Wednesday, December 26, 2012

ODIN AND YMIR - THE NORSE CREATION STORY

So far I have covered the creation according to Genesis of the Bible, but that, if you didn't already know, is not the only story of creation.  Another creation story, one of the first and, in my opinion, more colourful, is the Norse story of the origin of the sky, earth and humanity which was told in the form of an epic poem in Edda.

This story has been paraphrased by Anthony Faulkes from Edda.  Edda was compiled sometime in the 12th century from stories and verses, some of which were handed down from when the Norse stories were only told in the spoken form by the Vikings.

  In the beginning of time, there was nothing: neither sand, nor sea, nor cool waves. Neither the heaven nor earth existed. Instead, long before the earth was made, Niflheim (Mist World) was made, and in it a spring gave rise to twelve rivers. To the south was Muspell, a region of heat and brightness guarded by Surt, a giant who carried a flaming sword. To the north was frigid Ginnungagap, where the rivers froze and all was ice. Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first of and ancestor of the frost-giants.

This story has started with no mention of a god of any type, instead, as I read it, the Mist World just sort of happened.  This is just a paraphrased version but in my mind I see nothing but a cloud, after all it is the Mist world which came from nothing.  Then came forth a spring which gave rise to rivers.  Sounds to me like an ancient way to explain the big bang and there are no external, supernatural or ethereal forces around to create such a thing, it just happened and from the mist everything else came, including the first man.  It's like Genesis without god.


As the ice dripped more, it formed a cow, and from her teats flowed four rivers of milk that fed Ymir. The cow fed on the salt of the rime ice, and as she licked a man's head began to emerge. By the end of the third day of her licking, the whole man had emerged, and his name was Buri. He had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, a daughter of one of the giants. Bor and Bestla had three sons, one of whom was Odin, the most powerful of the gods.

OK, now the story starts to get a little too fantastic and falls apart, but it's about as believable as a god creating the heavens and the earth.  
  Why a cow?  Is it because when we are fist born we feed on milk, perhaps.  Is this the first time we read about a sacred cow?  Perhaps.  This is something I will have to revisit.  The plot then seem to follow a weaker and far shorter begatting kind of story when we are first introduced to Odin - the father of the gods.  This is the main difference between Genesis and the creation story of Edda, in the Bible god comes whole formed from nowhere and creates everything but in Edda, everything comes from nothing and then the gods are created. 
  Very interesting - lets continue...

 Ymir was a frost-giant, but not a god, and eventually he turned to evil. After a struggle between the giant and the young gods, Bor's three sons killed Ymir. So much blood flowed from his wounds that all the frost-giants were drowned but one, who survived only by builiding an ark for himself and his familly. Bor's sons dragged Ymir's immense body to the center of Ginnungagap, and from him they made the earth. Ymir's blood became the sea, his bones became the rocks and crags, and his hair became the trees. Bor's sons took Ymir's skull and with it made the sky. In it they fixed sparks and molten slag from Muspell to make the stars, and other sparks they set to move in paths just below the sky. They threw Ymir's brains into the sky and made the clouds. The earth is a disk, and they set up Ymir's eyelashes to keep the giants at the edges of that disk.


In one paragraph we so many familiar stories from the fall of Satan to the great flood and the eventual creation of the earth by Bor's sons (themselves gods).  Something else we see here is the descrption of the earth as a disc.  It's an ancient belief and it's not the only time it has turned up in stories of creation;
  Isaiah 40:22"He's the one who sits above the disk of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He's the one who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in"
In Isaiah 40:22 there several description on the earth depending on which version of the bible you read.  In most the earth is a circle (not a ball or a sphere).  The one version I used was the International Standard Version but in the Contemporary English Version the earth is not described and only in Douay-Rheims version does it describe a globe.
  I'm sure the myth of the "flat earth" came from, one can surmise, the fact that without being able to travel great distances the world does in fact seem flat and therefore one could assume like a disc or a circle. 
On the sea shore, Bor's sons found two logs and made people out of them. One son gave them breath and life, the second son gave them consciousness and movement, and the third gave them faces, speech, hearing, and sight. From this man and woman came all humans thereafter, just as all the gods were descended from the sons of Bor.
Enter Adam and Eve.
Odin and his brothers had set up the sky and stars, but otherwise they left the heavens unlit. Long afterwards, one of the descendants of those first two people that the brothers created had two children. Those two children were so beautiful that their father named the son Moon and the daughter Sol. The gods were jealous already and, when they heard of the father's arrogance, they pulled the brother and sister up to the sky and set them to work. Sol drives the chariot that carries the sun across the skies, and she drives so fast across the skies of the northland because she is chased by a giant wolf each day. Moon likewise takes a course across the sky each night, but not so swiftly because he is not so harried.
I can only imagine that the earth was only illuminated by the stars so at this time, just like the creation story of Genesis, everything was made in the dark.  This verse does attempt to answer the question of why the sun moves at different speeds in different areas, not very well but it has made the attempt.
The gods did leave one pathway from earth to heaven. That is the bridge that appears in the sky as a rainbow, and its perfect arc and brilliant colors are a sign of its origin with the gods. It nonetheless will not last for ever, because it will break when the men of Muspell try to cross it into heaven.
All in all it is a nice little bed time story to explain to young children how everything came to be with a little more finesse than most creation stories.  If you think this all sounds a little to hard to swallow, try reading Genesis again.


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin





GENESIS 2

Genesis 1 tried to give us an insight on how things happened in the beginning, how the universe got started.  It tried but it failed.  All, however, is not yet lost as it goes on and looks like the first chapter is more of a preface than an accurate version of what happened all those unknown millenia ago.

When we left off, there was the sky, the earth, the heavens and all living things including Man...

GENESIS 2

1  So the heavens and the earth and everything else were created.
The Seventh Day

2  By the seveth day God had finished his work, and so he rested.

3  God blessed the seventh day and made it special because on that day he rested from his work.
4  That's how God created the heavens and the earth.

Feels like there should be a happy ever after here doesn't it.  

Spoiler alert - God is omnipotent, why did he need a day to rest?

The Garden Of Eden
When the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,
5  No grass or plants were growing anywhere.  God had not yet sent any rain, and there was no one to work the land.
6  But streams came up from the ground and watered the earth.
7  The Lord God took a handful of soil and made a man.  God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing.
8  The Lord made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and then he put the man there.

Looks like we were running over some familiar ground for a minute but then came a twist.  Is this to be a more in depth description of what God did in Genesis 1?  I can see now why people can get confused when reading the bible.

I think I read the last few verses of Genesis 1 and the first few verses of Genesis 2 three or four times to try and work it out and I've come to the conclusion that G1 is the overview and G2 goes further into specifics.  For a while I used to think that God created man and the he created Adam and Eve which would solve a lot of problems but going over it so many times I realise I was giving to much credit and logic to the Bible.

Anyway, onward...

9  The Lord God placed all kinds of beautiful trees and fruit trees in the garden.  Two other trees were in the middle of the garden.  One of the trees gave life - the other gave the power to know the difference between right and wrong.

Why?  Why would God do something like that?  I mean, we all know what's going to happen don't we?

The next couple of verses are about where the garden was situated, almost like a distraction from what has just been said so we'll skip them and go directly to some really confusing stuff.

15  The Lord God put the man in the garden of Eden to take care of it and look after it.
16  But the Lord told him "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden,
17  Except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong.  If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

That's quite a warning, but if you don't already know right from wrong how can you follow that warning?  The guy doesn't know good from bad or what it is to die or, in fact, anything and here is God putting a tree in the middle of the Garden with fruit on it.
  Set up or what?

Lets continue shall we?

18  The Lord God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone.  I need to make a suitable partner for him."
19-20  So the lord took some soil and made animals and birds.  He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them.  Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals.  That's how they got their names.

Hey, didn't God already make all the animals and birds and things?  Now I know this is bollocks because the animals were named after they were discovered and each of the most common had different names depending on which country they were in and what race of people discovered it.  I'm not going to go too far into that sort of thing because everybody knows how animals got their names and lining them up before the man of soil so he could name them when he himself didn't have a name is not how it happened, besides which it would take many lifetimes to name all the animals.


None of these was the right kind of partner for the man.
21  So the Lord God made him fall into a deep sleep, and he took out one of the man's ribs.  Then after closing the man's side,
22  The Lord then made a woman out of the rib.  The Lord God brought her to the man,
23  And the man exclaimed, "Here is someone like me!  She is part of my body, my own flesh and bones.  She came from me, a man, so I will name her Woman!"


Sexist?
So this is the part where many myths have sprung and one of the more silly myths is the rib count.  For a while even I thought man had less ribs than women and for the very same reasons... well, I did when I was a very young boy because that's what I was told and then when I started to think about it I put it down to just the difference between man and woman, biologically speaking that is.  When my critical thought process kicked in during my young adult years I decided to find out if men actually did have less ribs than women.
  Turns out, it's wrong!  Who knew?  Well, science (the biological field) did!  Except for a couple of individuals who have 11 pairs or 13 pairs (rare) everybody has 12 pairs each.  Isn't that something?
  This is also the part of the bible that starts the whole sexist thing.  Even after all these years there are still cultures that oppress women because of Genesis 1.23.  It's so sad that so many can be misguided by so few words from such an ancient pile of hot, steaming bullshit.  But that's another subject for another time.

24  That's why a man will leave his own father and mother.  He marries woman, and the two of them become like one person.
25  Although the man and his wife were both naked, they were not ashamed.

This is the last part of Genesis 2 and it is not making much sense to me.  "That's why a man will leave his own father and mother"?  I'm thinking that may not be the only reason, perhaps leaving your parents only when you are married was a thing back then... click, my critical thinking mind has turned itself on and I'm going to look that one up... nek minit... it seems that is precisely what it means - wrong or right, it seems man was to stay with his parents until marriage which is a tradition that remains in some cultures even today!
  But the nakedness and no shame... it's like Genesis 2.24 is saying, "Well, I think you know what is going to happen, we all do.  But for this moment, right now, they are without shame even thought they are naked."  All this is said with tongue in cheek as we have already established that Genesis is, well, shite.


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin

Thursday, December 20, 2012

THE ADVENTURES OF RAY COMFORT

Once in a life time there comes such a moron as Ray Comfort.  He takes the cake when it comes to dickhead comments and ass backwards logic.  

He is now called the banana man and his side kick is Kirk Cameron.  Both are so funny to watch.  Ray makes an interesting and "enlightening" statement and Kirk acts as if it's the most wonderful thing he has ever heard.

I had to do a blog on this guy even though it was 6 years ago, but... back in April 2006, a video hit YouTube that just about went viral.  It was a small virus that was easily cured but it did leave a lot of mouths agape and if you haven't seen it I highly recommend you doing so now.  Go one, I can wait...


This was basically debunked before it hit the intertubes and became a big joke in the sceptic and atheist spheres, and still is.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you this is the kind of crazy shit we, as critical thinkers, come across everyday, no, most of the time we are fighting against somewhat intelligent apologists that can kind of make sense and have at least done some minimal research.  I am going to say that as a Kiwi myself I am ashamed to share the same Nationality as Ray Comfort.

This video has been ridiculed so much that I need only add the following video...


At first it may seem like I'm muddying the Ray Comfort waters but I truly believe that he has had no problem doing that to himself.  This is not the first video that shows him doing what he does best which is making a big, fat fool of himself and I dare say it won't be the last - after all, he is still alive.  Here he is again talking about a cake can...


There are some obvious problems with his "there must be a creator" argument and that, in short, is God.  What, or whom, created God?  Like our man Ray says, there must be a creator.  He skipped the fact that it took billions of years of evolution for our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, to get to the point we were able to produce the machines that manipulated the materials we discovered which put us on the road to discovery to achieve such a simple yet complex thing as an aluminium can.  Ad nauseum. 

So why am I picking on Ray Comfort?  Obviously he is not the brightest crayon in the box and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to break his arguments down and thankfully there aren't many like him around.  The problem is this, some people believe what he is saying so he is, in effect, spreading misinformation to the already duped.  He is not the only fruit loop in the cereal box and no matter how few of them there are in the world they are here and they are like cockroaches; you kill one and another one takes it's place - shine a light on their arguments and they scurry away into the dark recesses of circular logic.  Here is another...


Chuck Missler is so full of shit and clearly does not understand evolution at all.  I believe, honestly, that he shaved his ass and is sitting on his face.

So back to Ray Comfort.  His topics are ridiculously non researched and so is one of the low hanging fruits that we can pick off quickly.  Here is the question you have been waiting for... so, what's the harm?  I don't have the time nor space to properly go into that question but someone does, visit What's The Harm by Tim Farley.  On this excellent website you will find story upon story of the harm this kind of teaching can do.  You can see more on Ray Comfort on YouTube if you just search his name, go on, do it!  You deserve a good laugh :)


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin



Wednesday, December 19, 2012

BLOGGERS BELIEF - KURT BENNETT

In my blog GENESIS 1 I asked the question about who the "Us" and the "Our" refers to and I'm not the only one to ever have asked that very question.  Here is a blogger who tries to answer the question of the "Us" and the "Our" in Genesis 1.26.  You can find his bog here BENNETT'S BLOG - IN GOD'S IMAGE.

It really is a valiant effort and his blog is short and sweet unlike some of mine that tend to ramble.  The succinctness of it makes it very easy to read and understand and I found the answer very convincing.

I'll preface by saying at no point did Kurt say that his answer is the answer, he is simply putting forth a suggesting of what that verse means and I applaud that.  He is basically saying that the "We" is probably referring to the holy trinity.  Also, as we are made in Gods image we are he and he is us and so forth - basically circular reasoning - so it could also mean that we are of God therefore we are our own creators.  He doesn't say that verbatim, of course, but that's how I, as a reader, would take his meaning.

Overall his blog sits well with me as a possible explanation of the "We" and "Our" question and follows what I understand of the Christian God.

The premise and the logic is, however, flawed and I'm sure Kurt wont mind me pointing this out as he seems like a reasonable theist.  If our eternal being(s) did create us or even if it was the trinity, why is it only that verse we see the "Us"?

I have heard the trinity offered up as an answer before but not the eternal being thing.  Good answer but it is still flawed :)


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

BLOGGERS BELIEF - DEREK OUELLETTE

The Bible is almost wholly (as apposed to Holy) nonscientific and nonsensical in it's story telling and that's not really surprising as when it was all put together there was little, if no, scientific method to speak of.  The only way teachers of the day could answer some of the more interesting questions was to tell stories, most of which were passed down from generation to generation before been put into book form - the Bible.  In the face of scientific discovery there are still those that ardently follow what the bible tells them and swallow it hook, line and sinker even after all the evidence is to the contrary.  That's the kind of lazy thinking I abhor but  we live and let live - or do we?  Some followers cause more harm than good.  Those that follow the myth and continue to support many antiquated laws created from simple stories in an ancient script should be torn down and ridiculed.  If you haven't already noticed we are living in the age of enlightenment where the scientific method and critical thinking will take us into the future.

So, I shall put my money where my mouth is but I thought I would start by picking some of the lower hanging fruit such as the author of this blog What I believe Genesis 1 teaches and why.

Derek Ouelette started out by saying he is not a scientist which is abundantly clear throughout this particular blog, he is, by all accounts, an apologist.  He says there is nothing inherently wrong with believing the world is only 6000 years old and there is nothing inherently wrong with believing in evolution but misses the fact that evolution is not something to believe in and is in no way to be put in the same belief structure of a young earth, you can't even put those two things in the same sentence but lets move on.
  Derek correctly points that the belief in God doesn't have to mean that you have to believe in creation and that the bible is not a historical document but a theological book about God.  I am of course paraphrasing as he also said the books of the bible were written at those times in history which is far from accurate so I'd give him a 5/10 for trying.
  He falls over the argument from authority with his "clincher" being Jesus and Paul spoke of Adam as if he was a real person but that's just another book in the Bible backing up the first book in the Bible - not a "clincher" I'm afraid.  Interestingly, Derek points out on more than one occasion that the bible is a testament to mans fallibility and there are some interesting wholes in the scriptures and the chronology does not line up.  This is apologetic, almost denial, when he eludes to the fact this is proof of gods character.  Ironic isn't it, the gaps in the bible is proof of God.  The creationists use the very same argument when pointing out gaps in the fossil records - proof of god.

I will give Derek credit for saying the scriptures do not tell us how long ago everything was created, let alone 6000 years ago, as the genealogical records cannot be used.  But then things go south for him.  He has fallen into the trap of "look at the artist, not the art", which he believes is the real message behind the bible.  That is one interpretation of the bible but there are many others.  His interpretation creates an argument from authority - in other words, god created everything because god said so.  Do not ask questions the bible can't answer, you just have to take it on blind faith that God created everything and that Noah and the flood did in fact happen even though there is no evidence to support it. 

I may be coming at this blog in the wrong way to what he had in mind and he did preface by saying he does not believe in evolution because there is no evidence of macroevolution, which is just ridiculous as there is no such thing as macroevolution, and because, in short, the bible says so.  The biggest mistake he has made is saying that:

   "evolution is losing credibility in many spheres – and say with a critical eye that I cannot accept that theory. "   

That is pure, whole cloth bullshit and in effect he has thrown out pretty much every piece of scientific evidence and discovery since the publication of the bible in favour of a book that is full of gaps.  He is using circular reasoning and telling the reader that if you're going to get all scientific about it then don't bother reading it.  Well I read it and I would like to challenge, from one non-scientific person to another, what are your reasons for not "believing" in the theory (read fact) of evolution and give me examples of the loss of credibility in any spheres.

His conclusion: take everything on faith and don't ask questions.


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin


GENESIS 1

I have asked the question "why do you believe in God?" as many times as I have been asked "Why don't you believe in God?" and have received many, many different responses but there have emerged two themes of which I would like to address separately.  The latter, which I will talk about in a later blog is:
  "I want to go to heaven."  Or many replies to that effect.
  The first theme, which I will talk about now, is:
  "Because the bible tells me so."  Once more, there are many replies to the same effect but it all comes down to the same thing.  The Bible.  There is a saying that goes "The easiest way to become atheist is to read the bible."  So that is where I will start and the best place to begin is in the beginning!

GENESIS 1

1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2  The earth was barren with no form of life, it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness.  But the spirit of God was moving over the water.
  
Simple question.  Says who?  Let's not even check the bottom of the bible for all the footnotes on how to interpret each word, I mean it's a good idea as the translation was from ancient scrolls and is iffy at best, but for now lets just answer the first question.  Who wrote these first two verses?  If we were to pick up the bible and just start reading it without some guy on stage telling us how to interpret the writings, what would we take from this?  As I said, says who?  Am I to take this on faith from an unknown author that what is written here is the truth?  NO.
  The first verse is, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
OK, how?  I can understand that around 2000 years ago we had a huge lack of understanding about the universe and everything in it so anybody that stepped up to the plate was going to hit a home run by answering the question on every bodies lips.  
  "Ladies and Gentlemen, God did it."
Awesome.  That solves that problem.
  Actually, no.  Lets not even start with the fact there is no evidence, lets ask the question about who actually wrote this and where did that inspiration come from.  The truth is that nobody really knows who wrote Genesis.  Some say Moses but according to Bible scholars this is wrong.  Moses was no more inspired by God to write Genesis than my cat can drive a car.  I don't own a cat.
  We may never know the truth but from said scholars the best guess is a mash up of all the stories told through the ages up to the point of Moses who put it all together in somewhat of an abridged version.

Spoiler alert - God turns out to be omnipresent.  Wouldn't that make the second sentence of the second verse redundant?  Although some try to explain this by saying the spirit of god is a mighty wind... is that something lost in translation or just a post hock rationalization? 

Onward, or we could be here all day...

The First Day

3  God said, "I command light to shine!"  And light started shining.

4  God looked at the light and saw that it was good.  He sepereatted light from darkness

5  and named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night."  Evening came and then morning - that was the first day.
 There is a great take on this by Ricky Gervais so I wont steel his line but you should really have a look.  It's in his DVD "Animals" http://pogpog.com/v/ricky-gervais-explaining-the-bible/ so go see it and have a laugh.

The Second Day
6  God said, "I command a dome to separate the water  above it from the water below it."
7  And that's what happened.  God made the dome

8  And named it "Sky."  Evening came and then morning - that was the second day.

There is some stone age thinking for you.  It is clear from here on out that if there was a God who created everything he would have explained to whomever wrote that passage what the sky actually is.  Saying it is a dome is an ignorant observation perpetuated by the god of the gaps argument.

The Third Day
9  God said, "I command the water under the sky to come together in one place, so there will be dry ground."  And that's what happened.
10  God named the dry ground "Land," and he named the water "Ocean."  God looked at what he had done and saw it was good.

11  God said, "I command the earth to produce all kinds of plants, including fruit trees and grain."  And that's what happened.

12  The earth produced all kinds of vegetation.  God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

13  Evening came and then morning - that was the third day.

OK, so we are half way through the creation of everything and I know what you are thinking - something about "according to their kind" right?  Well, let me remind you that I'm working from the "Contemporary English Version" of the bible and the publishers have tried to make an unreadable jumble make a little more sense.  We shall continue.

The Fourth Day 
14  God said, "I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years.
15  I command them to shine on the earth."  And that's what happened.

16  God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.  He also made stars.

17  Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth,

18  To rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness.  God looked at what he had done, and it was good.

19  Evening came and morning - that was the fourth day.

So now we know that God did not write this, just ordinary mortal hands with ordinary mortal observations of the observable universe wrote this clap trap.  First of all, the moon (also known the lesser light) is NOT a light.  The moon is the earths satellite which, because of it's surface, reflects the suns light.  It is NOT a source or light.  Secondly, the nearest observable star by the naked eye is over four light years away (Alpha Centauri) meaning from earth we would not have seen the light from that star for just over four years after creation.  Let that roll around your brain space for a while.  If everything was created this way it would have taken thousands of years to see all the stars we see today... interesting, no?

Almost there...

The Fifth Day
20  God said, "I command the ocean to be full of living creatures, and I command birds to fly above the earth."
21  So God made the giant sea monsters and all the living creatures that swim in the ocean.  He also made every kind of bird.  God looked and what he had done, and it was good.
22  Then he have the living creatures he blessing - he told the ocean creatures to live everywhere in the ocean and the birds to live everywhere on the earth.
23  Evening came and morning - that was the fifth day.

And this is why creationists find it so hard to understand evolution.  This creates all those arguments from personal incredulity but they are just logical fallacies.

The Sixth Day
24  God said, "I command the earth to give life to all kinds of tame animals, wild animals, and reptiles."  And that's what happened.
25  God made every one of them.  Then he looked at what he had done, and it was good.
26  God said, "Now we will make humans, and they will be like us.  We will let them rule the fish, the birds, and all other living creatures."
27  So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women.
28  God gave them his blessing and said, "Have a lot of children!  Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control.  Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on earth.
29  I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat.
30  And I have given the green plants as food for everything else that breathes.  These will be food for animals, both wild and tame, and for birds.
31  God looked at what he had done.  All of it was very good!  Evening came and then morning - that was the sixth day.

At this point it seems as God has become a little bipolar "and they will look like us.  We will let them rule..." what the hell is the "us" and "we".  Up until this point God has been God, where did the plural come from?


 The other thing I notice is that we are all herbivorous but our anatomy tells us something completely different.  Just ask a biologist, better still, ask a Paleoanthropologist.
  As any naturalist will tell you there is a food web (aka food chain) and without it nothing really makes sense in the natural world.  Lets formulate a "what if" shall we.  If God created all animals to eat leaves then the lion, which God also created, would have starved to death because it's oral tools nor it's digestive system are not equipped to handle that kind of food so the lion we see today is obviously not the lion that God created therefore the lion must have evolved.  That would mean two things, firstly many more thousands of years have past since creation than what the young earth creationists tell us and secondly, what God created was not perfect.  There is, of course, another explanation - God did not create the heavens and the earth but is a made up deity to fill in the gaps of our ancient knowledge or lack thereof.

Evolution, which is a proven scientific fact, now starts to make a little more sense and creation starts to sound more and more like man made bullshit.

The Conclusion: Some guy (probably Moses) sat down a couple thousand years ago with no scientific knowledge whatsoever and looked at the world around himself and wrote half a page of what he thought happened.  Basically, God did it.  That was good enough for him and for millions of people.  Wow.


I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way even I learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write this blog.  If you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.

Thank you all
Justin













Sunday, December 16, 2012

IN THE BEGINNING

I wanted to blog about reading the bible, kind of an elaborate way to point out how redundant it is to believe in a mythical old man with a beard in the sky.  It turned into a little more than that when I realised just how flimsy a story the Catholic and Christian religions were based on.  But it wasn't just them, it was other religions around the world.
  As far back as I can remember I have always been associated, even if only in a very small way, to one religion or another but however hard I tried I could never get that total immersion and blind following that I had seen in my friends when it came to the dedicated belief in a god.  Whenever I prayed or laid hands or spoke in tongues or any one of the myriad practices those of the religious persuasion partook of, I had the deep seeded feeling I was just pretending.  Trying to fit in.

Investigating other creation beliefs around the world seems to be the first place I should start and that is, indeed, the first part of this blog.  That is the first question to be answered in a series of blogs dedicated to figuring out why some believe in a supreme being such as god.  With my past experiences in check I'm out to take an unbiased approach to this problem.  I thought long and hard and came to a number of conclusions, first, as much as I want to I just don't believe in God.  Second, as much as I have wanted to see things happen after prayer, I have never seen any kind of evidence for the existence of God.  Perhaps if I try to prove it I will disprove it... "it" being God.

I then began to to call myself agnostic.  After taking a brief look into the creation myth and a few more scratches in the dirt I could only call myself Atheist.  Then I decided to write a blog.

The next part of this blog is dedicated to the original sin and then the flood.  The reason people believe in god, as my logic explained, is because it is very hard to get ones head around the truth and an innate fear of death and the fear of the unknown and the unknowable; enter God.  God is the filler of gaps, the answer to the questions and the savior of confusion about the WHY.  

Why are we here.

I will investigate the belief that god seems to answer the big and mysterious question of HOW.

How did we get here.

I know one of the reasons behind the want to believe; god also answers one of the greatest philosophical questions in the history of intelligent life; what happens when we die.

Join me and comment, if you like, as I take a journey to explore the world of the gods and the wide range of religions that can comfort and conform us.  All these gods and religions spring from a simple idea that the skeptics call "God of the gaps".