This is in response to Dave Gipson‘s rant about Non Christians. I crosspost it here as I’m not entirely certain it’s gonna stay up over there. Besides, it came out alright even if it’s just covering the same ground I’ve covered in here countless times. I sound like a broken record, but I still await anyone to debate the points I make.
I say this to you as your Friend. Your Dear Angry Non (Ex) Christian Friend.
XX before XY. The Abrahamic god is described as one who made Adam out of dirt, and then made Eve out of Adam’s rib. Of course you probably don’t believe this literally, but there still are people who do believe this literally. That’s a fairy tale. Anyone who still takes this literally is dumb as rocks, and many of them use this belief to subjugate women as descendants of the one who committed the original sin, causing god to have to sacrifice himself to himself in the form of Jesus Christ to atone for a covenant he made with his people using his own rules that he coulda broke at any time cuz he was god but no he needed all this drama for mysterious reasons and on and on.
Honestly. Why are we still arguing about this? It’s absurd. Now if you don’t believe that literally, and accept that the Creation Myth is an allegory or metaphor and there’s some embedded larger message we are to take from religion beyond the literal interpretation of the bible, then you are claiming the bible is the inerrant word of god while simultaneously acknowledging that it’s not. You’re a hypocrite. I don’t say this insultingly. I’m just describing an example of what a hypocrite would be. As your Friend I’m trying to help you. If it’s allegory, it never happened, so Original Sin never happened, so even if a Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin and was sacrificed to a god who was himself, none of that had to occur, cuz Eve never ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil so as to break an arbitrary rule some god made.
You are either willfully ignorant, or are intentionally passing false claims about as if they were gospel truth. So you’re either dumb as rocks, or judging others as dumb enough to fall for this scheme. Science has already proven the Abrahamic god as described in Abrahamic literature cannot possibly exist in this universe, cuz the female DNA predates male DNA, and it was like that hundreds of thousands of years before the earliest mammals walked on their hind legs. The Y chromosome, when observed, is obviously an X chromosome that has been edited over millions of years of evolutionary change. It started as an X chromosome. So the X predates the Y. Eve always happened before Adam, and she perpetuated the species in a way the male never could have done alone. Somewhere early on in marine biology, the male gender came about as an evolutionary step from the female. How or why, we don’t fully know or understand, but that god of the gaps has gotten pretty tiny now, and Abraham’s god can’t fit in that hole any longer.
This isn’t an opinion. This is not a belief. This is how it is. This is reality. The Abrahamic god, as described in the Tanak, The New Testament, and the Quran, cannot exist in this reality. Science has proven that. XX before XY. I do not believe this. I observe that it is so. I have deduced from observation that this is the only answer to the question of whether or not Abe’s god ever existed. The answer is decidedly no. Objectively. Still clinging to that belief anyway, in the 21st century, and I say this as a Friend, is willful ignorance, and it’s dangerous to the future of mankind. There are also countless other examples I could use to explain how Abrahamics is fiction. Can’t live in a whale for three days. Can’t put that many animals on the same boat. Why would a benevolent god ask Abe to slay his only son just to prove a point? The list goes on and on. I only really NEED XX before XY though. That’s enough to prove Abrahamics is fiction. It’s allegory. It’s not real. It’s fallible. It’s not the work of an omnipotent perfect benevolent god.
Now atheism is not evolution is not abiogenesis. These are all different concepts and disproving one does not negate the others. I don’t believe in these things. I deduce from observation that currently they’re the best things we got going. People used to say that about a lot of stuff that we no longer accept. Maybe someday we’ll uncover evidence that proves abiogenesis or evolution impossible. That won’t mean the Abrahamic god wins magically by default. That ship has sailed, and I’ve already explained why. Evolution works. Creation does not. Abiogenesis.. I’m personally not pleased with that one my own self, however, saying “I don’t know” does not mean the Abrahamic god wins by magic. Again. Science already discounted that guy. Why can’t we move on from that?
You can argue that there was a god who happened to use physics and evolution and chemistry and all the sciences we currently observe in order to create this universe. A god who existed before what science currently calls “The Big Bang” (wasn’t originally big & didn’t technically bang but baby steps). This god may have existed before SpaceTime but there’s no evidence of tampering so far since the beginning of SpaceTime. You can call this instigator of Creation a god if you’d like. It wouldn’t be the Abrahamic god as made up by frightened men in a desert thousands of years ago to comfort one another. Those guys didn’t know about the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. They didn’t know the Earth was not the center of the universe. Those guys didn’t know much about the world beyond where they’d personally traveled. They also assumed that man existed before woman, even though women are the only ones who can perpetuate the species.
And by the way, there’s no evidence of that god either, but at least this one doesn’t have a book that claims women were made after men. So while still very doubtful, your non-Abrahamic god is slightly more plausible than the Abrahamic one, which isn’t at all possible. If we ever meet that “god” I doubt science will be satisfied with calling it a god. We may ask it for its name. We may come up with some descriptor that better fits whatever it is we find. You may call it a god. You may opt to pretend it’s the Abrahamic god, but you would still be wrong. Abe’s god isn’t real. Am I being judgmental by looking down on people who still believe this in the light of knowledge? John 1:5.
Now, it’s one thing to be judgmental. It’s quite another to have the power to do something about it. I feel any belief system that generates willfully ignorant people should either stop perpetuating willful ignorance, or maybe it should be abandoned altogether, but I can’t do anything about that, and the odds aren’t very good that American politics are going to change that any time soon. There’s not a single admitted atheist in congress right now. We’re not your problem. Cuz even if we were in power, I doubt we’d start a Holy War or a Crusade or a lynching or gee I dunno behead people who disagree with us. Things like that may have been done by the occasional atheist in history, but it was usually cuz that whacko believed in something else. Maybe not a god but.. something. Like nationalism or some elitist group of people or they were taking orders from a dictator. Atheism isn’t the problem. Not believing in something is not what causes people to kill each other. Faith is what pulls the triggers throughout history. Doubt it always what stays the hand.
I do have a concern about intolerance. Fortunately Friend, for us that doesn’t appear to be a problem. At least not today. But I will continue to judge you willfully ignorant of current science, if you continue to insist there’s a personal god that works in your life in a way that’s not scientifically verifiable. I will continue to point out hypocrisy when I see it, even in my own self when it’s there and I’m no perfect pumpkin either. I will continue to note when i see intolerance and judgmental behavior, wherever it may be. And when a friend treats fairy tales as if they’re historical fact, I’m not gonna just smile and nod. I’m gonna call ya out on that.
After all, what are Friends for?