but apparently an all-knowing god didn't. The second giveaway is the thought of menstrual blood as being "unclean". The third being how the writers thought disease had "supernatural" causes, an all-knowing god should have mentioned things like bacteria. This reflects just how ignorant the writers of the scripture were to reality. The Bible's "knowledge" is based on instinct and ignorance. This really puts into perspective just how accurate the book is.

Biblical Infanticide

Many would agree that killing infants is one of the most immoral actions a person could do. However the "good-book" promotes it in certain circumstances. Here are two examples of Biblical infanticide...

He (God) is going to punish the people of Amalek because their ancestors opposed the Israelites when they were coming from Egypt. Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don't leave a thing; kill all the men, women, children, and babies; the cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys." -1 Samuel 15:2-3

 The 'Lord' himself orders infanticide on the Amalekites (among many other horrible acts). The religious moral lesson here is: killing infants is okay, just so long as God is on your side. Christians claim to be 'right-to-lifers' based on morality they get from the Bible — a bit hypocritical, is it not? On to the next example!

Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us-- who take your babies and smash them against a rock. - Psalms 137:8-9

The Bible's "people" are described as being "happy" to smash infants against rocks, what is more demented then that? I assume most religious people are not aware of these things that appear in their beloved book. People that get moral inspiration from the bible are either ignorant or insane.

The Supernatural

Many unexplainable phenomena are thought of as having supernatural causes – the unknown should not be viewed in such a manner. When a person refers to the supernatural, they are pretending to understand an unknown (which is impossible). When we humans are unable explain something, we feel a need to fill that void. Elaborate ideas have been created to try to make sense of the unknown in our universe (e.g. life is so complex, must have been a god that created it). We think too highly of our ability to comprehend our surroundings. Some think that humans have complete understanding of how the natural universe works – along with being capable of determining what is outside of it; it is both arrogant and ignorant.

'Consciousness' is a good example for what is thought of as being supernatural. When the concept of consciousness is thought about – many automatically have the assumption that there is a 'spirit' – something beyond our ability to understand/perceive and not confined to the natural-universe. It is impossible to take zero-knowledge and make any claim about what it is, along with how it works. That is like having no potatoes and thinking you have enough to make fries – you can't get something out of nothing. Ask this question to a believer in spirits: "what exactly is a spirit"? They will probably say something similar to "it's a form of energy" – ask them to expand on the answer (energy could mean anything). When it comes down to it, they know nothing about what they claim to know about. The only difference between agnostics and "believers" is the level of honesty. Things which were considered to be supernatural at one time, are now understood; Things like disease, the complexity of life – even the weather was thought of as being in that category – we were dead-wrong on all of them. The more we learn, the less mysterious this universe becomes, the more we realize that our assumptions of the unknown were wrong.

Why Belief Is Important.

One commonality modern-day religions have (for the most part) is the 'need to believe' requirement. Christianity for example, requires belief in their religious dogma; it is believed that people whom do not, get to have fun playing in a lake of fire (love thy neighbor, unless they disagree with you). What a great bargaining chip: "believe what I tell you, or face the worst imaginable form of torture, for an infinite amount of time". Christians seem to think (or any similar religion, in respect to the 'belief' aspect) that belief is the most important requirement, but they provide no justification for it.

Few disagree with the notion of scripture coming from humans (the disagreement is whether there was divine inspiration involved). If humans do something, they will naturally have human motivations. The primary human motivation is power (When I say "power", I am referring to wealth, and control over people). The best way to get power is to make people believe you are powerful. If people do not believe you are legitimate, you have no power over them (which is why religions like Christianity try to portray nonbelievers as being bad). It's all about what is beneficial for the religion (referring to the organization). If a religion doesn't require a person to believe it is true, then the religion will have nowhere near the power it could potentially. 

There is zero evidence for any god, but lets say hypothetically there was a god. If this god wanted people to know about him/her, it would have no trouble doing so (most gods are very powerful). It is clear that no god desires people to know about their existence (that or there is no god, which is more likely the case). But religion tries its hardest to make people think they need to believe, otherwise, they (the source of religious ideas) do not have as much power. Belief is important for a religion, there is no reason to suggest why it would be important for a god (if anything it is the opposite). If a religion was truly legitimate, it would be more focused on being nice to others, as well as how to get enjoyment out of life. Instead, it is fixated on requiring people to believe in the validity of stories, written several millennia ago. These old stories are what give religion its power.

Funny Halloween Message.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Happy Halloween!

The Mean Drunk

Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the LORD my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave."God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." - Genesis 9:20-27

This lovely story found in Genesis, is a great moral lesson. It teaches children to leave their parents alone when they get smashed, so they can avoid becoming enslaved. That or when you get drunk, take all your clothes off and lay naked in a tent.

Schizophrenic Inspiration

Schizophrenia - Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors. (The American Heritage® Dictionary)

During the time the Bible was written, when a person hallucinated, it was thought of as being a spiritual experience. Today when a person hallucinates they are thought of as being crazy. However Christians have faith that people during Biblical times had no hallucinations. Society has, for the most part changed how it perceives people that "hear voices" or "have visions". They are viewed as mentally-ill, or under the influence of drugs. Here are a few examples...

Abraham

After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I. "He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." - Genesis 22:1-2

So Abraham hears "a voice in his head", which orders him to kill his son. Fortunately for his son, the delusion had a change of heart. Committing murder and then using the "God told me to do it" excuse, is relatively common. In the past, people who had no understanding of mental disorder, thought the creator of the universe was speaking to them. It is clear that Abraham, if he had done this during modern times, would have been arrested for doing what he did and placed into a mental hospital. There are a countless number of cases where a parent kills their child, and says that God told them to. I suppose the Christian moral here is: "if you hear a voice in your head, and this voice tells you to kill people, assume it is God and do it". On to the next biblical headcase...

Moses

Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian; and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. And Moses said, "I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt." When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here am I." Then he said, "Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." - Exodus 3:1-5

So this Moses guy was wondering around in the desert and has a burning-bush speak to him. Let me put it this way, which is more likely the case...

A) The all-powerful creator of the Universe took the form of a burning-bush, then talked to some random guy in the desert.

B) A guy that was wondering around in the desert, had a hallucination.

Samuel

The LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons." And Samuel said, "How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me." And the LORD said, "Take a heifer with you, and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.' And invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for me him whom I name to you." Samuel did what the LORD commanded, and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, "Do you come peaceably?" And he said, "Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD; consecrate yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice." And he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.- 1 Samuel 16:1-5



Moral of the story: Religious people, you must ignore the "voices in your head", and definitely do not carry on a conversation with them. Seek out professional help, you are not a prophet, you are insane.

Isaiah

at that time the LORD had spoken by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and loose the sackcloth from your loins and take off your shoes from your feet," and he had done so, walking naked and barefoot-- the LORD said, "As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia,- Isaiah 20:2-3

Which is more likely..

A). The all-powerful creator of the Universe told a guy to strip naked for some reason.

          B). Isaiah was insane.

Mental disorder has always been a part of humanity, it goes without saying. The people during that time had no understanding of it. It is understandable why they would believe that a hallucination was "an invisible guy talking to them". But in modern times, with our understanding of this phenomenon, it is difficult for the rational to understand the religious. When it comes to the Bible, all roads lead to ignorance. For what were thought of as prophets in the distant past, are now the psychiatric patients of today.  

The Sabbath: murder does not count as work?

In the Old-Testament it demands that all people be killed that work on the Sabbath (last day of the 7 day week, however most refer to it as being Sunday instead of Saturday). This is a well-known portion of the Old-Testament, while it typically is dismissed by the modern "believers" as being a relic of the past, no longer of use in these days; it is still there, and could potentially resurface (nothing is impossible with fundamentalists). For those that have not seen what I am talking about, here it is...

 You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. - Exodus 31:14-15

But not only is ridiculous rule in the Old-Testament, but they give an example of its application....

 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. - Numbers 15:32-36

Regardless of whether this story actually happened, it just shows that the writers were intolerant, as well as barbaric. They were not intelligent enough to realize that this rule violates the rule against killing other people (Ten Commandments). Perhaps the message they are trying to convey is "don't kill other people, unless they disagree with you". Either way, this just puts into perspective the kind of nonsensical garbage the Bible is, as well as why it should not be taken seriously in modern times.

Incest in the Bible (Lot).

Incest in modern society is viewed as being taboo. However it appears multiple times in the Bible. One of those appearances are found in the book of Genesis, and here it is..

 Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. - Genesis 19:30-36

Lot got drunk and had intercourse with his daughters because there were no other men around. Now the Bible is thought to be a book of morality and inspiration (that is what Christians claim). Then why is this even found within the Bible? What is the moral lesson? "have sex with your father if no other men are around"? Not only this, but Lot was portrayed in the Bible as being a good person. Which is shown by this Bible quote...

and delivered righteous Lot, sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed `his' righteous soul from day to day with `their' lawless deeds): - 2 Peter 2:7-8

Lot is viewed as being a "righteous man", so I suppose men that get intoxicated and have intercourse with their daughters are viewed as being "righteous" (by biblical standards). While this part of the Bible is not all that well known, I am willing to bet that a few backwards people have justified incest, under the assumption that having sex with family members is okay, just so long as there is no one else around (incest in some Amish communities might be used as example).

 To put this into perspective, let me give a modern hypothetical example. Let's say a father and his two daughters went on a week-long hike into woods. As they started to turn back on this long journey, the compass which they were using fell on the ground, and was stepped on by the father, causing it to break. This left them unable to figure out the proper direction, and they became completely lost. They managed to gather some food, and piece together a shelter to protect them from the elements. After a few weeks pass, one of the daughters notice that the father had a full bottle of whiskey in his backpack. The daughter that found this went to her sister and said "there are no other men here but our father, let's get him drunk and have sex with him". So they did it, and both, unknowingly at the time, became pregnant. A few days later a search team found the father and his daughters, they were rescued and made it all over the news. The father was looked at by the media as being heroic. For using good survival skills and getting his daughters through all those weeks in the wilderness. After a few weeks pass, it was found out that the daughters became pregnant by their father. How do you think the media should react to this?..

A) Still view him as heroic
B) Destroy the image of him being a hero and focus on the disgusting act of incest.

I would go with 'B', however some bible-thumpers may be more inclined to go with 'A'. What do you think?

Self-Centered Charity

"Religion is a great source of charity"

This is brought up quite often, they may say it in the form of "I am doing God's work" etc. I think it is true that religion motivates some people to do more charity work then they ordinarily would, there is one reason for this, which has little to do with helping others; it is self-centered in nature. It seems to be that it is not because they care about other people's well-being, but because they are looking to secure a place in eternal paradise. Some people believe if they donate a few items and/or do a bit of charity work, they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife.

You may be thinking that I am far off here, or that people don't just do charity work to suck-up to a god. Then why use religion as a reason for doing a charitable act?

Let me give an example to make this better understood. Let's say that this guy exits a McDonald's restaurant with a cheeseburger. You approach him and ask: "what were the reasons for you buying the cheeseburger?" Which is he more likely to say...

A) "I was hungry"
B) "to serve God" etc.

He would have sounded ridiculous for saying any reason that had to do with religion. But what if there was a religion called 'Burgeranity'; this particular fake religion teaches that if you eat a hamburger everyday, you will get an eternity in paradise after death. If you go up to one of these "Burgerians", after they leave a McDonald's and pose the question: "what were the reasons for you getting the cheeseburger?" they will naturally say it was for religious reasons. The "religious reason" is eternal paradise.

While everyone needs food, the "Burgarians" ate burgers more often then they ordinarily would have. This is because they thought it would help them get into paradise after death. Christianity, for example, teaches people that doing charity work increases their likelihood of getting into heaven (the parallels should be obvious). Most people are altruistic to a certain degree; however would the people that claim to do charity work for religious reasons, do the same amount if they didn't stand to benefit? Probably not, plus they wouldn't claim their reasons as being religious, it would be irrelevant (remember the cheeseburger-guy example).

When a person does charity for religious reasons, they might as well say "I am helping these people out, not because I actually care about them, but so I can spend an eternity in paradise". At least that would be more honest.

The Gullible God

Christians seem confident that Heaven awaits them after death. Let's say for the sake of argument that paradise in the clouds exists and people go there after they die (assuming they did the right things). Why would Christians assume they would be allowed to enter? For a Christian to assume this, is to assume an "all-knowing" god with telepathy is gullible. The god would have to be gullible otherwise very few Christians would be getting into heaven, if any.

Let's say hypothetically the Bible stayed the same along with the Christian religion. But Heaven and Hell switched places. If you believed in God and loved him, along with being a good person during your lifetime, you would join him in Hell after death, to suffer forever. How many Christians would still "love" their god, knowing that they would spend an eternity burning in Hell for doing so? The only thing driving Christians to say that they believe in and love this god is because they think there is a reward for doing so, sort of like sucking-up. Here is an analogy to put what I mean into perspective...

Let's say this guy had an aunt that was a millionaire, she was an awful person and treated everyone like garbage. But he faked being nice to get money out of her; she believed that he was genuine so she left her fortune to him after she died. He tricked her because she was gullible enough to believe in his sincerity. The love towards his aunt was not genuine, if she had no money at all, he would want nothing to do with her. And the same goes for this god, if this god offered nothing, or an eternity in Hell for loving him, no one would love him.

There is zero evidence to even hint of the existence of any god, let alone the Christian god. There is no way that anyone can love something which they can't even know exists (how could you know what you are loving?). Christians love the idea of Heaven, just like the person in my example loves the idea money. The Christians believe their god is gullible.

The Earth: is it round or flat?

One would assume the debate of whether the Earth is flat or round should be as hot as ever. You have your classic match up: Science versus religion. I happen to be a believer in the round Earth theory (just in the same way that I believe in the theory of evolution). But I would like to present the opposing view, which is scripture based. Here are three Bible verses that go against the round Earth theory...

Verse #1

"After this I saw four angels. They were standing at the four corners of the earth. They were holding back the four winds of the earth. This kept the winds from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree." - Rev. 7:1

This first verse describes the Earth as having four corners, but would a round Earth have corners? of course not. Either the Earth has corners, or it is round. This is a classic faith vs reason conflict. On to the next verse...

Verse #2

"Finally, the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." - Matthew 4:8

This verse here is another that should make "people of faith" think twice about whether the Earth is round or not. If the Earth really is round, then how could all of the kingdoms of the world be seen? It would be impossible. Again, this is another clash between faith and reason. On to the last of the three verses I've selected...

Verse #3

"Here are the visions I saw while I was lying on my bed. I looked up and saw a tree standing in the middle of the land. It was very tall. It had grown to be large and strong. Its top touched the sky. It could be seen anywhere on earth." - Daniel 4:10-11

So this guy had a "vision" (a big source of the Bible's content is from people having visions) about a tree that was incredibly tall and it could be seen anywhere on Earth, this would be impossible if the world was round, it would not matter how tall the tree was, it would be impossible to see from the opposite side of the Earth. Someone is wrong here.


I realize that "believers" don't think the Earth is flat. They think it is round based on evidence despite what scripture says. My intention was to put the "creation" versus "evolution" debate into perspective. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Experiencing a god's presence?

Many religious people claim that they have felt a god's presence. I do not disagree with them, they probably have felt a presence. The only problem is that they are ignorant to how the mind works. I will use four examples to show what I mean, all making the same point. 

Imagine eating an orange

Use your mind's-eye. Imagine what the smell of an orange would be, and the texture of it. Peel the imaginary orange and put a slice of it in your mouth. Notice the saliva that has built up. Your body will react to imaginary stimuli; there is no real orange, but your body reacted in the same way as if there was one. When you feel a presence, it is just that, a feeling. When there is an actual person near you, you feel the presence. If you imagine there is a person near you, the same feeling of a presence can be created.

Faces in clouds and bark

Ever look at the clouds and see faces in them? Or looked at an old tree and seen a face in the bark? There is no question that you do see a face. The question is: is the face really there? (the answer is no) Just because we perceive a face does not mean that it is real. The same goes for claiming to feel a god's presence. The feeling of any presence is an internal thing, regardless of if it was stimulated from an outside source or not. Your mind automatically looks for faces in things. If a person's mind is set up to think that there is an invisible being constantly around them, then it will automatically look for it.
 
Imaginary friends

Children often have imaginary friends. This sort of a thing sometimes scares parents (like religious people scare atheists). Their child can come across as being insane. They will even sometimes defend the existence of their invisible friend. As my previous examples have shown, your own imagination can create the illusion of outside stimuli, when there is none. Many children feel the presence of their imaginary friends. They think that just because they feel a presence, it must have been stimulated from an outside source.


Boogie-Man in the closet.

This scenario happens all the time. An older brother tells his younger sister that there is a boogie-man in the closet. She believes the brother and becomes afraid of this imaginary monster. She even claims to hear noises or even it talking to her during the night. She felt the presence of this "boogie-man". But was the boogie-man really there? Is god really there?

In this example you can see the similarities between the big brother telling the younger sister about the boogie-man, and a parent telling their child about a god.

Feel free to leave a comment below :)