Religious contradictions? nooo! really?

I get a lot of loonies on my blog. I guess, if like me, you speak unapologetically against religion! That is to be expected, in a day i usually get 10-20 posts that look something like this.


They always make me laugh, but i also feel a little sad for the poster, it must be hard going through life without ever experiencing two brain neurons firing simultaneously.

The other type of religious person are the “usually sane people” apart from the topic of their religion. Don’t get me wrong, if i talk about any other religion apart from theirs, they usually applauds my efforts.

This last group is particularly sad, they see how utterly insane other religions are, yet somehow they cannot see that their own is just as bad?.

I haven’t really done a post on this latter group, i have been thinking about it, but i didn’t have any really good examples on how these people bring the contradictions of their religious beliefs into their every day life.

A poster Derek have been posting comments on a variety of my articles, but what made me choose him as an example was when he posted some links to some creationist nonsense, on my article Is God impotent? Evil? or non-existent? and claiming this as some sort of evidence that there is a god?.

I will take a closer look at the specifics of his so called evidence shortly, i would just like to point out some interesting things about his blog before i start.

Derek on his blog is a virulent defender of Christianity, as well as a virulent adversary of Islam i wont go into these posts to much its enough to say that they follow the usual religious tirade with the same arguments defending both sides of the argument. Ie: for Christianity: the crusades where not violent since they where his gods judgment / against Islam: Muhammed carried out his own crusades. ehhhh ? are crusades good or bad, what, hu?

I am sorry derek but this is like saying murder is good when the CIA does it but not when its done by the KGB.

I have decided to use a kinder language, since i have gotten some critique for calling these idiots, idiots, without apology. I will instead focus on the glaring inconsistencies that stems from following a major religion like the Christian faith.

I have made many posts like Is God impotent? Evil? or non-existent? that point out the immense improbability of the existence of any god. This post will look at how religious people try to defend their faith and the faulty way they present their evidence and arguments. always the information presented in favor of god is speculation, or plainly false.

In Dereks post that is supposed to argue for the existence of god he opens like this

“Most atheists think that the Earth got here by pure chance. The big bang theory is contradictory. Here’s the big bang theory put in simple words: First there was nothing, then it exploded.

This is of course false, most Atheists believe that we haven’t figured out what caused the big bang yet, (that we haven’t figured it out yet doesn’t prove the existence of any deity) Big bang theory is actually a model for the universe back to about 13,7 billion years ago. The big bang as theorized is supported by a lot of evidence, microwave background radiation, light spectrum shift, the distribution and makeup of galaxies, etc cosmology has only been a field of study for about 100 years.

God isn’t supported by any evidence at all! even though this has been a field of study for approximately, 2000 years.

Now which one would you choose if you had a choice? the purely speculative option or the option that has a lot of evidence supporting it?

Difficult wouldn’t you say? “schould i chose pure speculation or fact???? hmmm???.

Derek then continues with the usual “he is eternal the beginning the end, bla bla” but that is to be expected, then he claims that we humans cant grasp something eternal. This is of course total nonsense, think of a circle! Tadaaa! you just imagined something eternal without an end! not really hard is it. Anyway its even more unlikely that there is some deity outside the boundaries of space and time that created space and time?

Dereks next argument is the “unlikely argument” ( if you do the math the most unlikely scenario of all is the existence of god) in short his argument goes like this. First: the likelihood of a planet like earth, around a star is one in 10 million or something that is so unlikely that it cant happen by chance. Its only unlikely until you bring the actual number of stars into the universe into account, the universe is estimated to contain at least 1021 stars 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, even the most pessimistic probability calculation for the creation of an earth, gives a result where there are thousands of planet earths out there.

Actually by this argument even in its most ext ream scenario makes god absolutely impossible. Lets say that we have evidence for one earth so in any case we can say that earth is a probability of 1 in 1021 now we have no evidence at all for god so a 0 probability in whatever number equals 0……

The second part of the argument goes against the creation of life, it baffles me why religious people still use this argument. it has been scientifically proven that comet ice when exposed to ultraviolet light creates amino acids, that mixed with water and carbon gives self replicating molecules ever more complex IE: life.

Secondly evolution isn’t a random process, its a gradual development, that isn’t random at all. ( didn’t religious people go to school and study this in biology)

Now if you carry this process of how unlikely things are how unlikely will then god be? i guess religious people dont have to worry about that since they seam to decide their matters of faith in the absence of fact.

He concludes this argument with presenting genesis as the accurate description of how things came to be what they are today, never mind the fact that todays species are relatively new on a geological timescale, and never mind that 90% of all spiesis that ever lived are now extinct. Humans are relatively new on the scene and it is scientifically proven that we evolved from other hominids, if genesis was right shouldn’t it say that God created Australopithecus that would become man? Like most religious people Derek expects us to disregard the mountains of evidence that irrevocably proves that Genesis is pure fiction.

Anyway the next time, you meet a religious person, think about this. Do you really want to take someone that is this deluded seriously? i dont! would you elect someone this deluded to public office? do you want them anywhere near your kids? i know i dont.

I really feel sorry for all you religious people out there, it must be hard to live with such delusions. forcing your mind to ignore obvious facts like that…. its sad.

61 Responses to Religious contradictions? nooo! really?

  1. Outstanding post however I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this topic?
    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: