
FROM AN ATHEIST AMONG YOU

EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOKS:

GOD NEEDS TO GO: WHY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS FAIL

IMPROBABLE: ISSUES WITH THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

REASON OVER FAITH: ANTITHEISM & THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION

\-------

J. D. BRUCKER

© Copyright J. D. Brucker 2015

First Edition; Published by J. D. Brucker

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be re-produced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

To recommend corrections, contact the author at:

jdbrucker1989@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

GOD NEEDS TO GO: WHY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS FAIL

THE FLAWED LOGIC IN MODERN MIRACLES

THE ERROR IN FAITH-BASED MORALITY

IMPROBABLE: ISSUES WITH THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

A GODLESS UNIVERSE

HISTORICALLY SPEAKING

REASON OVER FAITH: ANTITHEISM & THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION

IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

JUNK SCIENCE

# INTRODUCTION

I am against religion on all counts and this book represents for that. I am offering this book for free, giving the reader a glimpse of the work I've put forth so far. I hope you enjoy and consider extending your interest in acquiring complete copies of my work. Thank you for the time and I hope you enjoy.

J. D. Brucker

# GOD NEEDS TO GO

WHY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS FAIL
THE FLAWED LOGIC IN MODERN MIRACLES

"Those of us who are proof against miraculous claims for the more obvious reasons-that the laws of nature do not respond to petitions and that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof-have a tendency to forget that this vulgarity and hysteria also increases the sum of misery on Earth, without at all diminishing it in the false promise of the afterlife."

Christopher Hitchens, Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 24, Number 2

Throughout the bible, there are stories saturated with tales of prophets and priests performing miraculous tasks that defy what the ancient world would have considered normal. They witnessed unexplained plagues, parted seas, mass death, talking bushes, cured illnesses, food falling from the sky, men living inside of fish, walking on water, turning water into wine, men rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, and the list goes on and on. I will admit, these do seem quite spectacular but at the same time completely unrealistic. If the bible is a work of fiction, it is not out of the ordinary to speculate that these miracles were mere embellishments meant to bring awe to its readers. While it is very unlikely that these events actually happened, we often hear of completely random and self-fulfilling miracles happening all over the world today. Finding that the order of the universe is sometimes unimaginable, people with a Christian-based background tend to correlate these completely reasonable situations with the intervention of a higher power.

I've had my experience with a situation defined as "miraculous" by many of my theist relatives. It is up to you whether you will believe this or not. I am completely honest when retelling this story. I was in the fifth grade and on my way to school one spring morning. I lived in a small town in Illinois that was divided by a stretch of railroad tracks. Having lived on one side of them, I needed to cross them every morning to reach the bus stop. I approached these tracks on my bicycle and noticed to my right that an Amtrak train was barreling down on me. For whatever reason I decided to back pedal over the tracks and before I had realized, the train smashed into the front end of my bike, knocking me back almost 15 feet. I was alive without a scratch on my body. I remember my great-grandma telling me that I had angels watching over me and that God was on my side. I found it odd that they had bestowed this information unto me, because I knew the decision I made was a creation of my own self. My own survival was of my own doing, nothing divinely inspired compelled me to make those decisions. If my brain hadn't alerted my legs to back up, I could have been dead. In this, I found no good reason to chalk the circumstances of this event up to a god. If there had been a god, why hadn't he warned me of the train? For being as omnipotent and omnibenevolent as he is portrayed to be, he seems quite nonexistent where you would expect him to be.

As natural disasters seem to be waiting for us around every corner, death and dismay have become commonplace in news media. We're subjected to media coverage of massive floods, destructive tornadoes, and waste-laying hurricanes. The loss of innocent lives has been on the rise due to these events, but sometimes we're shown an example of God's "great acts." Whether it is a small puppy, an infant child, an elderly individual, or an untouched church or school, it appears that their god picks and chooses where he ought to shine his ever-loving light. Amidst the death of many and the enormous amount of damage done, the saving of one particular life seems to be extraordinary proof of a person's chosen theistic god. We all have seen television reports talking to local residence of a devastated neighborhood thanking their lord that they hadn't lost their lives. I've found this to be extremely telling of one's either indoctrination as a child or pure ignorance to reason. If I were faced with as much adversity as those victims were exposed to I would be asking God why he had done all of this damage in the first place. This all eventually ties into the claim that somehow God works in mysterious ways.

For the Christian, when looking at a perplexing situation, they are faced with a dilemma. They tend to avoid this internal conflict by explaining that God has a plan, and never will there be an understanding of that plan. If the claim can be explained in a completely natural and rational way, there certainly isn't anything mysterious about it. Sometimes we are faced with an example that can't be rationally explained, but there should be one aspect to consider. Why would such an impeccable being as God choose to work so elusively when he's made his presence quite clear throughout his holy book, moreover why would it be up to his sheepish followers to do the explaining? Of course, though, people have and always will proclaim that, "He" has touched their lives and hearts through his miraculous deeds; their ability to identify these "gifts" is based on an assumption collectively decided as self-satisfying when compared to any other options.

Prayer has been used by Christians much like a petition to pass a law. An increase in the number of prayers one receives, the higher the likelihood of something good occurring. Of course, these are usually directed toward a much less-fortunate human, sometimes suffering from a great illness or faced with poverty. There is one problem with this scenario, though. Prayer alone simply has never been proven to provoke a positive conclusion. Throughout this world, prayer is conducted every day on an exponential level, from every type of theist. One would imagine that a sudden increase of recovery would be demonstrated and that prayer would ultimately be proven to work as a remedy. Yet, we don't see doctors writing a prescription for "1 to 2 prayers per day distributed orally." Prayers are conducted and people still suffer every day. This ought to be enough proof to show that it simply does not work as a viable treatment.

Sometimes, however, patients do suddenly recover. At the same time, they were also receiving some sort of medical care. This biased understanding within the Christian may see this in a completely different way. An example of this would be a terminal cancer patient with an expected life of 3 to 6 months beating the cancer successfully. Someone praying for this individual would see this as confirmation that their uplifted internal conscious muttering had somehow wormed its way into their medical treatments. My issue with this is that it removes one from owing the proper gratitude to the correct individual. Instead of thanking the doctors and his team for the healing of their loved one, they thank a god for the hard work done. At the same time, they have forgotten they are thanking the very god that allowed that person to receive the terminal cancer in the first place. It's all very perplexing when actually looked at from a different perspective, isn't it? Apart from these rather moderate examples of miraculous occurrences, there exists a much more ludicrous and absurd observation.

We've all laughed at the man or woman seeing Jesus' face on a piece of pizza. However, people truly do look at these ridiculous notions through their faithfully accepting eyes. There have been many over-sensationalized examples of miracle work throughout the decades. One of which is the well-known "stigmata." Stigmata occurs when a believing individual physically bares the wounds that Christ himself sustained during the crucifixion. While hearing the tales of those experiencing this baffling infliction, we're often excluded from any skeptical and factual conclusions. I remember hearing of this as child and wondering how this could have occurred. Of course, as a child I didn't ask the appropriate questions.

First, was this inflicted by the individual themselves? Secondly, did the patient suffer from a mental illness that could have been attributed to the cause of this? Case studies and research have shown that a resounding "yes" could be answered for both. The sufferer has generally been proven to be guilty of perpetrating the actual inflictions, done so for either attention or because their mental illness led them to do so. For whatever reason it may be, it still demonstrates that there has never been a conclusive case of stigmata to show a supernatural origin. Something else to be noted is that the wound on the palm of the individual is typical of most contemporary and medieval art depicting the crucifixion. Some historians believe that when crucifixions took place nails were often driven into the wrist between the radius and ulna bone to help stabilize the individual. If God were to impose such marks on a believer, wouldn't it be logical that he'd at least be accurate? That may be too much to ask for, though.

Of course, there have been other examples of faith-based mass delusions categorized as miracles. Another popular example is that of crying statues, where religious figures seem to manifest tears of water or blood from their eyes. Sometimes, when one is exposed to these fanciful stories there is a key element that if often left out: The conclusion. Almost all the documented cases were verified as hoaxes, usually perpetrated by the individual responsible for the statue. These have shown that deliberate manipulations are to blame, being either paint or actual human blood. Naturally, thousands of believers would flock from miles around to gaze upon the wonderful miracle bestowed upon them. What drives so many individuals to cast aside logic so easily? Christian faith is to blame, where the absence of reason is somehow regarded as valuable. Debunking seems to make little difference when putting these ludicrous claims to rest. If your doctor was prescribing you a drug that hasn't been proven to heal your illness, would you still swallow that pill? Of course not! If such claims have been proven to be false since the beginning, what gives someone the reason to believe subsequent accounts? It's irritating to see such an intelligent race constantly being fooled by such obvious manipulations.

The need of miracle work all goes back to one central argument: People have always needed something to believe in. Their faith has been pounded into their subconscious their entire lives, allowing the line between reality and fantasy to be blurred. Their lives are often formed around their religious beliefs, so it isn't uncommon to see them draw such illogical conclusions. People claim to witness the appearance of their god in almost anything they wish to see him in. Christopher Hitchens was right when he explained that god was real, but only in the mind of the believer. This is called confirmation biasness, when they wishfully hope for something to occur and when it comes to fruition in a completely logical way, there will always be the attachment of divine intervention.

I'm sure there is a Christian somewhere right now, praying that my atheism be stricken from me and may I be bathed in the body and blood of Christ. There will be no such thing occurring, because it does not work. Miracles have been used in literature to separate the subject from normalcy, making them above us somehow. That was when there hadn't been any way to prove anything to the contrary. The more rationally we developed, the more we began to see the logical fallacies that existed in the mind of the believer. God has always been described as mysterious, but yet he decides to only appear when convenient for him. He saves one human life every so often, while also providing completely natural explanations for what he supposedly did.

Today there isn't a need for miracles, because science has replaced wishful thinking with hard work and determination. If you witness something outside the realm of your understanding, do not explain it away by owing it to an invisible being. An appropriate answer ought to be sought out to determine if a super-duper space god is deserving of that recognition. If an individual, or their loved ones, discovers themselves sick, mentally anguished, or desperate for nourishment, they shouldn't rely on a prayer-induced miracle. I will guarantee them there will be no such rapture from those devastating occurrences. Just because 1 out of 1000 people survives a doomed prognosis does not give you a viable reason to suggest that it was the work of God. Miracles have proven to be nothing more than supernatural reasoning behind something with completely naturalistic explanations, and that is the extent of it.
THE ERROR IN FAITH-BASED MORALITY

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg, from the Conference on Cosmic Design in April of 1998

Christians have used their sense of morality to separate themselves from a world filled with mentally corrupt individuals. Their religion has taught them that their action towards others have a divine origins, a gift given to them by their lord. When individuals begin to claim their sense of right and wrong is spiritually created, they neglect to consider any other elements that may play a larger role. In fact, the answer is quite colorful. A religious believer can claim that their innate drive to show compassion is a blessing unto them from God till their heart's content, but the fact is that it purely isn't the case. Having been indoctrinated as a species for a few thousand years, religion has staked its claim on the debate of the origin of morality. With that, however, comes something that requires questioning, criticism and finally disregard.

When looking at the human race collectively, we've found a way to work together and properly influence others. Except for certain religiously based societies, many of the secular nations display a sense of right and wrong that has allowed them advance in a positive way. Where does this social drive exist that promotes equality and functioning goodness? We, as humans, strive for social acceptance. Sometimes with that we find certain characteristics that one may describe as moral, as well as immoral. We feel the need to fit in, and those regulations can bring about alternative definitions for what we consider right and wrong. I can personally describe a situation where I had actually allowed myself to lower my standards for others to find acceptance. In high school, I was considered arrogant, and rightly so. I found entertainment in ridiculing others. I did so to show to my peers that I was worthy of friendship. I sincerely apologize to those I've hurt, and deeply regret my actions.

I remember feeling bad for those I degraded, but the need for acceptance was overwhelming. This all eventually led to an awakening brought about by the news of a young teenager that attempted suicide; a boy I often teased. Ever since, I've always tried to make an effort in reforming my past tendencies. From my experience, a sense of right and wrong can greatly differ based on social constitutions. When we look at social communities, there exists a set of moral guidelines they ought to adhere to. This had been collectively decided by the community for the sole purpose of either advancing their race or conserving their ideals. This flexibility that we find among different cultures all has a naturalistic root. Within our genetic code, there exists an ancestral answer that is much more intriguing.

Evolutionary biologists believe that our raw ability to tell right from wrong is a by-product of our ancestral DNA. If our ancient predecessors hadn't acknowledged that killing one other was detrimental to the progress of our species, we would have died off millions of years ago. We are a social species with the need to associate with other individuals to advance in many different ways, so the need to collectively get along is imperative to our survival. Ancient people were mystified by their innate ability to treat others with respect, using some sort of god to explain this confusing instinct. Without having the ability to understand the science behind it, their only option was to attach this biological question with that of their religious beliefs.

This lack of understanding today can only be attributed to an individual's religious faith, which has kept them from seeking the appropriate answers. Christians believe that their sense of morality has been given to them by their god, and since it has been given to them by an omnipotent being, it can't be questioned. Well, I believe it ought to be. Why would anyone with an ounce of dignity and humility stand behind a god that displayed as much anger, rage, and destruction as he has demonstrated? When we take a closer look at the holy books that describe actions according to God's ideals, we find a sense of faith-based morality that directly conflicts any morality that promoted social progression.

Within the Christian bible, the Old Testament displays situations that if witnessed today would be considered appalling and disturbing. Senseless acts of violence, tribal warfare and illogical law exist within the confines of the Torah, something that seems to have been forgotten by modern Christians. After one decides to read the scripture through an objective lens, the results may seem quite shocking. As a child, I rarely, if ever, gave much thought about the stories I was read. Now that I look at this in a more objective sense, I'm amazed that I hadn't picked up on it much sooner.

Though Christians have identified this holiday with Christ, one example is that of the Passover. Looking back, I only remember this occasion as a time when which God had demonstrated his final act that lead to the departure of the Jews from the stranglehold of the Egyptians. To be Biblically accurate, the Jews were commanded to wipe the blood of a recently slain lamb over the top of their door so that the god's spirit would know not to kill the first born son of that specific family. I wish I had the voice I have today, because I would have questioned everything I found to be confusing. If their lord was able to mercilessly kill without hesitation, why must he be regarded as so loving and caring? This is not the beginning, or end for that matter, of the detestable nature that was demonstrated by their "loving" God.

Evidence of this can be found in the beginning chapters of the bible. According to the book of Genesis, the humans that God had created became so appalling that he decided to do away with them and start fresh. His anger is brought to fruition when a raging flood roared through the land, killing every living thing except for Noah and his family as he had promised. For being superior to humans he displays many of our most lowly regarded emotions, such as anger, rage, and contempt. We look down upon people who let their anger get the best of them, yet Christians look at this without hesitation. Later on, he commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as an offering unto him. Abraham's willingness and acceptance of god allows him to follow through with the command. As he is about to murder his son, God stops him after Abraham demonstrated what God wanted proved to him. I can only imagine the fear that seethed inside Isaac as his father was about to slay him. Though he hadn't actually murdered his son, God could have gotten his answer in a much more constructive and less destructive manner.

In the book of Exodus, we're given samples of discipline provided by their god. Here are examples of such biblical accounts.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." - Exodus 21:20-21

Modern apologists maintain that God never allowed the owning of slaves, but if you do find yourself owning one, this was how you ought to have treated them. If God hadn't allowed those men to own slaves, why would they include laws regarding the owning of one? If their god found it to be moral to inconsiderately beat their slaves to the brink of death, I find there to be nothing omnibenevolent about him. This type of logical fallacy is known as "special pleading", something that Christians do regularly and unknowingly. The next passage one may find to be awfully disturbing.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." - Exodus 21:7-11

Could you imagine selling your daughter into a macabre sex-slave trading business? Well, apparently God had. We find this action to be unimaginable today. We all have watched news stories detailing the horrors and violence that women as sex slaves endure. Any God who condones this type of act ought to be shunned just as we would the actual offender. It is disgusting to think doing something such as that to my own daughter. This type of misogynistic behavior is not the extent of it.

"You shall not allow a sorceress to live." - Exodus 22:18

This type of religious instruction has brought pain and anguish to those who defied them. Something still relatively fresh in history is that of the Salem Witch Trials. Many women were wrongly convicted of having taken part in witchcraft. Using the bible when deciding how to punish them, the court system decided that swift death by burning was the only option. Faith-based morality, again, demonstrated its adverse effects within that small society. Without the bible, I don't believe those individuals would have come to such an extravagant conclusion. Many innocent lives wouldn't have been lost if there hadn't been an allowance given in their chosen holy book.

"Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." - Exodus 22:19

Bestiality wasn't understood then as a condition that can be prevented if taken the proper precautions. Why would god allow an individual to kill someone that sometimes never had an option with the situation? It only makes sense if we understand that the people who wrote the bible merely looked at this action with disgust and found it to be worthy of death. Later, there existed even more illogical injunctions that seem to omit any sense of reason.

Leviticus is considered God's book of laws, but not regarded as so by mainstream Christians. Here are some examples from within its pages:

"For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him." - Leviticus 20:9

The murder of disobedient children is unimaginable. Sometimes they are born with inflictions that can't be prevented. We understand today that certain mental conditions never allow a child to grow to the mental capacity that a normal human would. There isn't a logical explanation for why God would allow these children to be killed knowing wholeheartedly that it may not have been their fault. In America, there even exists a sense of morality within prisons when it comes to child murderers. They are dealt with swiftly. How is it that convicted criminals have somehow collectively decided on a moral conviction that even surpasses that of God?

Within that book, God also instructs the killing of priests who leave the temple without permission. The priest is also to be murdered if he drinks an alcoholic beverage. Apparently those who decided to use wine as a metaphor when conducting communion must have missed this little tid-bit of information. Death must be dealt out to those who sleep with their own mother, those who sleep with their daughter-in-law, the daughters of priests who practice fornication, blasphemers and adulterers. Why must death be the final solution? Why can't these acts be dealt with so that those who commit them learn from their mistakes rather face imminent death? What I've never understood is that our modern-day society has somehow found a way to be morally superior to God in almost every aspect imaginable.

The litany of stupidity is endless, and these situations merely expose God as immorally equal to that of Hitler and Stalin. What needs to be brought to light is their motivation for explaining away the detestable legislation passed forth by God. Jesus is touted by Christians as loving, compassionate, and just. His teachings and lessons outlined in the Gospels describe a man of love, forgiveness, and strength. With this, they believe that Jesus had abolished the old laws with an entirely new covenant built with humility and forgiveness. However, Jesus spoke plainly about his agenda, which consisted of upholding his father's previous laws, as demonstrated in the book of Matthew.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17

This type of cherry-picking is what allows Christians to decide on a faith-driven sense of right and wrong. When looking at the scripture there exists directions that I would refuse to accept if I were a believer. Jesus asserts to his followers that if they find themselves distracted by their families, they are to cast them aside for him. If I were to leave my wife today for the sole purpose of spiritual acceptance, I would never forgive myself. The love I have for her would greatly outweigh any sense of obligation I would have for any godly being. When compared to our current moral understanding, Jesus has proven himself to be quite the contrary.

Morality, in the sense of having a divine origin, can be completely selfish in nature. If Christians are doing right by others and only doing so to reserve their spot in heaven, there ought to be no reason to take such individuals seriously. There is no valuable morality found within a doctrine that requires it for the sole purpose of self-satisfaction and redemption. When I make a decision that requires a regard for either human life or the dignity of others, I do not do so with a personal agenda. I do so because it is important to treat others with respect and love. We all have blood that flows through our veins and air that is taken in by our lungs. We inhabit the same celestial body that roars through the space at a tremendous speed.

We are all human. With that, I find reasoning for my morality. I accept that it may have an evolutionary base, but from that I am able to build from. I am not guided by a book that displays acts of destruction and hate. I do not possess a higher power that habitually taunts me with the possibility of eternal damnation. I work in accordance to the respect I have for other individuals. When their personal salvation is deemed more important that the well-being of their fellow humans, they've set themselves back generations from where we are today. If they claim their morality is derived from their chosen theistic belief, I urge them to reconsider those ideas and decide whether it truly is moral to be as selfish and blind as their religion requires them to be.
To purchase God Needs To Go: Why Christian Beliefs Fail _,_ please visit:

Amazon Kindle

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00T70PAWC/>

Paperback

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1511661364/>

# IMPROBABLE

ISSUES WITH THE GOD HYPOTHESIS
A GODLESS UNIVERSE

Our universe, including our sibling galaxies, is a magnificent, awe-inspiring and complicated system. There was once a time when life seemed much more simple, confined, and seemingly purposeful. The sky above ancient people presented mystery and intrigue, just as had other aspects of our biological existence on Earth – our intelligence and psychology, disease and viral infections, and geographical structures. From this mystery came inquiry, and through that inquiry came assumptions founded in the limited plausibility they understood. But ever since the time when God was the most plausible option, scientific thought and exploration has demonstrably proven those archaic beliefs as false. In the past, these hasty speculations were accepted rather quickly amongst these populations because there hadn't existed differing and testable facts.

I can completely respect their desire for truth, and while I do not accept God as a credible claim, it is expected from such a primitive and unknowing culture. Yet, what fascinates – and aggravates – me is that these foolish ideas have continued to persist while our understanding of science has grown. We no longer need the existence of God to provide the evidence for some of the most trivial questions, as science has answered these once-seemingly insurmountable questions. Today, supporters of religious faith have had to accept certain undeniable scientific facts, and in order for them to properly formulate a defense of such beliefs, the religious have resorted to taking illogical "leaps of faith" to prove their God exists. From where it stands today, most of the theist/atheist discussions almost always end or begin with the creation of the universe in which we dwell.

As one would expect from an unscientific belief, it is to no surprise that the Abrahamic texts display nothing more than fanciful and erroneous interpretation of the visually-captured, alluding to the cultural misunderstanding of physical properties that exist inside and outside of the Earth's atmosphere. As I've suggested and offered as an objective criticism, I would postulate the idea that if God were in fact the author of truth and that the writings he inspired were literal, what has been established throughout the centuries would be an accurate representation of reality as God is the creator of all and the Abrahamic texts would correspondingly agree. However, if God's word is true, then why would such astronomical claims made in the Christian and Jewish Bible and Qur'an be so obviously false or misrepresented?

Let us begin first with the Christian and Jewish Bible, more particularly the Old Testament. Genesis is the narrative of God's creation which is believed to have been written by Moses, who is believed by most Christians and Jews to have been the author of much of the rest of the Old Testament. This must be believed by even the most moderate of followers, because if they admit that their chosen scripture may be nothing more than a product of human fascination without any direct divine instruction, it would suggest the work to be nothing but fiction. Disproving much of the Abrahamic text is one of the most important tasks if the representation of truth is important. Exposing the falsehoods within the "Godly-inspired" texts have become reasonably easy with each and every conflicting scientific discovery – and with that, monotheists will find the driving force behind scientific inquiry to be blasphemous rather than exploratory. This is why I find it so critical to expose the book as nothing more than folkloric literature.

With that being said, the book of Genesis conveys only one simple message: The pursuit of truth works without boundaries, often resulting in a self-created fantasy. So without a scientific perspective, that pursuit can lead one down the wrong path. According to the first chapter of Genesis, God simply willed space and the Earth into existence within a blink of an eye.

**"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."**

This sort of statement asserts the claim that all that exists within space including Earth, were created within the same time frame, which is a significantly misleading proposition. Again, simplicity and purpose seem to be the defining characteristics regarding even just the first sentence. Later, it goes on to say that light existed after the creation of Earth which is another factual error.

**"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."**

**"And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."**

Here, the scripture actually proposes that space was in form, and God quite literally set the sun, moon and stars in place so that the ground on Earth could eventually be habitable for humans. Never mind you that vegetation was put in place before the sun could assist in the photosynthesis process, as I've described earlier in this book.

**"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."**

Now, we understand that the laws of physics allow for all observable and comprehensible matter, so I would suggest that if God exists he then also implemented the laws that science has identified, and continues to today. Why would the creation process of Earth be any different? Never has it been identified, when the laws of physics weren't necessary for the goings-on within our universe. These represent the simple understanding from simple-minded people when it wasn't understood that the sun was extremely vital to vegetative life. Today, people accept what science has told us in this aspect but it still does not extinguish the fact of the matter, which still remains: The book of Genesis is demonstrably and scientifically false in its claim, providing a plausible reason behind refuting the claim of purpose and the claim of creative intent for eternity.

But perhaps the death of the God claim occurs deep in the cosmos, void of human presence and contact; places so incredible that the unbeknownst human couldn't fathom its intricacy. Such is something I would speculate to be unneeded if we were, in fact, the reason why all of this even exists to begin with. Muslims also believed this world, all space and matter, was created with intention; implying the need for an intelligent creator.

The Qur'anic scripture also portrays the same kinds of cosmological inaccuracies as the Bible – and at often times laughably absurd. The Qur'an describes the Sun setting as though it is being lowered into murky water.

**"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: 'O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."**

Perhaps this was because during hot nights set in a flat and dry landscape, the mirage effect takes place. This effect gives one the illusion that water may be present in the distance and that the sun is "disappearing" down beneath the "water." The sunset also deceived those who first observed it, forcing them to unknowingly assume that the Earth was in a fixed position as we cannot feel ourselves rocketing through space while revolving around the Sun.

**"It is God who made for you the earth a fixed place and heaven for an edifice; And He shaped you, and shaped you well, and provided you with the good things. That then is God, your Lord, so blessed be God, the Lord of all Being."**

And like the Bible, the Qur'an tells that the Earth was created first and space, stars, and the moon were created secondly. Is it not ironic that God's knowledge is only extendable as far as what was scientifically comprehensible during the Bronze Age?

**"He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things."**

A commonality among most creation myths is that the Earth, understood as a suspended surface, must have been placed on a foundation because they may have understood the earth as a structure, much like the structures about which they were knowledgeable, and such structures beacon a foundation. As the Qur'an describes, these pillars can only be seen by Allah himself.

**"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see."**

The way it was imagined 3,500 or so years ago was correct and thorough, though only according to their comprehension. They could identify sources of light, both during night and day. Yet, God had failed to convey the simple fact that the moon does not project its own light, only radiating the light from the sun on the opposite side of the planet. One could say that these sorts of discrepancies are something an intelligent creator wouldn't have narrated.

Let us pretend that the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts are accurate and thorough in reality, but the scientific findings of today are also of reality. What would that suggest? There is only one of two options: The Genesis account and subsequent Qur'anic scripture is accurate and the scientific findings are meant as a deceptive circumstance to test ones faith, or the Genesis account and subsequent Qur'anic scripture is false and now-irrelevant and the modern scientific understandings are the most factually-based conclusion one could reach. If this creator was so smart to have created every cosmological body, event, or phenomenon, why would he then misinform his liaison, Moses, in regards to its conception? The answer is precise: Man may have only created God, but a God most certainly hadn't created the cosmos.

Science cannot definitively verify the claim of God, since his existence hasn't been scientifically determined. But what science has done, quite efficiently, is expose primal religious belief and determine where the line between actuality and folklore ought to be drawn. Aside from the theory of the big bang, most every cosmological finding has yet to be tested by the religious right, which is opposite to the anti-evolution movement in America and various other countries. Though the nature of space itself displays just as much intrigue and discovery as evolutionary sciences, rarely does one witness such an ardent push-back from the faith-based fundamentalists against space exploration throughout the world. Naturally, there have been young earth creationists who've posited atrocious scientific claims in order to prove the accuracy of the Bible, and unsurprisingly their viewpoints are regarded as unsubstantiated, as they ought to be. Generally speaking, the issue is rarely argued from the common monotheist, who have been too busy halting the civil rights of women and the members of the LGBT community.

But why is this? It may be because most of the scientific evidence in regards to any cosmological finding cannot be observed by the human eye, so the monotheists may be unable to draw their own conclusions. The science behind cosmology, which involves a hefty knowledge of physics, could be awfully confusing and intimidating to an individual without the appropriate schooling, and particularly in the case of the monotheist who may have already decided upon a conclusion before assessing information. Of course, theological-based universities churn out college graduates with equivalent experience as graduates from government-funded universities but their approach is what divides the two: one assesses the information and develops an understanding, while the other believes to understand the cause and identifies the evidence for such. Of the two, the answer as to which one is which ought to appear glaringly. As I presented previously, religion does something so important to an individual: It gives someone a sense of importance in a life wrought with pain, agony, and suffering.

The Bible, Qur'an, and other religious doctrine certainly present the notion that we, in fact, are the most important living beings and that this world and universe is ours for the reaping, finely tuned for our exploitation. As long as this type of disinformation continues to swell from the faith-based, this assumption will persist. I have come to believe that perhaps our psychology may prevent this sort of maturity at a grander scale, but it isn't an impossible destination. It is a matter of perspective, because if you wish to place your emotional well-being before factual evidence then that individual may never experience the wonder offered from the sky above. I find it humbling that my purpose in life is what I make of it, and the reason why I'm here is a miracle, not in a metaphysical sense but because of the sheer odds that were trumped in order for my presence to exist.

This is often forgotten by monotheists as this perspective is eradicated by their belief in God. If the monotheist may decide to face this perspective head on, perhaps they ought to compare their lives with the amount of chaos and disorder found on Earth as well as space, suggesting the nonexistence of an all-encompassing motive or purpose. We humans all live under the same sky, and what exists far past the most outer layer of our galaxy only suggest that the monotheists selfishly-manifested delusion of importance may not be as factual as they wish to believe.

Not a single article of scripture suggests that each star has its own solar system, or that there are close to 1,000,000,000,000 stars within each galaxy. In our universe, it is believed to contain roughly 1,000,000,000,000 galaxies, bringing the total number of stars to an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Also, let us refer to the scale of known planetary and solar objects. A neutron star, essentially a star to have already exhausted its internal resources after a supernova has occurred, is roughly 10,000 times bigger than a human. The Earth is approximately 1,500,000 times larger than the average human. The sun is roughly 10,000 times larger than the Earth.

The largest know star, VY Canis Majoris is almost 100,000 times larger than our sun, making it 1,500,000,000,000 times larger than ourselves. I find it impossible to imagine that this universe was designed specifically for us, as this star is almost 5,000 light-years away with a circumference so great that it would take a Boeing jet 1,200 years to complete a full circle, which doesn't allude to an intentionally created universe. I can agree it is a very daunting proposition, that we are significantly unimportant and that we may not have an absolute purpose. But to arrogantly claim that it was created for us is undeniably wrong.

Let me bring Earth into specifics. Approximately 15% of Earth's surface is habitable by humans. Would it be so arrogant of me to suggest that a creator God would have perhaps created just a bit more for his beloved creation to inhabit? Also, our bodies must maintain a level of water that requires replenishing so that we do not die of dehydration. Following along with a monotheistic understanding, God would have certainly known of this requirement as he crafted our body from his own intelligence. Yet only 2.5% of all water is drinkable, and furthermore a little more than half of that exists in glaciers and ice caps, bringing the total percentage of available drinking water to almost 0.83%. To any rational person, a prime being willing this into existence ought to seem absolutely ludicrous because of the logical inconsistencies displayed by such a self-described omniscient deity.

Think of the dangerous nature of the universe itself. Science has told us that each and every star has an "expiration" date, our sun's being five billion or so years based on the hydrogen supply within its body. It's been established that as it continues to exist and burn, its surface temperature is steadily rising. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of all terrestrial life on Earth, because Earth's temperature will rise accordingly and essentially cook all matter on the surface.

Does this seem as though an intelligent and loving designer would intend on constructing a planet that requires the central body of its solar system to require its existence so necessarily, and then choose to place his beloved people on that planet? Also, imagine the amount of space debris that rockets throughout the cosmos. Astronomers believe that over a million asteroids exist within our solar system alone, and they also believe that 7,000 or so of those are significantly close to the orbit of our own planet. All over the surface of the Earth one can find evidence of asteroid impact, both significant and insignificant in magnitude. The largest discovered can be found in South Africa with a 186-mile diameter that is believed to have occurred roughly two billion years ago.

If this planet had been flawlessly manufactured by God and humans were present (according to both Biblical and Qur'anic scripture) when such cosmological events occurred, where is the necessity to leave such evidence for asteroid bombardment behind, when nowhere else in recorded history tells of such events unfolding? Because if Earth had been inhabited by humans since its creation, wouldn't such impacts have found their way into the historical record? Inconsistencies such as this make the Genesis account dubious and arrogant.

These are often overlooked because most moderate monotheists separate their scientific and ideological beliefs. Sadly, there are those who do not. What is even more frightening is that they intend to force such viewpoints onto children, in America specifically by attempting to implement it through the school system. As biblical literalists, Young Earth Creationists maintain that Earth is in fact 6,000 years old and that all of what's been observed in our universe was the product of that spontaneous creation. They understand that science uses certain dating techniques to find answers, so it is to no surprise that they almost always attack those practices. Instead of attacking the science, I suggest they attack their religious views with questions like "Why doesn't our holy book line up with what science teaches?" What must be understood is that science works, and that biblical literalism continues to fail at a ridiculous rate because of its abandoning of reasonable thought. I believe that creationism, in Christianity in particularly, is one of the most intellectually-damaging faith-based beliefs because such views require only ignorance and closed-mindedness from the believing individual.

My previous arguments regarding the cosmos garner not a shred of attention from the monotheistic standpoint because to them it may seem completely mute as the God with whom they may have grown familiar is more of an eternal care-giver rather than an intelligent and creating being. Though that may be the case, many faith-based apologists have attempted to justify their creationist beliefs through cosmology. Today, much of their efforts focus on the initial spark that started the expansion of our universe. Of course, their answer is often, "God must have masterminded such a fascinating and intricate system, which space truly is." They have often relied on the cosmological argument, which is a structured logical (using the word loosely) argument that attempts to verify that the universe has a beginning, because they believe that the existence of matter can only be because of a creating event.

Below are the steps of the cosmological argument:

1. Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe exists and began to exist.

3. The universe must have a cause.

4. The cause of the universe is God.

The cosmological argument was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Plato, where in his book The Laws he argues that all observable, human-less motion is in movement because energy first moved it. Aristotle, another Greek philosopher, continued with Plato's premise by suggesting that the universe may be eternal and never ending, making the cosmological argument irrelevant. However, he had faced opposition, and suggested that if the universe was actually a closed system with boundaries then such a theological argument could present a valid case for the existence of any given god – Zeus, in this case.

This argument is only in effect because we, as humans, expect that everything that can be observed or tested has a cause for its existence. What I find troubling about this is that the essence of God is often left alone, believed that God is outside the realm of creation as he has always been. This, of course, fits well within the line of reasoning held by the monotheistic individual, but if they wish to argue such a claim they must first prove that this creator exists; and if he does exist, they must also demonstrate how he is able to exist without the need of a first cause.

All of which must be answered or else the cosmological argument holds little weight. There is also nothing to suggest that if the cause was a supreme being, that it in fact is the god of Abraham behind the conception of the universe. When I'm faced with an argument of this sort, I often attempt to stress the fact that while the first cause for matter may hold weight, there is nothing to suggest that it was any specific deity; nothing about the argument carries any defining traits of the Abrahamic deity.

Atheists often enter "Russell's Teapot" into the conversation, which is an analogy meaning that there is as much evidence that a giant teapot orbits the sun as there is of God's existence. The cosmological argument attempts to shift the burden of proof, but if the monotheist wants to formulate an argument that involves a God in an equation, they have to identify what God is and the related factors.

As I've stated previously, this argument is based on observable empirical evidence, and since the universe in its entirety cannot be visibly reached, it is almost impossible to evaluate that the universe cannot exist without there being a cause. This is considered the Fallacy of Composition, which suggests that the individual committing the fallacy attributes characteristics to the universe that we've identified, but also applies those characteristics to the rest of the universe which hasn't been scientifically observed. All in all, the cosmological argument is nothing more than a philosophical attempt at proving someone's God is real, which of course bares not a shred of the empirical evidence needed to determine whether or not he truly does exist.

This monotheistic argument gained much of its momentum after the "big bang" theory was proposed and identified as the most viable answer to how the cosmos was created. The theory essentially states that thirteen billion years ago the universe was a dense, hot collection of energy, which exploded and expanded, and continues to slowly expand today. This is what created the energy we understand to be subatomic particles. The expansion of the universe was first recognized by Vesto Slipher in 1912 after he observed a spiral supernova receding from Earth. Later, Earnest Hubble would confirm Slipher's observation and from then the theory gained almost full support from the scientific community. In order to understand why a God wasn't necessary for the universe to exist, one must understand that time was of a different nature prior to the existence of energy. We may think of nothing as an empty box, or a cold, dark, and uninhabited room. Yet in each of those examples, elements still exist and can be identified.

Now the question comes: How could energy spontaneously exist without a cause for its existence? First of all, the idea of causation – as we understand it – must be erased, as Lawrence Krauss has explained that what we assume to be "logical" may not apply to the universe because the universe existed long before our brains developed the ability to decide what was logical and what was not. After years of dedication, scientists have found the evidence in our universe that suggests that the formation of energy, both negative and positive, happens without intention or guidance. All matter is consisted of positive energy as it is needed to maintain the integrity of the atoms, of which an object consists.

Gravity, as it pertains to this explanation, has negative energy. So when one takes the total mass in our universe and contrasts it with the sum of gravity in our universe, it becomes clear each cancels out the other. This suggests that positive energy, not negative energy, was needed to create our universe, as Lawrence Krauss explained in an interview with NPR news. During the interview, he says, "Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero."

So if our universe arose from the epitome of nothing, then how exactly is there something? The answer can be found through the workings of quantum mechanics. Currently, one of the most popular theories being discussed amongst physicists is string theory, which suggests that the Big Bang was essentially the byproduct of a collision between us and our parallel universe – our universe could have still been without the matter that exists within it today. Physicists find this troubling because the laws of physics as we understand today do not necessarily apply to other universes because their constrictions could be wildly different than our own. These are only speculative thoughts as the idea is relatively fresh and still requires testing and observation.

The essence of space wasn't as intricate as it is known to be today. It was simply observed as another layer, much like the ground, upon which we all walk. Thousands of years ago, such phenomena and natural occurrences were observed, but were unintentionally misconstrued and such misconceptions were then compounded by even more speculation. There is no need today to believe that God had any part in the fabrication of the universe, because our collective understanding has surpassed such a childish and damaging belief. What I've attempted with this chapter is simple and concise: The Bible, Qur'an, religious doctrine and belief display considerably awful science, and in the face of incontestable evidence it has failed demonstrably on every level.

Believing in an astrological creator only diminishes the achievements accomplished by those willing to step outside the box and ask those pertinent questions. As an atheist, I hope that one day, whether or not the belief in God still exists, we will collectively rise to the surface of intellectualism and break the barriers needed to consciously pass the farthest reaches of space and time. Perhaps our survival may rest on the shoulders of not God, but of space exploration. Much could be learned from obtaining knowledge of other celestial bodies, which may yield positive and supporting results. While many remain unconcerned with the goings-on involving space and space exploration, it is certainly a relevant subject worthy of study – perhaps one day answering the question that's haunted the masses since the beginning of our inquisitive consciousness. Though science may never definitively answer how this universe came about, historical data wonderfully details the origin of God's assumed existence.
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING

Just as with almost every belief system known to man, the Abrahamic religions all claim that their God has been in existence since man first walked this Earth. The absence of such belief would leave that particular religion vulnerable to a reasonable amount of criticism as it could discredit many of their particular claims. When comparing the evolution of religious belief in the Middle East against the history of human expansion and society, the answers that we find are exactly as we would expect, how folklore trends and transforms throughout time. I believe that modern theological misrepresentation of the product of evolutionary change is to blame for a wealth of ignorance that runs rampant in the mind frame of moderate theistic adherents.

This ignorance often inhibits their ability to absorb factual evidence when it opposes their most cherished beliefs. This collective suspension of rational thought will never rewrite the past nor replace it with a metaphysical influence. This chapter will demonstrate the religious evolution and time line in the area where such beliefs originated. With the proper understanding of the diverse and dynamic belief systems that once existed, and still do, it will become quite clear that the Abrahamic religions are nothing more than the product of human inquiry.

To understand where such beliefs found life, we must travel back in time to the Neolithic Period – 5300 BCE – where the development of human civilization first found its footing. Known as Mesopotamia, this area is a remarkable example of how intuitive and inventive this ancient culture actually was, regardless of any fanciful religious beliefs. Since it rested between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in modern-day Iraq, the land's fertility was what helped this flourishing community survive. Mesopotamia is also the birthplace of humanity's remarkable achievements. Though it may have only been a matter of time, tools such as the wheel and plow find their home in Mesopotamia, as do techniques such as irrigation; pottery is also believe to have been invented there. These successes stand as testament to human ingenuity; an ability to survive and work together as a unit in a productive and sufficient manner. This culmination of humanity is known today as the Sumer Empire.

Beginning around the year 3750 BCE, the Sumer Empire was a collection of pre-Semitic individuals thought to have diverged from a northern portion of the Mesopotamian Empire. Aside from their ability to maintain sustenance through developed irrigation and food preservation techniques, what truly separated Sumer from other contemporary civilizations was their archaic system of writing. From the archeological evidence to have been found, much is known about their culture, which was heavily saturated in their superstitious and religious beliefs. Two identifying religious traits that would eventually assist in the development of the Judaic traditions of the ancient Israelite are that of the Code of Ur-Nammu and the Sumerian creation myth.

The Code of Ur-Nammu is considered the oldest law code in recorded history. Much like the laws existing in the Abrahamic scripture that we're familiar with today, these were believed to have been the most sensibly developed as well as divinely inspired. Though Sumer's religious beliefs differed from that of the early Israelites in both the amount of worshiped deities and the nature of such, both cultures believed their god(s) were what gave them the "go-ahead" in creating order and neutrality among a people not so readily familiar with wide-spread authority. What does separate such law codes from one another is the development of an "eye-for-an-eye" punishment system by the Israelites, but capital punishment seems just as prevalent in both ancient systems.

Just as the Christian and Judaic Bibles detail, death is handed out to those who kill, commit adultery, and rape within their accepted social class. The Sumerians maintained a more monetary punishment system, something also identifiable with ancient Israelite law. For instance, if a man rapes another man's slave, he must pay a portion of money unto the man who owned the slave. Again, such laws applied to the social class prevalent in the area, lacking an all-encompassing moral system that would later develop among more modern societies.

The Sumerian creation myth, also known as The Epic of Gilgamesh, is the most comparative in regards to the myths of ancient Babylon, the birth-place of ancient Israel. Found on an ancient tablet discovered in Nippur, it is believed to actually have developed during the first Babylonian Empire while it was still under Sumerian control. What is known through this text tells of four gods who created life and animals as well as a stable living system. The gods worked the land, and in order to relieve themselves from such duties, man was created. What is interesting is the resemblance between both religions and the method their supernatural leader(s) used when fashioning human life. In Christian and Hebrew scripture, man is formed of the "dust" or dirt of the Earth, and in Sumerian scripture man is molded from clay; both being palpable Earthy material.

Sometime later, a great flood is sent by the god Enki after telling a man named Zuisudra to construct an ark to allow safe passage for animals. Just as the Genesis story tells, man has become detestable and disloyal to the gods who gave them life. As a result, a flood is sent to purge the land of such wickedness. It is important to note that some archeological evidence suggests that localized flooding had in fact occurred, including a hypothesis suggesting a comet landing in the Indian Ocean around 3000 BCE as well as rising sea levels due to the draining of Lake Agassiz around 8500 years ago. Other aspects of such work are also known to have existed, such as the myth of Emesh and Enten, rival to that of Cain and Abel. Both tales demonstrate the success of one child, the opposite falls prey to his own jealousy and a formal dispute commences. While Cain murders Abel, Enten wins the argument and both continue to pursue life. Though both scriptures differ in character and manner, both maintain a central assumption believed to have sparked life in the region.

What I find interesting in both religious understanding is the fact that the localized existence of humans was given by gods, believing they were both the first cultures to have walked the Earth and that their importance was metaphysically significant to them. Unbeknown to Sumerians and the Babylonians, there existed societies that rivaled those of the Middle East during the exact same time, excluding the existence of monotheistic and polytheistic god systems with their own beliefs and social structures. During the formation of Mesopotamia, there existed flourishing cultures in Asia, specifically ancient China.

The earliest existence of human sophistication is the evidence that suggests domestication of pigs, roughly around 7,900 BCE, almost 4,000 years before the Sumerian culture. It wasn't too long after this that rice began to be formally cultivated. Though these individuals may not have had a social structure that rivaled that of Mesopotamia, certain substantial survival techniques were used and seemingly uninspired from a god-like being. By the time the Sumerian culture took hold, the Chinese were already well on their way to developing fabric material. Facts such as this refute biblical literalism and support the human expansion theory that I presented earlier in this work.

Returning back to the evolution of Middle Eastern religious belief, the transformation from polytheism to monotheism must be addressed as well. It is important to identify when the god of Abraham was first recognized as a deity in the ancient Middle East. This is a topic of much debate, because it is clear to historians that the oral traditions of the early Judaic adherents seem to have accumulated much of their religious structure from different theistic structures existing in the area during that time. It is suggested that it may have found footing in ancient Egypt during the reign of Akhenaten, the first Egyptian king to have formulated the idea of monotheism – ever since he had done that, the idea of monotheism subsequently became a much more popular idea amongst many.

The beginnings of Yahweh perhaps began when the Canaanite people settled in the area now known as Jerusalem. The Canaanites were polytheistic people, with over forty recognized gods known by historians. I believe – while only speculative but enforced through evidence – that Yahweh is a byproduct of the El god, the most important god of the Canaanite people. It is very possible that a sect of Canaanites may have perhaps chosen to worship only El and exclude the other gods, and from such the idea flourished. Even early Biblical writings suggest the author to have had knowledge of other gods or know of other gods that were being worshiped and perhaps dwelled in the same realm as Yahweh. Throughout the Old Testament, when God is being quoted he's often speaking in plurality – flying in the face of most religious apologists who adamantly insist there to be only one God.

**"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image."**

**"And the Lord God said, 'Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."**

**"Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)."**

**"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords."**

**"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."**

**"The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."**

Many more exist throughout the Old Testament, most of which can be found in Exodus. From this explanation, one could conclude that Yahweh began in Jerusalem with the Canaanite people, transitioning from El to the Jewish deity, and formalizing a religion that would transcend rather damaging events. Once the tradition of monotheism took hold and the beliefs found its way into writings, there seemed to be no turning back. The importance of Jerusalem was, and still is, awfully significant to the Jew.

The formation of Jerusalem is central to the Jewish belief as it represents the "Promised Land as promised unto them by God." Once settled, this area mainly consisted of small tribes of Canaanites that remained self-sufficient and safe as their various positions helped keep them from danger. The earliest structures date back to almost 2500 BCE, when buildings began to take shape. According to the Bible, it was almost 1,000 years later when King David conquered the city and took it over as his own. After the conquest, these are the events that unfolded: King David reigned from 1040 BCE to 1001 BCE and Solomon reigned from 1001 BCE to 960 BCE according to Jewish belief.

It is important to recognize that the occupancies of Jerusalem by David and Solomon carry little or no substantial evidence to validate the biblical claims. There has been writing which may indicate that David could have been a king at one point, but dating of such evidence yielded little information and that remains to be the extent of it. It is clear that a majority of the residents within this city eventually identified themselves as Jewish with a belief in Yahweh. The containment of this belief system may have remained if it wasn't for Nebuchadnezzar II, who sacked the area and banished the existing Jews from the city in 587 BCE. From here, proselytizing became a necessity if those who believed wished to maintain a surviving population of followers.

Known by historians as the Jewish Exile or Jewish Diaspora, this event is what is believed to have been a pivotal moment in Jewish history. Though it may have been a dark and dismal period for the Jews during that time, it is what sparked the transition of adherents from minimal to abundant. Seen then as a prophetic happening, it became clear to those exiled that God must want his message spread, and so they did. Once the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great took control of the area some fifty years later, the Jews were able to then return to the area. Though many returned to Jerusalem, most had spread west to Egypt and many other events and natural migrations carried the beliefs much further. The Judaic faith would bring life to such separate religious systems as Christianity and Islam, some tenets and figures of which I will discuss later in this work.

The ancient history of this area is diverse and complex, making it incredibly difficult to conclusively and definitively map the belief systems in the area but what can be discovered is this: The god of Abraham is nothing more than an evolved deity from an equally improbable deity, one used – just as those who carried a belief in Yahweh – to explain the nature of the universe and all that it encompasses. It is pertinently clear that a belief in Yahweh certainly did not exist prior to the construction of Jerusalem, and may have never developed if it wasn't for the religious system believed by the Canaanites.

The problem with the modern religious doctrine is that it presents itself as historical fact, where in reality it is only a purposeful distortion meant to add validity to the claims that it makes. When someone finds information that conflicts with the academically verified evidence provided by professional archaeologists, they must ask themselves this: Should I accept unverified certainty or thoroughly documented evidence? Below I will list a timeline in describing the historical account with the paralleling Jewish Faith.

**Middle Eastern Cultural History (Supposed dates of the Biblical account in bold)**

0 – God creates everything

5300 BCE – Sumerian culture builds first villages

4000 BCE – Sumerian culture establishes cities (Sumer)

3924 BCE – God creates Adam

3500 BCE – Communities from Sumerian culture moves south into Lower Mesopotamia

3300 BCE – Writing begins developing

3500 BCE – Jerusalem first established

3200 BCE – Wheel is developed

3000 BCE – God destroys the world with Flood

2950 BCE – Egyptian civilization begins

2700 BCE – King Gilgamesh rules Ur

2500 BCE – Great Pyramids and Sphinx built in Egypt

2400 BCE – Sumerian language transforms into Akkadian language

2300 BCE – Akkadians gain power of Sumerian territory

2100 BCE – Sumerians regain control/Oldest law code (Code of Ur-Nammu) is written

1900 BCE – Assyrians gain power of Sumerian Territory

1894 BCE – Babylonia is founded

1792 BCE – King Hammurabi rules Babylonia (formerly the Sumerian nation)/Code of Hammurabi developed

1750 BCE – King Hammurabi dies

1700 BCE – Stone walls built around Jerusalem

1595 BCE – Kassitites gain power of Babylonia

1446 BCE – Jews made slaves by Egyptians/10 plagues/Jewish Exodus

1330 BCE – Abdi-Heba rules Jerusalem/Correspondence with Amenhotep II

1225 BCE – Assyrians regain power of Babylonia

1200 BCE – Canaanites gain power of Jerusalem

1040 BCE – King David rules Jerusalem

1001 BCE – King Solomon rules Jerusalem

925 BCE – Jerusalem sacked by Egypt

604 BCE – King Nebuchadnezzar II rules Babylonia

587 BCE – Jews exiled by King Nebuchadnezzar II

539 BCE – Persian King Cyrus the Great rules Babylonia

While in debate, Christopher Hitchens asked Frank Turek, "Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity, about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story was spread by that means, or was it because Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?" His opponent immediately replied, "The Holy Spirit." Hitchens then responded, "I rest my case."

The case he was attempting to make was that the foundation and spread of Christianity was not only expected, but also without God needing to interject himself into the situation. Most Christians may know of Paul, and believe he was one of the earliest founders of the Christian faith – and that Christianity would have died much like many others if it wasn't for the fact that Jesus' teachings were true and that people couldn't help but believe because the truth was so overwhelming. I will touch on the existence of Jesus in much detail later, but in this portion I aim to signify the fact that Christianity flourished as any other religious body would within the confines in which it was rendered.

Before expanding on Paul and his role in founding the Christian church, I will touch on the historically recognized beginnings of what would later be referred to as Christianity. Recognized by historians as Jewish Christianity, this period of Judaism describes a reformation, during which many Jews began to believe that Jesus was the messiah. Known as Judeo-Christians, these individuals maintained a belief in Jesus while still adhering to the practices and traditions supported by their prior faith-based organization – this is perhaps why much of the Judaic traditions remain present in the Christian doctrine.

Some have argued that Christianity is only a byproduct of those wishing to fulfill the prophecy that many of the Old Testament books explicitly cite. Today, Christians identify over forty "fulfilled prophesies" that "prove" Jesus to be the son of God. During the second and first centuries BCE, Jewish authors began to write extensively on the expectation of a Messiah. I will postulate that the beginnings of Christianity are solely based on those willing to lie in order to fulfill a prophecy that most were expecting to happen – its cult-like beginning has lead me to this possibility.

I will touch on the existence of Jesus later in this work, but it is understood by historians that the following who claimed Jesus as their messiah believed in a very different Jesus than the man whom Paul would eventually describe. He was not God-made-man and he did not die for our sins – merely a self-described prophet who rose from the dead after death. It wasn't until Paul and others elaborated on those beliefs and carried on with such did there become a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. It is very possible that the Jesus as we commonly understand today is only the product of the human imagination.

However, the beginning of Acts tells how early Christianity found footing.

**"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."**

The apostles would then spread the word like wild fire, after which massive numbers of Jews found themselves wishing to be converted. History tells a different story, much different to what has been believed by the most prevailing Christians today.

Paul is often regarded as one of the original proselytizers of the Christian faith. His story begins in Tarsus – the capital Cilicia – where the Bible describes him as a merciless defender of the Hebrew faith by making it his mission to end the newly-forming Christian faith. Supposing the veracity of the Bible is sufficient enough to assume credible, Paul describes his conversion to Christianity in the Biblical book of Acts.

**"But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank."**

Of course, Paul's conversion is hinged on the fact that he encountered a supernatural presentation from Jesus. Most Historians understand him to have existed through corresponding texts that have dated back to when he's been described to have lived, but many discrepancies do exist; the first being a particular event in Paul's time-line.

Jesus is said to have died roughly 33 CE and Paul is said to have converted roughly 36 CE, but history tells us that Jewish and Judeo-Christians coexisted without quarrel for much longer than described. Later, the two – Judaism and Judeo-Christianity – would clash over certain differences. One difference between Paul's interpretation of Christianity and the Jews who believed in Jesus, was that Paul taught a new covenant, and that gentiles (non-Jews) weren't obligated to follow Mosaic Law – laws of the Old Testament – as Judaism taught. This was settled during the Council of Jerusalem during 50 CE, where it was decided that gentiles could convert to Christianity without having to adhere to ALL laws, but some were still included. The historicity of such a meeting is still in dispute, leaving the biblical account for such as the most suggestive evidence for its occurrence.

Between Paul's "conversion" and 36 CE, many important events would transpire, setting in stone many of the pivotal moments that would shape Christianity into what it is today. Many of the Gospels were written during this time, contrary to the average Christian understanding. Most who support the Christian faith may not know that the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were not actually written by those who've been given the credit. In fact, most contemporary biblical scholars would also agree with me on this point, alluding to the fact that the stories of Jesus may have only been oral tradition for fifty to 100 years. I find it impossible to believe that the story of Jesus remained the same as it was when he supposedly lived, until it was first written down. Yet, those who agree with that time line, and still maintain the veracity of the texts, conclude that such biblical happenings were far too great to have been fancifully conceived without factually-supportive events.

Also, most of the epistles – writings and correspondence between Christianity's first patrons – were also first scribed during that same period. The epistles were writings between various different members of society between Paul – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Other epistles – not written by Paul – include John, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and finally Jude. The aforementioned epistles are believed by Christians to have been written by those whom the titles bare. Most of the epistles written by Paul are believed to be genuine, while only a few – Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians – seem to have been written by another author. Whether or not the authorship is valid, dating of the texts suggest them to have been written between 50 and 60 CE, almost seventy years before the final Gospel was even written.

If Christianity was true, and what is being taught today is meant to be believed as the word of God, why would it take such time to formulate the Gospels? If Jesus' apostles were real, why would history suggest they weren't the likely authors? I would find such facts troubling if I was a Christian, because if the religion to which I attached myself has a rather dubious origin and is nowhere close to being explicitly clear, then what else in the doctrine can be correct or accurate? Christianity evolved much like other religions, because once placed in the hands of fallible men anything could – and most likely will – happen. There hadn't been an unseen, supreme essence guiding its development and if one had assisted, it did so in a rather careless and untimely fashion. This very fact is perhaps why faith is so often required by those who believe, because without faith the religion would be nothing but incoherent ramblings by the willfully disillusioned.

Christians, as wells as Jew and Muslim alike, are taught to believe that their religion is correct based solely on the grounds, upon which it was founded. Once, when an attendee of a Christian institution, I was taught to have faith – the same faith as those martyrs who died at the hands of the persecuting Romans – and love God just as much as they had.

I'm sorry, but only the foolish could fall prey to such idiocy. That previous statement may have seemed awfully pretentious, but if one is asked to blindly follow a religion on faith – as had those who once died for it – and then acts in accordance with such faith, then **** rational thought has vacated the premises for an unsure amount of time. Again, below I will present a timeline in relation to the development of the Christian faith.

**Early Christian History** ****

36 CE – Paul's Conversion

40 through 51 CE – Paul establishes churches/begins epistle writing

49 CE – Paul writes Thessalonians

51 CE – Paul writes Galatians

55 CE – Paul writes Corinthians

59 CE – Paul under arrest Caesarea

60 CE – Paul writes Romans

61 CE – Paul under house arrest by the Roman people

65 CE – Q (the source text for Matthew and Luke) was written in Greek

70 CE – Mark is written

80 through 95 CE – the gospel Luke and Acts were written

90 CE – The books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Chronicles all added to the "Christian" doctrine

95 CE – Revelation is written

100 CE – Christian churches established in Greece, North Africa, Italy, and Asia Minor

115 CE – John is written

150 CE – The four Gospels become canonized

200 CE – New Testament becomes canonized

350 CE – Christianity reaches Ethiopia

367 CE – Earliest listing of New Testament books in current form

380 CE – Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire

In the absence of evidence, if one is faced with a premise in which they wish to believe, such belief must be left up to faith. We may never truly know what sparked the Christian movement in the beginning of the Common Era from a purely unbiased position, but what one can be certain of is uncertainty itself. The Christian Scripture – particularly the New Testament writings – convey confusion, absurdity, and unreliability. With all of which in mind, such should leave the reader and believer with only one possible notion – doubt.

The origin of the Islamic faith proves the existence of God just as much as the origin of Christianity and Judaism – that being absolutely nothing. Yet, even the Muslim will tell you that there are supernatural elements to the beginnings of Islam– and without such there wouldn't have been an Islamic faith. However, I will adamantly suggest the exact opposite.

Islam began with the birth of Muhammad roughly 570 CE in Mecca. Though he was not a practicing Jew – as compared to the life style and traditions of contemporary Judaism – he had believed in the god of Abraham in a more open sense of worship without having an actual religion-based affiliation. Today, Muslims consider him to have been a prophet, believing he is as important as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. During that time, the Arabian Peninsula consisted of many different tribes with many different theological beliefs, creating a quite hostile environment. What the area much needed was a uniting belief, something in which they could all find a common ground. Quite conveniently, the Muslim faith entered the picture.

The young Muhammad was an orphan, finding a parental figure in his uncle, Abu Talib. With his uncle, he worked as a sheep herder and merchant. When Muhammad grew weary, he would retreat to a cave outside of the city to find solace. It was during one of his excursions that he witnessed his first vision. While in the cave, the angel Gabriel visited Muhammad and inspired him to write the Qur'an, saying:

**"Read in the name of your Lord who created man out of clots of congealed blood. Read, for your Lord is the most generous. He who taught the use of the pen that man might be taught that which he did not know."**

And that was it, a simple proclamation. One would imagine that God being as omnipotent as he is would have possibly had just a bit more to say than such. But as for God's communications, which only seem to benefit the person receiving the message positively, they often appear to address an issue or dilemma – having been instigated by the one giving up prayer. How convenient it was to give Muhammad the privilege of prophecy, as he knew such information had the potential to unite his fellow brethren. Hence forth, Muhammad began addressing himself as the prophet of God.

If I were to tell someone that my uncle John went into the woods and received a rather ambiguous and indirect message from a supreme deity, what would be your initial reaction? I would bet that person would either remain rather skeptical or abruptly laugh and ridicule my uncle for such foolishness. Yet, Muslims are asked to rely on the testimonial given by a man about whom very little is known. Nevertheless, this point matters not to the modern Muslim, and neither did it to the Arabian dwellers during Muhammad's life.

Muhammad became a "prophet" at age forty and history has told us that he died in his mid-to-late sixties. Between his prophecy and death, he had managed to bring together his people in the Arabian Peninsula in a matter of twenty or so years – through the power of his speech. So how exactly did Muhammad accomplish such a daunting task?

After proselytizing for some time in Mecca, Muhammad and his followers left for Medina 622 CE after unrest between the early Islamic adherents and the Quraish people – the dominant tribe of Mecca. Eventually, this proto-Islamic collection would find refuge with the people of Yathrib, a village whose residents are open to alternative religious differences. Once Muhammad had become successful in building a powerful and motivated army, together they stormed Mecca in 622 CE and effectively captured the city – known today as the Islamic capital. After the take-over was complete, the Kabah – once used as a pagan shrine for the Quraish people – became the premier worship center for the Islamic faith.

Muhammad would pass away shortly after in 632 CE, leaving his followers to decide how to delegate responsibility. Collectively, they decided to appoint a Caliph – "2nd-in-charge" – as the head of the religious movement. Through bloodshed and violence, the Islamic faith spread like a wild fire pushed by the prevailing wind. One could argue that if any particular social movement – religious or not – required bloodshed to achieve its fullest glory and, supposing the acts were done so in order to please an all-loving deity, such acts and a loving God would cancel one another out. If God was all-loving, there would be no need for warfare. If warfare was necessary, an all-loving God may not exist.

Once could certainly argue that the historical record provided through evidence-based reasoning adequately extinguishes the plausibility of divinely-inspired scriptural truth, but equally feeds the flame from which faith is born. In the face of immense adversity – in this case, facts being the adversary – religious beliefs rest on the shoulders of faith but put a tremendous burden on the shoulders of the believing individual. The believing individual must remain steadfast in their convictions and be absolutely certain in their beliefs, because just as a chip in a vehicles windshield progresses, as will the cracks in their faith. The only unchanging aspect to religious belief is the scriptures that are held so high and dear.

The modern religious-based interpretation of scripture may have abandoned the idea of literalism for most of the supernatural events that had been described. However, there are only a few that they cannot fully escape from. What if Christian or Judaic leaders suddenly accepted that their prophet or demigod was nothing more than fiction? Their membership may drop significantly, only because it removes the core elements within the faith itself. In order for Judaism and Christianity to be true, the historicity of Jesus Christ and Moses must be both demonstrable and empirical. However, the historical record – compiled throughout time from reliable sources – suggests that such men may have actually been nothing more than myth.
To purchase Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis _,_ please visit:

Amazon Kindle

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00P9WNRQI/>

Paperback

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1503105385/>

Hardcover

<http://www.lulu.com/shop/product-22092225.html>

# REASON OVER FAITH

ANTITHEISM & THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION
IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

It's often said that Christianity is a loving religion. Much like Islam, we find Christians the world over proclaiming Jesus taught only love and tolerance. We're also asked to believe that Christianity is a force for good and Christians, as a whole, are nice and well behaved people. They give to charities, volunteer in helping the hurt and needy, and give hope to those who may otherwise never find it. Christians believe they are a collection of truth-seekers; enemies of those who seek to derail society. _We have always been persecuted,_ they may say. To the contrary, I would answer.

Christianity wasn't always as loving as most pretend it to be. There was a period in time in history where Christian tyranny reigned supreme. Blood was shed, lives were lost, and humanity was all together minimalized as a result of the institutionalization of dogmatic, archaic, and brutal teachings. Ignorance dominated the landscape; stupidity and superstition were paraded as things of virtue, when in fact they are quite not. Christianity rose to be one of the most followed religions not by the truth of its claims but by the sharpness of the end of its bloody sword. Christianity has never proved to be a means to make the world a better place. I would contend, however, that if not for the inception of Christian teachings, the world would be a much better place.

The First Crusade

The Crusades was a rather violent collection of wars between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. During that time, Muslims controlled the Holy Land and Jerusalem and Pope Urban II wanted to desperately reclaim the territory. With religious ideologies driving the wars between the Christians and Muslims, it's hard to find any other appropriate motivating factor. What made these wars particularly interesting was the way in which the Christians savagely assaulted their enemies; reminiscent of the way God commanded Joshua in the Old Testament.

During the first crusade, Raymond of Agiles wrote vividly about what transpired during the siege of 1099. He wrote:

"Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies. Others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers. Others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. One had to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon. You would not believe it if I told you. Suffice to say that in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies."

Fulcher of Chartres, a priest from the first crusade, also wrote:

"Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."

Faith knows no bounds, allowing those who believe with the utmost conviction the permission to commit disgusting acts of violence. War is a terrible thing, in any situation, but there is such a thing as "over-kill" and that was what happened during the first crusade; a particularly nasty fight of barbaric proportions. What else should one expect from a collection of violent, superstitious men who wish to entertain their religious fantasies?

I say, we should expect nothing more and nothing less. The remaining years of fighting went along the same lines; bloodshed and intolerance. Had the Christians not attacked, innocent lives would have been spared. Eventually, the Christian forces retreated, leaving the Muslim population in victory but in ruins at the same time.

The Spanish Inquisition

Toward the end of the 15th century, Spain was home to torture and death, all in the name of Christ. During that time, the Catholic Church organized a series of trials that was meant to expel those of different faiths from the region; whether through exile, cruel systems of punishment, and death, the church persistently culled the non-Catholics from the herd, particularly Protestants and Jews. Pope Sixtus had ordered Spain to follow a particular code of conduct regarding the inquisition if the trials were to be executed, but King Ferdinand intervened. He felt the trials were too confined, which ultimately led to the torture and deaths of many innocent men and women.

Those who found themselves awaiting trial were often met with sadistic forms of punishment, such as waterboarding, hanging from chains, stretched on what is commonly called "the rack," beaten, and starved. Due to the adverse conditions many were subjected to, most were met with death before they reached trial.

If one actually made it to trial, there were a number of available outcomes. If they were found guilty, sometimes they were forced to pay an exuberant amount of money to the church and they would have been publically humiliated as a result of their non-Catholicism. Sometimes they were sentenced to more torturous punishment and may or may not have their property seized by the Catholic Church. Some were also executed by the Spanish government, particularly burning at the stake in most cases.

The Spanish Inquisition formally ended in 1836. While only close to 1,300 people were believed to have been executed compared to the almost 80,000 charges formally filed, there is no greater saddening realization than that of how those innocent individuals must have felt. To be afraid, beaten, and alone is a frightening thought; instances that which could have been avoided had those who perpetrated such idiocy had cast aside their silly and dogmatic ideologies. I do not hate those of faith; I wouldn't even wish death upon those who do believe. I care far too much for humanity to allow myself such beliefs. However, if a society collectively and dogmatically follows an ancient book, these sorts of things tend to happen.

Pope John Paul II eventually issued an apology, recognizing the failings of the Catholic Church during that dark period of history. In 1994, he stated:

"Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters."

The apology is weak, at best. There is nothing that can formally excuse the actions of those from the church's past. We as secularists must never forget the horrors committed during the Spanish Inquisition, as well as all other inquisitions established throughout the world during that time. Inquisitions were also established in countries such as Rome and Italy, adding to the already horrifying acts of violence and rage. Remember these moments the next time someone tells you faith is harmless.

The Spanish Requirement of 1513

Christian theology played a key role in the conquest of the Americas. The Spanish Requirement of 1513 was passed by the Spanish Monarchy, which gave the Spanish the right to stake a claim on all land and seize such from any inhabiting humans. Christian beliefs maintain the idea that the world belongs to that of the "chosen people" and all such humans that do not fall into that category, essentially non-Catholics, have no right to anything, let alone property and even autonomy. The document that gave such an arrogant "divine right" goes as such:

"On the part of the King, Don Fernando, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and León, subduers of the barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that the Lord our God, living and eternal, created the heaven and the earth, and one man and one woman, of whom you and we, and all the men of the world, were and are all descendants, and all those who come after us.

Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be lord and superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction.

One of these pontiffs, who succeeded St. Peter as lord of the world in the dignity and seat which I have before mentioned, made donation of these isles and Terra-firma to the aforesaid King and Queen and to their successors, our lords, with all that there are in these territories,

Wherefore, as best we can, we ask and require you that you consider what we have said to you, and that you take the time that shall be necessary to understand and deliberate upon it, and that you acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world,

But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us ."

This document was to be relayed to those whom the Spanish encountered, and the results were often terrifying. One particularly vile conquest was that of the overthrow of the Aztec Empire in 1519. Hernando Cortes intended to convert the native people to Catholicism but was met with resistance as he found communication to be completely unobtainable. They also found the Aztecs sacrifice of human beings to be appalling and reprehensible.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who fought alongside Cortes, described his experience of witnessing how the Aztecs disposed of those who they sacrificed. In _True History of the Conquest of New Spain,_ he wrote:

"At the very top of the cue [temple] there was another alcove, the woodwork of which was very finely carved, and here there was another image, half man and half lizard, encrusted with precious stones, with half its body covered in a cloak. Here too all was covered with blood, both walls and altar, and the stench was such that we could hardly wait to get out. They kept a large drum there, and when they beat it the sound was most dismal, like some music from the infernal regions, as you might say, and it could be heard six miles away. In that small platform were many more diabolical objects, trumpets great and small, and large knives, and many hearts that had been burnt with incense before their idols; and everything was caked with blood. The stench here too was like a slaughter-house, and we could scarcely stay in the place."

After a series of battles, Cortes finally conquered the Aztec Empire. I will agree that human sacrifice is barbaric and unnecessary, but they too were acting on religious beliefs. Castillo failed to see the hypocrisy in his own position; as they attempted to force-convert an entire civilization, he found no fault in that. Why? Perhaps it was because he believed he belonged to the one true religion. Spain, Cortes, and the forced conversions and territory claiming resulted from religious ideology just the same as human sacrifice resulted from religious ideologies; one, in my opinion, is as wicked as the other.

Slavery

The Bible speaks openly in regards to keeping slaves; it may not surprise those who've studied the region from which these texts derive. When they were written, slavery was common place. That, of course, is not to say that it was okay even in ancient times. We were infantile in social groups. Humans were still learning then; hell, we're still learning. We understand now that owning other human beings is wrong, and I'll suggest we would have discovered this sooner if not for those who believed they were correct in the eyes of their god. What does the Old Testament say about slavery? The book states:

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

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

How does the Bible ask one to treat their slave? The book states:

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

What about the New Testament? The book states:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."

"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."

These texts represent an ancient culture from which we should learn from, not idolize. They were guilty of crimes unspeakably evil by today's standards, which is now much more progressive than the ideologies of those from the past.

In the United States, slavery was permitted in its early years. If not for the Emancipation Proclamation and the tireless efforts of Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists, it may've taken much longer for our society to reach a more humanistic and pleasant approach to the treating of other human beings. I do not wish to ignore those who had, in fact, opposed the owning of other human beings. Those very people had also used biblical text to stand for the abolishment of slavery, dating as far back as when the very first settlers of North America landed on the shores of the East Coast; everyone gunning for their own beliefs without realizing the hypocrisy. In the Emancipation Proclamation, it states:

"And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons...And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

However, slave owners believed slavery would free the Africans from their wicked ways if also indoctrinated with Christianity, of course.

I spoke briefly about the conquests of the Americas. I had not mentioned Christopher Columbus, who sailed much of the Americas during the late 1400's. He is often revered by some as a hero, others consider him a pillager and slave-trader. He wrote extensively during his time at sea. In one such journal, he quoted his admiral as saying of the native people:

"It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them. If it please our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language."

Forced conversion and servitude, aside from ascertaining land forcefully, was an objective of those whom Columbus traveled with.

Christianity certainly does not prohibit the owning of slaves. We as human beings ought to recognize when we have failed as civilized creatures; the problem with this is, most do not even realize they are acting uncivilized. Slave owners of the past thought they were civilized, doing God's work, much the same as the jihadists today believe they are doing the work of Allah. Slavery, in most forms, may be gone as far as we have come to understand, but let us not forget the role Christianity played propagating that bad idea in the past.

Anti-Semitism

Throughout the course of Christianity, anti-Semitism has run rampant throughout, from the highest point to its very lowest. To be anti-Semitic is, to put it simply, to be prejudice against those who identify as Jewish. Now, anti-Semitism can be expressed in religious, cultural, and nationalistic terms, meaning the hatred of the Jewish people extends further than simply religious context. In this passage, I will mainly focus on the discrimination toward the Jewish people on part of the Christian church.

Christian anti-Semitism is rooted deeply in the religion's history, dating back to the writings of Paul. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul tells the reader how the Jewish people were handled after Christ's death and he even expresses his own disgust of them. In it, he states:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

Later, the negative views of the Jews began with Constantine and the Council of Nicea. During his speech, he stated:

"Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Savior a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness. For their boast is absurd indeed, that it is not in our power without instruction from them to observe these things..."

Almost 100 years later, the Roman Empire formally recognized Christianity as the state-recognized religion in 438; essentially, making it illegal to practice any other religion. In the Theodosian Code, put in to law under the reign of Theodosius II. Basically, it is really a combination of two separate codes written prior to the existence of the Theodosian Code. It wasn't until 592 when a document called the Justinian Code was put into practice.

This document differed from the Theodosian code, in regards to the state religion, by actually defining those who did not practice Christianity as non-citizens. In the portion known as the Codex, it strips the Jewish people of many rights, including the right to practice Judaism, speaking in Hebrew, publicly testify against Christians, and inheriting property from family members who called themselves Christian. This set in stone the future of the Jewish people in Europe for centuries to come.

During the Medieval period of history, Jews faced many hardships. The Black Death, perhaps the worst event to hit humanity, killed millions of people all throughout Europe. As superstitious people do, the population, which was predominantly Christian, sought to find an answer. Since the science wasn't available, the people presumed the spread of the disease was attributed to God and his anger. Many "causes" were presented, one of which being the existing practice of Judaism. According to the Website of Fordham University, Jews were subjected to death as a result of the growing anti-Semitism and the rising body count due to the spread of the bubonic plague. On the website, it states:

"By authority of Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy, a number of the Jews who lived on the shores of Lake Geneva, having been arrested and put to the torture, naturally confessed anything their inquisitors suggested. These Jews, under torture, incriminated others. Records of their confessions were sent from one town to another in Switzerland and down the Rhine River into Germany, and as a result, thousands of Jews, in at least two hundred towns and hamlets, were butchered and burnt."

Sadly, these poor individuals lost their lives as a result of Christian religious beliefs. If only their god had given them in scripture the germ theory of disease, this may have been prevented. Yes, the previous statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it still stands as a testament to the non-legitimacy of religion and the beliefs there of. Superstition grows where ignorance lives. If allowed to breed without check, lives will be certainly lost, just as history has proved.

Later in history, the Catholic Church made many attempts to separate itself from the anti-Semitism spreading throughout the continent. However, that wouldn't stop many popes reinstating the idea that Jewish people were less than human. This, I would argue, allowed that terrible idea to prosper, giving rise to Adolf Hitler's beliefs regarding anti-Semitism and his need to purge society of Judaism. Hitler truly believed he was doing the will of his god by taking the fight to the Jewish people. In Mein Kampf, he wrote:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

In his autobiography, he made many, many more comments expressing his hatred of Jews and their practices. Hitler later gained political power in Germany, allowing him to follow through with his plan to eradicate the Jewish people, resulting in the holocaust.

After his reign of terror ended, roughly 6 million Jewish people were killed. It is true that many Christian's beliefs during that time did not align with that of Hitler's, but could he have accomplished such a disgusting feat if the population had refused to follow his orders? I would like to believe the answer would have been no, but subservience is common among Christianity and the willingness to think for oneself is completely discouraged. Religious beliefs, particularly Christian beliefs, allow the believer to suspend personal accountability. Thus, resulting in the inability to stand against all that is wrong. What Hitler and his regime accomplished was atrocious, as was his given allowance to continue the genocide of the Jewish people.

Christian Terrorism

Christian beliefs do not correspond with reality, meaning they have yet to meet the burden of proof that would allow those beliefs to hold merit. Individuals are free to entertain those beliefs, as I expressed in my opening chapter. I find those in error who wish to impose such beliefs on the general population; the global population, in its entirety, does not self-identify as Christian. That being said, we mustn't allow those who believe those things to bully the rest into submission. As for the United States, this nation is a secular nation; our government does not directly identify with any particular religion. Thus, our government cannot uphold a standard or standards based on theological principles. When this is met, there is push back from Christian fundamentalists. Sometimes, that push-back can be rather violent.

The Ku Klux Klan was formally established in the United States in the late 1860's as a white supremacy movement. Three distinct movements have defined the KKK's existence throughout history, from the 1865 to 1871, the second movement from 1915 to 1944, and from 1946 to the present day. This organization justifies their racism by citing religious beliefs. Michael Fisher of Washington and Lee University says:

"The Ku Klux Klan is composed entirely of white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian American citizens, both male and female, who believe that their race and religion are superior to those of people of other colors and religions...The Klan takes direct action against those who do not share its beliefs or those who it simply views as inferior based on its readings of the Bible. Klansmen recognize the differences of other groups and translate them into justification for hate."

J. Keith Akins of New Mexico State University also says:

"Traditionally, the Ku Klux Klan has held extremely conservative Protestant Christian beliefs. Since the early 1970s, many Klaverns have converted to strongly fundamentalist Protestant beliefs, Christian Identity beliefs, or an amalgam of the two."

He then goes on to explain Christian Identity as so:

"Christian Identity, which has become popular among many Klan groups, is a relatively obscure sect known primarily for its racism and anti-Semitism. Its core belief is that whites are actually descendants of the Biblical lost tribes of Israel and are therefore God's "Chosen People." Most Identity adherents believe that Jews, in contrast, are descended from Satan and that other nonwhite peoples are "mud" people on the same spiritual level as animals."

The KKK was formally recognized as a terrorist group in 1870 because a number of Klansmen were found guilty of acts which were incredibly violent in nature. As a result, the organization slowly began to dwindle. It was then recreated in the early 1900s, which was when the organization reached its highest numbers, reaching over 3,000,000 in membership; the time in which their crimes against humanity soared.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the KKK engaged in a number of terrorist related acts. In 1951, the home of NAACP activists Harold and Harriette Moore in Florida was bombed, resulting in their deaths. Medgar Evers, another civil rights activist, was shot to death outside of his home in 1963; this incident was cinematically portrayed in the film _Ghosts of Mississippi._ In that same year, the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed by four Klansmen, killing four young African American girls. The KKK not only targeted African Americans, they targeted anyone who stood for the rights of African Americans. In 1966, three civil rights activists, two of which were Caucasian, were kidnapped and murdered by Klansmen. This, of course, does not outshine the vast number of people individually lynched by Klansmen all throughout the United States.

Those above are just a few of the most well-known cases, which only slightly demonstrate how in which terrible religious beliefs can foster hatred and violence. This being the very reason why I oppose religion the most perhaps; Christians often maintain there is a spiritual divide: those who are God's people and those who aren't. For the men and women of the Ku Klux Klan, African Americans are less than human based on beliefs formed from pronouncements made throughout the Bible. If not for those beliefs, a countless number of lives may have been spared.

The same can be said for those who have violently opposed the right for a woman to have an abortion. They do so based on biblical principles, defining the very act of aborting a fetus as murder. Believing the fetus is given a soul by God, though the religious can never give a concise answer as to when a soul enters the embryo as Sam Harris has point out, the practice of abortion has been protested against by those from the Christian community. For instance, the Catholic Answers website cites these passages from the Bible:

"Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me."

"But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly."

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth."

"Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen."

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost."

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"

Contextually, these do not address abortion specifically. Those who hold ideas outside of their theology, they sometimes seek answers within their religion's doctrine because they believe those writings could somehow offer solutions to modern predicaments. As far as the soul is concerned, we are unable to determine whether a soul gives human beings life; as far as we can observe, a working brain is needed to experience life. CARM, the website of Christian apologist Matt Slick, states:

"The Bible definitely teaches that the unborn are persons because the unborn possess personal attributes, are described by personal pronouns, Jesus is called a child at conception, the unborn are called children, are protected by the same punishment as for adults, are called by God before birth, and are known personally by God just like any other person."

What we have discovered is, using top-down logic, the brain creates consciousness, and consciousness then allows us to perceive reality. All that we understand about the human experience depends on consciousness which is derived from a functioning nervous system. For that reason, we have no grounds to consider abortion murder, as I talked about earlier in this book. Life is defined differently by both the scientific community and the theological community; one of these is the only one who has yet to present any evidence, and the other relies of faith. I'm sorry, but ones religious beliefs hold no merit as far as the discussion has gone so far.

Because of this, Christian fundamentalists have taken action into their own hands, "protecting" the innocent unborn children from who they believe to be murderers. I believe these individuals arrive on this conclusion in a purely emotional way. We are social species, so it's to no surprise that many believe that a fetus is, in fact, a human being with rights. They go further by believing those lives are a creation of God. They are, in a sense, doing their god's will by attacking those who provide abortions.

A number of abortion doctors and staff members have been murdered because of these individuals. In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was fatally shot to death by Michael Griffin, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1994, Dr. John Britton and James Barret were murdered by the Reverend Paul Jennings Hill, who died by lethal injection still believing he was doing his god's work. His last words were:

"The last thing I want to say: If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force and do what you have to do to stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected."

In 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death in his home by James Kopp, who considered himself a militant Roman Catholic. The most well-known murder is that of George Tiller. He was one of the few practicing doctors who provided late term abortions in the United States. Because of this, he was well-known among those who were a part of the anti-abortion movement. As he was leaving his church on a Sunday morning in 2009, he was shot to death by Scott Roeder, who was somewhat involved in the group Operation Rescue; an organization established to fight against abortion providers. These are just a portion of those murdered by Christian anti-abortion activists.

Christian fundamentalists not only engaged in murder, they also engaged in arson, physical assaults, and bombing attacks. In 2011, the National Abortion Federations released statistics regarding instances of violence against abortion doctors and clinics. According to the document, which gives statistics from 1977 to 2009 in the United States and Canada, 41 buildings were bombed, 175 instances of arson, 100 individuals were assaulted with acid, 1,400 acts of vandalism, and 1,993 acts of trespassing. These numbers do not begin to touch the amount of threats received, which totals 16,189; this number includes death threats, threats of anthrax attacks, harassing telephone calls and emails, faux bomb devices, and bomb threats.

Summary

There are those that say, of all faiths, when people engage in wrongdoing, and specifically cite their faith as a motivating factor, they are not representing the religion as a whole. That is fine to claim that, but with that we cannot also accept the good done by those of faith then either; the religious want their cake and eat it too. It's either all or nothing. Throughout the history of Christianity and Christian teaching, thousands upon thousands have either been harmed or killed as a result of those who claim divine warrant in doing so. As I wrote earlier, yes, religious people do good deeds because of their faith, but Christianity is often described as a loving peaceful religion. I believe, what they mean to say is this: Most of us are loving and peaceful. I contend those individuals would be loving and peaceful even without their religious faith. Those who commit violence in the name of Christ, on the other hand, may not have done so if not for the doctrine they hold so dearly.
JUNK SCIENCE

Science is a wonderful thing. It provides us with answers we may have otherwise been unable to obtain. Its practitioners use reason and logic to formulate their hypotheses, carefully perform experiments and collect important data, and thus alleviating the mysteries of life's many questions. I believe religion predates modern science as a means to understand the natural world. Faith, a belief without evidence, separates itself from the scientific community in a large way; one should not believe something without sufficient evidence, meaning it is okay to say "I don't know." That sometimes does not sit well with those who have faith in a deity.

We understand the big bang, but we don't know for certain what existed prior to that. The religious say, "My god created it." We understand evolution, but we don't know for certain how life began. The religious say, "My god created it." The same can be said for medicine, or the practice of modern medicine, rather. The religious believe their god has the power to perform miracle and heal the lame. Yet, the opposite has proven to be true. This is why science and medicine often butt heads with religion so often.

Sometimes, the religious claim science and medicine have gotten things wrong. That is fine; as I've said before, one is free to believe anything they so choose to. It is a completely different game once one wishes to impose those things on the general populace. In this chapter I will discuss these battles; the struggles between reality and superstition and nonsense. It's often said these individuals have been indoctrinated, that they really have no way to tell the difference between their faith and reality and it's not their fault. There is, in fact, a difference between being ignorant and being willfully ignorant. If the information is available, one has no good reason to align their views of reality with those of the ancient world. While this chapter may lack in length, I will surely address the long history of conflict between religion and the practices of science and medicine.

Evolution, Creationism, and Public Education

Creationism is the idea that god, or any divine being, created the universe and life. So far as we're able to tell, this is idea holds no merit. Any attempt at legitimizing this claim has failed miserably. I'll steer away from refuting creationism all together as I have already covered that issue in my book _Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis_. I, at one time, entertained the idea that the biblical account of creation could possibly be true. Unfortunately, as I began to research the subject, I found no credible evidence to support the idea that anything had been divinely conjured. As it turns out, no one else, including the religious, has either. This is the very reason why we'll never find creationism being taught to public school children; which is a great thing, I must add. In the United States, the public school system is supported by the taxes of the general community. Since creationism is a religious notion, and because we are a secular nation, school systems are not allowed to teach religious beliefs as fact.

One of the three most important cases in regards to this topic in the United States is the Scopes trial of 1925. It began in Tennessee when the Butler Act was put into law, which made it so that public school systems were required to teach the biblical creation account as science to students. This, again, is a display of the undereducated attempting to pass legislation supporting the beliefs they hold. Butler was once quoted as saying:

"I read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mothers that the Bible was all nonsense. When the bill passed, I naturally thought we wouldn't hear any more about evolution in Tennessee."

That was until John Scopes entered the scene. He was a substitute teacher who had apparently violated the Butler Act, bringing about this famous court case. Scopes was eventually found guilty because the judge had to comply with the Butler Act, but the conviction was overturned due to a technicality, thus allowing Scope's lawyers to appeal the case in the Tennessee Supreme Court. While Scopes and his lawyers lost the appealed case, it sparked a debate that would eventually call into questions a number of other anti-evolution bills throughout the United States.

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court entertained the case Epperson vs. Arkansas. Susan Epperson was afraid she'd be found guilty of violating Arkansas' anti-evolution law because she believed the text books she was provided would put her in danger. She filed in Arkansas' Chancery Court, which agreed the law violated the First Amendment. Different from how the Scopes trial went, the Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed with the initial judge's findings. Also different from the Scopes trial, Epperson and her lawyers appealed to the United States Supreme Court, taking the fight to Washington D.C. With a much better result, the United States Supreme Court ruled that bills similar to the Butler act, of which Arkansas had on the books, were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That being ruled, it gave others the right to fight against other anti-evolution bills in effect throughout the United States.

In the case titled Edwards vs. Aguillard, which took place in 1987, the United States Supreme Court was to rule on whether evolution should be taught alongside creationism, in which both sides of the conversation can be heard. As I said earlier, there is no other side. Creationism holds no merit, but what was most important is this: Creationism belongs to a specific religious ideology. This case was brought about because Louisiana did have a law required the aforementioned situation, forcing all students to study biblical creation as well as evolution. As part of the ruling, the United States Supreme Court stated:

"Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. (449 U.S. at 42) In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Sadly for those who wished to push their religious beliefs on those who had no other choice, the Court ruled against them.

With these rulings standing, it's been virtually impossible for the teaching of Christian based anti-evolution material in public schools. So how have the religious tried to interject the idea of biblical creation once again? The only way to do so was to try to strip Creationism of its biblical confines. This is what they consider intelligent design. The Discovery Institute defines intelligent design as:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

And how do they try to support the claim of a non-religious motive? The website claims intelligent design is, in fact, not creationism. It states:

"The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the 'apparent design' in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural"

That would leave one to ask, "Who, or what, is this intelligent designer?" Well, as one may have expected, this topic was debated during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case in 2005.

This case was brought as a result of a text book added to the curriculum of the public school, which taught intelligent design as an alternative science to the standard teaching of biology and evolution. Eventually, eleven parents challenged the public school system, bringing the case to court. The plaintiffs brought a number of credible scientists as witnesses to help argue the case against intelligent design. The defendants, the county school board, brought Michael Behe as their main witness. After the proceedings ended, the court ruled in favor of the eleven parents, stating:

"The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child...A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity...ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

Since this decision, other school board members have tried, and failed, to incorporate intelligent design with various public school systems.

The amount of dishonesty is both disgusting and not all that surprising. Where ever the religious are given the opportunity to push their views, particularly which of Christianity, we should assume they will. This is why most biblical teachings of science regarding the creation of life and the universe is often left in the hands of the home-schooling parent, giving them complete control over their child's, or children's, education. Thankfully enough, in recent years, a shift has occurred. Homeschooling parents are now more comfortable with teaching evolution, though it's not exclusive; evolution is being taught alongside creationism. "Guided" evolution is often what's represented.

One cannot argue against the claim that an unseen force guided evolution after the origin of life occurred, and since it is irrefutable, it's an intellectually dishonest position. It deserves no respect from anyone who wishes to consider them a rational person. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, which does not require a creator god to explain the function there of. Science, once again, trumps religious ideas revolving around the creation of the universe and life on Earth. Most of the world's countries have put a ban on the teaching of creationism, in any religious form, to children in the public school systems; it is even banned in countries like Iran, Brazil, and Pakistan. If these countries have no problem with the teaching of evolution, the state governments in the US should have no problem either.

Faith Healing and Prayer

Most have seen video footage of charismatic Christian preachers wailing and yelling, speaking in tongues, and even simply praying for their congregation. They are attempting to call upon the god it is they worship, believing he will bring to them good will. Most often, this is done when someone is either sick or they know of an individual who is quite sick. They believe their god can work wonders, healing them and their loved ones because they were righteous and holy servants of the lord. Even Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, and Muslim believers are all guilty of this. Where ever exists the belief in a deity or deities with healing powers, there will always be those who learn the hard way.

Of course, if someone prays or meditates and the person who was sick does get better, the believer will claim the power of their lord; all the while forgetting the inclusion, most often, of medical treatments. Those who do not seek medical help and instead depend primarily on faith and prayer, most often find their prayers and cries for help to be in vain. This terrible idea was well understood in the past, when no other source for treatment was available; even quirky herbal remedies were believed to heal a number of ailments. Today, that is a much different story. We have plenty of answers regarding the origins of many of today's common ailments and leading scientists and medical personnel in their particular fields have developed vaccines, treatments, and fitness plans meant to help the sick and keep the healthy in good shape.

Sometimes those who are affected by the ramifications of faith healing are those who had no other choice. Children are often forced to forego medical attention because their parents honestly believed their deity would "come to the rescue" and save them from the harm of a "fallen" world. Cases such as these come about so frequently it's often difficult to keep track. In America, the issue revolves around many state laws allowing parents to personally take their child's health in their own hands, particularly if it would interfere with their religious practices. In most cases, however, the parents are often charged with either murder or manslaughter; justice, of some sort, for those who have died.

I remember reading, not long ago, about a mother and a father who had sought prayer in the case involving their son and his bout with pneumonia. Herbert and Catherin Schaible refused to take their son to the doctor because they believed their god was taking care of the illness. Shockingly, this was not the first time a child of theirs died as a result of such neglectful behavior. In 2009, another son of theirs died also of pneumonia. According to the referring article, Herbert said:

"We believe in divine healing, that Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil's power."

In both cases, simple antibiotics would've saved both of their children's lives. It's a shame that such a tragedy is so much more preventable, had faith and religious belief not been involved.

On February 5, 2013, Syble Rossiter died from complications due from type 1 diabetes. Her parents, Travis and Wenona, misunderstood her symptoms, believing she was suffering from the flu. Instead of seeking a doctor, her parents resorted to prayer. They believed in the power of their god, that if they relied on him, everything would be alright. Travis even admitted that he felt doctors were for people with weak faith, and that if his daughter had asked for medical help, he would have talked her out of the decision. Wenona had even experienced how faulty faith-based medical decisions were when her father believed prayer would save her seven year old brother from leukemia. In 1996, her brother died not long after the diagnosis. Sadly, Travis and Wenona finally learned just how weak prayer was. Their daughter was only twelve when she passed away.

In February of 2012, Austin Sprout died due to an infection from a burst appendix. Brandy and Russel Bellew also believed in the power of prayer, deriving such beliefs from their congregation, the General Assembly and the Church of the Firstborn. Luckily in Oregon, religious beliefs could no longer stand as a reasonable defense against a charge of manslaughter. As such, the parents pleaded guilty and received probation. This was not the first time tragedy struck the Sprout family. A number of years earlier, Austin's birth father died after seeking prayer rather than medical care. Evidently, Austin's mother still believed prayer and the power of her god could somehow save her son. He was sixteen when he passed away.

In August of 2003, Dwayne and Melta Schmidt believed their god would heal their newborn from a common post-birth infection. The child, Rhiana, was born in the family home. The couple was subsequently charged with reckless homicide for not seeking medical intervention. While testifying, Melta believed prayer had, in fact, been working. According to the referring article, the family attorney attempted to make a case for religious persecution. He said:

"My clients are being prosecuted as a result of their faith in God -- their religious beliefs...They didn't fail to act. They acted. They acted in accordance with their religious beliefs."

While some may view their actions as admirable, I, as an antitheist and humanist, find it absolutely disgusting and irresponsible. If an adult chooses to make a decision that will alter their life course in the name of their faith, that is one thing. I don't enjoy seeing that either, but they are free to do as they please and if they wish to abstain from medicine, that is their prerogative. What frightens me the most, is when innocent children are subjected to the consequences of the irrational beliefs held by their parents. No child deserves to go through that. Rhiana was only two days old when she passed away.

Faith healing hasn't proven to work. In the cases in which it has been claimed to have worked, reality-based explanations are often available. Miracles may or may not happen, the truth of which is uncertain; so uncertain that relying on prayer can lead to catastrophically bad outcomes. Ones best bet is to always seek medical attention when needed, regardless of their faith. God may or may not exist, but medicine exists and has proven to help millions more than any god ever has.

Climate Change Denial

I fully acknowledge that a number of religious organizations fully support efforts to help alleviate the effects of climate change, but in this portion I wish to argue against an idea; one prevalent throughout all deity-based religious institutions. Those of faith sometimes believe Earth and all of its natural resources are ours to exploit. With reckless abandon, they'd wish to pillage and horde all the precious elements that help make their lives easier in this life. This idea is a pernicious one, free of science-based reasoning. To makes the matters worse, those who hold these silly ideas often have the power to pass legislation in favor of their faith.

In the United States, the Christian right, often composed of evangelical Christians, have made it quite clear they are not willing to change their opinion on the issues revolving around climate change. In 2012, one-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum said:

"If you leave it to Nature, then Nature will do what Nature does, which is boom and bust...We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said in 2014:

"God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Radio crazy-man Rush Limbaugh said in 2013:

"See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming...You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can't create."

Bryan Fischer, radio host, dismissed climate change in 2014 by saying:

"People have been out there wringing their hands and trying to stir up all this agitation and fear because the oceans are going to rise, Manhattan is going to be under twenty feet of water, Hawaii is going to disappear under the waves...God says, 'Look, I am not going to destroy the earth with the waters of a flood ever again.'"

In 2014, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said:

"I remember a few years ago, it might have been Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, made a reference to a hurricane or a storm being an act of God — it's interesting that's how we refer to some of these things in our insurance policies — they were ridiculed, saying 'how dumb can you be?' Well, there's more to back that up than to say what's happening in our environment, our climate, is because of people driving Suburbans or coal-fired power plants."

If someone believes in an all-powerful god that has a plan, climate change will always seem silly. They must deny man-made climate change in order for their beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality. The climate is certainly changing, so for them, their god is simply changing it. So, to them, they believe it's meant to be. "Leave it to God," they'd say. This is why we should not respect bad ideas.

The denial of climate change appears to mostly be an issue in the United States, where we have the abilities and opportunities to learn and study the evidence that is available; it's particularly advised, I would hope, for those who wish to contribute to changing the course of history here in the US. Politicians accept the responsibility to act in a reasonable manner; denying climate change because it does not fit ones preconceived religious beliefs is unreasonable. What makes this idea much more terrifying is, first, they believe their god is controlling the climate, steering it in a particularly nasty direction; second, they _wish_ for this to be true and are quite alright with allowing it to occur because their god said so. We do not need thinking such as this, particularly in secular nations.

Scientology

Scientology has had its share of scandals. From kidnapping to blackmailing, leaders within the movement have made it well known they are immoral, greedy, and dishonest. To top it all off I find the organization to be absolutely fascinating, and not in a "good" sort of way. Their core beliefs are as crazy and strange as most of today's religions, but they're so obviously false it is hard to comprehend how anyone can come to believe the fantasy that L. Ron Hubbard created.

Scientology is a complex cult but their beliefs are easy to hammer down. Sprouted from the imagination of Hubbard, the religion plays out like one of his many science-fiction novels. Scientologists believe we are wretched beings, born with a special presence within us; this presence is what is known as a thetan. To better explain it, this spiritual being is so well intertwined that it's often said we are the thetan, and the thetan is us. The website "What is Scientology?" states:

"An immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn't describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology. We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta (Theta), the traditional symbol for thought or life. One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else. It is that which is aware of being aware; the identity which IS the individual."

Since we have, and apparently are, thetans, those thetans can then become corrupt with negative energy. The process known as "auditing" can help alleviate that burden. Auditors use what is called an e-meter, or electropsychometer, to determine what the person needs to work through in order to rid the thetan of negativity, which is called "clear." According to the aforementioned website, "clear" is:

"A highly desirable state for the individual, achieved through auditing, which was never attainable before Dianetics. A Clear is a person who no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause."

Those who are working to achieve the clear state are considered operating thetans. What truly interests me the most is the machine in which auditors use to pick up disturbances. Did I happen to mention thetans are passed from one human to the next? That being said, the operating thetan of today can be affected by the previous life of the thetan of yesterday. Though the e-meter doesn't seem to possess the powers to detect issues regarding thetans, since thetans do not exist, what does it register then?

When an auditor asks a question, the operating thetan will answer. If there is a spike on the e-meter, that question is of a particular importance; it could signify an important event in a past life, or of the current life. This is because the mental anguish is being purged from the thetan as they tell the auditor their deepest and darkest secrets. This makes complete sense, doesn't it? Considering the type of device the e-meter is, of course not. It simply reads electromagnetic waves and as we spill our guts to someone about a shameful occurrence, we as humans do not suddenly expel electromagnetic waves. Terrible science, once again, used to support an unprofessional means of therapy.

Scientology is really only therapy to those who are not "clear". Once an individual becomes so well audited, they no longer trip the e-meter during auditing sessions. Once you work your way through the program, you learn more, bit by bit, about the organization itself; oh, for a little price as well. As an operating thetan, there are levels one travels. In operating thetan level III, or OT III, one learns the creation story of the thetan inside every human being.

Apparently, there was once a man named Xenu, and he was in charge of the Galactic Federation roughly 75 million years ago. As a powerful man, he had to deal with an array of problems; overpopulation being one of them. Because of this, he gathered billions of people and froze them in pods. They were then flown, in apparently spacecraft similar to a DC-8, and dropped around volcanoes all throughout the planet. In order to do these beings in, hydrogen bombs were then dropped into the volcanoes and detonated simultaneously, killing the innocent people. From these people came the thetans, those pesky spirits I've been going on about.

This is, simply stated, nothing but a fantasy story; yet, people still believe it and that disturbs me greatly. I don't necessarily care if someone believes these things to be true; that's not to say I agree with their intent. We are not born wicked, our species was not invaded by alien spirits, and the term "clear" is only found in the crazy annals of Scientology's history. They present themselves as an alternative to evidence-based psychiatric care and that is their greatest error. Taking advantage of those who are weak and vulnerable is reprehensible, and gladly accepting their hard-earned money in exchange for their sanity is as well. One cannot replace the centuries of medicine predating the existence of Scientology and no matter how hard one tries, Scientology will never solve anything; it only creates more problems. While the number of adherents are low in comparison to the three monotheistic religions of today, what they are doing is just as wretched and false as the rest of them.

Summary

Some have said science is a religion altogether, with dogmatic scripture and narrow focus; essentially promoting an atheist worldview. One might believe this to be true because their religion has been outdated, and for good reason. Religion and science have clashed for centuries and, presumably, will continue to until unreasonable ideas and the suppression of information worldwide is thwarted. Galileo Galilei was condemned by the Catholic Church in 1633 because his ideas regarding heliocentrism were considered heresy. After his trial, he was convicted and sentenced to house arrest, where he remained until he died.

This happened for one reason and one reason only: It conflicted with the teachings of the religious body in power. When religious beliefs are left unchallenged, this sometimes happens. Today, in civilized nations, we rarely see such sanctimonious behavior from the pulpits but the tyranny comes not from the pulpits anymore; we see it from the common population and from various levels of government. We shouldn't be afraid to question all things, no matter how many people attempt to kill such an approach. People will continue to defy science and medicine as long as we allow them to. Introduce reason whenever given the opportunity, for we are in dire need of it. Freedom is what we should demand from these organizations and the individuals responsible for maintaining them.
To purchase Reason over Faith: Antitheism & the Case against Religion _,_ please visit:

Amazon Kindle

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XHON9V8/>

# Notes

[←1]

For more information on the universe and its properties, the

earth and our moon, please visit the website for NASA at:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/index.html
[←2]

Genesis 1:1
[←3]

Genesis 1:3-5
[←4]

Genesis 1:14-19
[←5]

Genesis 1:11-13
[←6]

Qur'an 18:86
[←7]

Qur'an 40:64
[←8]

Qur'an 2:29
[←9]

Qur'an 13:2ast
[←10]

For more information on the scale of the universe, please visit the website: http://htwins.net/scale
[←11]

For more information on asteroid impact and the eminent threat they pose, please visit the website for NASA at: http://htwins.net/scale
[←12]

For more information on the cosmilogical argument and

Plato's involvement, please visit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument
[←13]

For more information on Vesto Slipher and his findings,

and Ernest Hubble and his findings, please visit the website

for Ideas of Cosmology at:

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/expanding.htm
[←14]

For more information on the creation of the universe, please

read _A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather_

 _than Nothing_ by Lawrence Krauss.
[←15]

For more information on Krauss' interview with NPR

News, please visit:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-ona-

universe-from-nothing
[←16]

For more information on the Neolithic Period, please

visit the website for the Encyclopedia Britannica at:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/408894/Neolithic-

Period
[←17]

For more information on Mesopotamia, please visit the

website for The British Museum at:

http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk
[←18]

For more information on the Sumer Empire, please visit the

website for the Centcom Historical/Cultural Advisory

Group at: http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq02-

03enl.html
[←19]

For more information on the Code of Ur-Nammu, please

read _The Letter and the Scroll: What Archaeology Tells Us about_

 _the Bible_ by Robin Currie and Stephen Garrison Hyslop.
[←20]

For more information on the Epic of Gilgamesh, please read

 _The Epic of Gilgamesh_.
[←21]

For more information on the Canaanite people, please visit

the website for the Encyclopedia Britannica at:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/91488/Canaan
[←22]

Genesis 1:26
[←23]

Genesis 3:22
[←24]

Deuteronomy 6:14-15
[←25]

Deuteronomy 10:17
[←26]

Psalm 86:8
[←27]

Zephaniah 2:11
[←28]

For more information on religious development in the early

Middle East, please visit:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/neareast.html and

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/history.htm
[←29]

For the video recording of Christopher Hitchens' debate

with Frank Turek, please visit:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3286-turek-vshitchens-

debate-does-god-exist
[←30]

Acts 2:1-5
[←31]

Acts 9
[←32]

For more information on the history of the Christian faith,

please read _Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One_

 _of America's Leading Atheists_ by Dan Barker.
[←33]

For more information on the history of the Bible, please

read National Geographic Essential Visual History of the Bible

by the National Geographic.
[←34]

Qur'an 96
[←35]

For more information on the history of Islam and Muhammad,

please read _The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad_

by Lesley Hazleton and visit the website for the Encyclopedia

Britannica at:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/396226/Muhammad
[←36]

Morris Bishop, _The Middle Ages_. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Print.
[←37]

"Fulcher of Chartres: History of the Expedition to Jerusalem," Fordham University, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulcher-cde.asp#capture
[←38]

Pope John Paul II, "TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE," <http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/tertmill.html> (November 1994)
[←39]

"AD 1513: El Requierimento: Spain demands subservience," Native Voices <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/178.html>
[←40]

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, _The True History of The Conquest of New Spain_
[←41]

Exodus 21:2-6 KJV
[←42]

Leviticus 25:44-46 KJV
[←43]

Exodus 21:20-21
[←44]

Ephesians 6:5
[←45]

1 Timothy 6:1-2
[←46]

Abraham Lincoln, "The Emancipation Proclomation," <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html>
[←47]

Christopher Columbus, <http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.asp>
[←48]

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
[←49]

"Texts from the History of the Relationship," Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations, <http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/246-constantine-i>
[←50]

"Jewish History Sourcebook: The Black Death and the Jews 1348-1349 CE," Fordham University, <http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp>
[←51]

"Adolf Hitler: Excerpts from Mein Kampf," Jewish Virtual Library, <https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html>
[←52]

Michael Fisher, "The Ku Klux Klan," <http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm>
[←53]

J. Keith Akins, "The Ku Klux Klan: America's Forgotten Terrorists," <http://www.uhv.edu/asa/articles/KKKAmericasForgottenTerrorists.pdf> (2006)
[←54]

J. Keith Akins, "The Ku Klux Klan: America's Forgotten Terrorists," <http://www.uhv.edu/asa/articles/KKKAmericasForgottenTerrorists.pdf> (2006) 
[←55]

Peggy Frye, "Where in the Bible does it say that abortion is wrong?" Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-Bible-does-it-say-that-abortion-is-wrong
[←56]

Job 10:8 KJV
[←57]

Psalms 22:9-10
[←58]

Psalms 139:13-15
[←59]

Isaiah 44:2
[←60]

Luke 1:41
[←61]

Romans 9:10-11
[←62]

Ryan Turner, "What does the Bible say about abortion?" CARM, https://carm.org/Bible-abortion
[←63]

"Paul Jennings Hill," Clark County Prosecutor, http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/hill873.htm
[←64]

NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics: Incidents of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada," <http://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/violence_stats.pdf>
[←65]

Abraham Hill Gibson, "Confronting the Tree of Life: Three Court Cases in Modern American History," <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05122008-131342/unrestricted/AbeGibsonThesis.pdf> (April 28, 2008)
[←66]

"First Amendment," Cornell University Law School, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment>
[←67]

"Edwards v. Aguillard," Cornell University Law School, <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578>
[←68]

"What is Intelligent Design?" Discovery Institute, <http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php>
[←69]

"What is Intelligent Design?" Discovery Institute, <http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php>
[←70]

"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District," <http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/relpol/kitzmiller.htm> (December 20, 2005)
[←71]

Maggie Fox, "Doctor to Legislators: Refusing Medical Care Isn't Religious Freedom," <http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/doctor-legislators-refusing-medical-care-isnt-religious-freedom-n320031> (March 9, 2015)
[←72]

Kyle Odegard, "Opening arguments heard in faith healing couple's manslaughter trial," <http://democratherald.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/opening-arguments-heard-in-faith-healing-couple-s-manslaughter-trial/article_87247f66-6492-11e4-8866-cfe056d4a497.html> (November 4, 2014)
[←73]

"Parents Accused Of Letting Baby Die Untreated Found Guilty," Indy Channel, <http://www.theindychannel.com/news/parents-accused-of-letting-baby-die-untreated-found-guilty> ( May 13, 2005.)
[←74]

"Rick Santorum: I've Never Believed In The 'Hoax Of Global Warming'," Huffington Post, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/rick-santorum-global-warming-hoax_n_1260168.html> (February 7, 2012)
[←75]

Robert Lanham, "Inhofe's Greatest Climate Change Denial Hits," <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanham/james-inhofe-climate-change_b_6142170.html> (November 12, 2014)
[←76]

Jack Jenkins, "Limbaugh: 'If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming'," <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/14/2469341/limbaugh-christians-global-warming/> (August 14, 2013)
[←77]

Kyle Mantyla, "Fischer: Rising Sea Levels Are Of No Concern Because God Will Never Destroy The Earth With Flood Waters," <http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-rising-sea-levels-are-no-concern-because-god-will-never-destroy-earth-flood-waters> (September 19, 2014)
[←78]

Brian Tashman, "Perkins: There's More Evidence That God Is Behind Natural Disasters Than There Is For Climate Change," <http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perkins-theres-more-evidence-god-behind-natural-disasters-there-climate-change> (February 19, 2014)
[←79]

"Thetan," <http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp50/pg1024-a.html>
[←80]

"Clear," <http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp50/pg1019-a.html>
