Roberts Atheism

My Atheism

Introduction: This piece of work may not be elegant and worded well, but I don’t care: “Elegance is for tailors.” I want to cut to the chase. By the way, read this slowly so you understand it. It might sound too complicated but beleive me, it’s quite clear and logical though I haven’t proofread it properly! If there’s something you don’t understand able my reasoning, then go back to the 5 postulates that I’ve denoted, marked with asterixes. Here are some points of discussion about Christianity. Though I don’t think that Christianity is completely absurd, there are of course serious problems with it. Personally I have a problem with the interpretations of the Bible and the nature of God and heaven. I know there are those amoung you who have given up trying to justify Christianity and prove it right and beleive that it is powerful in the way that it has united people. But this unity has bred intolerance, examples of which fill history (the crusades, the holocaust and don’t forget book burnings). I’m also aware of people who take the bible as word for word; the divine word of God. But there are so many contradictions that that claim seems a little unreasonable;

“The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. 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?) and 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 ^Reference.”

Go to the web address listed and you’ll hear a plethora of nonsense from the bible about snails melting, snakes eating dirt etc. Often it is said that what is written is to be taken metaphorically which usually gives people room to fit any meaning to any passage.

“ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty damn explicit. There’s no room for logical perversion of any kind. They aren’t metaphors, they’re directions from God that contradict each other. So either God’s wrong or the bible isn’t God’s word or you are wrong. Simple.

Even if there were not contradictions in the bible, why should we beleive it? It is an account of history written by human authors. We have no reason to beleive it any more than another historical document. Now I know what you’re thinking, you think: “Oh but there is more documentation of Christ’s rise from the dead than the Roman Empire, so everything must be true.” But I think that is more to do with the fact that almost everything written to the contrary has been destroyed eg. In the crusades, 367AD in Alexandria, 1497AD in Italy, 1500AD in Spain, 1562AD in Yucatan etc. etc. (there are too many to mention). Book burning seems to be a common past-time for Christians throughout history. Is such a religion’s Bible trustworthy then? The Bible is hardly proof of anything. Why beleive in the Bible? Because God tells you to. Why beleive in God? Because the Bible tells you to. I think there is a bit of a logical inconsistancy there.