On John 3:16

" For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believed on him should not perish, but have ever lasting life" John 3:16. Most famous verse in the bible. The hallmark of the christian contention that god is love, that the news of the gospel is "good news" and that we are sinners "saved" by grace. On the surface, this verse certainly seems like the definition of altruistic mercy, but just as in life, all that glitters is not gold. There are many,many things we encounter in life that seem to be one thing, but upon closer inspection and longevity of exposure actually turn out to be the opposite. Pitbulls seem to be great dogs until the day they kill a child for no apparent reason. When we sit in a chair,it seems as though our derry-air is in contact with the seat surface,when in reality, what we feel is the miniscule repulsion of trillions and trillions of atoms pushing us away from the their surface. It seems as though we snap opur fingers and we see, hear and decide to do this all at the same moment, but actually the decision to snapthe fingers happens before the act, and we see our fingers snap before we hear them snap. Our mind is a clever mechanism, capable of editing what is offered to us for observation into a false, but seemingly true narrative of observed events.
The christian's contention is that faith is what replaces evidence. The atheist's contention (which is coincidentally mine) is that any extraordinary claim, such as a god existing, must be supported by extraordinary evidence, faith is only circular. This verse states " that whosoever believes on him...." This seems to be a supportive statement of the faith side of things, yes? but let's look closer, shall we...


For god "SO" loved the world. The author could have said " For god loved the world". He did not. By inserting the word "SO" into the sentence he introduced an element of standard of comparison, which is a form of evidence. God didn't just simply love the world. There was a very high degree of affection that god had for the world, high enough to warrant the sacrifice of his son on its behalf (as is evidenced by the use of the word so), as opposed to a very low degree of affection for the world, which would not have warranted such a sacrifice. Using standards of comparison is what we animals do. We weigh the benefits and detriments associated with the options available to us, and use our deterministic brains to guide our behavioral choices. It is a completely natural (nonsupernatural) process. If god SO loved the world that he blah, blah, blah... then god himself was doing the same thing that we lowly animals do all the time. He weighed the benefits and detriments associated with his choices and chose accordingly. He decided to love the world not unconditionally mind you, but to such a degree that his love level would be enough to allow mankind a justified return to grace. Not very godly, not very godly at all. SO this first portion of the verse reveals that the most highly-touted verse in scripture pointing to the wonder of god and the greatness of his love for us, actually is evidence against god being god. Else, why would he need to "SO" love the world, in order to save us. It is easy to see however how a human author of such a story could think that such a wording of a verse would seem to be foolproof in it's evocational ability, but that would be because we humans are nothing but the smartest animals. It has been trial and error all along. I've yet to figure out why religious folks seem to be so averse to the trial and error process. How is it that religious folks need someone who is not going to screw up and learn something by doing so. And how do they come to think that such a scenario is even possible. What makes them think a god existing is even possible? I am getting off track.


We've examined the first part of the verse, so let's continue with the second part.
" that he gave his only begotten son".
Some christians I know argue that evidence does exist for belief in god. It is just evidence that we do not understand, we cannot understand, because god works in mysterious ways. I submit that this part of the verse contradicts such a statement. Infact all of the bible's memorable verses do exactly what this verse does; they frame the sentiment in a context we CAN understand, in this case, love for a child. If god's ways are so mysterious, then how is that the bible ended up being written in such a way that we can understand? Death we understand. Love we understand. Jealousy we understand. Retribution we understand. Justice we understand. Fairness and unfairness we understand. All of these affects are how the bible frames it's messages of life-assurance. This verse is no exception. The author offers as evidence of the level of god's love, the fact that he willingly sacrificed his son, on our behalf. This is a form of evidence, albeit one that is severely deficient in it's degree of verifiable truth. By including the word "So" in the first part of the verse, the author's hands were tied. They had to include some evidence to illustrate the level of love implied by the word "So". So doesn't this give credence to the christian's point? NO. They say simlutaneously, that god's plans are unknowable, because we as humans cannot understand god, but if god were intent on hiding his true nature from us, then why bother giving us a book full of feeble attempts to explain the heavenly nature of he and his minions in words and phrases we are overtly aware of, and completely capable of understanding; love, death, etc...?
Such a book, to those who read it a lot, is both credible evidence for the existence and wonder of god, and impossible for mankind to fully understand, as it is from the unknowable, unfathomable mind of god. This is self-reinforcing logic, and also bull-corn.

Christian : "I'm right, because I understand it, and you're wrong because you don't. The things I don't understand are still true, it's just that I'm not meant to understand them cause I'm not god, and the things I do understand, I can because god has chosen to reveal them to me".

God: " I'm right because I wrote the book, see it says so right here. You're wrong because you can't understand my plans because you are not me, see it says so right here." Bullox!


Enough of the second part, onto the third:
"That whosoever believed on him". This part is self-contradictory to the earlier part of the verse that said that god so loved the WORLD. If god's affection were for the entire world, then this part is unneccessary. Because this section of the verse is included, it makes clear that the verse was authored by a human being. It is riddles with elements of psychological bullying, jealousy, and low self-esteem. Only those who freely choose to believe the verse says the truth, will reap the benefits of exhibiting such faith, all others can literally go to hell. This is not love for the world at large, it is pedantic, juvenile, short-lived and ultimately disingenuous affection for the population that most resembles the author in mindset. Those of like mind will follow suit more easily. Independant thinkers represent more work for the clergy to bring into the fold and thus they quickly become not worth the effort. Infact, this verse reveals that god's affection surely does not extend to the entire world, and furthermore that he could never have intended to extend such affection out to the entire world, all because of the clause included, the catch in the deal... you have to believe.

And so we come to the final part of this awesome verse:
"Would not perish, but have everlasting life." Reward for good behavior. Another example of a context which we lowly humans can fully understand. We know what it is like to receive a reward for good behavior, and what better reward than to be able to live forever, pain-free? But, doesn't logic tell us that if something is the truth it must exist wholly independant of any type of influence. Math is math, It doesn't matter if it is cold outside, or if your mother-in-law is a bitch, 2+2 =4. Math is independant of human concerns. Belief in god however, is intricately tied up with humanity. Infact without humanity, god would be unnecessary. If god actually existed, then the belief we obviously are capable of harboring, should need no reward (such as ever lasting life) attached to it, precisely because of the inimitable truth of it, kinda like math. The truth of the concept would be the truth, and we would recognizeit as such even without the reward, kinda like math. As parents, we bribe our kids all the time, because they won't do what we ask of them otherwise. They are too busy playing to sit down at the table and eat, or wash their hands, or pick up their toys. So I can hear the christian saying right now, that we are like children to god, and he attached the reward of everlasting life so that we would be more inclined to do what he asked of us, knowing that what he was asking of us was in our best interest, even if we did not know it. Yes, that seems to be what we do with our children, but it is not. Picking up toys, eating dinner at the time we have designated, etc... are all things that are in our (parental) best interests, not the children's. A kid will eat when they are hungry, if they break a toy, they will quickly adopt a new one. parents are the ones who want things to be a certain way, and we try our best to instill these ways onto our children, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we acknowledge that in reality it is primarily for our benefit that we do such things. God, who doesn't exist, has rewards attached to belief in him, because, the authors and perpetuators of religion know that without such rewards, belief in god becomes a very hard sell indeed. This reveals the falsity of god's existence more than anything else. Because the author included the reward in the verse it reveals that this verse was authored by not an omnipotent god, but a person who was not very sharp in psychology, which makes sense if you consider when the words were probably written.
John 3:16 is not what it seems. It is not an appeal to discard evidence in lieu of belief, it is instead a wholehearted validation of the reliance we all have on evidence. In this case the evidence is not for god's existence but rather for the human authorship of this verse and indeed the entire bible. It shows that god had to wratchet up his level of affection for us to get us back home, it also shows that christians do indeed rely on evidence to "believe" in their premises; evidence like god giving his son, see that shows he loved us so much, he gave his son up....
It also shows that he didn't love the whole world, only the part that loved him back.
It also shows that god was not confident enough in the veracity of his omnipotence, so much that he felt it neccessary to sweeten the deal by attaching immortality to it.
Truth is truth, regardless of how many people believe it. The attempt to sway the populace into his corner, with the offer of immortality is all the evidence I'll ever need to know that god is a figment of the imagination, and nothing else.

The Ten Commandments?

The ten commandments. Everyone, mostly, has heard of these. Controversies have abounded about their postings in federal court houses throughout the country. Also, schools have petitioned for the right to display them in publically funded schools. many people regard them as the rules for living. Mandates of morality. God's injunctions upon us lowly sinners, designed to help us live the life he wants us to live. There are ten of them. Ten of the most moral, ethical thought-provoking and good laws, right?

Well, except there are actually two sets of these commandments. That's right, two seperate sets, housing some repeated commandements, and other completely different ones. So my question(s) are for the devout, bible-believing christian.

1. Did you realize the bible has two versions of the ten commandments?

Ex. 20:3 - You shall have no other gods before me

Ex. 20:4 - You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven or on the earth or in the waters below

Ex. 20:7 - You shall not misuse the name of the lord your god

Ex. 20:8 - Remember the sabbathday by keeping it holy

Ex. 20:12 - Honor your father and mother

Ex. 20:13 - You shall not murder

Ex. 20:14 - You shall not commit adultery

Ex. 20:15 - You shall not steal

Ex. 20:16 - You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (Lie)

Ex. 20:17 - You shall not covet your neighbors house, wife, servants, livestock, or any other belongings (paraphrased)

These are taken from the Life Application Study Bible, New International Version puublished by Zondervan on pages 137-138

Good so far, right? We all know these commandments very well. But, before we get to the second set, let's look at the first set a bit more closely.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

Isn't god supposed to be the only god, all others aren't really gods. How would the only god that exists think it necessary to issue these life-messages to his most prized creation, while simultaneously saying there are no gods but him, and that we should lift no other gods higher than him? Which is it? Are there other gods, or aren't there? If god is the only one, Commandment number one is pointless. Because it is obviously there for us to read, then there can be only a few reasons for it:

a. We made them up (we meaning the ancient arabs of a few millenia ago)

b. God really isn't the only one in town, he is competeing for our allegiance with a myriad of other, also invisible, evidence-lacking deities.

c. God is kinda stupid, as he is portrayed in the bible.

My vote is obviously for reason number 1, we made these laws up, which would explain why the first is so petty in nature.

2. You shall not make for yourself any idols

How is this moral? How is a statue an idol, but a cross is not? Any symbolic thing is something that on some level worshipers are worshiping, be it cross, multi-armed elephant statuette, or intergalactic space-traveller talisman. All are stand-ins for the real object of worship, and since the god of the big three has been consistently absent, allowing only symbols to remain behind him (shroud of turin, the cross, the crown of thorns, etc...) he himself is an idol. Humanity possesses only objects associated with the creator of all things, even the idea of god is a possession. Again, the idol worship was something born of fairly non-sophisticated thinking, something religious folk would not want to attach to their god. We made this one up too, and not very well.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the lord. Goddamn it! There I did it, no punishment though. This is just a silly law. How is it even possible that the supposed creator of everything in existence would give a rip about the particular vernacular vehicles his favorite creations used in life. It's not like teaching a kid to not swear. Parents do this for the benefit of the child, not their own. God's commandment to abstain from taking his name in vain is the ultimate example of his very own vanity (though I should say our own vanity). This is about as far from a moral precept as one could get when trying to come up the most important social laws. We made this one up too, who else but insecure, power-hungry, miscreants would say something so playground-oriented was a great law? We are so petty, but we don't have to be.

4. Remember the sabbath by keeping it holy. How exactly is a calendar day that is not even universally recognized as such supposed to be involved with the massive issue of morality? Christians say the world was created in six days and that god rested on the seventh day, but they don't tell us whether that seventh day was a thursday or a sunday. We have established, WE have established that sunday is the day of worship, except that catholics recognize saturday as the day to worship. it is an arbitrary assignment, just as the whole idea of a sabbath day itself is arbitrary and silly. there is no moral behind such a stupid commandment, only control measures designed to instill fear into those who are to be controlled. Why would we need to remember something so important as a sabbath day, wouldn't anyone under the yolk of supernatural control be able to remember something like that without the need for a commandment like that? Couldn't god have used that space for a more moral commandment, like say, don't rape anyone? Guess what folks, we made this one up too. It's so obvious, because it's such a childish thing to require.

5. Honor you father and mother. Okay, now we're at the morality side of things. This is a good one. We should respect those who gave birth to us, but I think mostly that we do this without turning to the bible each time the thought of parental honoring pops into our mind. Point being, while this a good rule to live by, there is no reason to ascribe it's origin to god. Children, by and large love their parents, especially when they are children. I know my son thinks the world of both me and his mother. You can see it in his eyes, when we are playing. He has never consulted the bible on this issue, yet he still loves us more than anyone on the planet. The commandment is honor your parents,not love your parents. To me, this speaks not to the children of the world but the adolescents, those who are most likely to willingly disobey their parents. So what reason would an omniscient god have to include a provisional commandment for the adolescents of the world? Aren't the ten comm. supposed to be for everyone. A bit shortsighted, if you ask me, and again shortsightedness on god's part is not an association religions are comfortable with. However, shortsightedness on the part of men (and women) is something we all recognize. Painfully obvious, we aren't very good at writing morally absolute laws.

6. You shall not murder. Sounds good to me. I don't want to be killed, so what would make me think anyone else wants me to kill them? Except that we do it all the time, war is state sanctioned-murder. There is no other word for it. War requires death at the hands of an intentional being. Warriors set out for the purpose of taking the lives of as many intended victims as possible. We all labor under the belief that life is sacred. But not all life, only life that conducts itself as we see fit. Animals have no sanction within this mindset, yet they are as alive as we are. Death elicits thoughts of fear in most people, not because of the pain which might be involved, but because we have no idea what actually happens to "us" after we die, but we assume there will still be an "us" at that point. Where does this assumption come from. What makes us think we are more than our bodies? Our minds? The fact that we can think? Murder, taking someone else's life prematurely, is an immorality only because we think so much of ourselves, but an immorality it is, nonetheless, and rightfully so. Are we to believe that prior to Moses decending from Mt. Sinai with those tablets that mankind had no qualms about killing each other (ironically, this is probably the case, at least in our very early ancestry, when we first came down out of the trees)? I'm sure the week before god's gift to mankind, the whole of the world's population was not slaughtering each other willy-nilly. Point being, Murder is an immorality to humans, because we are mortal, and as such are very aware of the opposite state of being, that of not being alive. We were aware of this unpleasantness well before moses brought the words of god to the hebrews. We did not need god to point out to us that murder is something we should avoid, afterall we are the mortal ones, not him. What would god know about death, he is supposedly the beggining and the end, here before us and here after, so what the hell, why should we give a shit what an immortal being says about the ending of life. Again folks, moral though it may be, we decided to include this one in the commandments, not god, god doesn't exist.

7. You shall not commit adultery. Ahh, the first of the many biblical reprimands on sex. The moral issue at hand here is not lying to the one you promised your life to. It has nothing to do with sticking a penis in a vagina, whether or not those two reproductive organs have bodies attached to them which possess a piece of paper stating said bodies are legally allowed to practice such enjoyable hobbies. This one could have been saved for the later one about covetousness, or atleast rolled into it, because the lie is the real immorality. The sex is just that sex, animals do it, hell most animals committ adultery as a rule. Ever heard of the alpha male? There's a reason why all the smaller lions practice fighting with each other. So they can one day fight off the head of the pride and take over all the newly available lionesses. Seems to me an omniscient being would have known that adultery is an issue of lying, not sex, just as covetousness is also an issue of lying, and such a great being would have known to roll those into one big don't lie commandment, freeing up a space for a commandment like say, don't abuse children. I can however see very clearly how a society which degraded the value of women such as we see in the bible could easily come up with that whole sex is bad, you should be punished severely for ever thinking it is more than the most sacred thing, thus including it in a set of timeless social rules. man how can anyone think the ten commandments are anything but manmade?

8. You shall not steal. Good, I agree. But as in the murder one a few back, I'm pretty sure mankind did not need to told in tablet form that stealing is bad and should be avoided. Infact, I'm equally sure that any society throughout history has had in place, non-biblical means with which todeal with thieves. Again, this seems a bit redundant, but a good rule nonetheless.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Again, a good rule, but lying is something which society at large is more than capable of dealing efficiently with. No need for god to write it down for us, even society back then was capable of self-regulation.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff. This one's a bit touchy. I mean what's wrong with wanting what your neighbor has? If you do something about that desire, something which would violate another of the commandments, then I can see the danger, but the simple desire itself seems a bit over-the-top. We all want our share. Consumerism is the basis of all progressive economies, including ours. Without products, people would not buy things. that in and of itself is not a bad idea. I kind of like the concept of self-suffiency. But to include it as one of the unbreakable moral codes of humanity is bit extreme. Seems, jealousy was high on the minds of the authors of the bible. I guess it's not a bad rule to have, but I for one have some reservations about it.

Now to the "other" set. the one no one ever talks about.

In exodus chapter 34, moses has to chisel two new stone tablets to replace the first set which were broken. On these tablets were written, by god (supposedly) the ten commandments:

Chapter 34:27 -28 "Then the lord said to moses " Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and israel." Moses was there with the lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the the words of the covenant --- the ten commandments."

1. Do not make cast Idols (34:17)

2. Celebrate the feast of unleavened bread (34:18)

3. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break it;s neck. redeem all your firstborn sons. (34:19)

4. No one is to appear before me empty-handed. (34:20)

5. Six days shall you labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest (34:21)

6. Celebrate the feast of weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year (34:22)

7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the sovereign lord, the god of israel. I will drive out nations and enlarge your territory,and noone will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the lord your god (34:23).

8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice with anything containing yeast (34:25)

9. Bring the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the lord your god (34:26)

10. Do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk (34:26)

WOW!! This is such an awesome set of moral rules. How many times have I sat down to boil up a goat in it's mother's milk and thought to myself, ehhh, I better not do that, it's so wrong. Give me a break. I don't even need to go into how inane this new set of rules is, except to say, the bible itself, says these are the ten commandments, not those other ones from before, although at one point in the timeline those earlier ones were the covenant, but since the tablets were broken, they aren't anymore. These new ones are even better. So which set do you, Mr. Christian, adhere to? The first set which are morally either not, or obvious, without the hand of god needed at all; or the new set regarding cooking practices and feast celebration protocol?

The bible is just stupid.

On Natural Disasters

A christian friend of mine recently made the comment to me that the world experiences natural disasters because of sin and our propensity towards it. No doubt many of you remember Pat Robertson's notorious comment about the decadence of New Orleans being the magnet for Hurricane Katrina. And I'm sure many fundamental Christians out there right now are spouting about how the wayward Chinese and Burmese (Myanmarese?) are having their chickens come home to roost, in a manner of speaking. Now, I will concede that no one in the world behaves the way they should 100 percent of the time, and many troublemakers experience bad things because of what they did, but I will in no way concede that the recent earth matters, natural disasters, whatever you'd like to call them, are in any way connected to the chosen behaviors of one young species of life living on her surface. I'd just as soon take up astrology, which is interestingly not all that different from what these "righteous" folks are vomiting up. How is it to say the planets have a direct effect on our lives, depending on how they are arranged in orbit is significantly different from our behaviors having an effect on the internal workings of an entire planet?

Enough of the complaining nature, let's look at the semantic side of the claim of my friend.

Are natural disasters the result of sin? What I mean by sin is "original sin", disobedience to the monotheistic god of the bible and the quran. Firstly, Natural disasters are only "disasters" in the anthropomorphical sense. Ther are only disasters to humans. One cannot say that animals (non-human) or plants view earthquakes as disasters, only that they view such things as being dangerous and to be avoided. It is only we that can recognize and label hurricanes and tornados as being disastrous. What these things really are are natural events or occurences. They are completely within nature's realm and are wholly governed by the laws of physics.

Now, what I'd like to do is take the christian's side of it for a second, just to illustrate the fallacy of such a statement as sin is theroot of natural disasters, so please bear with me.

Assuming,as the christian does, that god created everything in the world, I think it is safe to assume that this creation act included not only the things to be governed by the laws of physics but also the laws themselves. That being the assumptive case, natural disasters had the potential to occur prior to Adam's commission of original sin. There could have been an earthquake before the apple was eaten (or the decision to disobey was made), precisely because, presumable god set up the laws of physics concurrent with his creation of the physical world, before the act of sin was committed.
An intereseting side note from the atheist point of view: The 1st natural disaster to be recorded in the bible was the great flood of Noah, who lived about 1500 years after Adam's birth (give or take). How did it end up that the most devasting and apparent result of sin took so long to occur after the fact? Anyway, back to playing the devil's (god's) advocate. According to the timeline, natural disasters (events) or at least their possibility, existed prior to their supposed cause. Again, the effect preceded the cause!!! Strike one for the Christian's argument.
Well, what if the anthropomorphical definition of natural "disaster" is what is actually in question, rather than the timeline of events? What if "original sin" did not result in the initiation of natural disasters on the earth, but only ushered in our personal capability to recognize the disastrous effects events such as Tsunamis, cyclones, and volcanic eruptions have on the world? In other words, is sin what gave us our humanity? Do we recognize the destruction and it's long-term effects on us because we sinned? If so, then being human is worthless. We should never have become human. I find this potential idea repulsive, and I would hope everyone feels the same, because it calls into question everything we as sentient beings hold as important. Where is the "sanctity of life" if this is the case? Furthermore, if we were made in the image of god, then this must mean that the creator himself is subject to the idea of sin, since we, as his proverbial clones, are subject to it.
Does our recognition of the devastation caused by natural disasters somehow change or increase the amount of damage done? Do we cause more undue catastrophe to the other inhabitants of this earth, by simply knowing what the world will be faced with after the storms subside? Of course not. But we do cause ourselves to be stressed over the situations, because we are capable of worrying. No other animal or plant has this ability. Trees do not ponder what will happen to them if they don't save enough to retire at 65. Lions are unconcerned with whether the roof of the house (they obviously don't live in) is in need of repair soon. We are alone in our recognition of cause and effect to such a degree. The profound effects on survival of all living things, Plants and animals is brought to light by the natural disasters, but only to us. This being the case, the physical damage caused by such events cannot be relegated to having been designed only for our benefit (in the sense that punishment for sin is a benefit :-) ). The effects are for all living things, not just us. Our recognition of this might be the result of our sin, but it is a one-way street. Our sin effects everything, even those which cannot recognize the benefit or detriment to them. Strike two for the Christian's argument.
I will now return to my atheistic point of view and say, which is more plausible: that a supreme creator built a world that would periodically need to be decompressed through planet-wide destruction and renewal, butwould simlutaneously hold-back this built-in necesary cycle for the benefit of one species of life on the planet, one which happens to have the capability of recognizing that these types of events can have seriously bad consequences for them and their survival, at least until the species decided to live their own life and make their own choices, at which point, the supreme being abandoned the creatures he so "loved" just a moment before, cosmologically speaking, to the whims of the very world that he placed these"precious in his sight" beings whom he purposely made to be small versions of himself, OR, are natural disasters the result of tectonic shifts in the earth's crust, the result of unpredictable warm air patterns over oceans, the result of seismic perturbances deep below the surface of the oceans causing huge upwellings of the sea, etc... you get the picture. Occam's razor is sharp folks, use it. Strike three for the Christian's argument. There is no coherent argument for sin being the causative agent of natural disasters, and to voluntarily deny, ignore, passover the scientifically verifiable explanations for these events is just childish, wishful thinking. In the meantime, attitudes such as those expressed by my christian friend are easy methods to use if you want to dismiss in your own mind, the real effects on the human populace these catastrophes have. If you would like to feel bad for those poor folks over there, then by all means, think that our own sinful nature brought this on. If you'd like to see the world spared of these things, then by all means keep praying for the rapture. If you are of the mind that somehow, these events will bring the world closer to god and his purpose for all of us, then by all means keep doing nothing. If however you're like me, and you think the earth is her own, and we have but a little effect on her, then can see that what we do ordon't do will only have an effect on us. Since I'd like to live as long as possible, and I'd like to see my son do the same, I think it is high time we put aside the childish things, as christians love to quote. Stop ascribing false ownership of the world to a god that doesn't exist. Accept that the world is magnitudinally more marvelous than any sentient being could have ever come up with. Nature alone is capable of what we see. It is nature in all her glory, not god in his. And in the meantime, keep up the good work scientists. We are in your debt, not Christ's.

On Verifiability and Universality

If Christianity is true, then it should be verifiable outside of itself. the bible should be unnecesary in order to prove the truth of Christianity. If any religion is TRUE, then it has to possess a quality of universal believability. Religion has to be universal, or it cannot be true, because truth is universal. I speak of Truth in the grandiose scheme, not in the everyday scheme. Truth has to be universal, or else it would not be truth, only opinion. If religion is the truth, then it has to universally true, but no religion is universal. Since religion is designed for and by humans alone (all other animals and plants having no need for it) it is up to us to detemine the criteria for religion's truth. Since no one religion can claim universal belief across the board, it stands to reason we have not yet found a religion that is the truth, except for morality. Morality, is universally agreed upon, by those capable of understanding morality. No one believes murder to be the right thing to do (psychopaths are unable to understand that murder is wrong, because of brain abnormalities). Lying is universally agreed to be wrong, even by those who do it constantly to gain the upper hand. Morality is the one area that all of humanity agrees on, and it is the church of humanism that preaches morality as it's "dogma" if you will. If there is a qualifying religion in regards to truth, it would have to be secularism, humanism, non-supernaturalism, whatever you'd like to call it.
There are those who would say their religion is not universal yet, but will soon be, we just haven't waited long enough. Certainly the abrahamic religions all count on this. I would say this: If one particular religion is true and others are false, then it is a colossal waste of time (if you are the deity) to allow the other religions to persist. Why not be universal in your coverage. The very fact that there are so many other religions points all too clearly to each of them being manmade, otherwise there would never have been any religions but one. A monotheistic god would be unsatisfied with partial acceptance of his decrees, commandments, and indeed his very existence. The idea that a monotheistic god wants only those adherents who come to him voluntarily is silly, in that any religion (TRUE) that can only attract a certain portion of the population cannot in good consciousness claim itself to be the one True religion. Since it is the Truth, shouldn't it be unabashedly clear to anyone who ever comes into contact with it, that it is the way to follow? There should never be any question in the minds of us, if there is one true religion. There should be no such things as atheists. We should not be able to turn away from the trueist religion. But of course we can and do. Our very presence is testament to the inadequacies of religion. The very presence of so many contradictory religions is testament to the inadequacies of them all. The only universal thought process we have is secularism. Nature is going nowhere, and there is no other nature to compete with the one we have. There is no avenue of deniability about nature's truth or existence. It is here for all to see and enjoy. If we can't universally agree upon something, it cannot be the truth. Science searches for the grand unifying theory of the four forces of nature, Gravity, electro-magnetism, The Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear force. Science does not have a grand unifying theory yet and so it (science in general) does not purport to have found that Einstein's special theory or general theory of relativity is the theory that explains it all. Neither does science say that Quantum theory explains everything. Neither do the two theories agree with each other. Universality of agreement and acceptance is required if something is to claim itself as the Truth. No religion can claim itself to be the Truth, precisely because no religion is universal in its acceptance or agreement. We do not need more watering down of the religions that exist, we need a completely new religion. A religion that is accepted everywhere by everyone. We already have this religion, it is called Life. So go live it.

On The Biblical Trees in the Garden of Eden

Everyone who has ever been to a christian church, and probably many who have not, has some level of understanding of the biblical story of a paradise called the Garden of Eden. In this place, the biblical god placed the first two humans ever to live. Along with all the food-bearing trees and plants known to us today, there were two "forbidden trees" planted; The Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil and the Tree of Immortality. This is recounted in the first few chapters of Genesis. The following are some questions about this story, questions that draw attention to some sensible inconsitencies.
First of all, the story in genesis recounts that, for Adam and all the generations to come, a route to immortality was definitely needed, as Adam was created as a mortal man. In Genesis 3:22 the "inerrant word of god" says "And the Lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach outhis hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."" This verse clearly shows that the author of genesis understood Adam to have been created a mortal man, one who would die a natural death. Some Christians, however, believe that Adam was created as an immortal being and only lost his immortality when he and eve chose to sin by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This belief does not fit at all with what genesis 3:22 says, it's flatly contradictory. For my part, I just can't comprehend how these christians can assert the "truth" of the bible when their arguments for such claims simultaneously rely on and are in contrast with what the bible says, but I digress.
Who besides mankind would have wanted or needed a tree of life?
God, as he is described in the bible, would not have required it. Immortality is part and parcel of the christian's definition of god, and if it were not, then I suppose christianity couldn't exist as it does today.
Other possible recipients of the fruit of the tree of life were the animals. Since there are no animals that we know of that are 6,000 plus yaers old and still kicking, I think we can safely assume the animals did not benefit from the tree of life.
Tangentially speaking, I wonder if any of the tree of life's fruits ever dropped to the ground after ripening, and were eaten by the animals in the garden. If this did happen, there should be some really old cows out there somewhere. The bible doesn't mention this ever happening, but I think it's a reasonable thought to have. I mean every fruit bearing tree that lives today drops its fruits once they are ripe, in order to propagate itself. Animals eat this fruit all the time. If the tree of life did not behave in this same way, then I think christian's should have to explain this. I'm sure any apologetic would retort with some blather about god's miracles not needing to follow the rules of nature and all that, but we all know what kind of "explanation" that is. Evasion is a tactic apologetics have mastered.
So, since god did not need the tree of life and animals keep dying, that leaves only us as the benficiaries of the flora of paradise.
If god planted the tree of life for us, then why did he forbid us to eat its fruits? Again, I can hear the apologetic saying, god was using the tree to "test" the faith of Adam. This is just stupid, for any number of reasons. Here are a few.
1. God had no need to test Adam's faith because Adam had no reason to not have faith in god, having no one to compare god with, no one to influence him away from having faith in god.
2. God did not need to test Adam's faith in him because he walked in the garden in plain earshot of Adam, presumably physically (genesis 3:8). If, however, he was "walking" in a purely spiritual sense, he was still the only other "voice" there (excepting eve and the talking snake, I wonder if Eve was a parselmouth?), so Adam would have had no reason to "lose his faith", but as we shall see perhaps Adam's faith was rightfully tested to show the error of it.
Perhaps god was using the tree not to test Adam's faith, but his obedience. This is also stupid. Here is why.
God, as the bible describes him, is omniscient (all-knowing). As an all-knowing being, god would not have been in need of a tool (such as a tree of life) to test for an outcome of obedience level. An omniscient god would have already known exactly how obedient Adam was ever going to be. Either god was not omniscient, or the tree of life (or the other tree) was unecessary in this capacity, pick your poison.
But what about the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Why did god plant that one there? Remember this is the tree in question at the trial all of us should hold within ourselves, of the truth of Christianity as narrated in the bible. Genesis 3:3-7 says:

"but god did say, "you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die." "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. For god knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like god, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

Let's examine this passage shall we? (I feel like a pastor in Bizarro world)
First, god tells eve that she mustn't eat from the tree or even touch it, upon pain of death. So there is a tree that will provide death to Adam and Eve if they touch it, but there is also a tree that will provide immortality to both of them if they eat of it. It seems like a good idea to have an antidote ready in case of an accident, I mean what if Adam and Eve were wrestling one evening and one of them just happened to roll up against the tree of "death"? Wouldn't it be prudent to have that tree of life handy as well? The problem arises when we acknowledge that the god of the bible prohibited BOTH trees. This is perfectly illustrative of how the authors of the bible probably weren't philosophers by trade.
Second, the serpent says she will not die, but only gain the knowledge of good and evil, thereby becoming as god himself. Well, she ate, in fact they both ate, and neither died an unnatural death, so who was right? God said they would die, the serpent said they would gain knowledge of good and evil. Let's look to the unreliable, inconsistent, yet inerrant word of god for our answer. Again to genesis 3:22 " And the lord god said "The man has now become as one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Survey says..... The serpent wins. God was not just wrong, but pathetically so. The death for Adam, that is described in genesis 3:19 and attibuted to god, "by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return" cannot be claimed as fulfillment of god's earlier threat to Adam and Eve, since the tree of life was the only path to immortality ever available to Adam, and neither he nor Eve ever ate from that tree (at least as the bible recounts).
As a last point, I'd like to say that the biblical narrative from above is a fairly benign example of humanity in the throes of pyschological ignorance, being creative, cognitive beings, attributes that clearly seperate us from our more primitively(?) evolved cousins in the great ape family, constructing elaborate but ultimately false stories, in order to explain and cause to discuss two of the most sought after ideas of humanity, namely wisdom and living forever. One we can certainly achieve, the other might be possible, but we are not there yet (keep at it scientists).

Remember, I am an Atheist, I only use the bible to point out its own fallacies as professed in the christian perspective of the biblical story of creation. I criticize from a psychological and logical point of view.

On Dinosaurs and Man

Here's another one for all of you young earth creationists. There is published literature out there (and I use the term literature very loosely) stating that dinosaurs and man could have and did actually live at the same time. Kent Hovind says so, as do some of his disciples (pun definitely intended). They often cite the river bed in Texas that has dinosaur footprints fossilized in it along with "giant man" footprints. The Paluxy River dinosaur and man footprints have been thoroughly discredited by science. They do not represent man and dino footprints side-by-side in geologic time at all. The "man" footprints aren't even universally accepted as being "man" footprints. But the geologic timetable is not enough of a deterrent to you young earth folks, so here's one to think about:
If man and dinosaurs existed at the same time in the same basic places on earth, how in blazes did we survive?
Velociraptors were arguably the world's most lethal predator, EVER. Six feet tall, they were just the right size to take a frail human out like a package of Ribeye in the meat section of the grocery store. We would've been like cows to them or any other carnivorous dinosaur, for that matter, that happened to spot us strolling down the wooded path whistling a merry tune. There were plenty of other similarly-sized dinosaurs that could've dined on a meal of us and still had room for dessert. There is simply no way we would be the dominant species on the earth now, if we were around when dinos were.

Look at the top predators in the world today, Lions, White Sharks, Orcas, Tigers, Crocodiles, Hyenas, etc... All are lethal to humans, if confronted with them. This is why we, as a generally uneducated population, tend to stay away from these animals. If we were to suddenly begin waltzing around the serengeti plain day-in and day-out, eventually lions and hyenas would catch on to our vulnerability and start adjusting their menus accordingly. Yes, they might not much like the way we taste at first, but I'll bet they'd get used to our stringiness and proportional lack of body fat after enough time. The same scenario would easily apply to great white sharks. Although we are not a part of their regular diet of seals, I'll bet if we were to take to swimming and bathing and generally frolicking in the tropical waters around Seal Island for an extended period of time, we'd see a dramatic rise in the number of reported great white attacks and subsequent deaths. If you can't see how this has anything to do with dinosaurs, just increase the number of lions, tigers, sharks etc. which we have on the earth today by at least a few orders of magnitude and you'll arrive at a reasonable census for the height of the population of carnivorous dinosaurs who might've been interested in us as prey. For instance, let's use Dilophosaurs (the spitting venom dinosaurs from the book Jurassic Park by Michael Crighton) as one of many examples of dinosaurs who would probably have hunted and eaten us if they could have done so. Now, let's implant those dinosaurs into the landscape of the middle east of 6,000 years ago, complete with mud and clay houses, no gunpowder or nuclear technology and only our trusty trumpets (which could come in handy if we want to knock the walls of a certain city down) and swords for hand to claw combat. No tanks, horses (although these wouldn't fare all that well against dinos either) or helicopters. Only us agriculturalists against the marauding (and very hungry) "terrible lizards". Would we even stand a chance? With nothing substantial to defend ourselves? I'm glad I don't live in this fictional world. For that matter, let's transplant all the dinosaurs from, say, the Cretacious Era into the present, and see how we humans in our clapboard houses and Ford Tauruses would stand up against a ten-ton triceratops. Would you enjoy walking out of your house everyday knowing there are hungry and voracious hunters, bigger and more cunning than you, just outside your house waiting to rip you to shreds and devour while you're still kicking and screaming? It might be nice to see or think about a dinosaur, but to confront a living and breathing one in the world, think again!
It's absolutely ridiculous to even entertain the thought of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. It's absurd. Creationists, give me a break. Do yourselves a favor and just acknowledge the science. Your making yourselves sound ridiculous.

God needs us more than we need him

We've all heard the saying "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". Well, does it? The air pressure differential created by the impact would say yes, but the lack of receptor organs (such as ear drums) to quantify that impact would say no. An interesting question about a natural phenomenon. Can we ask the same question about a supernatural phenomenon?

If god were to "say" something, but there were no humans to "hear" him, does this mean he actually "said" anything? Stated another, perhaps more clear, way; Assuming creation to be true, god has an audience, but what if there was no audience? What if we were never here, would there still be god. What would be the need of a god in an existence that includes only him/herself?
Christians make lots of assumptions, indeed the entirety of their faith is assumptive, but perhaps no one is bigger than this: Christians believe that god existed before we did. The only accounts we have of this are the holy texts, which were written by men. Even if we allow the premise of divine dictation, the words themselves were originally written down by men, not god. Since no one was alive to see a god dictate these texts, it is an assumption to say we know he existed before we did, an assumption based on text written by the creation of this eternal being, but not by the eternal being itself.

I say, what point is there for a god without an audience. How would an omnipotent being demonstrate omnipotence if there were no one to convince? Without someone to ooh and aah over the tricks of a magician, there are no tricks, only rehearsals of slights-of-hand. A magician can't fool himself, he needs someone who does not know how the trick is done to impress. Without such a person, the magician has no career. Without a creation to parade his godliness in front of, god is not god. He could be everything, but without a created humanity, he would be simultaneously nothing.


There are two ways of looking at our existence. We were either created by an omniscient god, or we are the most recent evolutionary waystation. I suppose there are really a myriad of ways to explain our existence, such as extraterrestrial implantation, but I think the two most dominant areas of discourse on our origins are the two I mentioned above, so we'll stick with them.


If we were created by an omniscient god, then he must have had no choice in the matter, in that without us he would be not be omniscient. He couldn't be. If there are no uniscient (non-omniscient) beings to compare omniscience with, omniscience cannot exist. If it's the only game in town (being omniscient), then exaltation this element would be absurd since having this trait would simply be the norm (again in an existence with only god). Since we are indeed here to discuss this, then of course the christian god had to create us, if we are to believe in his most divine characteristics of omnipresence, omnibenevolence and omniscience. If god had no choice but to create us, then he is in no way immune to the governances of human logic and semantics. His subjectivity to these governances requires an explanation. Either our disciplines are unsatisfactory to describe god's existence, or he is a fraudulent mixture of humanity's least positive components. If our disciplines are unsatisfactory then, all disciplines must be, including our ability in recognizing god in the first place. If we cannot design suitable regulations for the understanding of the existence we all have, and the surroundings we are all among, then how could we possibly be able to design a system of recognition with which to distinguish the divinity of god? He is the result of the primitive minds of primitive men who were obviously incapable of designing constructive, optimistic and self-reliant societies (the exception being of course the great greek civilizations). Men such as these relied on the fear of the unknown to establish control of the masses, because it was easier than thinking completely through problems. Humans don't need a god. We don't claim the unclaimable, so we need no audience to display to. We do however, have as large an audience as we like, but it certainly didn't come from a creator. We arrived here on our own and rightfully so.

On Original Sin

As we all know, the foundation of all the Abrahamic religions is the downfall of man in the garden of eden through the commission of "original sin" by Eve and consequently Adam. God forbade them specifically from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did anyway at the suggestion of the "serpent" and as a result were banished from the garden and forced into a life of grief and toil. Adam and Eve had children and the "sin" they committed when they ate the fruit was inherited by their children, Cain, Abel and Seth, and, I assume, all the other non-named children they must have had.
As an assay, by the logic of its bible, why doesn't christianity recognize that the whole of the human race must be descended from this first necessarily incestuous family. Cain, Abel and Seth had to have successfully mated with females, else we would not be here. It must have either been their mother or their unmentioned sisters. Disgusting.

How did we as the children of Cain, Abel and Seth come to acquire the "sin" of Adam and Eve?
Was it physically? Did we inherit it somehow? If so, this means we must necessarily have a sinful physical nature. What I mean is, if god created us in his image, never once "tweaking" us after the initial creation, then our physical makeup is the same post-original sin as it was pre-original sin, which in turn means that our ability to pass on genes to our children through the process of inheritance has been with us since our creation. Physically, there is only one way to pass on something biological from ourselves to our children. This is called inheritance and involves the replication of DNA sequences of amino acids called genes. Genes are what we inherit from our parents. If this is the case, then what sequence of amino acids would equate to "sin"? Is there also a "meekness" gene which we inherit? How about compassion? The ability to "hear" god speaking, perhaps? Infact, science hypothesises there might very well be certain sequences of amino acids that coorespond to the affects of humanity, although they are yet to be deciphered.

If we inherited original sin from adam and eve then this means we've had the gene for sin as a part of our genetic makeup since our creation, which of course would negate the very idea of original sin. Having the "Sin" gene in us from the get-go disallows the "sinfulness" of disobedience, unless you admit that god set us up to fail. In Logic, this is what is called an argument of Self-contradiction, where the very argument presents two points which cancel each other out. The argument of Self-contradiction is not a valid form of argument.
For argument's sake, however, let's say we do spiritually inherit the sins of our parents through genetics. How then does our spirit or soul survive the death and subsequent decomposition of our physical bodies of which our DNA is the most fundamental part? How could our spirits "go to heaven or hell" after we die if our physical genes are the mechanism of spiritual survival ?
The answer is we did not physically inherit either a soul that is immortal or "sin".
If we did not physically inherit sinfulness, then we must have spiritually inherited it somehow.
If that is the case, then what is the mechanism for this inheritance? It is certainly not DNA, as genetics is physical. Religion offers no explanation for this mechanism. There is no "Religious Method" to counter the Scientific Method of understanding, unless you consider the idea of simply believing what you have been told to believe a method of understanding, i.e. faith.
Curiosity by itself would ask that we try and discover the spiritual mechanism through which these "sinful" attributes are being replicated and passed on to subsequent generations. To date, the only mechanism that we know of that does this exact thing is the DNA in each cell, which is a purely physical entity, requiring no spirituality.
Faith doesn't explain how we inherit the spiritual doom of our parents, it only tells us we do, no explanation needed.
The concept that we "inherited" original sin actually relies on a particular scientific precept, transference, which is also one of the foundations of the theory of evolution.
Attributes are transferred to future generations from previous ones. In evolution these are attributes that are favorable to the survival of the physical being.
Religion perverts this concept into one where the transference does not ensure the survival of the spirit, but the likelihood of its permanent death. "The wages of sin is death", Romans 6:23

If science is not the answer to our questions as religion supposes, then why does religion base its most fundamental precept, the "sin" of which we are all guilty, on the scientifically discovered mechanism of replication and transference, namely DNA?

If on the other hand, we don't inherit our sin, but are given it, by god at the very moment of our birth, then god is a truly malicious being. Adam and Eve sinned and earned god's eternal wrath. We, however, did not. We did not eat of the forbidden tree, we weren't around yet. By the same reasoning, we also did not have any bearing on their commision of original sin.

We, as their descendants, either inherited the problem of sin physically through replication and transference, spiritually through some unknown mechanism that is actually scientific in nature, or god himself bestowed us with this malignancy at the very moment of our births . If god did decide to simply confer on us this spiritual vexation on an entirely individual basis, then he did so knowing the damnation of eternal destruction and torment he was annointing his own creation with. Again, if he did this, he is not a god worth recognizing, let alone worshipping.
Of course, science is the true answer. God is too human, to be anything but.
Religion itself uses science for its own purposes.
Only when science blatantly and completely discredits religion's fantastic claims of the supernatural does it divorce itself from the truth of the scientific method.
This alone is enough to discredit it.

On Faith's true definition

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Notice a few things about this verse (Hebrews 11:1)

1. It is being sure. (of what we hope for). From where does this surity come? The verse says what faith is (being sure) but not where faith or the surity comes from. As I see it, the surity can come from two possible sources, namely god, or our own mind.
If surity comes from god, why does he constantly encourage us to "have faith"? We shouldn't need to strive to have faith if it is truly a gift from him, installed in each of us at the factory so to speak. An apologetic would at this point say something like, the fall of man in the garden of eden took away our ability to have faith. This is not what the bible says. The bible says we ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thus attained the knowledge of good and evil and became as god themselves (no that's not a misprint, the bible says, man has become as US, this is god speaking). It says nothing of the ability to have faith, unless you interpret faith to be ignorance of the world around us. If that's the case then, as ignorance equals faith, then we did lose our ability to have faith in the garden. However, faith is not defined by the bible as ignorance, it is defined as being convinced of something.
If the surity does not however come from god, then it must come from ourselves, which is of course where it does come from. We can certainly have faith in something. The idea of faith is a very noble one. For instance, I can have faith that my wife will not cheat on me. This is a certainty that has come most assuredly from myself. I chose to believe the promise she made to me when we got married. It most certainly did not come from god.

2. Notice something else about the next phrase of this verse, "of what we hope for". Now this is simply too easy. Wishful thinking! Just because we hope for something to be the case does not in any way make it actually be the case. I can be absolutely sure that I will win the lottery one day, but as we all know, the likelihood of my being able to retire on my winnings is, well......

3. The next phrase says " certain of what we do not see". This is an interestingly misunderstood phrase. If we do not see something but are yet certain of it's existence, then according tio this phrase, we have faith in it.
It in no way states that if we do infact see something and choose to disbelieve it, that we are exhibiting faith in anything.
Again, Faith is not the disbelief of the observed. In this way, I find the christian's argument against evolution on the grounds of their faith in creation to be inapplicable. Faith in the story of creation translates into being certain of the story of creation even though we don't see it. This is in complete contradiction to the observed phenomenon of evolution through natural selection.
The bible however, is conspicuously mute on the subject of when faith in the unseen and beliefin the observed butt heads. It seems to me that god, if he were truly all-knowing, would have seen this coming and given instructions as to how to get around this conundrum. Alas, no such luck. God most certainly is a figment of our deepest fear-driven imaginations and the feeble attempt by the organized christian church to perpetuate the stupidity of the bible hopefully will one day be eradicated by reasonable, rational minds.

Whence comes the soul?

It seems to me, a crucial point of dissention between atheists and religious folk is the existence or nonexistence of an immortal soul. Let's examine this for a moment.
If we have an immortal soul with the abilities to survive our own physical death living on into eternity in either perpetuated bliss or torture and to house our affects such as empathy, compassion, the sense of justice, etcc, then this very soul must have come from somewhere.
As I see it, there are only two possible sources for this mysterious component of us, inside of god, or outside.
If our souls came from inside, or the mind, of god, then he would certainly have known of us (meaning every single human that has lived or ever will live on thisearth) since his own beginning (of which there are many unsubstantiated claims by christians). If god indeed has known each of us, all along since his own inception or birth, then why would he need or even want to create a corporeal body to put us into? We were already with him in his mind, so why did he bother with creation at all? It couldn't be so he would have companionship. He already had it, albeit through multiple personality disorder :-)
If this is not the case and our immortal soul came from outside of god instead, then as I see it,our soul could only come from two possible places outside of god, namely heaven or earth (hell can't be included because, according to religious doctrine, it has not always existed, only coming into it's existence after satan's fall from grace)
If our soul comes from heaven, which is where god himself lives, then as stated before, we have been with god (in his mind) since time immemmorial, leaving no need for him to create an elaborate universe, complete with galaxies, black holes, planets (such as our home), an ordered periodic table of elements identifying the very elements which we, his mind's picture are made of, or all varieties of animals with whom he apparently has no other use for except their ritual death. I again ask why god continually feels the need to create for us, physical bodies that house the soul that, if left alone, would still be living side-by-side with god in heaven. It seems pointless.
If however, our soul did not come from heaven, then it must have come from earth. This of course leads to the conclusion that our soul is actually our concious mind, as it has evolved, along with every other part of our physical makeup, through the eons of the age of the earth. There was never any need for god to create a body to house our immortal soul, because

1. Our "immortal soul" is most assuredly not immortal. It is a function of our biologically organic brain; located in the left pre-frontal cortex, susceptible to illness, disorder and death just like every other part of our organic bodies. When we die, our brains will die and along with them, our "souls". Any belief to the contrary is simply blinded wishful thinking.
AND
2. God doesn't exist except in the neurological pathways of our imagination. He is imaginary and unnecessary. He didn't create anything, especially not the complexity and wonderfulness of life and humanity. You can't create something if you don't exist.

Jesus is Superman

Let's consider, a man not from earth comes to earth as a human baby and represents the salvation of all mankind. He has amazing powers that effect the physical world and can change it in ways that are anti-natural. He is meek around his fellow humans but unshakeable in his attitude towards evil. He is impervious to all forms of danger except one, which if confronted with could kill him. His power is attributed to a heavenly source. He grows up as a human child in a small town and is unknown to the world at large throughout his childhood, but as an adult he has an enormous effect on the entire world. His job is a menial one, but he does his greatest work pro-bono. During a highly troubling time in his adult life, he goes to a secluded, solitary place where he communes with his heavenly father for help and advice. He is murdered, but later he is resurrected.
Now am I recounting the story of Jesus?

No, I was talking about Superman.

Jesus obviously came before Superman, and Batman, and the Green Hornet, etc....
He also was a real person (probably) whereas the superheroes are all fictional characters.
If we examine a bit closer the link between these people we see not just superficial similarities, but also more importantly, the archetypical structure of the solution to mankind's fears and aspirations.
The pyschology of the superhero involves appeals to the "goodness", "morality", "humanity" whatever you'd call it, which is a part of us all. The comic book hero is geared to those humans for whom justice, fair play, and simply doing the right thing is the most natural, namely kids.
We all, however, can see the values that are illustrated and reenforced by these characters. Even such superheroes as Batman and The Incredible Hulk, complete with their darkside are always battling the "forces of evil". Rare is there a superhero who is not illustrative of the qualities we all seek to attain ourselves. They are what we aspire to be (especially when we are kids).

The exhibition of these qualities is what we as humans have been trying to attain throughout our existence, even 2,000 years ago.
In other words the fundamental psychology behind the creation of the superheroes of today, the reason for them if you will, is exactly the same now as it was when the story of jesus was construed. The authors of the gospels including jesus himself, sought to illustrate in a man, the morals they knew would be recognized by their audience at large. The man jesus simply capitalized on the fears he knew to be rampant in his native population. He may or may not have been as calculating as that, he might actually have been convinced he was the son of god, but it's also possible that he was a great con man. It matters not that the stories of his superiority over mankind were transmitted verbally or through writings. The chosen morals were conveyed no matter the medium.
It is superficially more obvious a parallel between characters such as superman or Neo(from the matrix trilogy) and jesus, but the underlying reason for the existence of all superheroes has been with us since our first foray out of the forest and into intelligence.