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% [?]

    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% [?]

I'm sitting in USF's library right now trying to do homework. But my attention has been caught by 3 USF students sitting near me doing a Bible Study (from the book of Romans in the Old Testament.. if you were curious). They are probably the creepiest USF students I've seen so far here.

They sound so sure of themselves, judging people as a whole. Saying that God created Hitler for a reason, that he created a tribe of Barbarians who go around and rape and pillage others, for a reason. They are arguing whether or not Romans should be taken within a historical context or not. One is arguing that if the Bible is to be taken within a historical context, then it makes God seem weaker (and thus he chooses not to take it historically for that reason). The other is arguing that since man wrote the books of the Bible, that they live in their own historically subjective time, and that you need to understand history to understand certain messages in Romans. This I agree with, but what I don't get is why are they arguing over this in the first place? Why should Bible interpretation be so damn ambiguous? How come some choose to take the meaning literally, others take it symbolically, others take it historically etc. It seems to me they do whatever's convenient to them, like student 1, who seems to have a complex of his God being viewed as "weak", and so he chooses to believe that his word is universally independent from time and history. He believes whatever is convenient for him. How fucking convenient is that?

I suppose what annoys me three the most is that earlier, before they started their Bible study, they were studying for their Racism in America class. They were going over topics and disagreeing with just about everything. They were saying that even the term "hate crime" itself is stupid. They were saying things like gays should not be allowed to get married, and if they ARE allowed to have civil unions, then straight people should have that right as well for tax benefits. One of them states that calling a crime a black-hate crime is racist towards white people. He said it should not matter what the white guy's motive is for committing a crime against the said black person, whether it's because he's black, or because he didn't like the way he smiled, that it should be considered as just "a crime".

Complete bullshit. And then, one of them trailed off about how he called his friend on the phone to see where they were parked at, because they were leaving soon, and he wanted their parking spot. His friend told him where, and apparently when he pulled in the parking lot and drove to the spot. When he arrived as his friend was pulling out, somebody girl was already sitting there waiting to pull into the spot. So this jackass pulled AROUND this person, and then drove right into his friend's parking spot and parked. When he got out the girl started bitching him out and he was making it seem like SHE was the asshole and he told her that he was "technically waiting longer" than she was for the parking spot, because he already called his friend a few minutes before. Then he compared the whole situation to if he pre-ordered an Xbox, and Walmart had one left, just because that girl just showed up and has been waiting in line, he still gets the last Xbox.

Talk about comparing apples to oranges..

Then the conversation trailed off and they started talking about how they like doing acid, and one starting talking about shrooms.

So yeah, these Christians creeped me the fuck out with their shit morals, and their Christian obsessions, and their hypocrisy. How do you go around judging anything and everything like they do? What a bunch of arrogant dickheads. What pisses me off the most is that whatever I would have or could have said to them, they would just argue with me until they're blue in the face. They seemed like the type. That and I don't believe in pushing your beliefs on others against their will. So why fucking bother? They choose to be the way they are, and their religion is just their outlet of justifying their means.

I just got a really bad feeling about them. Fucking creepy they were.. gave me the willies!

Popularity: 96% [?]

    The human mind can be a strange thing sometimes. I must remind myself that we possess a strange ability to lie to ourselves until we eventually believe our own lies. We have an ability to create our own reality at times, especially in trying times or in fearful times. Unfortunately death is one of humankind's greatest fears, in my opinion, and so it seems obvious to me that humankind will naturally lie to itself until it is thoroughly convinced that death is not the end. This is evident when looking at the natural progression of religions throughout the world, where two separate and isolated cultures will most likely evolve their own religions. It’s human nature, according to psychologists.

Our philosophy of "I think, therefore I am", sends us on an ego trip that has us thinking humans are the center of the universe, and that we are actually important in this world. Well, we aren't. In the long run, mankind itself means nothing in this universe. We are just an infinitesimal speck of dirt in the eye of time, and we'll be washed away in the blink of an eye! Most people are uncomfortable with this idea, but hey, reality bites.

    I think a lot of people lie to themselves about God. They really do want to believe, but I get the feeling that most of them deep down don’t truly believe in God. Life on earth is supposed to be so much more miserable than it is in heaven for all eternity. So why in the world are people still so scared to die? It seems to me that a true Christian who believed in God would look forward to heaven, and so if somebody holds a gun to their head, they would gladly await the gunshot, that is, if they truly believed in what they say they do. To a Christian I must ask: Would you really put your trust in God and risk your life for what he promises?

I guess some people have a greater fear of the unknown, than they do of death, and therefore want to figure the unknown out. These people want to understand the truth, not just understand the truth that we make up. Those people are called “Atheists”. And I just so happen to be one of them.

Popularity: 15% [?]

    Every religious person should study their religion’s history, not to mention the histories of others. It is not fair to themselves if they close their mind to history. The study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognizably human. They created religions at the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces.

    These early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seem always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to. Like any other human activity, religion can be abused, but it seems to have been something that we have always done. It was not tacked on to a primordially secular nature by manipulative kings and priests but was natural to humanity. 

Popularity: 14% [?]