Religion is the Problem, Not Just Rogue Pastors

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 10/11/2015 08:22.  Published Wed 11/11/2015, as “Religion must obey same rules as rest of society”.

I refer to The Star leader page’s Little Spot today, Tuesday November 10, “Religion needs regulation”, by Thabile Mange, Comment by preacher Ray McCauley “Causing consternation”, and the front-page article “Pray for rain, public urged” by reporter N Nkosi.

Religion gets far too easy a ride, and privileges it does not deserve.

In the process, superstition is encouraged, and progress is held back.

Prayer is ineffective at best, if not actually counter-productive.

For perhaps 10,000 years, the human race has conducted the experiment of praying to different gods.  If any gods answered prayer, it would be obvious by now in the sustained success of the followers of those particular gods.  It would be obvious which gods are real.

Instead, we have a proliferation of dozens of religions, with several, if not thousands, of sects, each claiming to represent the only true god.

Common sense should show that religion is one big confidence trick.  It persists because parents indoctrinate their children while they are too young to think for themselves.

Yet, regulating religion would interfere with people’s freedom of speech, conscience, and association.

The answer is to subject religion to the same rules as all other aspects of society.

There should be no rates- or tax exemptions for religion and its practitioners.  Preachers claiming “miracles” should have to prove them, or face fraud charges.

No, There Are NO Real Angels Among Us

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Thu 23/04/2015 18:08 in response to the reader’s letter below.  Not published.

Sir

I refer to the letter “Proof angels are among us” in The Star, Thursday April 23, by Judy Bennett.

Linden Cycle Shop is to be praised for their “angelic” behaviour.  They are obviously good people.

However, the letter can hardly convince us that real angels –mythical spirit beings commonly depicted with wings, haloes, and harps— exist.  Good people, or at least people who behave commendably in certain circumstances, definitely exist: The letter is proof of that.  Taking it as proof of the supernatural is not a logical conclusion.

It is also not logical of Ms Bennett to thank her god and pray for Linden Cycle shop.  What evidence does she have that a god was responsible, let alone the specific one that she believes in?

If I were the unnamed owner of Linden Cycle Shop, I would be annoyed that Ms Bennett believes that a supernatural agency made me behave well, rather than that I did it myself out of my own goodness!

As for praying, scientific studies of the effects of prayer have concluded that it does not work.  The most extensive of these was the "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer" in 2006 (see the STEP project in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer). It found that prayer had no noticeable effect on healing, unless patients knew they would receive prayers, in which case (on average) the patients fared worse!

Ms Bennett’s letter may be good for the cycle shop, but her prayers are just a way of pretending to do something, while doing nothing.

Thanks and RICKgards

"Miracle" of Easter? What "Miracle"?

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 05/04/2015 22:08 in response to the Editorial below.

Sir

I refer to your Editorial “Let’s honour the Miracle of Easter” on Thursday, April 7.

In fairness, it looks as if the Editor went on holiday and delegated the Editorial to the Sub-Editor who, needing some time off, delegated it to the Sub-Sub-Editor, and so on down the line until it ended up in the lap of a junior staffer.  This could explain why it is thought through so poorly.

The word “miracle” has two main meanings:

(a) An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by scientific laws and is thus attributed to a divine agency.

(b) A remarkable event or development that brings welcome consequences, or an exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.

The Editorial makes the elementary fallacy of confusing the two.

The “South African Miracle” you cite is an example of the second one.  It was welcome, perhaps unlikely, but entirely governed by physical laws.

The alleged resurrection of Christ (if it occurred at all) would be an example of the former type of “miracle”, something inexplicable by science.

The fact that we had a “miracle” of the second kind is no reason to believe that miracles of the first kind take place.

Indeed, the evidence for the alleged resurrection of Christ (if he ever existed), is not convincing.  No eye-witness accounts exist.  The earliest of the gospels was written at least 40 years after Easter.  The gospels differ significantly on major points, therefore some, perhaps all, of them are wrong.  The earliest existing copies of the same gospels differ in thousands of ways, many of them materially so.

Contemporary historical records outside of Christianity do not corroborate any of these major events claimed in some of the gospels:

• Darkness over all the land from noon until three in the afternoon (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44) (but not John)
• An earthquake at the crucifixion (Matthew 27:52) and another on Easter morning (Matthew 28:2)(but not Mark, Luke or John)
• Dead arising from their graves and walking the streets (Matthew 27:53) (but not Mark, Luke or John)

How is it possible that such (literally) earth-shaking events were not recorded by anybody else?  Or even in all the gospels?

The unbiased observer has to conclude that the resurrection of Christ is not, in fact, a miracle, but a myth.

The Star is –or was until the takeover by Iqbal Surve– a newspaper concerned with facts, unlike some others.

It behoves the Editor, even in the Editorial, to stick to real-world facts and not to indulge his readers in their superstitious fantasies, no matter how comforting or well-entrenched they may be.  By all means, wish the Christians well with their holy day (which not all your readers share) but please do not treat these myths as reality.

So Many Gods, So Little Time to Pick the Right Ones...

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 07/01/2014 08:29 in response to the letter below.  Not published – we want to make it appear that the Atheists have no answers, don't we?.

Sir

Ebrahim Nathie (Letters, The Star Monday January 6 2014, “Atheism boggles my simple mind”) says that human intellect is fallible, so we should rely on divine intellect, or ”god”.  Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. say their scriptures prove that god exists, so the burden of proof should be on Atheists.  He concludes that if the religious are right, Atheists are doomed for eternity but if believers are wrong, there is no penalty.

The latter argument, “Pascal’s Wager”, has been well discredited, but there is no harm in doing it again:

Yes, many religions (excluding Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology) say that there’s a god –or gods, in the case of Hinduism, Shinto, etc.-- but they disagree radically about what those gods want their believers to do.  Accept Jesus as your Saviour, but if Allah turns out to be in charge, you’re damned.  Worship Allah, but if the Jews are right, you’re in big trouble!

With over 3000 gods to choose from, the Theist is no closer to Heaven than the Atheist is.

In fact, the believer is worse off: She will have devoted time, money, and energy to a fantasy, and missed the wonders of reality.  The devoted Jew and Muslim will have missed bacon and prawns.  The Young-Earth Creationist will not have been amazed by geology and evolution.  The Jehovah’s Witness may have died for lack of blood transfusion.

All will have voted for people and supported policies that are not in their best interests, delaying human progress in fields like medicine and ethics.

Ebrahim (since we seem to be on first-name terms now) thinks Atheists have the burden of proof.  In other words, we should prove that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods?

On this same basis, does he believe in Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, fairies, invisible pink unicorns, and that he won $50 Million in an internet lottery he didn’t enter?

No: The burden of proof is always on the person claiming that something exists, not on the person asking for proof.

The universe is proof of the existence of the universe, not that it was created by Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Religious scriptures look suspiciously like they were written by misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, and (by today’s standards) barbaric uneducated men, not a transcendent intellect.

What a pity that the Creator did not include a few equations in His Scripture!  If only He casually mentioned E = mc² or that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and revolves around the sun!  Imagine where we could be now had He described Natural Selection, the law of universal gravitation, or the secret to faster-than-light travel.

Sadly, there is no evidence that a higher mind than ours had any hand in religion.

May I suggest that Ebrahim, instead of bemoaning his human intellect, rather (in the words of the scripture) “become as little children”?   All children are Atheists until they are indoctrinated into a random religion.

Atheism Produces Better Morality than Religion Does

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sun 22/12/2013 22:36, and published Mon 30 December 2013, minus the parts in blue, as “No atheist likely to become a suicide bomber”.

Justin Steyn (“Atheism has to come up with cogent concept of morality”, The Star,Letters, December 20) either didn’t read my letter (“Atheism is the most honest approach”, The Star, December 17) or, having read it, didn't understand it, or, having understood it, didn't believe it.

As I clearly said, few atheists say categorically that no gods exist.  We say that there is insufficient evidence to believe that gods exist.  Unlike the “faithful”, we are prepared to change our minds, given reasonable scientific proof.

Mr Steyn talks about forming a common consensus.  This indeed is what happens in science.  Based on experimental evidence, the vast majority of scientists agree on such things as heliocentric theory (the earth revolves around the sun), that HIV causes AIDS, and the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Notice that this does not happen in religion: There is no sign that religions are converging to a common understanding.  This is because religion ignores evidence.  This wilful blindness is even hailed as a virtue, as proof of faith!

We are simply talking about what is real.  We apply standards of rationality and evidence to most aspects of our lives: Why not to religion?

Mr Steyn believes that religion is necessary for morality.  He must have a low opinion of himself if he thinks he would behave immorally if God were not watching him.

However, he is wrong.  Humans have in-built morality, put there by evolution.  It should be obvious that a group will do better than an individual will, and that a tribe is more likely to survive if its members cooperate.

Statistics show that nations where atheism is highest have lower crime. Studies in the USA show that states with more religion also have more crime.  The percentage of atheists in prison is well below the percentage of atheists in the general population.

Humans are not the only moral animals either.  Chimpanzees, for example, show altruism and public service to members of their group.

In fact, it is religion that hijacks our morality and turns it to evil ends.    No atheist will stone you for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, or not being a virgin.  No atheist will murder a doctor for performing an abortion.  No atheist will blow himself and you up to get into heaven.

If we look at issues like contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, it is the atheists who adopt a “live-and-let-live” attitude, and the religious who are hell-bent on imposing their sectarian views on others.

Islam Pioneered Colonialism

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Tue 04/06/2013 08:42 and published Fri 7 June 2013 minus the parts in blue. 

A R Modak, in his or her Letter in The Star, Tuesday May 28 (“Look to colonialism for reasons”), while lamenting violence, blames colonialism for Muslim terrorism.

Allow me to remind Mr/Ms Modak that, centuries before the UK or the USA were founded, Islam was itself spread by the sword, colonising the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe, and much of Asia.

This violence extends to the present day in majority Islamic nations, where we have only to look at the fate of apostates who leave Islam.

Even those who choose the wrong branch, suffer:  In Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan we see terrible violence between Sunni and Shia.

Deception, threats, and war in support of Islam are authorised in the Quran and the Hadith: Many verses can be found in support of these evils, and only a few in support of peace.

Good Christians, like the Rev Peter Storey (The Star May 29) speak out against the bad parts of their scripture, reinterpreting it in the light of modern morality.

Until good Muslims likewise disown the antisocial parts of their scripture, radicals will have the support they need for violence.

Colonialism is just an excuse.

A R Modak's letter:

Islam not only Accepts, it Promotes, Violence

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Sunday 18/03/2012 22:14, not published as predicted.

Sir

I doubt that the Editor will publish this, since the Star shows remarkable reluctance to publish letters critical of Islam. Or perhaps it is not so surprising when one considers how readily the proponents of the "Religion of Peace" use violence when their religion is criticised.

I must take issue with the statement of Dr Heldar Ali Balouji of the so-called "Islamic Republic" (a serious contradiction in terms) of Iran, in the Star of Tuesday March 13, "Islam does not accept harmful acts against mankind".

A few quotes from the Quran should dispel this misinformation.

[8.39] fight with them until ...religion should be only for Allah

[9.12] ..fight the leaders of unbelief..

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you...

and Muhammad’s Ultimatum to Foreign Kings: (9:29) “Fight with those from among the people of the Book, who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day; who do not make unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and do not adopt the Right way as their way. Fight with them until they pay Jizyah with their own hands and are humbled.”  (Jizyah is a tax levied only on non-Muslims)

Finally: (4:34) "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. ... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and BEAT THEM." [my emphasis]

Here I assume that Dr Balouji includes "womankind" within "mankind":  Perhaps, like many Islamacists, he doesn't.  Or maybe beating is not, in his opinion, a "harmful act".

Islam not only accepts, it promotes, harmful acts against humanity.

What other belief actively promotes martyrdom and mass murder?

Evolution Misrepresented Through Ignorance, or Deliberately?

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Thu 01/12/2011 18:12, published less the blue paragraph in The Star, December 8, 2011 as “Books reveal real process of evolution”.

Seldom was the Star Letters Editor's bias for religion against science more visible than in the Letters page of Tuesday November 29, where religion gets 92 column cm (124 if one counts the picture), and my viciously-slashed letter rates a mere 16 cm.

The Star should seriously consider running a regular column to educate readers about science.

We would then be less likely to get statements like Abraham Cohen's of November 24, naturally applauded by Bob Holcombe (November 29), to the effect that evolution states that the complexity of life came about in a single accident.

To see the real process, please read two excellent books by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable".  Here is the tiniest of summaries:

The process of evolution does rely on accidents, but that is only part of the process.  There are three factors:

1) Genes reproduce with amazing accuracy.  Very few mistakes are made, otherwise species would not be overwhelmingly stable.

2) Genes occasionally change.  Mutations do occur for various reasons, though rarely.

3) Survival of the fittest.  Natural selection ruthlessly eliminates changes that are not advantageous –most of them.  The vast majority of known species are extinct.

It is like a Lotto, but you can keep your correct numbers.  After a few rounds you would have all winning numbers!

Thus evolution builds continually on useful characteristics, constantly improving all species as they fiercely compete.

Dawkins likens it to a mountain with a steep cliff at the front.  To leap from the bottom (the origin of life) to the top (the complexity we see today) seems so incredible that people may believe that it can only have happened by magic.

However, if we look around the back of the mountain, we find gentle foothills with paths meandering ever higher and leading gradually but eventually to the top.  Thus evolution, by billions of years of slow improvement, locking in useful attributes and discarding others, reaches the improbable summit.

Note that I said "meandering".  We carry in our bodies many of the blind choices that evolution made at the time, features that no intelligent designer would make.  So we have weak spines, strange neural paths, appendices, tonsils, short lives, poor eyesight, only two hands, no wings, thin skins, and can't digest cellulose, to name a few.

Theory and Reality: Evolution is Both

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Sat 12/11/2011 10:23, published published Thu 17/11/2011 minus the parts in blue as “Evolution is a fact, and that’s a fact”.

Bob Holcombe, in Readers' Letters of Friday November 11 ("Telling that his books have been taken off the shelves"), lambastes UFO-believers.  And so he should, because this is fringe stuff and highly debatable.

However, having deplored this deception, he tries a worse one of his own: To denigrate what he calls "unproven theories of macro-evolution" and promote the bible as good cosmology.

When someone says that evolution is "only a theory" he is not making a statement about evolution, he is showing his abysmal lack of understanding of basic science.

In science, some words have a more precise meaning than in everyday speech.

I am an engineer. If you tell me that you are "under pressure", I may ask "how many kilopascals?” Pressure is defined as force divided by area.  (All people live under pressure: About 100 kPa of atmospheric pressure)

Similarly, to a layman, a "theory" is something unproven, a guess, a conjecture.

When a scientist talks of a "theory" she means a coherent explanation of empirical phenomena, that is well-proven and logically consistent with observed facts.  It takes a lot of work by many scientists for a system to graduate from a "hypothesis" to a "theory".

Would Mr Holcombe like to tell us that Electromagnetic Theory (proof: electric light) or the Theory of Relativity (proof: the atomic bomb) is also "just a theory"?

The reason evolution is taught in schools is that it is fact: Proven beyond doubt to the satisfaction of all serious scientists.  The evidence is overwhelming that simple creatures evolved into more complex ones over millions of years.

Only those blinded by misguided "faith" in a literal interpretation of scripture believe –despite all evidence to the contrary– that the universe was created magically in six days.  Oddly, these same people question the existence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

There are also scientific words for the biblical story of creation. They are "myth" and "fallacy".

ASA Defends Imaginary, Not True Values

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Thu 10/11/2011 22:01, not published.

I refer to Irvine Moyo's letter "Ads can't venture where even angels dare not tread" in the Star Letters, Thursday November 10, supporting the ASA's banning of the Axe "Fallen Angels" advert.

The ASA should have banned Axe's adverts for their sexism, but we can see that the ASA supports religion but not gender equality.

Mr Moyo, you can wax lyrical about your "Almighty God", His Bible, and His Angels.  However the reality is that your god and his angels are imaginary, and your bible is a quaint collection of fables.

You like the moral standards given by the bible?  The bible approves of murdering people for collecting sticks on Saturday, the subjugation of women, slavery, and genocide.

If you do not want your religion to be mocked, you should not follow such a mockable religion.

Consider what you as a Christian probably believe: That in the face of all geological and other scientific evidence to the contrary, the earth is only a few thousand years old and was created over six days.  That god is one person and three people at the same time, which any maths teacher can tell you is nonsense.  That god committed adultery with another man's wife so that the other part of him could be born into the world.  That this part then died to make up for the sin we inherited from some people who ate the wrong fruit generations before.  But actually he didn't stay dead; he got his life back again.  That if a priest mumbles over wafers and wine, they become the flesh and blood of your god (never mind that no human DNA is present).  And you should take part in ritual cannibalism by eating this.

You probably also believe that anyone who doesn't believe what you do, will be tortured forever after they die by your just and loving god.

Muslims believe the latter too, except that you have to believe in their god.  And in a polygamist who flew to Jerusalem and heaven on a magical flying horse.  That if you enrich the corrupt dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and throw stones at a pillar, you will be blessed. And other nonsense like, if you do something really evil by blowing yourself up along with a lot of people you don't like, you will be rewarded in an unverifiable hereafter with many virgins. Or maybe they won't' be virgins, but raisins: What a let-down!

You think that such superstition deserves respect, instead of gales of raucous laughter?

Let All His Enemies Pray Publicly for Malema

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Mon 29/08/2011 09:08, not published.

I am pleased to see people praying publicly for Julius Malema.

Scientific research (e.g. the STEP study) has shown that praying for others has no effect, except in one case.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence in support of prayer, but none is unequivocal.  In every case, other causes could have been responsible, and it is difficult to say if prayer was the cause.  Some blindness appears to cure itself.  Cancers go into spontaneous remission.

However there is an experiment you can do for yourself that will prove unequivocally whether prayer works.

Get a group of friends together and pray that, over the next month, all amputees worldwide re-grow their lost limbs.  (You might ask Oscar Pistorius if he wishes to be excluded, lest it hurt his Olympic chances)

If this a worthy and selfless cause?  Of course!  A miracle?  Given current scientific knowledge, yes.  Would a positive result glorify god and bring lots of converts? Definitely.

So do it!  I prophesy that absolutely nothing will happen.  Because prayer has no effect.

Except in one case, according to the STEP study: When the person knows they are being prayed for.  Then it is often counter-productive.  The researchers hypothesised that a kind of "performance anxiety" was involved.

So if you want to waste your time, pray for Malema.  But if you want to harm him, tell him that you are praying for him.

Municipal Property Rates Bill Unconstitutionally favours Religion

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg Wed 20/07/2011 09:21, Published as “Why only churches?” in The Star (South Africa); July 21, 2011; 318 words

In the comments on the Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill, it has been pointed out that a part of the bill is designed to kill the rental housing market, and is probably unconstitutional.

There is another important part of what will become the Act, that is equally unconstitutional, and has escaped notice.  The current Act forces municipalities to not charge rates on "places of public worship".  Despite submissions, the amendment makes no provision to remove this zero rating from the new Act.

The Bill of Rights, clause 9 (Equality) says (1) Everyone is equal before the law.  (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on any grounds, including religion.

The zero rating of property used for religious purposes constitutes unfair discrimination in favour of those who belong to religious bodies. What is the justification for this?  Are the gods short of money?  Why should religion be favoured over other recreational activities, even over schools and crèches, old-age homes, and other worthwhile endeavours?

Comments must be faxed to (012) 334-4811 or emailed to mpra@cogta.gov.za by 22 July 2011.

The Star's Great Creationism Debate

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 24/05/2011 20:46 – Published with minor changes and minus the parts in blue, as “Gaping holes in creationists’ argument” on Mon May 30, 2011.

 

The Creationism Debate of Thurs May 19 2011 needs a whole page of rebuttal, which the Editor is unlikely to give me, but here goes:

Dr AM Levin makes a creditable attempt to reconcile the Creation myth with what happened according to science.  He interprets the "days" of creation as mapping to various geological eons.

For him these are not literal days but "ages".

However he misses a vital point: For each "day" the bible repeats "And the evening and the morning were the n-th day" (in those days, and still in Jewish tradition, the day was taken to start at sunset).

These were meant to be understood as literal, 24-hour days, not symbolic ages.  Or what are "evening and the morning" symbolic of?  

If we are to take the bible as symbolic, perhaps the gods of the bible are also intended to be symbolic, rather that actual existing entities?

Ron Schurink wants us to believe that modern civilization has a debt to monotheistic religion, i.e. Christianity.

We can debate whether Christianity, with its three gods that somehow get shoe-horned into one, is really monotheistic.

However there are two genuinely monotheistic superstitions, namely Judaism and Islam, which he totally forgets.  Both developed high cultures, as did the non-monotheistic superstitions of the east.

History shows that Christianity vehemently opposed scientific progress as far as possible, and its remaining centres of power still do so, as in the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception.

Leon du Toit raises the hoary red herring of the missing links in the fossil record.

It is difficult for us as humans, with a lifespan of the order of 100 years, to understand a hundred times a hundred times that, i.e. a million years.  For anything to survive that long is amazing.

Fossils do not form easily: They need very specific conditions.  So, the fact that we find fossils at all is remarkable.  To find a complete record is well-nigh impossible.  

As Richard Dawkins has wittily pointed out, when a fossil is found that fits neatly into the gap between two others, the creationists are very happy, because they now have two gaps to complain about instead of one!

The case of the eye is another one that Dawkins has dealt with more than adequately.

To inadequately summarise a whole chapter, would an awareness of light in certain cells give the animal an advantage?  Obviously yes.  

That individual would then be more likely to survive, breed, and produce more offspring.  The rare mutations that produced better vision would be favoured, and would propagate.  

As to partially-developed eyes, the eye is a soft structure not preserved, like bones, in fossils.  

However, throughout the animal kingdom today we find eye-like structures in various stages of development: All the way from mere sensitivity to light, through to the eyes of the eagle.

Finally, du Toit says that we have not yet been able to synthesise life.  True.  How long have we been at it, and how long did it take evolution?  Nature, experimenting on a huge number of whole planets, took billions of years –so at least give the scientists a few thousand!

Religion = Slavery and Conflict. Atheism = Freedom.

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Mon 18/10/2010 23:30

Elise D van der Pijl (Star Letters, October 10 2010) does not believe that the followers of what she calls "God's Word" over the centuries have been mislead by myth.  Arlene Chaperon (also October 10) is offended and maintains the Bible is the Word of God.

Indeed, over much of recorded history, mankind has believed in gods.  Not just one god.  Hundreds.  With divergent points of view.  Which, if any, was right?

If you are a Christian and believe that Christ is "the light, the Truth, and the way" and that no man comes to the Father but through him, you aren't allowed to believe with the Muslims that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.  Your three gods are also inconsistent with the Jewish belief that "the Lord our God, the Lord is One".

Yes, there is a slight-of-hand by which Christians claim a three-is-one god, to appear monotheistic, but I have yet to find one who will lend me three hundred Rand and accept repayment with one hundred since three equals one.

If you are a Christian, a majority of the world's population thinks you are wrong.  A Muslim? The majority of the world disagrees with your beliefs.  Likewise for Hindus, Jews, Pastafarians*, name any superstition you like.

How come you had the luck to find (usually to be born into) the one true religion, and everyone else is headed for damnation?

Why is it that no religion's followers are blessed more than those of any other?  How come your reward comes only after death, unverifiable by any objective means?

It is more likely that all religions are false; political creations used to manipulate the gullible.

Van der Pijl and Chaperon have personal relationships with their god.  People of religions around the world commune in many ways with their diverse gods.  This can involve altered states of consciousness of all sorts.  Trances, self-hypnosis, mass hysteria, etc. seem very convincing to the participants.  They show what the human physiology is capable of.  And how powerful self-delusion and wishful thinking can be.  They do not prove that there is a god.

Reality check: If gods, capable of creating the universe, exist and want contact with us, why do they not manifest in physical form?  Why not have residential and postal addresses, telephones, e-mail, and Facebook pages?  Where are their superhuman ambassadors to the UN and the nations?  Surely this would settle the controversy?

No.  If superior beings exist, as yet undetected by science, they do not seem concerned about our welfare nor care whether we worship them or not.  Stop living in fear of myths, and start living a life of freedom!

* Pastafarians = The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Not to be confused with Rastafarians.

Contradictions in Jesus's "Genealogy" show the Bible is False

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 05/10/2010 22:38

Sir

This letter is addressed to those who still believe that the Bible is the infallible, divinely-inspired Truth.

Please read Matthew 1.  It starts with what the author claims is "the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male descent from Abraham to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".

Now see Luke 3:23-38, which traces the male line in reverse from Joseph back to Adam.

Luke and Matthew use opposite directions so they are difficult to compare, but if you sort their lists (or ask me for the Jesus spreadsheet) and then try to align them, some glaring differences emerge:

From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.  Of the names between David and Joseph, only two match exactly, and two approximately.

You don't have to be a judge or a policeman to know that, if two people give you seriously conflicting accounts, one of them is wrong.  Or both.

So, if God inspired Luke and Matthew to write these lists, He's a liar.  Or maybe they weren't that inspired.

Worse is to come.

Remember, Matthew proclaimed "the genealogy of Jesus Christ", supposedly showing his descent from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But wait a minute: Isn't the Christian myth that God made Mary pregnant with Jesus?  Well, yes, Matthew later admits that Joseph was only the husband of Mary, not father of Jesus but just the cuckold who was conned into raising another's child.

With no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus, both genealogies are pointless.  Why have them at all?  To mislead the gullible?

Perhaps the original versions did have Joseph as Jesus' dad.  Then later editors grafted the "son of god" story in from older legends, but could not deal with the obvious contradiction.

Too bad that, to them, Mary was only a woman and not worthy of her own genealogy –even if she was left as the only link between Jesus and the human race!

Is this part of the Bible true?  Logically it can't be.

Can the Bible then be the Word of God?  Only if He is very confused...

_______________________________________________________________________

Spreadsheet (contact me for a copy on Excel):

The Table below compares the Genealogy according to Luke 3, Matthew 1, and Genesis 5 &11.  The column headed "Match" indicates whether the names match (most don't). The last two columns estimate the number of years from Adam to Jesus according to Like and Matthew, giving a difference of 15 generations and around 500 years!

By Luke 3:23-38				by Matthew 1				by Genesis 5 & 11			Age at
Verse	Gen	Name	Generations		Name	Match?	No.	Verse	Name		birth of son
38.3		God.
38.2	1	Adam				Yes	1	5.1	Adam		130	130
38.1	2	Seth				Yes	2	5.3	Seth		105	105
38	3	Enos				Yes	3	5.6	Enos		90	90
37.4	4	Cainan				Yes	4	5.9	Cainan		70	70
37.3	5	Maleleel				Approx	5	5.12	Mahalaleel		65	65
37.2	6	Jared				Yes	6	5.15	Jared		162	162
37.1	7	Enoch				Yes	7	5.18	Enoch		65	65
37	8	Mathusala				Approx	8	5.21	Methuselah		187	187
36.4	9	Lamech				Yes	9	5.25	Lamech		182	182
36.3	10	Noe				Approx	10	5.29	Noah		500	500
36.2	11	Sem				Approx	11	5.32	Shem (& Ham, and Japheth)		100	100
36.1	12	Arphaxad				Yes	12	11.10	Arphaxad		35	35
36	13	Cainan			Genesis 9:18   ...and Ham is the father of Canaan.
35.4	14	Sala				Approx	13	11.12	Salah		30	30
35.3	15	Heber				Approx	14	11.14	Eber		34	34
35.2	16	Phalec				Approx	15	11.16	Peleg		30	30
35.1	17	Ragau				NO	16	11.18	Reu		32	32
35	18	Saruch				Approx	17	11.20	Serug		30	30
34.4	19	Nachor				Approx	18	11.22	Nahor		29	29
34.3	20	Thara				Approx	19	11.24	Terah		70	70
34.2	21	Abraham			Abraham	Yes	20	11.26	Abram	$	100	100
34.1	22	Isaac			Isaac	Yes			Isaac	#	60	60
34	23	Jacob			Jacob	Yes			Jacob	@	30	30
33.4	24	Juda			Judas	Approx			Judah		30	30
33.3	25	Phares			Phares	Yes					30	30
33.2	26	Esrom			Esrom	Yes	$ -Genesis 21:5				30	30
33.1	27	Aram			Aram	Yes	# - Genesis 26:26				30	30
33	28	Aminadab			Aminadab	Yes	@ - Ages from here				30	30
32.4	29	Naasson			Naasson	Yes	on are estimates.				30	30
32.3	30	Salmon			Salmon	Yes					30	30
32.2	31	Booz			Booz of Rachab	Yes					30	30
32.1	32	Obed			Obed of Ruth	Yes					30	30
32	33	Jesse			Jesse	Yes					30	30
31.4	34	David	1	1	David	Yes					30	30
31.3	35	Nathan	2	2	Solomon	NO					30	30
31.2	36	Mattatha	3	3	Roboam	NO					30	30
31.1	37	Menan	4	4	Abia	NO					30	30
31	38	Melea	5	5	Asa	NO					30	30
30.4	39	Eliakim	6	6	Josaphat	NO					30	30
30.3	40	Jonan	7	7	Joram	NO					30	30
30.2	41	Joseph	8	8	Ozias	NO					30	30
30.1	42	Juda	9	9	Joatham	NO					30	30
30	43	Simeon	10	10	Achaz	NO					30	30
29.4	44	Levi	11	11	Ezekias	NO					30	30
29.3	45	Matthat	12	12	Manasses	NO					30	30
29.2	46	Jorim	13	13	Amon	NO					30	30
29.1	47	Eliezer	14			NO					30
29	48	Jose	15	14	Josias	Approx					30	30
28.4	49	Er	16	15	Jechonias	NO					30
28.3	50	Elmodam	17		(in Babylon)	NO					30
28.2	51	Cosam	18			NO					30
28.1	52	Addi	19			NO					30
28	53	Melchi	20			NO					30
27.4	54	Neri	21			NO					30
27.3	55	Salathiel	22	16	Salathiel	Yes					30	30
27.2	56	Zorobabel	23	17	Zorobabel	Yes					30	30
27.1	57	Rhesa	24	18	Abiud	NO					30	30
27	58	Joanna	25	19	Eliakim	NO					30	30
26.4	59	Juda	26	20	Azor	NO					30	30
26.3	60	Joseph	27	21	Sadoc	NO					30	30
26.2	61	Semei	28	22	Achim	NO					30	30
26.1	62	Mattathias	29	23	Eliud	NO					30	30
26	63	Maath	30	24	Eleazar	NO					30	30
25.4	64	Nagge	31			NO					30
25.3	65	Esli	32			NO					30
25.2	66	Naum	33			NO					30
25.1	67	Amos	34			NO					30
25	68	Mattathias	35			NO					30
24.4	69	Joseph	36			NO					30
24.3	70	Janna	37			NO					30
24.2	71	Melchi	38			NO					30
24.1	72	Levi	39			NO					30
24	73	Matthat	40	25	Matthan	Approx					30	30
23.2	74	Heli	41	26	Jacob	NO					30	30
23.1	75	Joseph	42	27	Joseph	Yes					30	30
23	76	Jesus	43	28	Jesus*		Number of years (Luke vs Matthew)				3696	3216
Difference:				15	generations						480	yrs

*Matt 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  No genealogy is given for Mary. So descent of Jesus is not known, only his "step-father".