The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

 When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.

 I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things. 
 

Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

 Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it. 
 

Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

 Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God. 

As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.

 That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

 You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. 
 

You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

 That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy." 
 

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it. 
 

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

2. God is Inert

The God proposed by the Christian hypothesis is not a disembodied, powerless voice whose only means of achieving his desires is speaking to people, teaching them to do what's right. The Christian God is an Almighty Creator, capable of creating or destroying anything, capable of suspending or rewriting the laws of nature, capable of anything we can imagine. He can certainly do any and every moral thing you or I can do, and certainly much more than that, being so much bigger and stronger and better than we are in every way. All this follows necessarily from the definition of mere Christianity, and therefore cannot be denied without denying Christianity itself.

It's a simple fact of direct observation that if I had the means and the power, and could not be harmed for my efforts, I would immediately alleviate all needless suffering in the universe. All guns and bombs would turn to flowers. All garbage dumps would become gardens. There would be adequate resources for everyone. There would be no more children conceived than the community and the environment could support. There would be no need of fatal or debilitating diseases or birth defects, no destructive Acts of God. And whenever men and women seemed near to violence, I would intervene and kindly endeavor to help them peacefully resolve their differences. That's what any loving person would do. Yet I cannot be more loving, more benevolent than the Christian God. Therefore, the fact that the Christian God does none of these things--in fact, nothing of any sort whatsoever--is proof positive that there is no Christian God.

If God at least did something, however much we might still argue about what that action meant about his ability, character, and desires, we would at least have evidence (and therefore reason to believe) that a God existed, maybe even the Christian God. And there are many things any god could do. He could make all true bibles indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating. He could make miraculous healing or other supernatural powers so common an attribute of the virtuous believer that they would be scientifically studied and confirmed as surely as any other medicine or technology. He could, as I've already explained, speak to all of us in the same voice, saying the same things. He could send angels to appear to us on a regular basis, performing all manner of divine deeds and communications--exactly as the earliest Christians thought he did.

The possible evidences a God could provide are endless, though none might be sufficient to prove we have the Christian God. To prove that, this evident God would have to act as the Christian hypothesis predicts. For example, only those who believe in the true Christian Gospel would be granted the supernatural powers that could be confirmed by science; only true Christian Bibles would be indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating; and the Divine Voice would consistently convey to everyone the will and desires of the Christian message alone. But God does none of these things--nothing at all.

A Christian can rightly claim he is unable to predict exactly what things his God would choose to do. But the Christian hypothesis still entails that God would dosomething. Therefore, the fact that God does nothing is a decisive refutation of the Christian hypothesis. Once again, a prediction is made that consistently fails to pan out. Instead, we observe the exact opposite: a dumb, mechanical universe that blindly treats everyone with the same random fortune and tragedy regardless of merit or purpose. But that's a fact we'll examine later. For now, it is enough to note that we do not observe God doing good deeds, therefore there is no God who can or wants to do good deeds--which means Christianity is false.

Excuses won't fly here, either, because a loving being by definition acts like a loving being. It is a direct contradiction to claim that someone is loving yet never does what a loving person does--because the name refers to the behavior. To be loving literally means to be loving. You can't be heartless and claim to be loving. As Christ himself is supposed to have said, "it is by their fruits that shall ye know them." The only possible exception here is when a loving person is incapable of acting as he desires--either lacking the ability or facing too great a risk to himself or others--but this exception never applies to a God, who is all-powerful and immune to all harm. This exception also never applies to any human so absolutely that she can never act loving. Even the most limited and constrained person there is can at least do something that expresses their loving nature. Indeed, if it were ever truly possible to completely prevent this, a truly loving person would probably prefer death to such a horrible existence. And a loving God would be no different. Failing to act in a loving way would be unbearable for a loving being. From having the desire and the means to act in a loving way, it follows necessarily that God would so act. But he doesn't. Therefore, again, the Christian God does not exist.

Think about it. A man approaches a school with a loaded assault rifle, intent on mass slaughter. A loving person speaks to him, attempts to help him resolve his problems or to persuade him to stop, and failing that, punches him right in the kisser, and takes away his gun. And a loving person with godlike powers could simply turn his bullets into popcorn as they left the gun, or heal with a touch whatever insanity or madness (or by teaching him cure whatever ignorance) led the man to contemplate the crime. But God does nothing. Therefore, a loving God does not exist. A tsunami approaches and will soon devastate the lives of millions. A loving person warns them, and tells them how best to protect themselves and their children. And a loving person with godlike powers could simply calm the sea, or grant everyone's bodies the power to resist serious injury, so the only tragedy they must come together to overcome is temporary pain and the loss of worldly goods. Wewould have done these things, if we could--and God can. Therefore, either God would have done them, too--or God is worse than us. Far worse. Either way, Christianity is false.

The logic of this is, again, unassailable. So Christians feel compelled to contrive more "ad hoc" excuses to explain away the evidence--more speculations about free will, "mysterious plans," a desire to test us or increase opportunities for us to do good, and stuff like that. And, yet again, Christians have no evidence any of these excuses are actually true. They simply "make them up" in order to explain away the failure of their theory. But once again, even putting that serious problem aside, these ad hoc elements still fail. For there is no getting around the conjunction of facts entailed by the Christian theory. God cannot possibly struggle under any limitations greater than the limitations upon us (if anything, he must surely have fewer limitations than we do), and God loves love--and is therefore a loving being, which means he desires to act like one. These two terms of the hypothesis entail observations, and nothing can explain away the fact that these observations are never made--unless we contradict and therefore reject either of these two essential terms of the theory. So the Christian theory is either empirically false, or self-contradictory and therefore logically false.

In fact, all the "ad hoc" excuses for God's total and utter inaction amount to the same thing: claiming that different rules apply to God than to us. But this is not allowed by the terms of the theory, which hold that God is good--which must necessarily mean that God is "good" in the same sense that God expects us to be good. Otherwise, calling God "good" means something different than calling anyone else "good," and therefore calling God "good" is essentially meaningless. If God can legitimately be called "good," this must mean exactly the same thing when you or I are called "good." And the fact that God is predicted by the Christian theory to "love love and hate hatred" confirms this conclusion, since "loving love and hating hatred" is exactly what it means to call you or I "good." To be good is to be loving and not hateful. And that entails a certain behavior.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is universally agreed to mean giving your neighbor what he needs, helping him when he is hurt or in trouble, giving him what he has earned, and taking nothing from him that he has not given you. It means giving water to the thirsty, protecting children from harm, healing infirmities. Jesus himself said so. He did or said all these things, we are told, and the Christian surely must believe this. Therefore, for God to be "good" entails that God must have the desire to do all these things--and there is no possible doubt whether he lacks the means to do all these things. And anyone with the means and the desire to act, will act. Therefore, that God does none of these things entails either that he lacks the means or the desire. Either way, Christianity is false.

This conclusion follows because there cannot be any limitation on God greater than the limitations upon us. So God must necessarily desire and have the unimpeded means to do everything you and I can do, and therefore the Christian God would at least do everything you and I do. The fact that he doesn't proves he doesn't exist. Therefore, all the excuses invented for God simply don't work. Because it does not matter what plans God may have, he still could not restrain himself from doing good any more than we can, because that is what it means to be good. He would be moved by his goodness to act, to do what's right, just as we are. God would not make excuses, for nothing could ever thwart his doing what is morally right.

Hence anything God would refrain from doing can be no different than what any other good people refrain from. Children must learn, often the hard way. But that never in a million years means letting them get hit by a car so they can learn not to cross the road without looking. People must know struggle, so they feel they have earned and learned what matters. But that never in a million years means letting them be tortured or decimated or wracked with debilitating disease so they can appreciate being healthy or living in peace. No loving person could ever bear using such cruel methods of teaching, or ever imagine any purpose justifying them. Indeed, a loving person would suffer miserably if he could do nothing to stop such things... or worse, if he actually caused them!

Conversely, any excuse that could ever be imagined for God's inaction must necessarily apply to us as well. If there is a good reason for God to do nothing, then it will be just as good a reason for us to do nothing. The same moral rules that are supposed to apply to us must apply to every good person--and that necessarily includes the Christian God. God cannot have more reasons to do nothing than we do--to the contrary, it must be the other way around: only we have limitations on our abilities, creating more legitimate reasons for inaction than can ever apply to God. So if it is good for me to alleviate suffering, it is good for God to do so in those same circumstances. And if it is good for God to refrain from acting, it is good for me to do so in those same circumstances.

Nor can it be argued that God must sit back to give us the chance to do good. For that is not how good people act. Therefore, a "good" God can never have such an excuse. Imagine it. You can heal someone of AIDS. You have the perfect cure sitting in your closet. And you know it. But you do nothing, simply to allow scientists the chance to figure out a cure by themselves--even if it takes so long that billions of people must suffer miserably and die before they get it right. In what world would thatever be the right thing to do? In no world at all. When we have every means safely at our disposal, we can only tolerate sitting back to let others do good when others are actually doing good. In other words, if misery is already being alleviated, perhaps even at our very urging, then obviously we have nothing left to do ourselves. But it would be unbearable, unconscionable, outright immoral to hide the cure for AIDS just to teach everyone a lesson. That is not how a good person could or would ever behave.

This same conclusion follows in many ways. As a friend, I would think it shameful if I didn't give clear, honest advice to my friends when asked, or offer comfort when they are in misery or misfortune. I loan them money when they need it, help them move, keep them company when they are lonely, introduce them to new things I think they'll like, and look out for them. God does none of these things for anyone. Thus he is a friend to none. A man who calls himself a friend but who never speaks plainly to you and is never around when you need him is no friend at all.

And it won't do to say God's with "some" people--speaking to, comforting, and helping them out--because this means he doesn't really love all beings, and is therefore not all-loving. This would make him less decent than even many humans I know. And it's sickeningly patronizing to say, in the midst of misery, loneliness, or need, that "God's with you in spirit," that he pats you on the head and says "There! There!" (though not even in so many words as that). A friend who did so little for us, despite having every resource and ability to do more, and nothing to lose by using them, would be ridiculing us with his disdain. Thus, we cannot rescue the idea of God as Friend to All. The evidence flatly refutes the existence of any such creature. It therefore flatly refutes Christianity.

Likewise, as a loving parent, I would think it a horrible failure on my part if I didn't educate my children well, and supervise them kindly, teaching them how to live safe and well, and warning them of unknown or unexpected dangers. If they asked me to butt out I might. But if they didn't, it would be unconscionable to ignore them, to offer them no comfort, protection, or advice. Indeed, society would deem me fit for prison if I did. It would be felony criminal neglect. Yet that is God: An absentee mom--who lets kids get kidnapped and murdered or run over by cars, who does nothing to teach them what they need to know, who never sits down like a loving parent to have an honest chat with them, and who would let them starve if someone else didn't intervene. As this is unconscionable, almost any idea of a god that fits the actual evidence of the world is unconscionable. And any such deity could never be the Christian God.

4. Christianity Predicts a Different Universe

I mentioned before that the Christian hypothesis actually predicts a completely different universe than the one we find ourselves in. For a loving God who wanted to create a universe solely to provide a home for human beings, and to bring his plan of salvation to fruition, would never have invented this universe, but something quite different. But if there is no God, then the universe we actually observe is exactly the sort of universe we would expect to observe. In other words, if there is no God then this universe is the only kind of universe we would ever find ourselves in, the only kind that could ever produce intelligent life without any supernatural cause or plan. Hence naturalist atheism predicts exactly the kind of universe we observe, while the Christian theory predicts almost none of the features of our universe. Indeed, the Christian theory predicts the universe should instead have features that in fact it doesn't, and should lack features that in fact it has. Therefore, naturalism is a better explanation than Christianity of the universe we actually find ourselves in. Since naturalism (rejecting the supernatural) is the most plausible form of atheism I know, this is what I shall mean by "atheism" from here on out.[8] Let's look at a few examples of what I mean.

Origin and Evolution of Life

First, the origin of life. Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is--let's say, a one in a billion chance--but on how often the game is played. In other words, if a billion people play, and the odds of winning are one in a billion, it is actually highly probable that someone will win the lottery. Now, if the game is played only once, and the only ticket sold just happens to be the winner, then you might get suspicious. And if the game was played a billion times, and each time only one ticket was sold and yet every single time that ticket happened to be the winner, then you would be quite certain someone was cheating. For nothing else could explain such a remarkable fact.

Therefore, the only way life could arise by accident (i.e. without God arranging it) is if there were countless more failed tries than actual successes. After all, if the lottery was played by a billion people and yet only one of them won, that would surely be a mere accident, not evidence of cheating. So the only way this lottery could be won by accident is if it was played countless times and only one ticket won. To carry the analogy over, the only way life could arise by accident is if the universe tried countless times and only very rarely succeeded. Lo and behold, we observe that is exactly what happened: the universe has been mixing chemicals for over twelve billion years in over a billion-trillion star systems. That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident--because life can only arise by accident in a universe as large and old as ours. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct.

Of course, we haven't yet proven any particular theory of life's origin true. But we do have evidence for every element of every theory now considered. Nothing about contemporary hypotheses of life's origin rests on any conjecture or assumption that has not been observed or demonstrated in some circumstance. For example, we know porous rocks that can provide a cell-like home were available near energy-rich, deep-sea volcanic vents. We know those vents harbor some of the most ancient life on the planet, indicating that life may well have begun there. And we know these vents would have provided all the necessary resources to produce an amino-acid-based life, and that they had hundreds of millions of years of time in which to do so. In a similar way, we have evidence supporting every other presently viable theory: we know homochiral amino acids can be mass-produced in a supernova and thus become a component of the early comets that bombarded the early Earth; we know that amino acids that chain along a common crystalline structure in clay will chain in a homochiral structure; we know simple self-replicating chains of amino acids exist that do not require any enzymes working in concert; and so on.[9] So by the rules of sound procedure, the accidental theory is well-grounded in a way intelligent design theory is not. We have never observed or confirmed the existence of any sort of divine actions or powers that God would have needed to "create" the first life--nor have we demonstrated the existence of any such agent, not even indirectly (as we have for natural theories of life's origin). So the intelligent design theory is completely ad hoc, in exactly the way our accidental theory is not, and is therefore not presently credible.

The situation is even worse than that, really. For the Christian theory does not predict what we observe, while the natural theory does predict what we observe. After all, what need does an intelligent engineer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars each? That tremendous waste is only needed if life had to arise by natural accident. It would have no plausible purpose in the Christian God's plan. You cannot predict from "the Christian God created the world" that "the world" would be trillions of galaxies large and billions of years old before it finally stumbled on one rare occasion of life. But we can predict exactly that from "no God created this world." Therefore, the facts confirm atheism rather than theism. Obviously, a Christian can invent all manner of additional "ad hoc" theories to explain "why" his God would go to all the trouble of designing the universe to look exactly like we would expect it to look if God did not exist. But these "ad hoc" excuses are themselves pure concoctions of the imagination--until the Christian can prove these additional theories are true, from independent evidence, there is no reason to believe them, and hence no reason to believe the Christian theory.

The same analysis follows for evolution. The evidence that all present life evolved by a process of natural selection is strong and extensive. I won't make the case here, for it is enough to point out that the scientific consensus on this is vast and certain.[10] And as it happens, evolution requires billions of years to get from the first accidental life to organisms as complex as us. God does not require this--nor does taking so long make much sense for God, unless he wanted to deliberately fabricate evidence against his existence by planting all the evidence for evolution--all the fossils, all the DNA correlations, the vast scales of time over which changes occurred, everything. Again, there is no credible reason to believe the Christian God would do this, and no actual evidence that he did. In contrast, the only way we could exist without God is if we live at the end of billions of years of meandering change over time. Lo and behold, that is exactly where we observe ourselves to be. Thus, atheism predicts the overall evidence for evolution, including the vast time involved and all the meandering progress of change in the fossil record, whereas Christian theism does not predict any of this--without adding all manner of undemonstrated ad hoc assumptions, assumptions the atheist theory does not require.

Even DNA confirms atheism over Christianity. The only way life could ever arise by accident and evolve by natural selection is if it was built from a chemical code that could be copied and that was subject to mutation. We know of no other natural, accidental way for any universe to just stumble upon any kind of life that could naturally evolve. Also, as best we know, the only chemicals that our present universe could accidentally assemble this way are amino acids (and similar molecules like nucleotides). And it is highly improbable that an accidentally assembled code would employ any more than a handful of basic units in its fundamental structure. Lo and behold, we observe all of this to be the case. Exactly as required by the theory that there is no God, all life is built from a chemical code that copies itself and mutates naturally, this code is constructed from amino-acid-forming nucleotide molecules, and the most advanced DNA code only employs four different nucleotide molecules to do that. The Christian theory predicts none of this. Atheism predicts all of it. There is no good reason God would need any of these things to create and sustain life. He could, and almost certainly would, use an infallible spiritual essence to accomplish the same ends--exactly as all Christians thought for nearly two thousand years.

Again, the only way a Christian can explain the actual facts is by pulling out of thin air some unproven "reason" why God would design life in exactly the way required by the theory that life wasn't designed by God--a way that was demonstrably inferior to what he could have done. Either God must have a deliberate intent to deceive, which no "good" or "loving" God who "wanted" us to know the truth would ever have, or God has some other motive that just "happens" to entail, by some truly incredible coincidence, doing exactly the same thing as deceiving us into thinking he doesn't exist, which at the same time just "happens" to require adding needless imperfections in our construction. In the one case, Christianity is refuted, and in the other it becomes too incredible to believe--unless the Christian can prove from actual evidence that this coincidental reason really does exist and really has guided God's actions in choosing how to design life and the universe it resides in. The possibility is not enough. You have to prove it. That has yet to happen.

We can find more examples from the nature of life. For example, a loving God would infuse his creation with models of moral goodness everywhere, in the very function and organization of nature. He would not create an animal kingdom that depended on wanton rape and murder to persist and thrive, nor would animals have to produce hundreds of offspring because almost all of them will die, most of them horribly. There would be no disease or other forms of suffering among animals at all. Yet all of these things must necessarily exist if there is no God. So once again, atheism predicts what we see. Christianity does not.

The Human Brain

As a more specific example, consider the size of the human brain. If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a fully functional mind can exist without a body--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them. For being minds like him, being "made in his image," our souls could do all the work, and control our thoughts and bodies directly. At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul. A brain no larger than that of a monkey would be sufficient, since a monkey can see, hear, smell, and do pretty much everything we can, and its tiny brain is apparently adequate to the task. And had God done that--had he given us real souls that actually perform all the tasks of consciousness (seeing, feeling, thinking)--that would indeed count as evidence for his existence, and against mere atheism.

In contrast, if a mind can only be produced by a comparably complex machine, then obviously there can be no God, and the human brain would have to be very large--large enough to contain and produce a complex machine like a mind. Lo and behold, the human brain is indeed large--so large that it kills many mothers during labor (without modern medicine, the rate of mortality varies around 10% per child). This huge brain also consumes a large amount of oxygen and other resources, and it is very delicate and easily damaged. Moreover, damage to the brain profoundly harms a human's ability to perceive and think. So our large brain is a considerable handicap, the cause of needless misery and death and pointless inefficiency--which is not anything a loving engineer would give us, nor anything a good or talented engineer with godlike resources would ever settle on.

But this enormous, problematic brain is necessarily the only way conscious beings can exist if there is no God nor any other supernatural powers in the universe. If we didn't need a brain, and thus did not have one, we would be many times more efficient. All that oxygen, energy, and other materials could be saved or diverted to other functions. We would also be far less vulnerable to fatal or debilitating injury, we would be immune to brain damage and defects that impair judgment or distort perception (like schizophrenia or retardation), and we wouldn't have killed one in every ten of our mothers before the rise of modern medicine. In short, the fact that we have such large, vulnerable brains is the only way we could exist if there is no God, but is quite improbable if there is a God who loves us and wants us to do well and have a fair chance in life. Once again, atheism predicts the universe we find ourselves in. The Christian theory does not.[11]

Finely Tuning a Killer Cosmos

Even the Christian proposal that God designed the universe, indeed "finely tuned" it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life, fails to predict the universe we see. A universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain it. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that is not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life--in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life. Would you conclude that the house was built to serve and benefit that subatomic speck? Hardly. Yet that is the house we live in. The Christian theory completely fails to predict this--while atheism predicts exactly this.

The fact that the universe is actually very poorly designed to sustain and benefit life is already a refutation of the Christian theory, which entails the purpose of the universe is to sustain and benefit life--human life in particular. When we look at how the universe is actually built, we do find that it appears perfectly designed after all--but not for producing life. Lee Smolin has argued from the available scientific facts that our universe is probably the most perfect universe that could ever be arranged for producing black holes.[12] He also explains how all the elements that would be required to finely tune a perfect black-hole-maker also make chemical life like ours an extremely rare but inevitable byproduct of such a universe. This means that if the universe was designed, it was not designed to make and sustain us, but to make and sustain black holes, and therefore even if there is a God he cannot be the Christian God. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Smolin explains how a universe perfectly designed to produce black holes would look exactly like our universe. It would be extremely old, extremely large, and almost entirely comprised of radiation-filled vacuum, in which almost all the matter available would be devoted to producing black holes or providing the material that feeds them. We know there must be, in fact, billions more black holes than life-producing planets. And if any of several physical constants varied by even the tiniest amount, the universe would produce fewer black holes--hence these constants have been arranged into the perfect combination for producing the most black holes possible. The number and variety and exact properties of subatomic particles has the same effect--any difference, and our universe would produce fewer black holes. Christianity predicts none of these things. What use does God have for quarks, neutrinos, muons, or kaons? They are necessary only if God wanted to build a universe that was a perfect black hole generator.

Think about it. If you found a pair of scissors and didn't know what they were designed for, you could hypothesize they were designed as a screwdriver, because scissors can, after all, drive screws. In fact, there is no way to design a pair of scissors that would prevent them being used as a screwdriver. But as soon as someone showed you that these scissors were far better designed to cut paper, and in fact are not the best design for driving screws, would you stubbornly hang on to your theory that they were designed to drive screws? No. You would realize it was obvious they were designed to cut paper, and their ability to drive screws is just an inevitable byproduct of their actual design. This is exactly what we are facing when we look at the universe: it is not very well designed for life, though life is an inevitable byproduct of what the universe was more obviously designed for: black holes. So if the universe was intelligently designed, it clearly was not designed for us.

But that is not the only explanation. If the universe was indeed perfectly designed to sustain and benefit life--if the whole cosmos was hospitable and beneficial--that would be evidence it was intelligently or supernaturally designed, since only an intelligent or supernatural being would ever have such a goal in mind. But this does not follow for black holes. Smolin explains why. Black holes possess all the same properties that our own Big Bang must have possessed before expanding into the present cosmos, so it seems likely that every black hole might produce a new universe inside it. Smolin then demonstrates that if every black hole produces a new universe slightly different than its parent, then our universe is the inevitable outcome of literally any possible universe that could arise at random. If any universe emerges randomly from a primordial chaos, no matter what arrangement of particles and physical constants that universe accidentally ends up with, it will always produce at least one black hole (even if only by collapsing in on itself), which in Smolin's theory will reset the whole slate, producing an entirely new universe with a newly randomized set of properties. This new universe will in turn produce at least one more black hole, and therefore one more roll of the dice, and on and on, forever. There is nothing that could ever stop this from continuing on to infinity.

Some of these early random universes will just by chance have properties that produce more black holes than other universes, and will thus produce far more baby universes than their cousins do. The more black holes a universe produces, the more likely it is that some of the new universes this causes will also be good at making black holes, or even better. And eventually this chain of cause and effect will generate perfect or near-perfect black hole producers, after an extended and inevitable process of trial and error. Therefore, if the whole multiverse began with any random universe from some primordial chaos, eventually a universe exactly like ours would be an inevitable and unstoppable outcome. Hence Smolin's theory predicts exactly our universe, with all its finely tuned attributes, without any God or intelligent design.

Now, Smolin's theory has yet to be proven. It is at present just a hypothesis--but so is Christianity. Just like Christianity, there are elements to Smolin's theory that are conjectural and not independently proven to exist. However, the most important element--the fact that unintelligent natural selection can produce incredibly precise fine tuning over time--has been proven, whereas any sort of divine activity has not. We have never observed a single proven case of a god causing anything, much less any fine-tuning of the properties of our universe. But we have found overwhelming evidence for a process that produces very amazing fine-tuning without any intelligence behind it, and that is evolution by natural selection. This is a known precedent--unlike bodiless minds or divine causation. And a theory based on known precedents is always less ad hoc than a theory based on completely novel and unobserved mechanisms. So Smolin's theory already has an edge over creationism.

Even so, there are still some ad hoc elements to Smolin's theory, and therefore it is not yet a fact, just a hypothesis. But suppose for a moment that Smolin's theory is the only possible way our universe could come to exist without a God. It is certainly one possible way. No Christian can yet refute Smolin's theory or prove it is not the correct explanation. There are also other theories now that explain our exact universe without a God, like chaotic inflation theory. But let's assume we ruled out all those alternatives, and all we had left was Smolin's theory and the Christian's theory. Then, if Christianity was false, Smolin's theory would necessarily be true.

Now observe the facts: the universe is exactly the way Smolin's theory predicts it would be, right down to peculiar details--such as the existence and properties of obscure subatomic particles, and the fact that the universe is almost entirely devoted to producing and feeding black holes, is almost entirely inhospitable to life, and almost never produces life. Christianity predicts none of these things, and in fact many of these details seem quite improbable if Christianity is true. In contrast, atheism would predict every single one of those details, exactly as we observe. Once again, Christianity predicts a different universe than the one we have--while atheism predicts exactly the universe we have. This even extends to the Big Bang theory itself. In no way does Christianity predict God would "create" a universe with a long deterministic process from a Big Bang. But if Smolin's theory is the only possible explanation of our universe without God, then it necessarily follows that our universe must have begun with a Big Bang and evolved slowly over many eons. Yet again, atheism predicts a Big Bang universe. Christianity does not.

Even aside from physics, the nature of the world is clearly dispassionate and blind, exhibiting no value-laden behavior or message of any kind, and everything we find turns out to be the inevitable product of mindless physics. The natural world is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others. This is exactly what we should expect if it was not created and governed by a benevolent deity. Yet it is hardly explicable on the theory that there is such a being. Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude there is no divine hand. Conversely, all the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. Never once have we confirmed the existence of any other kind of cause. And that is strange if there is a God, but not at all strange if there isn't one. Nowhere do we find in the design of the universe itself any sort of intention or goal we can only expect from a conscious being like us, as opposed to the sort of goals exhibited by, say, a flat worm, a computer game, or an ant colony, or an intricate machine like the solar system, which simply follows inevitably from natural forces that are fixed and blind.

Given the lack of any clear evidence for God, and the fact that (apart from what humans do) everything we've seen has been caused by immutable natural elements and forces, we should sooner infer that immutable natural elements and forces are behind it all. Likewise, the only things we have ever proven to exist are matter, energy, space, and time, and countless different arrangements of these. Therefore, the natural inference is that these are the only things there are. After all, the universe exhibits no values in its own operation or design. It operates exactly the same for everyone, the good and bad alike. It rewards and craps on both with total disregard. It behaves just like a cold and indifferent machine, not the creation of a loving engineer. Christianity does not predict this. Atheism does.

The Original Christian Cosmos

A Christian might still balk and ask, "Well, what other universe could God have made?" The answer is easy: the very universe early Christians like Paul actually believed they lived in. In other words, a universe with no evidence of such a vast age or of natural evolution, a universe that contained instead abundant evidence that it was created all at once just thousands of years ago. A universe that wasn't so enormous and that had no other star systems or galaxies, but was instead a single cosmos of seven planetary bodies and a sphere full of star lights that all revolve around an Earth at the center of God's creation--because that Earth is the center of God's love and attention. A complete cosmos whose marvelously intricate motions had no other explanation than God's will, rather than a solar system whose intricate motions are entirely the inevitable outcome of fixed and blind forces. A universe comprised of five basic elements, not over ninety elements, each in turn constructed from a dizzying array of subatomic particles. A universe governed by God's law, not a thoroughly amoral physics. A universe inhabited by animals and spirits whose activity could be confirmed everywhere, and who lived in and descended from outer space--which was not a vacuum, but literally the ethereal heavens, the hospitable home of countless of God's most marvelous creatures (both above and below the Moon)--a place Paul believed human beings could live and had actually visited without harm.

That is, indeed, exactly the universe we would expect if Christianity were true--which is why Christianity was contrived as it was, when it was. The first Christians truly believed the universe was exactly as Christian theism predicted it to be, and took that as confirmation of their theory. Lo and behold, they were wrong--about almost every single detail! Paul truly believed that the perfect order of the heavens, the apparent design of human and animal bodies, and the perfect march of the seasons had no other explanation than intelligent design, and in fact he believed in God largely because of this, and condemned unbelievers precisely because they rejected this evidence.[13] But it turns out none of this evidence really existed. Christians have long abandoned their belief that the perfect order of the heavens can only be explained by God, since they now know it is entirely explained by physics and requires no intelligent meddling or design. And a great many Christians have abandoned their belief that the apparent design of human and animal bodies can only be explained by God, since they now know it is entirely explicable by natural evolution.

All the evidence we now have in hand only compounds Paul's error. For what we know today is exactly the opposite of what Paul would have expected. It is exactly the opposite of what his Christian theory predicted. Paul certainly would have told you that God would never use billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human. God would just make humans. And Paul certainly believed that is exactly what God did, and surely expected the evidence would prove it. But the evidence has not. It has, in fact, proved exactly the opposite. Likewise, Paul naturally believed God simply spoke a word, and Earth existed. One more word, and the stars existed. That's exactly what the Christian theory predicts. But that isn't what happened.

Again, Christians can fabricate excuses for why God did things differently--but that's all just ad hoc. Like Christianity, none of these excuses have been demonstrated to be true. It is even doubtful such excuses would be compatible with Christianity. As noted earlier, God can do essentially anything, so what he does is pretty much limited only by what he wants to do. Christianity says he wants us to be good and set things right, which entails that God wants us to know what is good and how to set things right. Christianity says God wants to do what is good, and his choices are guided by his love of love and his hatred of hatred--therefore anything he designed would be the good and admirable product of a loving being. There is no way to "define away" these conclusions. If any of these conclusions are false, Christianity is false. But these conclusions entail that certain things would be true about our universe that are in fact not true.

The existence of a divine creator driven by a mission to save humankind, for example, entails that his creation would serve exactly that end, better than any other. And that means he would not design the universe to look exactly like it would have to look if God did not exist. Instead, if I wanted people to know which church was teaching the right way to salvation, I would lead the way for them by protecting all such churches with mysterious energy fields so they would be invulnerable to harm, and its preachers alone would be able to work miracles day after day, such as regenerating lost limbs, raising the dead, or calming storms. The bibles of this church would glow in the dark so they could always be read and would be indestructible--immune to any attempt to mark, burn, or tear them, or change what they said. Indeed, I would regard it as my moral obligation to do things like this, so my children would not be in the dark about who I was and what I was about, so they would be able to find out for sure what was truly good for them.

So, too, the Christian God would design a universe with moral goals built in. For example, if I were to make a universe, and cared how the people in it felt--whether they suffered or were happy--I would make it a law of nature that the more good a person really was, the more invulnerable they would be to harm or illness, and the more evil, the weaker and more ill. Nature would be governed by survival of the kindest, not survival of the fittest. Obviously, such a law would not be possible unless the universe "knew" what good and evil was, and cared about the one flourishing rather than the other. And unlike mere survival, which does its own choosing through the callous mechanism of death, if the very laws of the universe served a highly abstract good instead, that would be inconceivable without a higher mind capable of grasping and caring about all these deep abstract principles--as we know humans do, and the universe does not. So a physical law like this would indeed provide good evidence the universe was created by a loving God.

But, lo and behold, that is not the universe we live in. Even if a God made this universe, it could not be the Christian God because no God who wanted us to know the truth would conceal it by making a universe that looked exactly like a universe with no God in it. The simple fact is that Christianity does not predict our universe, but a completely different one. Atheism, however, predicts exactly the kind of universe we find ourselves in. So the nature of the universe is another failed prediction, confirming our previous conclusion that Christianity is false.

(Click here for author information.)

Why I Am Not A Christian:

Introduction:

    This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian.  There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.  The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power.  Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship.  Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe in the Bible, when in fact I do not.

    I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry.  This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible.  It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice.  I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics.  Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.

    Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation.  (I personally prefer the NIV or KJV)  I will only cite the verse and a brief over view.  I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially don’t wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading.  (Funny confliction here, isn’t it?  We are online, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.)  In the case that you dislike reading online essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.

Hell:

    Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible.  It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian God’s crimes.  Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps.  (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.)  Described biblically as the “lake of fire”, “the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell. So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian God as not fit for worshiping.

    I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing.  Most of all I am a creator, a mother.  I propose this to you, a human question.  Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a God, he is our greatest thought magnified?  Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, God is infinitely more feeling?  For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume.  With this being so, my love for my daughter must be a fraction of God’s love for his children.  Speaking as a mother, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm.  Why?  Simply because she is my creation.

    If my daughter were to maim me, slander me, etc.  I would still love her, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for her regardless of her actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would God condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith?  If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist?  Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.

But “God Is Just” You Claim:

    Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization.  “God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just.”  I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent?  Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment?  The bible states the system of justice very simply.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse “eye for an eye”.  The Christian God violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy.  I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime.  (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)

    Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking.  We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is God above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior?  After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of “fire and brimstone.”  How many of us would want a parent such as that?  Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a God so cruel!

“Free Will”, You Say?

    It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not.  How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences?  That completely conflicts with the definition of free.  If I were to hold a gun to your head and say “you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you.”  Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter?  Of course not.  Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return.  The whole free will concept is self defeating.  Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.

    Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of God.  They defend Jehovah’s creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather then a punishment.  That indeed, we as children of God, chose rather to be hell’s inmates then God’s disciples in heaven.  It’s an interesting idea.  However, you don’t have to hurt anyone to get into Hell.  All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior.  It doesn’t matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesn’t make sense.  The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates’ choice?  Why should we blame God for the choice of the damned?

Genocide:

    I hear a lot from Christians about God’s “infinite compassion and mercy”.

    Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your Bibles to Numbers 31)  The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same God they claim to be so merciful.  A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian.  Moses was told to put every Midianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments.  Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign.  On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army.  He said, “Why have you spared the life of all the women and children?  You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation.”  Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.

    I have had some Christians proclaim that these Midianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage.  How ridiculous!  If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Midianite was a crime against God.  A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Midianite woman this angered God so he sent a plague among the Hebrews.  Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away.  So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Midianite, just what were these “virgin woman who were to help multiply” good for?

    I don’t think the first born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either.  (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29)  First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go.  God messed with someone’s free will.  God could have even teleported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no.  God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh.  Though this he didn’t even do.  He punished the children instead.  Judging from God’s previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.

    Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of God. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of God, I suggest you re evaluate your code of ethics.

    Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter.  I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument.  The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.

    The corruption argument simply does not hold up.  The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.)  Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes with out saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent.  (*Quick tip-If God was anti abortion he wouldn’t have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)

    As to the mercy argument: If I don’t claim to be suffering, and don’t ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better.  (This would of course be a violation of my free will.)  If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship.  Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian God?

Neglect:

    Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah.  What would you do if given omnipotence?  If your answer is anything other than “abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth”, there’s something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind.  There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril.  To wish for these things doesn’t take “infinite mercy”, just normal compassion and a bit of common sense.  God’s supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.

    What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus’ own standards demand feeding of the poor.  See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not.  I find it funny that God is held blameless, though, for not feeding them.  Does not the old saying “practice what you preach” apply to God?  Is his lack of action a hypocrisy or a sin?  Could it perhaps be both?

    Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, “No.  It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor.”  (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative.)  This argument uses a double standard.  Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same.  In fact, it would be far easier for God to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.

    Another popular rationalization is that life without “challenges” would be boring and dehumanizing, so God does not remove them.  The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together.  I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcanoes or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease.  I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull.     Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?

Faith Is Required To Know God:

    Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian God.  Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you?  I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles.  It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep God’s followers from delusion and doubt.  There is no such luck with Jehovah though.  He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so called record of his existence is the bible.  I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal.  Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for God’s existence is proposing a double standard.  For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Koran? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so called “factual” book?

    Let’s examine what faith is.  The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false.  Faith has also been proven through out history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can God possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?

    Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we don’t believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the “virtue” of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If God is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.

God Is The Creator Of Evil:

    I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic.  The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”.  Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all knowing.  Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore known to him.  I have a real problem with this notion.  For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place?  Was it simply to watch me be tortured?  That seems to be the most logical explanation.  I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to.  Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will.  Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse?  Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God?  It’s seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.

    Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil.  Please read verse Isaiah 45:7.  “I form the light and create darkness.  I make peace and create evil.  I the lord do all these things”.  The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil.  So how can he then claim to be sinless?

    To be more specific, let’s talk about the lord’s creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan.  This being was created and unleashed by God.  Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind.  Leading people into criminal activities.  Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people.  Whose fault would it be if I let it loose?  Mine or the robot’s?  Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose.  Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world?  Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?

    Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as a people are the creator of evil.  It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains.  Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single handedly brought evil into the world.  All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept.  Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people?  Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes?  The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at.  People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.

    I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy.  I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in.  A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system.  A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith.  For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.

Human Judgment

    One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God.  A pretty feeble grasp at the straws.  Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good.  All morality proceeds downwards from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him.  But I must interject.  God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.  Thus, allowing us “to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil”.  This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use.  If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can't we use our judgment?  How can it be lower then God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God.  Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards?  Please consult verses Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: “Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”

    Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst.  But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation.  I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes.  He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged.  I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis.  In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment.  He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.

In Conclusion

    I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible.  There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes.  Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further.  As I read over all that I have wrote I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror.  It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer.  In punishment, it could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly.

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN ... 1

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN 

and other essays on religion and related subjects

First published in 1957

*

பெர்ட்ரண்ட் ரஸ்ஸல்  - 1872 - 1970

 

* போர்களுக்கும் காலனியாதிக்கத்திற்கும்  எதிராகக் குரல் கொடுத்தவர். 
* ஹிட்லருக்கு எதிரான கருத்துப் போராட்டத்தை நடத்தியவர். 
* அமெரிக்காவின் வியட்நாம் யுத்தத்தைக் கடுமையாக எதிர்த்தவர்; 
* அணுகுண்டு அழிப்புக்கும்  குரலெழுப்பியவர்.

மனிதப் பண்பாடுகளுக்காகவும், சுதந்திரத்திற்காகவும் அவர் எழுதிய இலக்கியத்திற்காக 1950-ல் இலக்கியத்திற்கான நோபல் பரிசு பெற்றவர்.  

*

Richard Dawkins  நூலில் பார்த்தது போலவே இந்நூலிலும் கிறித்துவத்திற்கு என்று சொல்லப்படும் பல கருத்துக்கள் ஆப்ரஹாமிய மதங்களுக்கும் பொதுவானது என்றே கொள்ள வேண்டும்.

மதக் கொள்கைகள் இல்லாத ஒரு சமூகத்தில் நேர்மை மலருமா என்றொரு கேள்வியுண்டு. மத நம்பிக்கையாளர்கள் நம்புவது போல் எனக்கு அந்த நம்பிக்கை கிடையாது. மத நம்பிக்கையாளர்களை விடவும் நம்பிக்கையற்றவர்கள் பல விதங்களில் நேர்மையோடு இருப்பார்கள் என்பது என் எண்ணம். (இதற்கு என் வாழ்க்கையில் ஒரு நேரடி அனுபவம் உண்டு. "நானும் சத் சபையும் .." என்ற தலைப்பில் பிறகு எழுதுகிறேன்!!) (154)

மதங்கள் உண்மையானவை; ஆகவே அதனை நம்ப வேண்டும் என்று சொல்லும் ஒருவரை நான் மதிக்கிறேன். ஆனால், மதங்களை நம்பியேயாக வேண்டும்; ஏனெனில் அது நல்லது செய்யும். மதம் உண்மையா என்பது போன்ற கேள்விகளை கேட்பதே தேவையில்லை என்பவர்களை நான் மறுத்து ஒதுக்குகிறேன்.

நிறைய கிறித்துவர்கள் கம்யூனிசத்திற்கும் கிறித்துவத்திற்கும் மிகுந்த வேறுபாடுகள் உண்டு. கம்யூனிசத்தில் உள்ள தீமைகள் ஏதும் கிறித்துவத்தில் கிடையாது என்றெல்லாம் சொல்வதுண்டு. இது ஒரு மிகப் பெரிய தவறு. O.G.P.U.(Russianl political force) -க்கும் கிறித்தவத்தின் மதத் தீவிரவாததிற்கும்(inquisition) நிறைய வேறுபாடு ஏதுமில்லை.

INQUISITION

கம்யூனிஸ்டுகள் வரலாற்றைத் திரிபு செய்வதுண்டு. அது போலவே மறுமலர்ச்சிக் காலம் வரை கிறித்துவமும் அதையே செய்ததுண்டு. இப்போது கிறித்துவம் கம்யூனிசத்தை விடவும் மோசமில்லாமல் இருப்பதற்கான காரணமே கிறித்துவத்திற்குள்ளிருந்த எழுந்த போராட்டமும், council of Trent (13 December, 1545, -- 4 December, 1563) குழுவின் முனைப்புமே காரணம். (157)

Ibnu Shakir said...

அன்புள்ள தருமி,
உங்கள் மீது ஏக்க அல்லாஹ்வின் சாந்தியும் சமாதானமும் (காப்பிரைட் முஸ்லீம்கள்) நிலவட்டும்.

முதலில் ஈஸா நபி அல்லாஹ்வின் இறைதூதர் என்று அறிவியற்பூர்வமாக நிரூபிக்கிறேன். ஈஸா நபி எந்த இடத்திலும் அல்லாஹ் என்ற ஒருவார்த்தை கூட சொல்லவில்லை என்றாலும் அவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் தூதர்தான். அவருக்கு அரபி மொழியே தெரியவில்லை என்றாலும் அவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் இறைதூதர்தான். தன்னை இறைதூதர் என்று ஒரு இடத்திலும் சொல்லவில்லை என்றாலும் அவர் அல்லாஹ்வின் இறைதூதர்தான். ஆதாரம் வேண்டுமா? அல்குரானை படியுங்கள். படித்துவிட்டீர்களா? அவ்வளவுதான். அல்குரானிலேயே அல்லாஹ்வின் இரைதூதர்தான் ஈஸா நபி என்று இருக்கிறதல்லவா? இதற்கு மேல் என்ன ஆதாரம் வேண்டும்?

அப்புறம் இந்த பஹாவுல்லா, குலாம் அஹ்மது எல்லாம் தங்களையும் அல்லாஹ்வின் இறைதூதர் என்று சொல்லிக்கொள்கிறார்கள். அவர்கள் இறைதூதர் இல்லை. அதற்கு ஆதாரம் என்ன என்று கேட்கிறீர்களா? அதற்கும் அல்குராந்தான் ஆதாரம். ஆனால் பஹாவுல்ல்லாவை நம்புபவர்கள் அல்குரானில் சொல்லப்பட்டிருக்கும் இறுதி தூதர் மொஹம்மத் இப்னு அப்தல்லா என்று அவர்களது புத்தகத்தில் எழுதியிருக்கிறது என்று சொல்கிறார்கள். ஆனால், அல்குரான் மட்டும்தான் அல்லாஹ் கொடுத்தது. பஹாவுல்லாவின் புத்தகம் அல்லாஹ் கொடுக்கவில்லை. ஆதாரம் என்ன என்று கேட்கிறீர்களா? அதற்கும் அல்குரான் தான் ஆதாரம். எப்படி! சூப்பரா இருக்கு இல்ல? 

இன்னேரம் உங்களுக்கு ஒரு ஐடியா வந்திருக்கணுமே? நீங்களே ஒரு புத்தகத்தை எழுதி, அதில அல்குரானை கொடுத்ததை மொஹம்மத் இப்னு அப்தல்லா திருத்திட்டாரு. தப்பு தப்பா எழுதிட்டாரு. அதனை திருத்த என்னை அனுப்பியிருக்காரு அல்லாஹ் என்று ஒரு கதை விடுங்கள். இனி நீங்கதான் இறுதி இறைதூதர். 

ஆனாலும் உங்களால கண்ணுமணிமாதிரி கூட்டம் சேக்க முடியாது. அது தாவூது இப்ராஹிம் மாதிரி தாதாவா இருந்தாத்தான்முடியும்.
தாவூது இப்ராஹிமுக்காக அந்த கூட்டத்து ஆள் உசிர கொடுக்க தயாரா இருக்கிறமாதிரி உசிர கொடுக்க தயாரா இருக்கிறமாதிரி கூட்டம் உருவாக்கணும். 

உங்க நல்ல மனசுக்கு அதெல்லாம் முடியாதுன்னு நென்க்கிறேன்.

சுவனப்பிரியன் said...

இப்னு ஷகீர்!

முதலில் இஸ்லாமிய பெயரில் ஒளிந்து கொண்டு எழுதுவதை தவிர்க்கவும். நீங்கள் என்னதான் வேடம் போட்டாலும் உங்கள் எழுத்து நடை உங்களை காட்டிக் கொடுத்து விடுகிறது.

//ஆதாரம் வேண்டுமா? அல்குரானை படியுங்கள். படித்துவிட்டீர்களா? அவ்வளவுதான்.//

குர்ஆன் மட்டும் அல்ல பைபிளிலிருந்தே ஆதாரத்தைத் தருகிறேன்.

'பின்பு ஏசு கலிலியோ எங்கும் சுற்றித் திரிந்து அவர்களுடைய ஜெப ஆலயங்களில் உபதேசித்து ராஜ்ஜியத்தின் சுவிசேசத்தைப் பிரசிங்கித்தார்'
-மத்தேயு 4:23

'இயேசு கலிலயோவில் வந்து தேவனுடைய ராஜ்ஜியத்தின் சுவிசேசத்தைப் பிரசிங்கித்தார்'
-மாற்கு 1:15

'காலம் நிறைவேறிற்று. தேவனுடைய ராஜ்ஜியம் சமீபமாயிற்று. மனம் திரும்பி சுவிசேசத்தை விசுவாசியுங்கள் என்றார்.
-மாற்கு 1:15

தேவனுடைய புத்தகமான சுவிசேசத்தை விசுவாசியுங்கள் என்று ஏசு தனது நாவாலேயே சொல்ல ஏசு எப்படி கடவுளாக்கப்பட்டார்? அதற்கும் பைபிளேலேயே விளக்கமும் இருக்கிறது.

'மகாகனம் பொருந்திய தெயோப்பிலுவே! நீங்கள் முழு நிச்சயமாய் நம்புகிற சங்கதிகளை ஆரம்பம் முதல் கண்ணாரக் கண்டு வசனத்தைப் போதித்தவர்கள் எங்களுக்கு அறிவித்தபடியே அவைகளைக் குறித்து சரித்திரம் எழுத அனேகர் ஏற்பட்டபடியினாலே ஆதி முதல் எல்லாவற்றையும் திட்டமாய் விசாரித்தறிந்து நானும் உமக்கு உபதேசிக்கப் பட்ட விசேஷங்களின் நிச்சயத்தை நீர் அறிய வேண்டுமென்று அவைகளை ஒழுங்காய் உமக்கு எழுதுவது எனக்கு நலமாய்த் தோன்றிற்று.
-லூக்கா 1:2-4

நான் எழுதியது இறைவனின் வேதம் அன்று: பரிசுத்த ஆவியின் தூண்டதலால் எழுதப்பட்டதுமன்று: தான் விசாரித்தறிந்ததையே எழுதியிருக்கிறேன் என லூக்கா ஒப்புக் கொள்கிறார்.கடந்த காலங்களில் நடந்த சம்பவங்களின் தொகுப்பை செவி வழியாக கேட்டு தாம் பதித்திருப்பதாக லூக்காவே ஒப்புதல் வாக்கு மூலம் கொடுக்கிறார்.

இயேசு உபதேசித்த இன்ஜிலை (பைபிளை) மறைத்து விட்டு மற்றவர்களின் செவி வழி செய்திகளையே பைபிள் என்று நமக்கு காட்டுகிறது கிறித்தவ உலகம். எனவே ஏசு உபதேசித்த அந்த சுவிசேசம் நமக்கு கிடைக்குமானால் கிறித்தவர்களில் நாத்திகர்களின் எண்ணிக்கையும் குறையும்: தருமியும் 'நான் ஏன் மீண்டும் கிறித்தவனானேன்?' என்று பல பதிவுகளை போட்டு தள்ளுவார்.

//முகமது நபி காலத்திலேயே குர்ஆனை எழுதுவதற்கென்றே பலரை நபிகள் நாயகம் நியமித்திருந்தார். அவர்கள் தோல்களிலும், எலும்புகளிலும் மரப்பட்டைகளிலும் அவ்வப்போது குர்ஆன் வசனத்தை எழுதி வந்தனர். 23 வருடகாலம் இந்த பணி தொடரந்து நடந்தது. முகமது நபியின் மரணத்துக்கு பிறகு ஏற்கெனவே இருந்த குர்ஆன் ஜனாதிபதி உஸ்மான் அவர்களால் தொகுக்கப்பட்டு பல நாடுகளுக்கும் அனுப்பப்பட்டது.

ஐந்து வசனங்கள் ஒரு நாள் அருளப்பட்டால் அந்த ஐந்து வசனங்களையும் நபிகள் நாயகம் அவர்கள் உடனே எழுதச் சொல்வார்கள். அது தோளிலோ, எலும்பிலோ எழுதப்படும். அடுத்த நாள் மூன்று வசனங்கள் அருளப்பட்டால் அதை எழுதச் சொல்வார்கள்; அது தனியாக எழுதப்படும்.
எழுத்து வடிவத்தில் அனைத்து வசனங்களும் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டிருந்தாலும், அவை வரிசைப்படுத்தப்படாமல் இருந்தன.

மனனம் செய்த தலைமுறையினர் மரணித்து விட்டால் அந்த ஏட்டிலிருந்து இந்த வரிசைப்படி தொகுக்க முடியாத நிலை ஏற்பட்டு விடும். இந்த நிலை ஏற்படக் கூடாது என்பதற்காகத் தான் அபூபக்ர் (ரலி) அவர்கள், உமர் (ரலி) அவர்களின் ஆலோசனையைப் பரிசீலித்து எழுத்து வடிவில் உள்ளதை முறைப்படுத்தும் பணியை மேற்கொண்டார்கள்.

எழுதப்பட்டு, நபிகள் நாயகம் (ஸல்) அவர்கள் வீட்டிலிருந்த ஏடுகளையும், தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் எழுதி வைத்திருந்தவர்களிடம் உள்ள ஏடுகளையும் ஸைத் பின் ஸாபித் (ரலி) திரட்டினார்கள். மனனம் செய்தவர்களை அழைத்து அவர்கள் மனனம் செய்தவற்றையும் எழுத்து வடிவமாக்கினார்கள்.


இது ஏற்கெனவே விரிவாக விளக்கப்பட்ட கேள்வி. புதியவர்களுக்காக மறுபடியும் பதிக்கிறேன்.//


ஏற்கனவே விரிவாக விளக்கபட்ட கேள்விக்கு நாங்கள் கேட்ட பதில் கேள்விக்கு இன்றூ வரை பதில் இல்லையே, அப்படியானால் குரான் என்பது பொய்தான் என்றூ நிரூபணமாகிறதே!

அது என்ன கேள்வின்னு தெரியனுமா?
மற்ற நண்பர்களால் தொகுக்கபட்ட மூலகுரான் ஏன் அழிக்கபட்டது, இடைசொருகல்கள் தெரிந்துவிடும் என்று தானே!

நீங்க எனக்கு பத்து லட்சம் கடன் கொடுத்தேன்னு சொல்றிங்க, சரிங்க எங்க பத்திரம்னு கேட்டா கிழிச்சி போட்டுட்டேன்னு சொல்றிங்க, அப்ப உங்களை மற்றவர்கள் பைத்தியம் மாதிரி தானே பார்ப்பார்கள் அதுனால ...................

Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:56:00 PM

சுவனப்பிரியன் said...

சார்வாகன்!

//மறுப்பு தெரிவிக்க வராக்க மொழி பெயர்த்த அரபு பிரதி இன்ஜீலை கொண்டு வர வேண்டுகிறேன்//

நீங்கள் விட்ட பாக்கி பாதி ஹதீதையும் முழுவதுமாக படியுங்கள்...

……மேலும் அவர் கண் பார்வையிழிந்த முதியவராகவும் இருந்தார். அவரிடம் கதீஜா அவர்கள், 'என் தந்தையின் சகோதரர் புதல்வரே! உங்களுடைய சகோதரரின் புதல்வர் (முஹம்மது) இடம் (அவர் கூறுவதைக்) கேளுங்கள்!' என்றார்கள். அப்போது அவர் (நபியவர்களிடம்), 'என் சகோதரர் புதல்வரே! நீங்கள் என்ன பார்த்தீர்கள்?' எனக் கேட்டதற்கு நபி(ஸல்) அவர்கள் தாம் பாார்த்தவற்றின் செய்தியை அவரிடம் தெரிவித்தார்கள். இதைக்கேட்ட 'வரக்கா', '(நீர் கண்ட) இவர் தாம் (இறைத்தூதர்) மூஸாவிடம் (இறைவனால்) அனுப்பப்பட்ட வானவர் (ஜிப்ரீல்) ஆவார்' என்று கூறிவிட்டு, (மகனே!) உம்மை உம் சமூகத்தார் உம்முடைய நாட்டிலிருந்து வெளியேற்றும்) அந்தச் சமயத்தில் நான் திடகாத்திரமானவனாக இருந்தால் நன்றாயிருக்குமே! நான் அந்தச் சமயத்தில் உயிருள்ளவனாய் இருந்தால் நன்றாயிருக்குமே!' என்று சொல்லி வேறு சில வார்த்தைகளையும் கூறினார். 
இறைத்தூதர்(ஸல்) அவர்கள் , '(என் சமூக) மக்கள் என்னை (நாட்டைவிட்டும்) வெளியேற்றவா செய்வார்கள்?' என்று கேட்க, 'வரக்கா', 'ஆம். நீங்கள் பெற்றிருக்கிற (உண்மையான வேதம் போன்ற)தைப் பெற்ற (இறைத்தூதர்) எவரும் (மக்களால்) துன்புறுத்தப்படாமல் இருந்ததில்லை. உம்முடைய (பிரசாரம் பரவுகின்ற) நாளில் நான் (உயிருடன்) இருந்தால் உமக்குப் பலமான உதவிபுரிவேன்' என்று கூறினார். அதன் பின்னர் 'வரக்கா' நீண்ட நாள் உயிருடன் இராமல் இறந்துவிட்டார். (இந்த முதலாவது வேத அறிவிப்புடன்) இறைத்தூதர்(ஸல்) அவர்களுக்கு வஹீ (இறைச்செய்தி) (சூவத அறிவிப்பு) வருவது சிறிது காலம் நின்று போயிற்று. அதனால் அவர்கள் கவலைப்பட்டார்கள். 3 

Volume :5 Book :65

இவரோ கண்தெரியாதவர். பைபிளின் ஒரு சில வசனங்களை மட்டுமே(இறைவன் நாடிய...) மொழி பெயர்க்கக் கூடியவராக இருந்தார். இந்த சம்பவம் நடந்த சில காலங்களிலேயே இறந்தும் விடுகிறார். முகமது நபியை உண்மையை அறிந்து இறைத் தூதராகவும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார். அவர் சொன்னபடியே முகமது நபியை அந்த மக்கள் மக்காவிலிருந்து மதினாவுக்கு விரட்டி அடித்தனர். இவ்வளவுதான் அவரைப் பற்றிய செய்தி கிடைக்கிறது.

அவரிடமிருந்தது ஏசு உபதேசித்த முழு இன்ஜீலுமே என்று வாதிட்டால் அதற்கான ஆதாரத்தை நீங்கள்தான் தர வேண்டும்.