God’s little miracles
The faithful see God’s hand behind what they see as many little miracles in life. These potential miracles range from everything from the formations of clouds and images on toast to getting through a fall without breaking a bone. Whatever they are, these perceived miracles serve to strengthen faith.

Are they really miracles?
Of course, there is no hard evidence that anything that ever happens had a divine hand behind it. What the faithful do not take into account when they see miracles are all the times that nothing appears to happen. For example, for everyone who miraculously survives what could have been a fatal accident without a scratch, there are many who are maimed or killed. The person who prays for a new possession and gets it needs to consider all the other people who prayed but never saw results (see the power of prayer). There is no hard evidence good luck happens for any reason other than chance or proper preparation.

There also seems to be an element of human self-centeredness in the belief miracles are being performed for them. It is nice to think you are being helped, but it is presumptuous to automatically assume a being with the power to create the universe is taking an interest in you.

If they are miracles
Let’s assume as least some of these events really are miracles. This can, in fact, raise troubling questions about God when one considers the relative needs of people. Every day, there is enormous suffering in the world. From children starving and being abused to political prisoners being tortured, not to mention acts of genocide. Many of those suffering are good people, and they frequently are religious (if that makes a difference). Clearly, not everyone who needs serious help is receiving it. While it can perhaps be argued that not everyone who asks for divine help should always get it, it is troubling if miracles are being granted in a way that totally lacks any sense of priority.

People say that God works in mysterious ways but shouldn’t a merciful God operate in a rational way that minimizes suffering? Why would a god do little miracles like creating images in clouds or on toast while letting a child starve to death? Moral people do not stage tiny demonstrations of their power when they could be saving lives. Therefore, it seems odd that God would do things that amount to little more than unproven demonstrations of his power when he instead could do things like stop torture or genocide.

Free will
One argument that has been raised is that God cannot interfere with free will. However, as covered in God and free will, there are problems with this argument. For example, there are many people such as the brainwashed, mentally ill and children who die young who never have the chance to exercise free will. Besides, letting a child be raped and murdered while doing nothing is destroying the chance of the child ever being able to exercise free will while protecting that of the killer.

God and evil
Why doesn’t God stop evil looks at the question of why God would allow so much evil in the world when he could easily stop it. Finally, God and empathy looks at questions of how God could just sit and watch atrocities being committed while he does

In the final analysis, those who interpret some small events as miracles need to consider the full implications of those events really being miracles. It is not simply that God would choose to intervene in some way to create miracles. If these miracles are, in fact, occurring, then creating them took precedence over other issues that normal people would consider for more pressing from a moral and humane standpoint. Either these are not truly miracles, or the god these people are worshiping appears to act in a very immoral way.

Absolute standards of morality
Do people really have absolute standards of morality? At first glance, some might say yes. For example, the vast majority of people on earth will say things like murder, slavery and child rape are clearly wrong. However, with a closer look at human society and history, things are not quite so black and white.

Moral standards throughout history
Even something as basic as the wrongness of killing another human being is not so clear cut. People will argue as to if, or to what extent, the death penalty or killing in war is justified. The extremes of thinking range from those who do not want to hurt plants and insects to people who manage to justify very bloody deeds (to include killing for God) as moral (in their minds anyway).

In addition, what is considered murder is also culturally relative. For example, in many cultures, it was ok to leave newborns and young children to die (as well as the old in some situations). In others, human sacrifice, sometimes for God, was also justified. This list can go on with other examples to include those societies in which killing for revenge (or honor) is not only justified but the only culturally acceptable choice.

Of course, examples of how moral standards differ go far beyond when killing is justified. Slavery was considered part of the natural order of things and was thus considered morally justified by people throughout history. This is reflected everywhere from religious texts (see slavery & religion) to the writings of great thinkers like Aristotle.

It is also interesting to note that moral standards do not necessarily move in one direction as they gradually have moved away from condoning the institution of slavery. For example, attitudes towards sex have frequently moved between the more restrictive and relaxed within societies depending on the times (see god and sex).

The evolution of morality
If morality is not really absolute and relative to the time and place, where could it come from? Why do most people in the world today generally agree on at least some standards of morality? The answer probably lies in morality being something that is necessary for human survival which has evolved with society. Morality makes evolutionary sense since no social creature could survive without it, giving it natural survival advantage. For example, if nobody had any natural instincts to want to protect their young or human life, society could never have developed.

Animal morality
This is also true for social animals. While morality was once thought of something that was distinctly human, scientists now believe that forms of morality, from empathy to a sense of fairness, exist in a wide range of animals from mice to primates. Animals can tell right from wrong covers this topic in more detail.

Morality grows with people
The changes in morality can also be explained when it is looked upon not as an absolute but as an agreed-upon idea that reflects the values of people in a society. As science has progressed, human beings have been able to live longer and healthier with less physical labor. These and other factors have gradually led to more rule of law and greater emphasis on the individual and human rights. Along with these trends, people have grown to abhor institutions like slavery and put a higher value on human life.

Divine morality
If morality was from the divine and absolute, it would be reasonable to assume that people’s idea of it would have been very consistent throughout human history. In fact, humanity probably would be much better off if its standards of morality (at least in regard to human rights) had always been closer to what they generally are today. Unfortunately, morality as most people now know it shows every sign of being something that evolved with society and was not given to people.

Can we have free will without evil?
Basically, exercising free will is simply making a choice. Every day, people make countless choices ranging from what they eat to how they treat others. Many of these choices, such as what color clothes one wears, do not involve moral considerations since neither choice will involve evil. Therefore, it is possible to have free will that does not involve evil. With this in mind, it seems possible that an all-powerful being could have given humanity free will while still avoiding all the pain and misery that it can involve. Why did God simply not allow evil in the world (and evil would be his creation if he created all) so his creations would just be left with good choices?

People already have limits on their powers and thus have limits on their free will. For example, people cannot destroy others with their thoughts. There is no evidence that evil spells or anything of the sort actually work. Therefore, there are limits on the evils that people can do and their free will. At the very least, it would seem rational to put limits on at least some of the evils people do and not allow things like mass murder.

Does God have free will?
If God is all good, he does not and cannot do evil. Therefore, how then can God have free will as people do? It would seem that people have something he does not if they were created in his image. Why give people the kind of free will that will cause so many problems when God himself does not need to deal with it? If God has free will, it has to be free will that only allows good. His creations could use the same!

God intervenes
According to many religious texts, in the past at least, God did intervene in human affairs. People were struck down, and battles were turned by God. If God could intervene in such events (and thus interfere with free will), why sit and do nothing when a child is raped and murdered? Furthermore, people pray for divine intervention, and the Bible and other books promise help to those who pray. Are these books wrong and prayers totally ineffective (for events in this world anyway) or is God intervening in the world? Either God does intervene at times, which does interfere with free will, or prayer has no power to change events.

Is God testing us?
There are also questions about the principle of God giving humanity free will as a kind of a test as is examined in is life a test. Why would an omniscient being need to test us? Ha not an all-knowing being already seen what will happen in the future? God would certainly have to see the future if he is revealing what will happen in revelations. Why bother to test people then? Why create mass murders, criminals, etc. knowing what they will do? Why create people knowing they will do evil, or believe the wrong religion, knowing then they will be sent to sadistic eternal torture?

Exercising free will
Then there is the question if some people really have any free will. How can the mentally ill exercise free will? What about the child who dies young? Then, there are the brainwashed. The human mind and body can be very fragile. It seems odd that such a fragile vessel would take a test, and sometimes skip it, that determines something as important as its eternal fate (see brains and heaven and hell) and if someone will be tortured for all eternity.

Another tricky question is when one person exercising their free will interferes with another. For example, a murderer who kills a young child is destroying any chance that child will ever be able to exercise free will. Isn’t the free will of a child more important than that of a killer? Why doesn’t God strike down that killer and allow the child to have his chance?

God’s will
There is also the question of how people can really have free will if God knows what will happen. If God created everything, knows everything and tells us at least some of what the future holds, hasn’t everything already been decided? Surely, if there is a plan that God has made, then nothing that people do can change that plan, and the choices people make are in accordance with it rather than any free will.

In short, neither people nor God even appears to have real free will, and free will could take another form if it is really needed as a test. Free will cannot be used to explain why there is evil in the world.

Qadaa al-Haajah
The code for how Muslims are to relieve themselves is known as the Qadaa al-Haajah. Some of their teachings include:

• The toilet should be entered with the left foot, departed with the right and face away from the Kiblah.
• Any kind of conversation is forbidden, and men are not to look at or touch each other’s genitals.
• A man should never touch his genitals with his right hand (sorry lefties).
• It is best to wipe with an odd number of stones, preferably three times.
• A prayer, “Praise be to Allah who relieved me of the filth and gave me relief,” should be said afterwards (there is also one to say beforehand).
• Avoid going to the toilet where people are likely to rest or gather.
• Nothing bearing the name of Allah, such as a Koran, should be carried when entering a toilet.
• Ritual cleansing should be performed afterwards.
• Never relieve oneself when completely nude, standing up or lying down.

More can be found at http://forum.davidicke.com/archive/index.php/t-8798.html

A look at the rules
What exactly do these rules say about Islam and its claims to be perfect, divine truth? Can the two be reconciled?

Some of the rules, such as not defecating where people are likely to lie and purifying oneself afterwards can serve hygienic purposes. However, rules and customs that taught similar things predate Islam so they cannot be taken as proof of divine authorship by it There are evolutionary reasons for people to have a natural aversion to filth, and this brought about toiletry customs in some societies well before germ theory was ever understood.

Regardless of how useful some of the rules may be, there are others that few can deny just seem rather peculiar or petty to come from a god. For example, why would a god concern himself with whether or not people wipe themselves an odd or even numbered of times? In effect, it is saying that three times is superior than four. If people need instructions on wiping themselves, could not a god come up with better advice?

What foot someone should enter and leave a bathroom with seems like a pretty ridiculous instruction from a god no matter how anyone looks at it. What possible hygienic of other value could come of such instructions?

In addition, of all the things one could potentially thank a being with the power to create the universe for, why should bowel movements be included? Is entering a toilet with a Koran really going to hurt Allah?

Negatives for Islam
While it can be argued that the rules are harmless even if not useful, they do reflect negatively on Islam’s claims of divine truth regardless.

First of all, these rules open up Islam to ridicule. If Allah wants the world to follow Islam, why would he create rules that he should have known would appear silly to his own creations? Most of the world does not believe the claims of Islam even after well over a thousand years. Why didn’t Allah see this coming and make conversion much easier with teachings that appear flawless?

In addition, with so many problems that surely could be solved with divine wisdom, why would Allah dwell on such petty things? Far more useful knowledge could have been conveyed without sounding silly. For example, why not simply teach people something about germ theory if the goal of the Qadaa al-Haajah is cleanliness? That could have helped people develop good toilet practices while saving countless lives and proving Islam was divine wisdom.

An alternative explanation
Of course, the peculiar toilet rules in Islam can be easily explained by assuming Islam is, in fact, the word of a medieval man and not of a god. Some scholars who have studied Muhammad think he had obsessive compulsive disorder. This diagnosis fits nicely with rules on which foot to enter and leave a toilet with as well as other aspects of the Qadaa al-Haajah

Abul Kasem article covers this topic more. It also revels that Muhammad though that toilets and other places were inhabited by evil spirits. It is no wonder he called for people to say prayers before and after entering a toilet!

Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0006:
Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: These privies are frequented by the jinns and devils. So when anyone amongst you goes there, he should say: “I seek refuge in Allah from male and female devils.”

Is anyone rejoicing in death?

For something that was supposedly created to be a brief interlude, it seems more than a little odd that people value it, at least their lives and those of their loved ones, as much as they do. Even the most faithful, utterly convinced God is on their side, have run in fear in battle or go through the utmost extremes with medical care to prolong their lives (even when they have become little more than suffering in some cases). Why is it that so very few seem to be truly convinced (since they do not act as if they are) that their lives on earth are just a brief interlude before something much better?

Devaluing of life on earth

Even the longest human lifespan is nothing in comparison to millions, let alone endless trillions of millennium. In comparison to such time frames, any life on earth is less than a blink of an eye. Furthermore, the value people put on things is inversely related to its relative quantity. While a loaf of bread is not going to mean much to a billionaire, it would mean a whole lot to a starving child. Therefore, the promise of eternal life can only cheapen the value of life to people today.

There is putting aside the question, as discussed in eternal heaven or hell, of how anyone could really enjoy everlasting life.

Winning the life lottery

This raises an important question. If life on earth is just a brief test, and babies or others who die young are not sent to eternal torture, is not the death of the young something to be rejoiced in (see, why torture for all eternity)? Surely, some of those aborted fetuses and other children who died young would have made the wrong choices in life and went to hell if they had lived longer. By dying young and sacrificing a brief life on earth, a life that may bring considerable pain, they are gaining an eternity of bliss and avoiding the possibility of being sent to the most sadistic eternal torture. There is nothing anyone could ever give a person that could compare to that. There is no greater prize anyone could win. With this in mind, why don’t people rejoice at the death of children and aborted fetuses?

Twisted fairness and morality

This is putting aside questions of divine justice and why any god would allow anyone to skip his most important test imaginable. How could such a system be the perfect creation of a god?

On a more immediate level, all of this can create the most twisted morality. What could possibly be worse than being sadistically tortured for all eternity? Would not almost any crime, including murder, be justified if it saved someone from such horror? There are stories of Spanish conquerors babtising Indian babies and then smashing in their brains. In addition, there have been cases of religious people killing their own children to save them from the sins of the world and the danger of them going to hell.

This is not to say that religion is teaching people to murder their children and babies. However, it is giving them a rational for it. If hell is real as described, then baby killing is, in fact, an act of mercy since is saving at least some of them from eternal torture with fire (at the cost of a brief life on earth and replacing it with bliss). Why would God create a system in which the cold blooded murder of the most innocent is preventing a much worse horror and infinitely less painful?

If all life is precious

In a world where everyone believes the life they have on earth as all there is, life, in fact, becomes much more precious. Taking someone’s life is taking the only one they will ever have. Bad or psychotic people will still commit crimes and murder, but people without empathy, goodness and foresight are not the type to let future, unproven promises of torture to moderate their behavior anyway, as history has shown. However, normally good people will no longer be able to justify actions that may lead to someone’s death with thoughts that those who die are simply going on to meet their maker.

Until we have hard evidence there is something beyond the lives we are living, it makes the most sense to treat the lives we have as all we got. If there is a god that judges us for some kind of afterlife, surely that god would put more emphasis on what we do over simple belief.

Evolution on the micro level
Even the strongest critics of evolution usually admit it has some validity on the micro level, since there is no denying human beings have used it for their own purposes and its effects on the world. For example, farmers have used selective breeding to create cows that produce more milk, sheep more wool and plants more food for people. Animals modified by humans with selective breeding include pigeons that cannot fly and cute species of dogs that could never survive in the wild. Furthermore, it is possible to see harmful evolution at work when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.

Those who reject evolutionary theory will generally say that evolution stops on the macro level, although they do not exactly explain how, why or precisely what point it stops at.

Evolution on the macro level
While dissenters can always be found in every group of people, the evidence for evolution is strong enough to be accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, particularly biologists. Some of the reasons include the following:

The fossil record
The fossil shows a layered history with gradual increases in complexity of life forms over time. The oldest layers have the least complexity and the newest the most. This matches perfectly with what would be expected if life evolved. The completeness of the fossil record varies greatly with the time and species (only a tiny percentage of any life forms ever become preserved as fossils), but every place the record has been preserved shows a gradual evolution.

The genetic record
As the science of genetics has advanced, it has added a lot of evidence to support evolution. This includes:
Vestiges. For example, chickens have the genes for teeth and humans for tails and heavy body hair. These features will show up when they are “turned on.”
Junk DNA: Every species carries a lot of DNA that is not serving any proving instructions. While a small percentage has been found offer some functionality, the vast majority does not.

Chemical and Anatomical Similarities
The similarities in chemical compositions found in all life on earth point to a common origin. As stated in Palomar.edu
“All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements.  In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements.  This is not a mere coincidence. ”

This is just scratching the surface of the very extensive evidence pointing to evolution existing on all levels. For more reading on some of the evidence, the following articles in Wikipedia and TalkOrigins cover the topic far more extensively.

Evolution or God?
With the evidence as strong as it is, religious scientists also embrace the theory. Kenneth Miller who offers powerful evidence for evolution in the following video, is, in fact, a Christian. These people use their belief that God started the evolutionary process to accept both religious faith and evolutionary theory at the same time.

This brings up a point ignored by some of those who attack evolutionary theory. Proving evolution is not actually disproving the existence of any god. Likewise, even if some or all of evolutionary theory were proved wrong, that would not prove the existence of any god either.

It also needs to be noted that the fact that science does not have all the answers yet is not proof that God created it all. As methods improve and knowledge expands, so do conclusions. What has not changed is the fact that the evidence for evolution has continuously expanded while creationism remains little more than an attack on evolution.

Complexity
One reason why evolution is not universally accepted is because of the complexity of life. Human beings simply are not equipped to really comprehend time frames of even thousands of years, let alone millions or billions. So much can happen with even the most gradual changes over time frames like that. Furthermore, if life was too complex to have evolved, how could have a far more awesome God have just come into existence?

The flaws
Finally, there are all the flaws in the life that point to it being something that came from an imperfect process and not a perfect designer. From diseases and parasites that eat their victims alive to weak lower backs, teeth which decay and nipples on men, there are a lot of flaws in life that make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but would make any designer either malevolent or incompetent. This is covered further in intelligent design.

Would God want to fool us?
If there is a God, then it is pretty safe to assume he wants us to embrace evolutionary theory. If he does not, that would mean he was trying to trick us all with an elaborate hoax that was enough to convince the greatest minds in human history of a lie. Religious or not, there is no reason not to accept evolutionary theory as the driving force for changes in life on earth.

His only begotten son
Parents take great pride and joy in their children and often want to have more than time and money permit. Why would God only have one son? Material considerations would not factor in for a being with the power to create the universe, and time should not matter if God has always been and always will be. It, therefore, seems inconceivable that God only has one son (and if Jesus has any true siblings, they certainly are not talked about). With infinite time and material, wouldn’t he want to procreate more?

A single parent
Then there is the question of maternity. What exactly does Mary being Jesus mother mean? Did any of her, be it genetic or otherwise, become part of Jesus? Or, was Jesus a kind of inferior clone of his father? If none of Mary was in Jesus and God can do anything, why even have a mother? Why not just skip the whole impregnation part and send his son to earth directly as an adult (since so little is mentioned about Jesus’ childhood anyway)?

The whole idea of a god having a child with an earthling seems quite odd when you really think of it. The meaning of a child for human beings is the union between two people. It seems inconceivable that God would have genes or any other human properties. Therefore, Jesus could not have been the union between God and Mary, making Mary little more than a kind of surrogate mother of a child with one parent. This makes Jesus more like the clone of God and not his son. Why would God call Jesus his son when he was nothing of the sort as human beings understand it? He should have come up with a better word!

What kind of parent?
In some ways, it is better for all parties not to call Jesus an actual son of God. Isn’t it natural for parents to want to protect their children, especially if there is only one, from harm? A torturous death on a Roman execution device should be one thing any parent would want to keep their child from. What kind of father would plan such an event out?

Of course, it could be argued that sacrificing your own child to save others would be a very unselfish act. However, no sane parent would ever sacrifice their child if there was another way. Couldn’t God, with infinite power and wisdom, find a better way to forgive sins than to have his child tortured to death? Besides, if he wanted to forgive the sins of people, why not just forgive them? Why would some kind of human sacrifice, even a temporary sacrifice (if Jesus rose again), be necessary?

Use evil to prevent evil
Few would deny that human sacrifice is evil. Why would a perfect God with infinite power use evil to fight evil, especially when that evil is inflicted on his own child?  On top of all that, there are serious questions about Jesus’ sacrifice, and the idea of a god sacrificing part of himself to himself because of the flawed nature of the people that he created.

Spreading your son’s legacy
Even putting the above questions aside, there are questions about the legacy Jesus has left. If God sacrificed his son for a higher cause, why not at least make sure everyone clearly understood the cause and sacrifice. Why would he have his son sacrificed in a remote province of the Roman Empire and not have the event witnessed and recorded by prominent people and historians of the day? If undeniable proof had been offered that the creator of the universe had spoken through his son on earth, who can deny Christianity would be followed by followed by every sane person on the planet today and his son’s legacy much greater? Parents trying to create a legacy for a lost child go to great lengths to make sure as many people as possible know. Why could not God, who surely could do much better than modern mass media, find a way to instantly inform everyone across the world of what his child had done?

Until these questions are answered, Christianity cannot be taken seriously.

Thou shalt not
The most noticeable feature of the Ten Commandments is that all but two are focused entirely on what people should not do. While there is certainly a place for this, a lot of good guidance focuses on what needs to be done rather than what needs to be avoided. Why would God focus so much on prohibition, similar an ancient ruler, instead of guiding them to more enlightened morals?

The values that were missed
For example, people have a tendency to look upon outsiders, or those who are different, as somehow less human than themselves. This is especially true when the outsider is of a different race, which has led to all sorts of atrocities in human history. Considering the magnitude of suffering this has caused to this day, why do not the Ten Commandments tell people to treat each other equally regardless of race or give some other kind of guidance in this area?

Then there is the horrible practice of slavery that was extremely common in the world until relatively recent times. While some Jews and Christians came to oppose it, all too many others either owned slaves or supported the institution of slavery until thinking turned against it in the modern era. How many innocent people could have been spared horrible lives as human chattel if one of the Commandments spoke of the evil of this practice (see slavery and religion)?

There are many other values that most people in the modern world hold as true that are not mentioned at all. While including everything would not be practical, it seems odd that at least some good modern values that took so long to develop are not mentioned. For example, why not encourage the various freedoms to include that of speech, etc. found in modern democracies or things like gender equality? The values of the Ten Commandments appear to be totally based on those of the society they came from and not the kind of enlightenment that should be expected from a caring god.

A look at the Ten Commandments
When one stops and takes an in-depth look at the Ten Commandments, it becomes apparent that many of them are not actually moral teachings at all. Take the first four, which really have nothing to do with morality.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

It is odd that God, if he is the only one, would be most concerned about losing out to other gods as in the first commandment. The second seems like a pretty petty point, the third is just words and the fourth simply about what day to take off. Would not God be more concerned with other things? Should not other teachings be more important?

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

This is a good commandment if one’s parents are moral at heart and doing their best to do the right things, but what if they are not? There are many bad parents now, and there certainly were in the past too. In addition, this says nothing about child abuse, which would be protecting the most innocent and helpless people in society.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

People have long known this, or human beings would have killed each other off ages ago. It seems that it should have been given higher priority, and perhaps more specifics, since the faithful have done lots of killing, be it justifiable or not.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Wouldn’t it have been better to give a commandment that would have been easier for people to follow considering how sexual people are as discussed in god and sex? It is hard to argue that preventing two consensual adults from having sex (if that is how adultery is defined) is more important than stopping something like slavery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

A good commandment but very obvious to every society in human history.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Lying is obviously bad, but it is not practical or even good to never lie regardless of the situation. For example, someone hiding Jews from the Nazis would be more moral to lie if it saved innocent lives.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

A rather odd commandment since it is hard to control thoughts. Instead of such a vague command, it would be more practical to give people advice on what to do or what not to do for the greatest common good. Thoughts in themselves do not cause any harm.

Basically, what is supposed to be a perfect guide for humanity boils down to commandments that mostly look petty, impossible to follow or have little to do with human morality and creating a better society. When they do say the right things, they are morals that were utterly obvious even in primitive societies.

Perhaps it is time to come up with a new set of commandments. Modern society can certainly do better.

On some religious websites, there are running meters showing how long certain people have supposedly been burning in hell. While the creators of these sites are some of the most hard core of the faithful, thinking others will burn for all eternity is a mainstream belief for billions of followers of many religions. Do these people really stop and think about what their beliefs mean?

The horror
In accidents and wanton acts of cruelty, many people throughout human history have in fact breathed their last in flames. Normally, moral, sane people react in horror to the thought. Anyone who has ever been burned knows the pain they cause, and the idea of being engulfed by flames, skin peeling off in agony, is horrifying and sickening. If they could do anything to rescue a person from such a fate, most people would take extreme measures, even putting their lives in danger, regardless of race or creed.

The wishes
Considering how utterly horrible death by fire is, imagine the complete and utter horror of sadistic eternal torture in fiery furnaces! The agony would be unimaginable and endless; infinitely more horrible and sadistic than anything even the most evil person in history has ever done to another human being. Yet, people frequently wish hell on others, or at least say that they deserve hell as part of their god’s just and merciful plan. People who make such wishes and comments are often those that have never intentionally hurt another human being. How it is that normally moral people can justify having their fellow human beings sentenced to something for worse than what the most evil people in history have done?

Punishment fits the crime
While it can be argued that some of the worst murderers, etc. in history deserve torture after death, would not even a victim of one of these murderers say enough is enough after a few million or so years of torture? Besides, belief is the single most important factor that decides who gets tortured. Someone can commit the worst crimes and be forgiven by accepting a particular belief before they die, but people who live the best lives without the correct belief are said to be sent to fry.

What is wrong with this picture?
Although it is possible that some people who wish or justify hell on others are very angry and sadistic, most are certainly moral people in every other way. How it is that normally loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, neighbors and so on can say a fellow human being, someone else’s loved one, deserves eternal torture, for any reason, let alone over their beliefs? How can they think they could possibly enjoy heaven while others are burning in hell?

The answer probably lies in psychological coping mechanisms. In the same way that people love their own children while others are dying in the world, they are able to take comfort in what they see as their salvation without really thinking about what their belief in damnation of others actually means. Hell, if any such place exists, is not something anyone alive has ever seen. History has shown that horrors that others cannot see usually do not disturb them so much.

Besides, people have a tendency to follow and not question all the implications of the paths they have chosen. How many people have obeyed leaders or ideologies to their own dooms throughout history and to this very day? For example, how many Germans really stopped and considered what the hatred and militarism of the Nazis would lead to? Even in modern democracies, the party faithful will stubbornly defend failed leaders.

Most of the faithful do not really stop and think of how utterly sick and evil the whole concept of hell is, let alone the immeasurable amounts of pain, inflicted as punishment with no hope for reform or redemption, it would cause. It is just something they have been raised to follow, and they do not stop to truly think about it.

A world in which people more closely considered all the implications of their beliefs would certainly be a kinder, and less superstitious, place.

Killing in God’s name
When people kill in the name of a leader, modern law often holds the leader responsible. For example, while it appears Charles Manson never participated in or specifically told his followers to carry out the murders he is known for, he was found guilty for leading his followers to do what they did. While it can be argued if books to include the Quran and the Bible are actually leading to and justifying killing for God, there is no denying that people have used them for this purpose.

Even if killing is not the intention of any religious book, if God is the author of at least some of them and does not want killing in his name, why not make it absolutely certain that killing in his name is NEVER permitted? At the very least, lay clear and definite rules (many a religious leader has argued that religious war is justified). A typical author who found his works being misinterpreted would certainly want to clear up any misunderstandings, if at all possible, especially if that misreading was causing evil and death. The fact that God should be able to correct any misunderstandings with the utmost ease makes allowing killing in his name all the more inexcusable.

Blaming people
People are blamed and held responsible for their actions, as they need to be. However, if they were, in fact, created, shouldn’t that higher power also have some responsibility? Companies and people that make machines and the like frequently must take responsibility when things fail. The fact that human beings are often stupid and easily mislead should reflect at least somewhat on their creator if there is one. Why not create better minds and why let people go bad? People need to be held responsible for their actions. However, the creator of such a frail, easily mislead minds could not be blameless, especially when the world he created often destroys those minds.

Religious wars
Untold numbers of people have died throughout human history in wars that were in at least in some way connected to religion. To this day, people in wars on both sides kill and go to their deaths sure that God was supporting them. If God is on one side or none, why not tell those devote followers the truth before they die or kill others?

Killing for God in the modern world
Although human sacrifice for Gods may not be practiced anymore, that does not make the deaths in the name of religion any less horrific for those who die or lose loved ones. Events like 9/11 and suicide bombings in the modern world are examples of this. If any leader sat back and watched followers kill in his name when he could easily stop them, that leader would be considered sick and evil by moral people. What makes God doing the same thing different?

God’s plan
Some say this is all part of God’s plan but letting people be murdered in his name, in a way that gives every indication of being totally random, does not offer much evidence of any kind of planning. A plan that shows every indication of being based on random murder is not a very good plan. If everything is part of some plan, it should be possible to see what it is how the negative parts of it can be justified.

In short, people killing in the name of God says something about both the people and the gods they worship. If God is to get the credit for all the good in the world, then he would also need to take some responsibility. This would include people killing in his name.