Why There Isn't a God - Parts 70 - 78

This is the twelfth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.

71.
At http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php Dan Barker throws out an Easter
challenge to theists. To my knowledge, no one has taken him up on it
and succeeded.

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 70 - 78

This is the twelfth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.

Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 60-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg

71.
At http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php Dan Barker throws out an

challenge to theists. To my knowledge, no one has taken him up on it
and succeeded.

He begins by referring to Thomas Paine's assertion that while a story
may be in agreement with itself and still not be true, a story cannot
contradict itself and the whole of it be true. At the end of his
article, Barker lists 17 instances where the four gospels contradict
and disagree amongst themselves. Every one of these 17 items is
evidence against the existence of a god.

As Barker makes clear, the resurrection is the single most central
doctrine to Christianity, and as Paul himself supposedly stated, if
that doctrine is false, then the whole thing is false.

So does the available evidence suggest that the doctrine is false, or
that it's true? What is the available evidence? The only "evidence"
the believers have is in the New Testament gospels. There is not one
shred of valid evidence outside of the NT supporting the resurrection
myth!

There are literally scores of gospels that were written. Every

one of them save the four in the NT was considered too absurd to be
taken seriously even by Bible fanatics. They were so despised that
serious attempts were made to destroy all of the other gospels.

The four that were included weren't chosen by a god. They were not
divinely dictated and etched in stone. The remaining *copies* of the
four were chosen by supposedly religious men whose names and motives
are unknown. For all we know, Satan motivated and controlled the
choice of gospels which were included in the NT. However they got
there, they were supposed to be the best accounts: the most honest;

most reliable; the least contradictory.

Given that, Dan Barker has more than adequately shown what a complete
farce they are. In fact, at

he hilariously demonstrates that the later a gospel appeared in
history, the more fantastic became the events it recorded. Tracking
specific events, Barker noted that Mark contained only one of them,
whereas John, the last gospel to be written, contained over 8 of

Considering, for example, the angels at the tomb, he shows that
initially there were no angels (in Paul's story, the first account).
The earliest of the actual gospels records only a man (in Mark),

that the man becomes an angel (in Matthew), then 2 men in Luke, and
finally, two angels in John. Clearly this is charting not the

retelling of a true story, but the growth of a fairy tale!

So having dismissed the details of the story as nothing more than
folktales, and therefore the entire resurrection farce along with it,
let's look at larger issues surrounding the Easter story.

What, exactly, was the point of the resurrection? Since the Catholic
church is the oldest extant sect of the mythical cult of Jesus which
has a significant following, let's look at what it says.

72.
I don't know if the purposes of the resurrection are supposed to be

order or not, but oddly, of the three given by the Catholic online
encyclopedia, the first is that it shows the justice of God! This

supposedly elevated the Messiah to a life of glory in repayment for

having humbled himself by dying!

I can't think of anything more patently ridiculous than that.

God cannot die! He's immortal (according to legend), so what could
possibly be achieved via the farce of a god pretending to die?
Nothing. It's a meaningless farce. If a god can create everything

anything from nothing, then it stands to reason that he can resurrect

dead person, and it's even less of a surprise that he can resurrect a
god who can't die in the first place. Does this add to our
understanding of a god or instead add to our only-too-great an
understanding of primitive people inventing a god for purposes of

own?

73,
The Messiah and the god are supposed to be one, so what do we have
here, a case of divine schizophrenia? How does it show any kind of
justice at all if someone rewards themselves for doing something they
artificially set themselves up to do? That would be like a soldier

Iraq betraying a fellow soldier to terrorists, then rescuing the
soldier and being awarded a medal for it. Is that justice? Is it

honest? No!

It would be like the CEO of a large telecommuncations company falsely
inflating the stock price of the company and then rewarding himself
with big fat bonuses because the company is doing so well. Now

doesn't happen, does it?!

So how does this glorify any god? It *doesn't*! It either

the god with pettiness and deceit, or more properly, it highlights

fact that there is no god and the entire Bible story is nothing more
than the work of imaginative and scientifically ignorant people whose
names and agenda we do not know.

74.
And how can the Catholic encyclopedia claim justice when there's no
evidence whatsoever in the Bible that the god shows any sense of
justice whatsoever? Even in our flaccid human courtrooms, we give
people second chances, especially if they are young and/or show
contrition and/or have not broken the law before, yet this god cannot
even do this much.

For example, the earliest story in the Bible (after the creation) is

the fall from grace (so-called). The whole story is a farce and

fiction, but let's pretend it happened and let's list the problems

it since it ties directly to the Easter myth.

i. Eve wasn't even created when the "rules" were explained to Adam
(don't eat of the tree). There's no statement as to how these rules
were relayed to Eve, but the story indicates she got them second-hand
from Adam, so she never heard them directly from any god.

ii. Nowhere are the reasons behind the rules *explained*, not to Adam
nor to Eve. Any parent or teacher will tell you that the best way to
enforce a rule is to make it reasonable, to discuss it with those who
must obey it, and to explain the underlying reasons for the rule.

is apparently too stupid to do this. Nowhere does he say you must

eat of the tree *because the whole of humanity will suffer for
thousands of years for no other reason than my monumental ego* (which
can be the only reason for the injunction). He simply demands
obedience and then gives humanity so-called "free will" to do as they
please and puts every obstacle in their way. If that isn't a recipe
for misery, nothing is.

iii. Nowhere is there any logic given for this particular rule. Why
*shouldn't* humanity know the difference between good and evil?

iv. Not eating of the tree meant that neither Adam nor Eve knew the
difference between good and evil. Therefore they could not possibly
have known that it was wrong to disobey god. It's a farce. There is
no justice here.

v. It's free will, the theists whine. But it's not. There's no free
will involved at all. Eve had no free will in being created. She

created on a whim, and not even for herself, but as an appendage of
Adam as Adam was created as nothing more than an appendage of a god.
In other words, she was forced into slavery. No free will there.

Eve have any say as to where the tree of knowledge was sited? No!

created that before Eve and she had no say in it whatsoever. There

no free will there. Did Eve have any say in what the tree contained?
Nope. No free will there. Did she have any say in setting up the
rules by which she was forced to live? Nope. No free will there.

she have any say in the consequences of the rules - that she could
break them and she be the *only* one who suffers for eternity, for
example? Nope. The rule was already cast in iron. You break it and
all of humanity suffers. No free will there. Did she even get told
directly by god what the rule was? No. According to the Bible, she
learned it at best, second hand. No free will there. Did she have

free will in whether the serpent was allowed in the garden, or

it could talk? No. No free will there.

So the only free will theists can pretend to claim for her was in the
choice to obey or disobey this god. Yet even this wasn't free will.
Either that or this god isn't omniscient. If the god is omniscient,

knew before Eve ever was created that she would fall from grace.
Indeed, this god had to have *planned* it that way. This god could
have prevented the fall in any number of ways, yet he did nothing.

the contrary, he not only facilitated the fall, he required it:

He created evil.
He created Eve, including her psychological make-up.
He made obedience the crucial factor in our future.
He placed the tree.
He made the tree central to obedience.
He explained nothing to Eve.
He made the tree's fruit impart the ability to tell good from evil

then forbade anyone to eat of it.
He made the serpent.
In complete control of everything that happens, he allowed all of

to come together without lifting a finger to stop it.

He set up everything for the sole purpose of sacrificing a child

years further down the road! No free will was involved. If there's

free will, perhaps there isn't a god who supposedly gave it, either.

75.
Back to the Easter story, the necessity for which, by Bible "logic"

the previously discussed fall from grace that god manufactured for no
reason. Let's look at this farce.

i. Some god creates everything from nothing.
ii. This creation includes evil, created for no apparent purpose.
iii. This god is in complete control of everything - from the laws
of physics to good and evil, to the genetic make-up of every living
thing.
iv. This god is so short-sighted that his entire creation gets out
of control, and he's sorry he ever made it.
v. This god is so stupid that the only way he can think of to fix
it, is to flood the entire planet and kill literally *everything*

for a pitiful few on the ark.
vi. This god is so stupid that he cannot see that this will not

his problem.
vii. This god is so stupid that he can think of no way to fix the
continuing problem other than to rape a virgin and sacrifice the
offspring, and this is supposed to show love.
viii. This god is so stupid that even when he arranges such a
sacrifice, he fails to publicize it so that it has to be spread by

of mouth, and by the self-same unreliable human beings that the

was sent to save them from themselves in the first place.
ix. This god has deliberately confounded languages which prevents
the accurate spread of the resurrection story even more!
x. This god is so stupid that he keeps the resurrection secret,
revealed only to a handful of people, and then expects his message of
joy to spread quickly!
xi. This god is so stupid that he insists he will return before all
of those alive back then have died, and then fails to keep the
appointment, thereby calling of of his efforts into question!

Is this a god or a comedy of errors so ridiculous that they couldn't
possibly be taken from reality? Let's face it, this story is so
assinine it has to be fiction. There is no god. Unless it's the

stupid god in creation.

76.
According to the Catholic online encyclopedia, the story of the
resurrection finalized the "mystery of our salvation and redemption".
Mystery? It claims that "by His death Christ freed us from sin, and

His Resurrection He restored to us the most important privileges lost
by sin". But this is a lie! There was no freedom from sin. Life
post-resurrection was precisely the same as life pre-resurrection.
Humankind was still mired in sin, and for the majority of humankind,
for many scores of years, was literally no better off because the

myth had not yet reached them. Where was their salvation?

How did the resurrection make anyone any better off? Sin didn't
vanish. It was still there: there were still evil people doing evil
things and the innocent suffering, just like today. People still had
to call on God for help post-resurrection, precisely as they had done
before. Their salvation was still on the whim of a god, as it had

before. No one had a guarantee of going to heaven, just as it was
before. Israel was still an occupied territory, precisely as it had
been before, and they had to fight for their freedom. No god helped
them. They didn't get even an approximation to their freedom until

was handed to them in 1948.

And if, as the online encyclopedia said, Christ's death freed us from
sin, why is it that we still have to fight to go to heaven (according
to your average preacher)?! What happened to all those who died
*before* the the Messiah died on the cross? What chance did they

and how was it any different from what people had after the supposed
resurrection?

None of this makes any sense, and therefore either needs to be
clarified directly from this god (how hard would that be?!) or
dismissed because there is no god and all we have is a ridiculous and
pathetic farce of a story that is beneath humanity to even entertain,
let alone try to follow.

77.
Finally, the Catholic online encyclopedia claims, "By His

we acknowledge Christ as the immortal God, the efficient and

cause of our own resurrection...and as the model and the support of

new life of grace"

But again this is nonsense. How is Christ "the immortal god" when he
died? Or didn't he die? If he didn't, he's immortal, but the
resurrection story is a farce, and the above quote is nonsense. If

did, he's not immortal. Another reason not to accept this god.

78.
If this god is immortal, then where is he? In the early OT stories,
God walked hand in hand with people. Then he vanished completely and
hasn't been seen or heard from since. Why?

The same thing happened again in the NT. Jesus walked hand in hand
with people in the Early NT stories. Then he vanished and hasn't

seen or heard from since, despite broken promises to return.

There's only one conclusion when such a thing happens; when primitive
people tell stories of gods, and then civilization advances and the
gods retreat. The conclusion? There are no gods, only stories of
gods.

Budikka

Why There Isn't a God - Parts 70 - 78
This is the twelfth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.