Why the Big Bang Theory works...

A while ago, blogger Makarios dropped by to lambaste my post on the new slogan for the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Popping over to his blog, it's entertaining to watch him expound his Christian theories - but one in particular made me feel that I needed to post about it.

"The Big Bang just renders atheists incoherent and incapable of putting together even a single line of logical thought," he triumphantly rants, in this post. According to his interpretation, the Big Bang Theory is reliant on the belief that; "everything that began to exist came from absolutely nothing."

He concludes: "The cause was and had to be supernatural, or outside of and transcendent to nature." i.e. 'God.' 'Something' can't come from 'nothing' without divine intervention.

The problem with this theory is that it's complete rubbish.

For a start, it's centered around a totally contradictory fallacy - that the universe had to 'start' somewhere. Everything has a beginning, Makarios argues, so what existed before the beginning of the universe? He concludes that it must be God.

But that logic instantly poses the question of God's origins. If 'everything has a beginning' than God must logically have one too. So God was around to create the universe... But who was around to create God?

Christians argue that God is timeless - he's always existed. The concept of the 'beginning' is one that panders to man's limited understanding of existence: Mankind only comprehends a traditional narrative that includes a beginning and an end.

Well, that's actually an interesting theory. But what if it wasn't God that was timeless, without beginning or end, but the universe itself?

One common theory for the cause of the 'Big Bang' was simple physics. In 'the beginning' everything already existed: The entire universe - every atom of matter and energy - was already there, compressed to an almost incomprehensibly small size - perhaps not much bigger than an atom itself.

There was no beginning, but for the purposes of our demonstration, we'll start the story of the universe at this point - when all matter and energy was compressed to a boiling, seething speck on the brink of detonation.

Science shows us that compressing something heats it up - for example, it's compression, not a spark plug, which causes the combustion of diesel in a diesel engine.

By that same science, the continued compression of the entire universe would heat it up, hotter and hotter, until it burned more fiercely than anything man could comprehend - and the inevitable result would be an explosion.

That explosion sent matter and energy blasting off in all directions - the 'Big Bang' that scientists have written about. As this matter got further and further away, mass was attracted to mass and planets, stars and nebulae formed. Eventually, they became the galaxies, constellations and star systems that we know today.

The 'Big Bang' sends all the matter, energy and mass in the universe shooting off in all directions. Independent to the 'bang,' gravity and other forces would eventually create planets, stars, moons and every other stellar body in existence.

We know that this all took place - and the 'explosion' from the 'Big Bang' is continuing to send everything in the universe hurtling outwards, like an ever-expanding sphere of something in the limitless black void of nothing. As it does so - as science proves it always must - the entire universe is cooling.

Eventually - in quadrillions of years - that cooling will reach another tipping point. Then, the universe will begin to contract, as all cool things do...

Inevitably, the expansion will cause the universe to cool to a critical point, when it will begin to contract. All the planets, moons, suns and matter will be 'sucked' back towards the central point, getting compressed into one single thing as they do so.

The ever-expanding sphere of something will become an ever-contracting one. Smaller and smaller the universe will become, until everything - all that matter, mass and energy - is contracted once again into that small, tiny, compressed ball of stuff that started off the 'Big Bang' in the first place...

As things contract - and become compressed - they get hotter and hotter until the whole cycle begins again and there's another 'Big Bang.' Momentum continues contracting the cosmos, until the temperature increases towards that critical tipping point again.

We're back to the beginning again - a single speck of boiling matter that contains the entire universe within itself. The compression continues until this 'speck' reaches critical mass and we have another 'Big Bang,' starting the cycle all over again.

The universe expands and contracts, in an endless cycle. There was no 'beginning.' The universe didn't appear out of nowhere. It was always here, and always will be.

[Einstein beat you to this theory, Genius. It's the popular concept known as an 'Oscillatory universe' in which the 'Big Bang' is preceded by a 'Big Crunch' as you have described. - Editorial Bear]

Some scientists even surmise that as the universe travels outwards (as it's doing at the moment) time travels forwards. When the universe eventually cools and begins to contract, time will run backwards... Meaning that the entire scope of creation is self-contained. The concept of time, of 'beginning' and 'end' and everything in between, becomes meaningless.

As far as my limited understanding of science goes (and feel free to correct me, Mycroft, Tom and The Chemist) this adequately explains 'the beginning' and the apparent contradiction in 'the Big Bang' - that something can't appear 'from nothing' without something (i.e. God) to create it.

With this theory, God, who is apparently timeless, doesn't need to exist to create the universe because the universe is equally timeless; trapped in a cycle of expanding and contracting across time spans that our fragile human brains can barely comprehend.

It raises further questions - are the results of each cycle of 'the Big Bang' the same? Or do random permutations create 'different' universes each and every time.

Perhaps we'll never know - the human experience is only the blink of an eye in cosmic terms, and we're all just one, short blip on only the current leg of an endless cycle.

Let's leave that to the astronomers to figure out (and the philosophers to worry about.) All that concerns me is a logical, rational, scientific theory that deflates yet another dreary argument in the 'believer's' playbook.

As far as I'm concerned, God didn't create man. Man created God.

The Earth is just one of billions of planets capable of supporting life. We're just along for the ride, no more significant to the scope of the universe than ants or bacteria. It's being humble enough to accept that which opens our minds to understanding that any religious creation myth is ultimately inadequate.

Innocence and Slavery

In the face of imminent fatherhood, I guess it's only natural that you pay more attention to kids you run into on a day-to-day basis. It's quite amusing. Kids seem a lot smarter than they look. Certainly smarter than their parents!

My nephew-in-law, for example, hurls whatever he's given out of his hand. 'Mom' hands him a bottle and crash! Down it goes onto the floor. 'Mom' obediently picks it up and hands it back to the grinning baby and crash! Down it goes again, waiting for her to return it.

The cheeky little devil is playing 'fetch' with her, as if she was a dog!

It certainly dispels the myth of kids being 'innocent' (since I believe they're cunning and devious little bundles.)

But 'innocence' is an interesting concept when it comes to kids - and one that troubles me.

Of course, kids are innocent. They're born knowing nothing - and the way they see the world is shaped by their parents from day one. Nature versus nurture is an ongoing debate, but nobody can argue that a parent has enormous responsibility in helping create the person baby grows up to be.

Yet Christians believe that nobody is 'born innocent.' They believe in the myth of 'Original Sin,' which means newborns are automatically cursed with the sin of Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and were suitably punished (along with all of their descendants - basically all of mankind.)

I think this is a HORRIBLE concept. For Christians, as soon as they're old enough to talk and listen, they're taught that they're somehow dirty and wrong and their whole lives are shaped by this reinforced sense of inadequacy.

It's clearly true... It seems everybody I know who was raised as a Christian is riddled with neurosis (myself included.) The ideas of 'Catholic guilt' and 'Protestant sensibilities' must stem from somewhere!

I think the reason politically-minded conservative Christians spend so much time trying to alter other people's behaviour (ban pornography! Homosexuality is a sin!) is because they're constantly fighting an inner battle between their own natural instincts and the rigid morality enforced by the church.

Kids are taught that they are wrong and the only way to find salvation and be 'fixed' is to submit yourself entirely to Jesus. Only by subjugating yourself to him will you avoid burning in hell.

And THAT'S the bit that really troubles me.

You can live a sin-free life, remaining virginal and chaste, honest and kind, sober and pure, yet none of that's good enough to get yourself into heaven. Only subjugation to Jesus counts.

Which leads you to the impossible situation of 'bad' people, who drank and gambled and led sinful lives full of sex, drugs, pornography and rock 'n roll, being just as eligible for entry into heaven as the 'pure' man.

Sign on the dotted line, pledge your drug-raddled body to Jesus and all those years of sin (and fun) are forgotten. In fact, if you read The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) you'll see that a life of sin can be a fast-track route to salvation while the 'pure and chaste' route largely goes unrewarded!

As the elder son (the non-prodigal one) complained: "Lo, these many years have I served thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son was come who hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf."

Basically: "I was a good son and I got bumpkiss for it. My badly-behaved brother slinks back home and you treat him like royalty."

I never did understand that story (which, like The Book of Job, seems only to illustrate that God could be an enormous dick when it came to his faithful followers.)

[Did you have a point? Editorial Bear]

I did indeed have a point.

This is all rubbish! It's one of the concepts of Christianity (like the existence of evil and bad things happening) that make no sense whatsoever.

Making Sense of It All

One of the most troubling aspects of Christianity (for Christians, that is) is how to explain how bad things are allowed to happen, which is where the whole (entirely inadequate) explanation of 'free will' comes into the equation.

The purpose of the early church was not to make people believe in God and live pure and chaste lives. It was to get 'bums in pews' and have the collection plate overflowing with donations (hence why the Catholic Church remains one of the richest organisations in the world.)

In order to 'convince' [blackmail - Editorial Bear] people into following the church, they cleverly created the concept of Original Sin so that people would be required to subjugate themselves to Jesus even if they lived pure and totally blameless lives.

'You're born wrong!' the church says, 'and your only hope for salvation is Christ.'

When it's 'God's Way or the High Way [To eternal torment - Editorial Bear]' it doesn't seem like there's too much 'free will' in there at all! It's slavery, pure and simple.

.

Oh well. What can you do. As more and more of the vagaries and inconsistencies that riddle Christianity are pointed out to me, the more astounded I am that believers fight so enthusiastically to rationalize them.

.

But I still 'tut tut' at parents letting their kids run around naked, or other 'inappropriate' behaviour, so I guess I'm still just as brainwashed by the Church's moral rectitude as the rest of them.

If nothing else, my theories on Original Sin make a brilliant idea for a fantasy screenplay. How about an adaption of The God Delusion, along the same vein as the Da Vinci Code? [Hokey and melodramatic? Seems like it'll suit the source material - Editorial Bear]

**adopts deep and booming 'trailer' voice...**

For centuries, the people of planet Earth have been cursed by a cruel and vengeful God.

Born condemned to an eternity of torture, only slavery to their undead zombie master* can spare them. Until one day, a hero emerged to lead the enslaved to freedom...

His name was Ricardo Dawkins... and he exposed 'The God Delusion.'

The God Delusion
Coming to Cinemas 2010.

Starring:

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Richard 'Ricardo' Dawkins

Jeremy Irons as Undead Zombie Jesus

Tom Wilkinson as Pat Robertson

Anne Hathaway as Repressed Virgin

.

.

.

.

.
*that's Jesus, who I guess was technically 'undead' or a 'zombie' when he arose from the dead

It's days like this that make me hate Christianity...

WARNING: I realise that some of my readers are Christians. Therefore, to put this angry post into context, you might want to read about my loss of faith, which explains my angry and occasionally bitter position on religion.

Myanmar believes 4,000 die in cyclone

By Aung Hla Tun Reuters - 24 minutes ago

YANGON (Reuters) - Myanmar's military junta believes at least 4,000 people died in a cyclone that ripped through the Irrawaddy delta, triggering a massive international aid response for the pariah southeast Asian nation. Full story here.

4,000 people dead in what used to be Burma (I think they call in Myanmar these days.)

4,000 people! In the space of a few hours! All from a single 'Act of God' that tore through Irrawaddy delta leaving a trail of wreckage and corpses in it's wake.

4,000 is the official casualty figure, but it's climbing all the time. Conservative estimates put the actual death toll at closer to 10,000.

It's days like this that I pray God doesn't exist - because if he did, how could something like this happen? If God existed, he'd be at worst a mass murderer - at best a criminally negligent landlord. Events like this are simply incompatible with the feel good crap Christians try to spoon feed us.

I mean, what's the Christian take on the events in Burma?

I remember in the days following the Tsunami how a Christian friend of mine was trying to explain that hardly any of the 250,000 South East Asians who'd been killed would go to heaven 'because most of them are Muslim.'

Apparently you have to accept Jesus Christ before you get a pass to heaven, so the quarter of a million God wiped out that Christmas morning lost not only their lives, but were condemned to eternal damnation.

Nice stuff, this Christianity.

But even the specific technicalities of Christian 'lore' fade into insignificance when you look at the big picture. How could God even let this happen?

In the Bible, terrible events normally happen for the reason. The great flood was a 'cleansing' that either wiped out the 'bad men' or, if you read some of the more juicy Catholic texts, eliminated the 'Nephilum' who were the offspring of Angels and humans.

If the Tsunami or the cyclone in Myanmar happened for a reason, what was it?

And whatever the supposed 'reason,' how can a 'loving' God coolly eliminate thousands of his children - even for some supposed indiscretion. It doesn't sound like a loving God to me - more like a vengeful, petty, brutal mass murderer. Mind you, that's how he acted in the Old Testament.

I will never understand how a Christian can witness events like these and not doubt their faith. In fact, I'm surprised how anybody who lives on Earth can still believe God is kind and loving. The cyclone in Myanmar was a more epic 'Act of God' than most, but the negligent and criminal acts God condones occur each and every day in plain sight.

A church going, God-fearing family who find out that one of them has terminal cancer. A random fire wiping out a family's uninsured home, leaving them penniless. One I witnessed myself - a regular church-goer paralysed after an accident on a trampoline, unable to move and throwing his family into poverty and uncertainty.

Surely these events are just The book of Job, reenacted by the Lord's faithful servants all across the world, each and every day.

If this is how God rewards his 'faithful,' I'm pleased I rejected such a concept. Servitude to 'God' is servitude to a petty, cruel and spiteful master who kills and condemns on a whim.

No, the only way life makes any sense is if there is no God.

If random tragedies like the thousands killed in Myanmar are just that - random tragedies. Random is easier to accept that some distorted 'message' from a celestial murderer who considers himself our 'moral authority.'

The Bible as Literature

My recent tongue-in-cheek post about the Bible resulted in a couple of emails and a blog comment.

One acknowledged that I 'didn't mean any harm' by my post, another implied that my reference to the contradictions, discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Bible 'reveal a lack of understanding of the work.'

It's the second statement I disagree with. This is a very common response from people who don't agree with my particular take on the Bible and the context of what's written within it - but I went to a theological university (albeit to study history) and took classes on the history and origins of the Bible.

I think this puts me in a better position to discuss it than a certain sect of the Christian community, whose 'knowledge' of the Bible stems from them reading their own particular English translation of the Bible and discussing it amongst themselves.

There is an important difference between 'studying the Bible' (in which one learns about the documentary history of the Bible, the historical and political influences that effected it's development and the context in which it was written) and 'Bible studies.' Reading four chapters of the Bible every day does not give you a better understanding of it.

The fact is, each of the 21 English-language translations of the Bible are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies. Even ignoring the internal inaccuracies, it's difficult to reconcile how one translation of the Bible (such as the popular King James) is often in contradiction with another (such as the Revised Standard Bible.)

I've written quite extensively about it here - The Bible and Star Wars.

It doesn't have to be a big deal. The inaccuracy of the Bible shouldn't be a question of faith.

For example, I'm an atheist and I still believe that the Bible contains many historical and philosophical truths. Catholics and Episcopalians still believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins - yet they're willing to accept that the story of creation was allegorical and the actual birth of mankind follows what scientific study has taught us.

[You should listen to the Catholics, guys. When it comes to The Bible, they wrote the book. Literally. - Editorial Bear.]

The problem arises when fundamentalist evangelicals - and yes, I'm sorry I'm always ragging on you - try to claim that the Bible isn't inaccurate. It's not allegorical. It's literal fact and it's the infallible word of God.

I simply find it astonishing - mind boggling - that we live in the early years of the 21st century (man has split the atom, sent men to the moon and harnessed the power of DNA) yet there are millions of people in the United States who honestly believe that the world is 7,000 years old and God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (what was she? Six inches tall?)

But I've discussed this particular troubling issue many, many times over and generally reached the same impasse. They tell me: "If the facts don't agree with our belief system, then the facts are wrong." There's very little point discussing it further.

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?" Stephen Colbert

Riddle Me This...

Assuming for a second that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the copy you've got sitting in your bookcase (let's say it's the Revised Standard Bible) is entirely 100% accurate (even if it has several inconsistencies with your neighbour's King James Bible) could you answer me these questions? I'll make them multiple choice, to keep things easy.

Let's look at some of the attitudes and inspirations behind Christian faith first.

God is...

1. ...love, which is not jealous or boastful
2. ...a jealous God, who will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins and will turn and do you hurt, and consume you

The Bible's attitudes towards feminism are:

1. Progressive. "There is no such thing as male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus."
2. Chauvinistic. "Women should keep silent. They have no permission to talk. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home."

What was God's attitude to enemies and war?

1. He was an old softy! "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds."
2. He was a vicious old bastard. "Go now, fall upon them! Destroy them! Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys!"

If that hasn't confused you, let's have a look at some of the purely factual evidence regarding certain events (like Christ's Crucifixion.)

After Judas betrayed him, following the Last Supper, which of the Jewish authorities decided whether to hand Jesus Christ over to Pontius Pilate or not?

1. Jesus is placed on trial in front of the whole Sanhedrin.
2. There's no trial. The Sanhedrin merely hold an inquiry to decide.
3. There isn't even an inquiry. Jesus only appears before Annas and Caiphas.

When Jesus is arrested, how does he tell his disciples to react?

1. Non-violently. "Those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword," he warns them.
2. Aggressively. "Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one!"
3. He doesn't say a thing. He's too busy getting arrested.

After betraying Jesus, Judas Iscariot...

1. Gave back the money he'd been bribed and hung himself.
2. Kept the money, fell over and died after his intestines randomly fell out.

The answer to all of the questions is 'all of the above.'

These are just a tiny handful of the hundreds of blatant contradictions contained within the Bible, ranging from major theological issues (is homosexuality a sin? Or does Jesus condone it?) to some mundane, but important facts (Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, while Matthew implied they lived in Bethlehem.)

I've said it once. I ought to say it again. The fact that the Bible is a deeply flawed and inaccurate document does not stop it being an enormously important book - nor diminish the message of faith it contains. However, it is not the infallible word of God, as certain evangelicals would like to believe. It's not even the infallible word of man.

In the course of the Bible's long journey to your bookshelf, the real events that inspired it have been significantly warped, manipulated, misquoted and fictionalized. The worst of that damage has been done in the last century or so - when dozens of forthright and opinionated 'translators' delivered their own 'versions' of the King James Bible, using creative licence to insert their own religious agendas in amongst the so called 'words of God.'

There are no less than 21 different English translations of the Bible. You can see that list here. What troubles me more than any of the inconsistencies within the scriptures itself are the discrepancies between one edition of the 'English Language Bible' and another.

One Bible translates something one way. Another translates it different. This website allows you to take a specific passage from the Bible and compare each of the 21 translations against each other. Before anybody claims that 'the Bible' is the infallible word of God, they should take their favourite passage and see how different it appears in other versions.

Which one is the 'infallible word of God?'

None of them. And the sooner the evangelical movement accept that faith in God doesn't require slavish devotion to a flawed religious text, the sooner we can all embrace rationality and reason, instead of cynical superstition.

Waiting for Dog

Although rarely the focus of it, religion had always been part of my life.

Although I hardly remember him, my grandfather was a Church of England vicar - and a very good one from what I've heard. The sort of man who sacrificed a lot for the sake of his 'flock' and was an advisor, friend and mentor to his parishioners as much as their spirtual leader.

At school, I was one of the last generation of kids who said prayers and sang hymns at assembly. In Autumn, we'd go to Harvest Festival at the local church. We sang religious Christmas Carols to our parents at the end of the year.

I attended St David's University College, in Lampeter. It was originally founded by Cambridge as a theological university for aspiring priests. Many of my friends later went on to a career in the Church of England.

Although I'd never been a regular church goer, I fell heavily for an aspiring priest (priestess?) while I was there and used to obediantly follow her to chapel several times a week.

I left university and the years of indoctrination did their trick. Although I didn't regularly attend church, I still considered myself a Christian. As a history major, I tempered my consideration of the Bible with my knowledge of historical fact (something some Christians are unwilling to do) but I still believed in the big, general idea of Christianity.

I talked to God. A lot. And I never asked him for anything except the strength or motivation to achieve my goals or make it through troubling periods of my life.

When I finally met my wife, my religious convictions (however little conviction I had in them) were at least part of the reason why she considered me valid matrimonial material. She is a deeply spiritual Catholic. I don't believe she'd have married somebody who didn't at least believe in God. She often asked me if I prayed (I never liked the term 'pray.' I talked to God, like you would a friend, older brother, father or boss.)

As such, things continued more or less smoothly for the first four years of our marriage - until something that might seem to be utterly insignificant utterly shattered my beliefs.

Meaningless

On July 15th of last year, my wife's little cat Ava got hit by a car. She died in my wife's arms as we zoomed off to the local animal hospital. It was just once - and just for a second - but as Ava passed away my wife let out the most heart wrenching sob. It still brings tears to my eyes when I remember hearing it.

Some people may scoff, since Ava was 'just' a cat - but when Ava passed away I remember being filled to overflowing with hot, bubbling anger. I was utterly, hatefully furious with this 'God' who I had believed in and trusted.

Ava passing away didn't shake my wife's beliefs, but it completely destroyed mine. For a while, I still believed in God. I still believed in the 'facts' of Chrisianity. They just stopped making sense to me. Every single day, I observed more and more things about 'Christianity' that seemed disgustingly hypocritical or desperately absurd.

I listened to Christians try to explain to why a 'good' God (who grants rewards to his faithful subjects) would allow bad things to happen. And the more I heard the excuses, the justifications and the fantasies, the more they made my skin crawl. Try reading this disgusting piece of tripe.

It was only after a conversation with my father, during which we discussed history, the Bible and faith through the ages, that the penny dropped. I realised that the way the real world operated was quite simply incompatible with the fantasy of Christianity.

I didn't need to keep asking myself why, or waste anger on a deaf, dumb and blind God who only existed in the prayers I'd previously made to him. I looked up to the heavens and instead of seeing The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost, I saw twinkling stars - flaming balls of gas burning millions of miles away.

I realised God didn't exist - and it was one of the most liberating spiritual experiences of my life.

I even stopped being angry about Ava. Her being hit by that car wasn't down to the negligence of some careless, patriarchial diety. It was just an accident. It meant I could finally just let it go and be sad for the little cat, instead of holding her inside me like a big ball of angry fire.

And remarkably, as soon as I slipped free from the shackles of faith, the world started to make more sense. The beliefs I'd had in this 'God' were soon replaced by an embrace of rationalism. Facts and science and history offered answers to things that Christianity never had.

I felt empowered. I'd previously thanked 'God' for the good fortune I'd had achieving my dreams, like moving to America. Once I'd stepped free from religion's shadow, I realised that the people I needed to thank were my parents, my mentors, my wife, my friends and even, to a larger extent than I'd ever thought before, myself.

And I had hope. Because if achieving dreams was down to hard work and luck, rather than the whim of the 'Holy Father,' I could play the odds and take my chances. If I won - fantastic! If I lost, I'd know it was down to bad luck or lack of skills or effort - instead of a cruel God punishing me for 'lustfully' checking out a girl on the subway or some other equally ridiculous 'sin.'

Morality was easy. Respect for my fellow man - and respect for the laws of the state of New Jersey - were all the moral guidance I needed. I no longer needed to feel guilty for a litany of meaningless 'sins' invented by a repressive religious regime.

I walked away from God and it was one of the best decisions of my life. Never before have I felt so alive. Never before has the world made so much sense to me. I have experienced 'enlightenment' and embraced my new destiny as a Born Again Athiest.

But the problem?

While I have undergone this spiritual awakening, my wife is still devoutly Catholic. She would be horrified to know that I have utterly lost my 'faith.' I feel bad about it - but it's not like I have any choice in the matter. It just 'clicked' and nothing's ever made so much sense to me before. I can't go back to believing in God any more, just as I'm sure no devout Christian could just 'decide' to become an athiest.

But I keep my beliefs to myself - and I am still entirely respectful of what she chooses to believe.

Jesus is Still my Homeboy

It's important to note that a lack of Christian belief doesn't mean I've stopped believing in the Bible. The Bible - at least parts of it - contain documented historical fact.

Werner Keller's amazing book The Bible as History is an excellent starting point. Although the archeological material is quite dated now (most of it pre-dates the 1930's) the facts are clear. Many of the 'stories' of the Bible are actually based on real events from that period of history.

Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, for example. In 1996, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence of an immense flood of the Black Sea in 5600BC (matching the dating in the Bible) which could well have served as the the basis for the myth of The Great Flood. For almost a full year, ten cubic MILES of seawater flooded farmland around the Black Sea nearly every single day.

Considering so much of the Bible contains nods to actual historical events, it's entirely logical to believe that some of the stories have some basis of truth to them. Which means the teachings of a humble carpenter from Nazereth are a philosophy that can't be disregarded as easily as the fantasy of an 'all powerful' cat-murdering God.

Angry.

I am no longer angry at God - because I might as well be angry at Winnie the Pooh or Captain Ahab. I might as well be angry at a cup of coffee for all the good it does.

But I am angry at a lot of Christians - especially since coming to America. I'm angry for all sorts of reasons. Some of these reasons are entirely selfish.

One of the things I detest most about 'hard core' Christians is them ramming their faith down my throat. Am I any better when I scoff and seeth at their wretched refusal to accept rationality and fact? Pride is a Christian sin, yet it took athiesm to make me humble in my beliefs.

I am still open to other beliefs because rationalism doesn't offer all the answers. For example, the concept of a 'higher power' delivering that inexplicable 'spark' which gave birth to all life on earth is entirely rational. Scientists can't quite explain how 'life' came from 'no life' and until they do, the idea of a mystical deity providing that spark is as difficult/easy to prove as any more 'rational' explanation.

What I can't stand - and what constitutes the 'faith' that I want to ram down the throat of pious Christians - is when they ignore irifutible, documented fact and instead chose to remain ignorant by sticking to dogma that's been proven time and time again to be utterly fantastical.

Like creation. For thousands of Christians, their 'God' can't be limited to rational scientific theory (the 'higher power' and the 'spark of life' theory.)

They declare that the world was created seven thousand years ago, when God made the heavens and the earth and made Adam from clay - creating Eve from his rib. It's exactly as it was laid out in the Bible.

WHICH IS RUBBISH! I mean, how can the world only be seven thousand years old when we have carbon dated human fossils dating back 130,000 years? Carbon dating is a pretty exact science. Christians who dispute carbon dating might as well dispute the existence of the light bulb, or Sweden.

Well, why not? They've never been there. They've only read about it in books. So there's no 'proof' that Sweden exists.

It's so utterly idiotic that it makes me swoon. The thought of a man like Mike Huckabee - who believes in the biblical story of creation - making it to the White House is utterly terryifying. What else does he not believe in?

Another perfect example is the story of Noah's Ark - I've mentioned it above.

You'd have thought the fundementalist Christians would be happy that history has given credibility to the overall story of the Bible. But NO.

They're not happy - because a flood in Europe isn't what the Bible says happened:

"Noah’s Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area," utterly retarded website Answers in Genesis declares, "but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet."

Which it isn't - since you'd think we'd have noticed one of those.

I should try and restrain myself, because human beings have the right to believe whatever they want. No matter how stupid it is.

But whenever I hear a 'born again' Christian dismissively say: 'the world was created in seven days, just like it says in the Bible, and the theory of evolution is just a theory,' I still feel the urge to whack them around the chops and angrily expose them out as the blinkered idiot they clearly are.

But I can't do that. Because that's not very 'Christian' of me. It's ironic that popular use of the term 'Christian' signify acts of charity, generosity and respect - while 'real' Christians can often be incredibly disrespectful.

Take for example this letter, sent to the parents of Heath Ledger - the talented young actor who starred in Brokeback Mountain and passed away last week.

Stupidity and Hate

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," says presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. The Westboro Baptist Church is more concise. "God hates fags!"

Christianity is often used as a shield for people to say offensive things that would never be tolerated in secular society.

Lesbians and gays getting married hurts nobody. Homosexuality isn't a 'lifestyle choice' but a genetic trait that appears in animals as well as humans - yet fundementalist Christians try to change natural human behavior by manipulation, lies and emotional blackmail.

Why can't fundementalist Christians join polite society in embracing tolerance instead of hate? After all, if you read the Bible, that's what Jesus himself would do.

Jesus, whether he was a humble carpenter from Nazereth or the son of God made man, had a simple philosophy. Accept every man as your brother.

Until modern fundementalist Christians can actually follow the scripture of their prophet, it looks like we'll still be living in a country in which the most 'Christian' of people are liberal secularists.