FreeThinkingAtheist.com

     I have to admit that what started me down the path of an becoming and Atheist is the Bible itself. The Bible forms the whole basis for Christian belief. Without credibility and validity to me, there can be no belief. From this point I ventured into doubt despite people telling me to just trust God. But in all reality, you cannot force yourself to believe in something you don't think is true, without going to drastic measures. Christians make it seem like I chose this path or something. Actually, it came quite naturally. It's the Bible that I probably dislike about religion the most. 

    Believe in whatever God you want. But do not trust a 2,500 year old book of folklore, that misleads the rest of your life into thinking you have to "serve" ANYBODY. Do not trust this very book that seems to heavily conflict with what is real, like science. If you have a need for a God in your life, it doesn't have to be the Christian God. Do you really trust the corrupted people who put the Testaments together in the first place? If God's word was intended to be in the Bible, his word has most surely been corrupted beyond belief at this point. Humankind is greedy, remember? Sure it's not really God's fault, it's the fault of humans. That's why you should not trust the Bible. Believe in what you want, but do not pour your very lives into the words of this untrustworthy book. 

Any reasonable human being should question what they believe in on a regular basis. I know I do. Just as Thomas Jefferson said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

 Now, the Contradictions:

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that are quick to point out in criticism. For instance:

- Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.

- The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?

- The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?)

- All four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.

- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father.

Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods we've seen to "explain" these, the most common excuses are:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD–which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want…

2. "There was more there than…." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a AND b", which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a AND b." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining that they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right–I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. Right.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

Popularity: 45% [?]

1. In space, no one can hear you scream. Sound, a mechanical wave, cannot travel through a vacuum (nothingness). Without matter to vibrate through, there is only silence.

2. Black holes are not holes or voids of nothingness. They are the exact opposite of nothing. Being the densest concentration of mass known in the universe.

3. The concept of "zero" in the mathematical sense was developed in India in the fifth century.

4. Any number divided by zero is… nothing, not even zero. The equation is mathematically impossible.

5. Aristotle once wrote, "Nature abhors a vacuum", and so did he. His complete rejection of vacuums and voids and his subsequent influence on centuries of learning prevented the adoption of the concept of "zero" in the western world until the 13^th century.

6. Creatio ex nihilo: the belief that the world was created out of nothing, is one of the most common themes in ancient myths and religions.

7. Current theories suggest that the universe was created out of a state of vacuum energy… that is: nothing.

8. But to a physicst there is no such thing as nothing. Matter is made of particles, and empty space is simply anti-particles. These antiparticles quickly form and, in accordance to the law of conservation, annihilate each other in about 10 to the -25^th seconds back into nothingness

9. So Aristotle was right all along.

10. These virtual particles popping in and out of existence create energy. According to quantum Mechanics, the theoretical energy contained in the empty spaces of these words are more than the energy generated by all the power plans and nuclear weapons in the world.

In other words, nothing could be the key to the theory of everything.

Popularity: 42% [?]

Taken from the so-called "good book" that supposedly teaches good morals. Links to the actual passages are provided. And don't give me that "oh, it's taken out of context" nonsense. 

    1. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours. — (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)

    2. Find a prostitute and marry her. — Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3)

    3. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. — Moses (Exodus 2:16-21)

    4. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. — Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)

    5. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. — Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)

This is actually kind of funny, yet at the same time, it is not. It makes you think twice before thinking about bring your child up a Christian and making them actually READ the Bible.  

Popularity: 46% [?]

From user comments to the NY Times editor:   

    Senator Barack Obama candidly admitted in his 1995 memoir that he had smoked marijuana when he was in high school. On the other hand, when George W. Bush was first running for the presidency, he consistently refused to answer reporters’ questions about his alleged drug use.Bill Clinton admitted that he smoked marijuana, “but,” he added, “I didn’t inhale.”

    One personality trait I like about Barack Obama is how "honest" he comes off as. He seems to be the king of personality in this election! I admire a politician who can actually crack a joke and behave like a normal person; someone who isn't afraid to show his affectionate side, his family side, nor his history. This sort of thing seems to be becoming more and more prevalent these days, especially in corporations. "Change" is, afterall, the theme of this election. 

    As for campaigners who use this as a smearing device upon Obama, well, perhaps you are helping his cause? I personally do not care if any politician has done drugs before. I, along with many, many Americans, do not even view drugs as necessarily a bad thing in the first place. So kudos to you Mr. Obama for being honest! 

    Mr. Obama grew up in the 1970s. Anyone who was 15 to 30 years old during that era knows that drugs were pervasive and that almost everyone smoked marijuana occasionally. Cocaine was also commonly used.

With the change in the political climate and the rise of the Christian right, we now pretend that drugs were never mainstream and that only a few hippies and street people used drugs. We also pretend that minor drug use precludes success in life.

The reality is that students at mainstream colleges who did not use drugs were few and far between in the 70s.

I admire how Barack Obama isn't like your traditional, emotionless politician. Barack Obama is normal. How strange would it be to actually have a president who actually tells the truth..

Of course, personality isn't everything in an election, but it certainly does help. Politics is encapsulated in its own little world and most people have trouble relating or even giving a crap about politics. This election, however, seems to be having great turnout thus far. So we have a candidate in an election who has no problem openly admitting to drug use in his youth. Finally, somebody we can relate to, right?

Popularity: 98% [?]

    Funny how people can be such cynical conspiracy theorists about something as solid and known as how the Grand Canyon was formed, yet they choose to entirely overlook their religion and not question it at all. I mean really, think about it. If given two topics to choose from to doubt and question: The Grand Canyon's formation, or the Christian Bible, how can you possibly sit there and dispute something so solidly proven through science, like the Grand Canyon, but turn around and gladly trust something as questionable as the Bible? There's no sense in that!

     "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, says the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah. Obviously Geology is a myth. You didn't know that? right..

    The book was written by a "born again" river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he "met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old." You know, extreme cynics are one thing, but at least they actual doubt everything equally. Unlike the readers of this book, they at least don't contradict their cynical nature and turn around and believe in something full of holes and questionable motives, written entirely by man. 

     The reviews over at Amazon.com pretty much sum this book up, my favorite being:

I am a serious amateur geologist and a devout Christian. You've got to be kidding with this book. That it was forced to be put into the Grand Canyon book shops is absurd. What prompted me to write a review is that I heard that the park rangers at the Grand Canyon are no longer permitted to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon. This is evangelical socialist realism at its worst. It's time for me to put my pet dinosaur to bed.

Popularity: 100% [?]