Shaking Your Fist And
Railing Against God
Dario Impini

Graphic Rule

Subject: Critical Thinker/ A Bible Theist Writes....
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:39:03 -0800
From: "Cliff Walker" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dario Impini"

They often try to argue by pointing to some fictional "chip on the shoulder" -- even though they don't even know me -- a common method of argument by people who can produce no verifiable facts. This logical fallacy is commonly known as the ad hominem ("Appeal to the Person"); in that the speaker tries to rebut an argument by criticizing or denigrating its presenter rather than by dealing with the argument itself.

See our section on logic.

If no one comes to your god unless that god draws him, then he would have no right to snivel about a sinful world, because he would have the ability to change men, by drawing them unto himself, but he has (according to you) chosen not to use his powers against sin.

As for a god who rewards only those whom he draws ("whom he foreknew," as Romans vii. 29 words it), this means that he damns the others by default. As Ingersoll says, most mothers are merely "raising kindling wood for hell." Elsewhere he says: "Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence of its creator, God." If such a god existed, I would have nothing to do with such a criminal, and would be proud to oppose and denounce such evil.

We can be glad that such a god does not exist; the book which tells us of this god also tells us that the universe was created in six literal days, that donkeys can talk, that the sun and moon "stood still," and that the earth is flat and has a lid ("firmament") over it. If verifiable claims such as these can be discounted, what does that say about unverifiable claims such as those made about gods and angels and christs?
 

What a wimp! Poor guy! A supposedly all-powerful god sniveling and fretting about the situation on planet earth.

You know, if there exists a creator, then everything that happens is ultimately God's fault. Everything. If he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he knows what evil can and will happen and has the power to stop it. If he loves us, why does he seem to look the other way? Why does it apper that he does not exist?

A cursory study of the "Exodus" story shows a god who deliberately hardened the heart of the Pharaoh (vii. 3) to the end that the Pharaoh would rebel (vii. 4) so that the biblical god could show off with enchantments and various magic tricks (vii. 5; x. 1). Thus, the viewpoint that earth is not the way the creator wants it to be is most unscriptural. Besides being unscriptural, it goes against the very idea of an all-powerful, loving god.

This shows that the opinions of the followers of the Bible are just as fictional as the views presented in the Bible itself: the Bible followers make things up as they go along, just as the writers and editors of the Bible made things up as various situations arose. Since they did not have any explanations for the mysteries of existence, they created fictional explanations.
 

I can make a very good case that the Bible deity cannot exist. For example, omnipotence (all power) cannot co-exist with omniscience (all knowledge). If a god knew everything, then he would know the future. If he knew what was going to happen, then he would be powerless to change it. Unless, of course, this is all just a movie -- but that's getting into some of the figments common to religionists of the East.

Meanwhile, untestable pronouncements (such as ideas about gods) are taken entirely on faith, and faith is irrational; faith is the absence of reason.
 

This statement makes many, many presuppositions: that I am shaking my fist; that I shake my fist at a real god rather than simply dispute ideas; that thinking and discussion and learning serve no purpose (a falsehood based on an idea which dates back to the Garden of Eden myth); that we will be around to know anything after our bodies and brains cease to function and begin to rot.
 

This is called "Pascal's Wager" after the Roman Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal. The flaw in Pascal thinking here is that he leaves room for only one god. He does not take into consideration any of the 5,000 or so other gods and gospels. If Allah of the Islamic faith is real, we're both in deep doo-doo. Fortunately for us, claims concerning Allah are as easy to dismiss as those made about Yahweh the volcano god and Jesus, the inventor of eternal damnation.

(I'm really, really glad that none of these claims are true!)

Pascal's wager does not want me to use probability to determine whether I believe a proposition, pronouncing that the likelihood of one or the other being true is unknown (which is false: I can show that the Gospel message is highly unlikely). The wager then disregards whether the proposition is likely or unlikely, but considers only one's personal comfort. I do not respect this kind of thinking, and would probably denounce a god who wanted me to think as dishonestly as this -- even if there was such a thing as a god.
 

As I explained earlier, why on earth would I want to know such a monster as the god of the Christian Bible?

Cliff Walker

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.