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.

The origins of Satan are reflected in the original Hebrew meaning of the word, which basically means to “oppose.” The word ‘devil’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘slanderer’ or ‘accuser.’ These show that the concept of Satan was not always what it is today.

Early Satan
A look at early Judaism and Christianity shows how Satan has evolved over time. In the first appearances of Satan in the Hebrew Bible, he is not necessarily an evil force. For example, in Numbers, he is an obedient servant of God. At this time, Satan works as a messenger angel. Although angels in those days were not the kind of sweet characters they are now, Satan was still working for God.

However, over time, particularly during periods of stress in society, Satan gradually becomes more malevolent and terrifying. This evil agent, present everywhere in the world, could then be equated to one’s enemies. With Satan actively working for evil and leading people astray in the world, one’s enemies, from invading armies to those who simply had a different view of the divine, could be branded as Satan’s agents and more enthusiastically opposed.

In Islam, Satan was the one who refused to bow down to Adam as God commanded. However, God, in his wisdom, decides to delay punishment until the Day of Judgment.

Questions about Satan for today
More details on the origins of Satan can be found on websites to include philihine and orgins of the devil. What will be addressed here is how the fact that Satan evolved, and some of the ideas of the story itself, raises serious questions that should be examined.

If Satan is a certain type of figure, why was not it evident to the earliest followers of the Abrahamic religions or the first people? Could God not have been clearer and careful in what he communicated to his people? Shouldn’t they have been fairly warned in a clear manner as to exactly what it was they faced?

People vs. divine beings
Why would God leave people to deal with, and fight, a divine being? If Satan will be destroyed/stopped on judgment day anyway, why not do it now? God would have created both Satan and human beings. Knowing how frail and weak the latter are, why leave them to deal with a supernatural force? Why let that force cause so much misery and suffering to your own creations? If God needs to carry out some kind of test (it seems odd that any all-knowing being would need to test anything), surely a better way could be found that did not involve needless suffering and the damnation of so many souls.

It is inexplicable that a perfect being would create something so bad and then leave his mistake to run loose in the universe.

Why would Satan rebel?
There is also the question of why Satan would ever rebel or defy God in any way in the first place. Whatever issues he might have had with obeying God, surely Satan would have known it was better than the alternative. He would have been aware God’s power as the creator of all and would have known he had no chance against it. He also should have had at least some inkling that he would suffer an eternal fate for defiance. Such a suicidal stance, especially when even death itself will not allow one to escape the consequences, defies all logic and common sense. Any person with the slightest bit of sanity would not make such a choice. Why would a supernatural being do it?

Did not God see Satan coming?
Then there is the question of why God would have ever created Satan and let him get out of hand. Whatever Satan’s crime, being it excessive pride or something else, surely an all-knowing being would have seen it both at the time of creation, and before it was carried out. It seems more than a little odd that God’s court would have the same kind of betrayal and intrigue that is found in human institutions

In the end, just like God, there is no solid evidence any kind of Satan exists. Concepts that evolved and changed with humans were most likely created by them.

Why uncertainty?
Before even looking at the attacks different religions make on each other, one has to wonder why there is any doubt at all. It is impossible to rationalize how a being with the power to create the universe could not find a way to communicate his word that left no doubt. Be it in miracles or something less dramatic, if one religion is the right one, why not tell everyone in a way that no sane person could deny?

Why cannot people just get along?
Human nature being what it is, the fact that nobody can offer clear, objective divine proof of what religion god favors has led to all kinds of conflict. Why would a god let his creations fight in his name when he could easily clear up any confusion? It can be argued that some wars fought in the name of religion were not actually about it, but many certainly were.

The problem with criticizing the religions of Abraham
Leaving those questions aside, even when conflict over religion is limited entirely to words, it is saying troubling things about the faith of those criticizing and the god of Abraham. First, let’s look at two perspectives.

Christians will criticize Islam for its violent passages that are discussed some in is Islam peaceful. Other times, they will attack the Quran’s accuracy since Islam claims it is the perfect, inerrant word of a god.

Muslims will point out what appear to be real logical absurdities in such biblical ideas to include Jesus’ sacrifice http://truereligions.biz/jesus-sacrifice/ or bringing to light some very unsavory versus in the Old Testament that raise serious questions about the bible and morality.

While these criticisms will not be argued here, at least some of the must be right. For example, if Christianity is divine truth, then Islam, with its teachings that Jesus was only a prophet but not the son of god, has to be wrong. The Quran must be a flawed book and not perfect, divine truth.

On the other hand, if Islam is divine word, then at least part of the Bible has to be wrong. Somewhere, the Bible was corrupted (although Muslims never explain exactly where and how nor offer a reason why Allah would allow it) and is now misleading people in a religion that is not the Abrahamic god’s preferred choice.

This is a problem for those pointing out the flaws in an opposing Abrahamic religion because they are admitting their god sits by and lets people be misled. For example, let’s say the Muslims are correct in pointing out the flaws in the Bible and Torah, and there are certainly some parts of the Old Testament that are very shocking. Why would a god let billions of his creations over thousands of years, to this very day, believe what is flawed and evil (as Muslims see it) to be followed as his word? That would be a very careless being at best and an evil one at worst. Surely, a god could find a way to prevent such mistaken beliefs from ever taking root in the first place.

If Christians are correct, then their god also has let billions of people to be misled. Why would god, after going through the whole drama of Jesus’ sacrifice, afterwards let so many people be led astray? If he is all knowing, he certainly should have seen what would come. This includes both the huge number of people that have been misled as well as the religious conflicts that have arisen between Islam and Christianity.

What makes things even more baffling is the fact that the penalties for getting things wrong are so high. Until this day, most Christians and Muslims believe that torture for all eternity is the penalty for choosing the wrong religion. With the stakes so high, there should be a high amount of divine proof to make sure as many people as possible get it right.

What was best before?
When people criticize an Abrahamic religion that came before theirs, they are not considering the question of what religion people were to follow before their prophet. For example, if a Muslim is correct in pointing out the flaws in Christianity or Judaism, were not those flaws there from well before Muhammad? What religion did the god of Abraham want people to follow, let’s say, 200 years before Muhammad started preaching? Why was it ok for people to follow a religion that says some horrible things then but not afterwards? Wouldn’t Christianity have been the word of their god to humanity at that time and what they should have followed if born then?

While this question is not as troubling for Christians, fundamentalists Christians should think about their belief that their god is sending people to burn for all eternity for following a religion (Judaism) that was preferred by him for centuries!

Perhaps if people considered these facts before attacking another religion, they would be more humble and the world more peaceful.

Killing for the lord
Although the majority of religious people do not think their god wants them to kill in his name, there are all too many who do believe their god wants them to do horrible things. Assuming this thinking is contrary to the teachings of the religions these people follow, you still have to wonder why their god does not do something to stop killing in his name.

While some people are probably cynically using religion to justify crimes, certainly many truly believe in their hearts they are carrying out divine will. This includes suicide attackers who are giving up their lives, even if they are flying planes full of people into buildings or blowing up marketplaces. Would not a person who let others kill in his name when he could have easily stopped them share a moral responsibility for the deaths caused? If god not only created these religions, but the flawed human minds that misunderstand them, isn’t there some kind of responsibility on his part for not intervening?

Guidance for a greater good
In the past, people thought that natural disasters where signs of an angry god. As this view has faded, it has now become more fashionable to say god creates natural disasters to teach people lessons or carry out divine will in some other way. However, this seems like a rather crude and cruel way to teach lessons or carry out any kind of divine will. How can annihilating a city in a tsunami or volcano, killing only and young, saint and sinner alike, be the part of any plan? If there was some lesson to teach, shouldn’t that lesson be easily discernable? As bad as killing so many to teach a lesson would be, it is much worse if nobody can even be certain what that lesson was.

Others say that all of this helps people appreciate life and become closer to each other or god. If people do need such reminders to give their lives real meaning, then they certainly are not going to be happy in heaven. To cause death and misery to make people closer to you is not exactly a great moral principle either. It is hard to see why a god would choose misery, evil and death to carry out any kind of divine plan. There would have to be a better way.

Cannot interfere
It has been argued that god simply cannot interfere with free will. However, those who argue this also say that god interferes when good things happen. Besides, not interfering and watching a child die is destroying any chance of that child ever exercising free will.

Saving some
On a more individual level, those who do survive some type of disaster, or even smaller accident, often attribute it to divine will. This can be a moving experience for people and sometimes leads to changed lives, but this is still far from proof of divine will and raises more questions.

It does seem rather arrogant to assume a god intervened to save someone to improve his or her life while letting others die or live short, miserable lives. Couldn’t god find a better way to convince someone to be a missionary or fulfill some other purpose than to kill mothers, fathers and children?

There is no evidence that those who survive accidents and disasters are any better or worse than those who do not. When the saving of some is attributed to miracles, all of those who did not make it should also be considered.

Giving god the credit for the good
Those who simply do well in life for whatever reason often give divine intervention the credit, but there is no reason to assume any god plays favorites. Why would a god help an actress or sports star to succeed, while letting a child, perhaps of very pious parents, starve after a short, painful life?

The Greek philosopher Epicurius summed it up very well many generations ago:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

People risk, and sometimes sacrifice, their lives to stop evil and harm coming to others. To do nothing, especially when you could do so easily, is considered a crime. A god that does not intervene is lacking in some combination of power, will and morality.

On the silly side, there are a number of references to what now are regarded as mythical beasts, although they were thought of as real by many in ancient times. While Christians will use translation (as Muslims do for violent passages in the Quran) and other excuses for these passages, it is suspicious that the Bible appears to reflect ancient thinking rather than divine. Why would a god let what is supposed to be his word to be represented in such a way?  A more detailed examination of these can be found at unicorns and dragons in the Bible.

However, it certainly does not end there. Who really believes in giants now? Who thinks witches and wizards should be killed? How about cutting off someone’s penis to keep them from sinning? It is necessary to tell people a woman on her period is unclean or unclean for a longer period after having a girl than after having a boy These quotes can all be found, as well as stories of incest, rape and other sexual depravity in the following video.

However, by far the most trouble parts of the Bible can be found in parts of the Old Testament.  From what kind of beating you can give your slave (it is ok as long as the slave survives at least a couple of days), to death to those who: do not listen to priests or hit their fathers, women who are not virgins on their wedding nights, death for blasphemy, to mass murder and the enslavement of entire nations, there is a lot that many Christians never are aware of.

For those who are, some of the attempted justification for some of the following is that it is just the Old Testament which Jesus’ word overrides (although all indications are that he reaffirmed it, as can be found here).

It is hard to see why a god would ever change his mind on anything or regret what he once said. Regardless, the following should give moral Christians a pause. Everything below is taken directly from the following website less studied passages of the bible.

“Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men.  During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name.  So the man was brought to Moses for judgment.  His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan.  They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear.  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community stone him to death.  Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished.  Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel.  Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die.  (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Slavery
Not only does the Bible fail to clearly condemn the horrible practice of slavery as one would expect a god that cared about its creations to do, the Bible gives every indication of condoning it.

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery.  How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

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 NLT)

What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

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 NAB)

Killing at Jericho
When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it.  They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.  (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

David’s Punishment
Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness” (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.”  [The child dies seven days later.]”

In short, innocent victims are given to a rapist and then a child is killed!

Risks and rewards
There could be no greater contrast than the difference between an eternity of heaven or hell. With the stakes as high as many believe, it would seem rational for any being that wants people to avoid the most horrible torments to do everything possible to help them make the right choice. How convincing is the evidence? What can faith be based on?

Known unknowns
If there is a right choice, it certainly is not clear to human minds. On top of the great variety of religions and gods that people worship, even the major religions are divided into sects. If there is an objective way to prove that any god exists, let alone that any particular religion is the word of that god, it has not been found yet.

Finding the right religion
Not only does religion lack hard evidence to support it claims, but rationality and science go against any kind of literal truth of many of the stories of religious traditions. For example, the story of Noah’s Ark, in both Christianity and Islam, is a rational and scientific impossibility. There is simply no way two of every species could have made it to a boat and survived for a day, let alone as long as the stories claimed, when logistics such as the size of the boat, keeping the animals fed or clean are considered.

The moral lessons of religion also fail to offer hard evidence of divine origins. If their teachings had definitely set an example that was distinct and higher than the societies they emerged from, it would perhaps be evidence of divine will. However, from the sometimes bloodthirsty nature of the Old Testament god and Allah of the Quran, to Christianity and Islam giving every indication of condoning rather than clearly condemning things like slavery, there is no way to argue these religions are teaching a perfect morality. In addition, the idea of sending people for eternal damnation is alien to notions of justice, mercy and humanity.

Finally, there does not seem to be any hard evidence of divine will in either the way the world works or the example of the followers of any of the major religions. While people have tried, nobody has ever given a really satisfactory answer as to why a merciful god would create forces, such as natural disasters, that cause massive and indiscriminate human suffering, or sit and watch a child suffer and die. Furthermore, there is no indication the followers of any particular religion consistently act better and more moral that the rest of humanity as a whole.

What determines religion?
It is no secret that most people follow the religion of their parents. In addition, the religious traditions of different families are usually due to political events of the past. For example, the inability of the Persian Empire to resist the Arabs is the reason Iran is primarily Islamic now. The fact that most of Europe is Christian has a lot to do with the Roman Empire, and the fact that Europe was later able to stop Muslim invaders.

This, and the fact that many people can live their lives without ever really hearing of many of the major religions to this very day, all points to geography, related to forces in the past, being a primary determinate of what religions people follow. Since nobody chooses their birth mother and where they are born, accident of birth matters the most when determining one’s religion.

Intelligence and reason do not bring people closer to any particular religion. Actually, studies of religiosity and intelligence show that those who are the most intelligent and rational tend to be the least religious.

Belief and blind faith
Apart from the accident of where and when someone was born and the level of religiosity they are brought up in, the only major determinant of religious belief seems to be the ability to have faith without hard evidence or logic to back up those beliefs. Why would something as important as this be decided on what amounts to one’s level of gullibility and chance of birth? While morality enters the picture to an extent, it takes a back seat to blind faith and the chance of being born at the right time and place. Note that the most horrible murderer can be forgiven if he asks for forgiveness before he dies. However, those who cannot believe what they do not see evidence or logic for, or those who are born into the wrong religious traditions, are damned for all eternity.

It is more than a little difficult to see perfect, divine, merciful justice in all of this.

The mystery
Those who say that god works in mysterious ways, and that we cannot hope to understand god’s will, are some of the same people who claim to know divine truth. To claim to know what god wants on one hand but be unable to explain basic logical inconsistencies in what this supposed divine truth says, let alone offer hard evidence to support it, is irrational and arrogant. Until we have hard evidence to support something as being divine truth, nobody should simply assume any religion knows what it is talking about when it claims to know a path to salvation. It is not a good idea to assume that salvation would come from following wild claims on bad evidence.

Some of these questions are examined in more detail in the following video.

Critics of the Quran often point to 4:34 and the following translation from the Quran.com (from directly below its Arabic original):

Sahih International
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

While translated as “strike” here, “beat” can also be found in many translations. However, in defense of the Koran, Islam’s defenders will give the following arguments:

1. A better translation would be “separate” not “strike” or “beat.”
2. The beating is only to be done very lightly. For example, they will insist the beating must be done with a twig, etc.
3. Beating is justified and the best course of action if that will save the marriage.

Translation explanation
In the Koran, the word translated as “beat” is “idreb,” and this is a conjugate of the word “daraba” The primary translations given for this word are to physically beat someone or to strike up a poem. This word is found 12 times in the Quran, and most references (eight) are undoubtedly referring to the act of striking. An example of this is 8:12
“”Strike” off their heads, “strike” off the very tips of their fingers!”

It should also be noted that a great number of English translations, made by devote Muslims, use the words “strike” or “beat” without any qualifiers. It is very hard to see how they would be so careless with the word of their god to translate it with such words if there was any doubt in their minds to its meaning. Wouldn’t they have given the alternate translations too if they thought there was any chance that was the exact meaning? It is true that some words do not translate well between languages, but any good translator can find ways to get around this.

“Strike” also fits with the natural progression of the verse. It is going from verbal warnings, to refusing to sleep with them and then to the final step of striking.

To only strike lightly
Some translators will add words to include “lightly” after “strike” saying that should be understood from the context. However, this is only making assumptions. There is nothing in 4:34 that says lightly. Besides, telling men to strike their wives lightly is a recipe for disaster. Angry men, especially uneducated ones from medieval societies, are not likely to stop at a light tapping when they are angry. It is, in fact, rather silly when you imagine the scene of a man gently tapping a woman as punishment.

Finally, assuming the woman’s behavior needs to be corrected, gently tapping her is not something that is likely to do it.

Beatings are justified
Some Muslims will contend that wife beating is justified in some situations and is preferable to the alternative (a divorce), if it teachings the woman a lesson. Fundamental problems with this explanation are:

• The man because the judge, jury and executioner. Besides, it is not hard to imagine the man being the one at fault in a marriage.
• Beatings are about degradation and control. It hardly seems like the best advice a god would give.

The context of the verse
A number of Muslim scholars have detailed the reason for this verse. The following is a quote from Razi’s commentary, “At-Tafsir al-Kabir,” on 4:34

“A women complained to Muhammad that her husband slapped her on the face, (which was still marked by the slap). At first the prophet said to her: “Get even with him”, but then added: “Wait until I think about it”. Later on, Allah supposedly revealed 4:34 to Muhammad, after which the prophet said: “We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.”

This would have been Allah’s chance to clearly condemn wife beating. Instead, there is a verse that gives every indication of codifying it. Muhammad’s initial reaction to reject it is superseded by Allah’s decision to stay within the norms of the medieval society of the time.

Wife beating and the hadith
Hadith, saying attributed to Muhammad and used by Muslims as guides, also give every indication of condoning wife beating. In fairness, there are hadith that encourage men to treat their wives fairly, but those do not change the message of other hadith.

Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 215
Omar reported from the Holy Prophet who said, “No man shall be questioned for beating his wife.”

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, #132
“Narrated Zam’a, “The prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”"”
In other words, do not beat a wife like a slave (this is also condoning slavery and beating slaves).

Muslim (4:2127)
Muhammad’s favorite wife, that the hadith say he originally married at six. Is quoted as saying: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

Bukhari (72:715)
“Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women’”

Defenders of Islam will give contextual or translation apologies for these teachings. However, they all point in the same direction. It would be very odd indeed for untrue versus and translations to appear. Not only is it unlikely that Muslims would have ever written such things if they were not true, it is safe to say that any being with the power to create the universe wouldn’t allow these things to ever come to print if they were not his words.

This is all very far from the kinds of protections most would think a god would want to offer the weaker sex.

The value of an eternal life
If life on earth is just a bump in the road to all eternity, then how can it have much value? People only tend to value things that are relatively scarce. If gold was as abundant as water, it would certainly have a lower value than it does now. Since the same applies to everything else, isn’t it logical to apply it to life? With life a limitless resource that can never be exhausted, there is no way to really value it. On the other hand, when people have little time left, they value every second.

Sending people from one life to another
When killing someone is just sending them to another life, the act of killing becomes easier. While a psychotic is not going to care regardless, normal people with a conscious need to justify their deeds when they affect others. By teaching people that death is only a movement to another realm, and that god will sort everything out with divine, perfect, merciful justice, people can find justification in taking life. At the worst, their acts of killing, and all forms of atrocities that have been committed in the name of god, have divine sanction. In less dramatic cases, actions that might bring harm to others can be carried out with the feeling they are not really ending a life.

A higher cause
When religion teaches people they are working for a god, violence becomes easier to justify. What is the value of human life when one is following a higher power? History is full of conflicts in which the combatants were certain god was on their side. If religion gave human life a greater value, it would be natural to expect that wars of religion, if they happened at all, would be less violent than other wars. Instead, these conflicts, including the Crusades, saw some of the worst atrocities.

Sacrifice
Ancient people thought it necessary to make many sacrifices to their gods, and this included human sacrifice all too often. If gods gave all life, then returning life to them is easy to justify. While the belief that people need to actively sacrifice to their gods has gone away, the idea that people are deserving of death, and whatever punishment god wants to inflict on their ghosts for all eternity, is still very much alive.

The idea of human sacrifice is the basis of the Abrahamic faiths since Abraham himself is said to have nearly made his son a human sacrifice. It should be remembered that Christianity itself is founded on a human sacrifice (Jesus sacrifice). While it is a sacrifice that god willing made of himself to himself, in essence, it still represents a human sacrifice.

The worship of death
Christianity and Islam can be argued to be a kind of worship of death. This life is simply a brief test. It does not really matter, since everything is focused on what comes after. This devalues the lives people have and makes them less likely to strive to live life to the fullest. In fact, human suffering has long been justified as temporary pain on the road to eternity. There is no need to worry about it since the real life is to come. The most extreme form of this can be seen in people who deliberately choose to live lives in ways that strive to deny as many earthly pleasures as possible.

Valuing life
It is hard to see how human beings could enjoy an existence in which life and everything else is in endless abundance. That would be a monotonous existence lacking the ability to fulfill basic human needs such as a way to find a sense of wonderment or be challenged (see: eternal heaven or hell). People seek out thrills and the sense of danger. That is why people are attracted to everything from amusement park rides to sky diving. There is no way any human mind, in its present form, could enjoy living for all eternity.

Whatever, if anything, awaits people after their deaths, they should value the lives they have now. Because they are fragile and finite, they should be thought of as infinitely precious. When a life is taken, a mind and all that is in it may be gone forever. Live life to its fullest and do your best to make it possible for others to do the same. Treating life as a finite resource increases the preciousness of it.