Refutation of the Christian God

 The Christian God is perfect. The Christian God is benevolent. The Christian God is Omnipotent and Omniscient.

Why the Christian God is not Perfect.

a) First I would like to cover the idea that the Christian God is perfect and completely with out character flaws. The Christian God is a very angry God. As we all know anger is a human aspect and it is an aspect that makes us less than perfect, it clouds our judgement and affect our actions in a negative way. In some ways anger makes us lose control of our actions and when it comes to that point we seek counseling for this character  flaw. If an individual had the same anger the Christian God had it would be safe to say he would be going to court mandated anger management classes  Take for example the story of Noah, he flooded the entire earth killing everything not on Noah's ark. Such a temper would not be acceptable in a human so why would it be acceptable for a perfect deity to act in this way. The God in the Christian bible is a deeply troubled being who isnt by any stretch of the imagination perfect. 

b) Also his hypocrisies are evident throughout the bible, I dont believe anyone could argue that hypocrisies are an aspect you would find in a perfect being. Do as I say and not as I do is an absurd statement crappy parents tell their kids so they do not have to work on their own character flaws. It is a base aspect of humanity a perfect being should follow the same guidelines they ask others to follow. "Thou shalt not kill" and "kill everything in the land of cana'an" would be seem a logically incompatible with each other.

c) Another problem with the idea of a perfect Christian God can be seen in his creation. God created something very imperfect he created man with all of their character flaws and this should have a reflection on the creator. When an a watchmaker producer mediocre watches it show that the watchmaker is mediocre. So  when God produces imperfect beings it indicates that he is an imperfect creator. It is said in the bible God created us in his image, a perfect image but we are not perfect. So for the purpose of non-contradiction either the bible was mistaken when is said God was perfect or it was mistaken when it said God created us in his image, you cant have it both ways.

Why the Christian God is not benevolent.

a) Benevolence is defined as "inclination or tendency to help or do good to others; charity" and I would also like to add kindness to the definition.  This is obviously inconsistent with certain parts of the bible mainly the old testament. Some Christians would say the old testament is irrelevant to the Christian God as he had forged a new relationship with the people. When you are looking into hiring an individual you look at their criminal background and depending on what you find you may not hire them for the job even if they say they formed a new relationship with society. You are not without cause for refusing to employ this reformed individual as it speaks to his character. Just as the old testament speaks to the Character of God.

b) Now that I established that the old testament is in fact relevant to the view of the Christian God let's look at some examples of his benevolence. The bible advocates the practice of slavery, nothing screams the tendency to do good to others like enslaving them.


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."


-Leviticus 25:44-46


No one could possibly argue that the practice of slavery is an example of God's benevolence. Slavery has been a bane on society and yet the Christian God seems not to see a problem with its inherent evil. However some Christians defend this by saying, "The slavery of the bible was much more humane than the slavery of the American south." This to me is an absurd statement there is no "good" slavery to have a individual claim ownership of another human is a moral wrong, a moral wrong that the Christian God is blind to.

c) Would a benevolent God order his followers to kill in his name? God ordered the Israelites to kill everyone and everything in the land of Cana'an. God asked them to kill everything that breathes to leave no one alive no matter their sex and no matter their age. I think it is clear to me the killing of children is not exactly the benevolent thing to do.

The Christian God is not omnipotent.


My reasoning for this part is very short... When God created Adam an Eve he created them with free will and he has no power over that free will. So you can see the contradiction if free will is something God can not control then he is not omnipotent.

The Christian God is not omniscient.


My reasoning for this part is also very short. I will use the same example when God created Adam and Eve and said they could do whatever they wanted except partake from the tree of knowledge he failed to grasp the simple factor of human nature. You stick a child in a room full of toys and tell him he can play with any toy except the red fire truck, he will end up playing with that fire truck. Was God so completely clueless of human  nature that he unknowingly set Adam and Eve up for failure?

Conclusion


I have established the Christian Go is not omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, or perfect and as a Christian you still may be hanging on the the fact I did not disprove the existence of the being you called God however I did disprove the defining characters of this being.

Think of the Christian God as a four sided figure like a square and each side represents a defining aspect of God.

This is God each side represent a defining aspect.

God is not perfect, and by taking away one side of the figure(God) I changed the figure into something completely different.

God is not benevolent, and it loses another side.

God is not omnipotent, leaving it with one side. At this point the refuted aspects make the figure unrecognizable.

God is not omniscient, now the figure has been refuted to non existence as its properties are no longer there. Sure you could argue that it is there just not as anyone would recognize it but it would not be the Christian God as we know it.

Religion's Role in Society

What is religions role in society? Should it be a basis for laws? Should the state enforce morality? If your answer  to those questions are yes then that raises a whole new set of questions. What religion should dictate the official morality of our nation? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism? Clearly if we want to legislate morality we must determine which religion's moral codes are objectively true because we shouldn't be expected to enforce something based on the judgement values of the individual. Can anyone's moral code be considered objective? After all we as humans do frequently disagree when it comes to morals.. If morals were objective then they would be a matter of fact and disagreement shouldn't be a problem. When it comes to objective fact disagreement doesn't exist. When was the last time you heard someone argue that a triangle has four sides? You haven't because people would point out that by definition a triangle has three sides and the person claiming a triangle has four sides would look like a total wanker. Now when individuals make judgement values on things like lying is the answer as clear as the number of sides on a triangle? Of course not when it comes to lying an individual must consider the circumstances around the lie and who is hurt because of the lie. Different individuals would judge the same situation in different ways. So because morality is based on the judgement values of the individual it is clear that morality should not dictate laws as it is not objective.

Ok now let us throw all reason aside and say that morality is now objective and Christianity is the dictator of all that is good. Now we are enforcing the moral laws of Christianity to the full extent of the bible. Now how can this coexist with the freedom of religion granted in the constitution? If you are enforcing the Christian morals you are violating their right to worship as they please when their morals directly contradict that of the Christian moral code. Also how does this coexist with the principle of free will often supported by Christians? If you are enforcing your moral code you are by your own theology negating God's gift of free will.

Thus you come to the conclusion that the only kind of state capable of freedom of religion and free will is a secular state.

The Folly Of Patriotism

 Patriotism has to be one of the most overrated qualities an individual can have. People in our society are proud to be patriotic proud to support their country even when the country doesn't deserve it. Patriotism in fact blinds you to the evil deeds your nation is committing right under your noses. Patriotism is a tool the government uses to stifle all dissent in fact there were a couple times in American history where dissent was illegal. From the Alien & Sedition Acts of John Adams to the Patriot Act of Bush the younger they made it the patriotic thing to violate the rights of others when it became convenient for the government to do so. It has come to the point that saying that we as a nation should not invade another nation and force our ideals on them at the point of a sword to be an Un-American act. We would cheer on when the rights of others were violated because it meant we were being patriotic. You know it gave you warm fuzzy feelings when you would wave those blood stained rags you call flags. You know you had that same feeling when your first gut reaction to any type of dissent was to scream and drown out the sound of their voice and not even consider that what they might have something to say worth listening to.

Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.
-Mark Twain

Early American Government

 The American Revolution is probably one of the most romanticized bits of history ever and unjustly so. Some parts of it were spectacular for example the fact that a group of more or less farmers could tackle the largest superpower of the day was phenomenal. But the part that that was most overblown was the reasons behind it and the results of it. People said they wanted to be free from the kings rule they called him a tyrant and rightfully so. But was what the "patriots" suggesting any better at all? They created a government in which the immoral hierarchy of powers still existed and while on paper it protected the right of the individual in practice it failed completely because it maintained the system in which rights could be abused. In fact it only took us to the second president before we began to see the failures of the colonist's plan. John Adams' Alien in Sedition Acts had effectively violated the rights given to them by the constitution. We were violating the rights of citizens before the ink even had dried on that document. You can try to change the nature of the beast as much as you want but the beast is a beast by nature. Government by its very nature enforces unjust power over a group of people. It is insane keep using the same system over and over again and to expect a different result.