The Bible Says God Doesn't Exist (Really!)

BatmanWithBunnyEars's avatar
By BatmanWithBunnyEars   |   Watch
569 1K 20K (1 Today)
Published: May 23, 2012
Many Christians wonder how anyone could doubt the existence of God, but it turns out it's right in the bible.  If you read between the lines, it tells you there's no God…

1)  The bible claims that God sacrificed Jesus for our sins. (John 3:16, Romans 3:25, Ephesians 5:2, Hebrews 9:26)  (This is ignoring Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20, which state that everyone is to be responsible for their own transgressions without anyone else dying for their sins, thus undermining the primary basis of Christianity.)

2)  Since Jesus is God (2 Peter 1:1, John 10:30-33, and other verses), premise 1 means that God sacrificed himself.

3)  A sacrifice involves the destruction of the entire being, including the spirit.  This seems intuitively obvious especially for a self-sacrifice, since it's not much of a sacrifice if the martyr is guaranteed an eternity in heaven.  The bible never directly specifies what constitutes a "sacrifice," but it seems to support this intuition.

a)  In the entire bible, only humans are said to have been given immortal souls. (Ecclesiastes 3:11, 12:7, and other verses)

b)  The bible allows animal sacrifice (several passages in Leviticus 1), but it condemns human sacrifice in the same breath as witchcraft, sorcery, fortune telling, and other forms of magic.  (Deuteronomy 18:10-11)

c)  Of all the things the bible forbids, why lump human sacrifice together with magic?  It would require some type of occult power to sacrifice the additional element of the soul.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matthew 10:28)

Therefore, the bible implicitly defines sacrifice as the destruction of the whole being, including the spirit.

4)  From the above premises, God must have died with no afterlife.

Therefore, according to the bible, God doesn't exist.

When you think about it, this explains so much.  Within the scope of the bible, it tells us why Jesus 2.0 fell somewhat short of godlike omniscience, actually having to ask why anyone would doubt that he's the same person who was just brutally murdered.  (Luke 24:38)  It explains why, aside from the occasional disembodied voice that only believers could hear for some reason, God never appeared or acted after the sacrifice.  In Acts of the Apostles 1-14, angels always acted in God's place.  Is it really more plausible that God still existed, but he was always busy?  He had a little too much on his plate, so he had to delegate?

It also explains some current observations, like the fact that Jesus has never returned as predicted.  It tells why God is credited with all those spectacular, unmistakable miracles in biblical times but has no noticeable effect today.  It even gives us an explanation for ghost sightings: there's nobody to admit them into heaven.

I wish I could say I figured it all out first, but I think Nietzsche beat me to it.  Still, at least I can do my part by spreading the good word.  In fact, since the bible is already famous for being revised and edited throughout history, I'll go ahead and add a new chapter to the bible.  Don't worry, it's only three verses:

:bulletred: There's probably no God. (Dawkins 1:1)
:bulletred: But if there is a higher power worth worshiping, he/she/it/they wouldn't want you to squander your life on fairy tales that don't even have happy endings. (Dawkins 1:2)
:bulletred: So stop reading this and enjoy your life. (Dawkins 1:3)
© 2012 - 2019 BatmanWithBunnyEars
If Christians can get away with their creative interpretations of the bible, I can do this. Don’t worry if my claims don’t make sense to you – in a religion whose deity sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself, making sense isn’t a high priority anyway.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Sign In
Buddy--Robinson's avatar
Buddy--RobinsonHobbyist Traditional Artist
I'm afraid Neverland doesn't exist either, yet many people believe in it.  It brings joy to so many, surely something that unites the hearts of so many people to brotherhood and peace, to love others like you love yourself must have a reason, and must account for something, in the grand scheme of things, whatever that is, the smallest belief is probably worth more that we chock it up to be.

Enjoy your life, it's worth it. 
Buddy--Robinson's avatar
Buddy--RobinsonHobbyist Traditional Artist
Cool stuff. Jesus loves you! 
tsadeviant's avatar
- The Bible is plain that non-believers spend eternity in hell. They aren't destroyed. 

Revelation 20:10- "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Revelation 21:8-But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

-God became a man to take the penalty for sin, so humans wouldn't have to. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death" meaning the result of sin is death, hence the term "born-again". Jesus descended into hell afterwards to collect those who died believing in a coming Messiah.
The Bible doesn't say a sacrifice means destruction of the entire being. That would negate an immortal soul.

-Animals do appear to have souls. The original hebrew version of Genesis implies animals have souls although they aren't identical to humans as humans are made in the image of God. Genesis says both humans and animals were given the "breath of life" - רוח (Ruach), meaning wind, breath or spirit - it's also translated as soul. The greek counterpart is πνεῦμα (pneuma). This is where get words like pneumonia.

TanyaSkunkTailsVA's avatar
TanyaSkunkTailsVAHobbyist General Artist
He rose again
Tazunee's avatar
TazuneeHobbyist Writer
so, by chance, I say by chance, but perhaps it is not by chance that I have stumbled across your writing and I must say that what I have said has attracted my attention.

I am sincere when I say that I did not go to check if the verses you mentioned in your speech are corresponding,
as I tell you that I do not remember them by heart,
but the point of the question is not this
in fact it is:
I agree with your thinking when you say there is a lot of confusion
in what men should represent and give certainty, but this only confuses humanity.

In fact, this is what I also think, that is, there is a deliberate plan, appropriately designed to create and keep confusion, but not only!
there is an abuse that has lasted for millennia, which deliberately exploits the feelings of the human soul, exploits the weaknesses of people and the faith that people send in this god who is first presented as an exterminator
thirsty for blood, and money, jealous and vindictive towards his own believers who are his creatures, in short, a tyrant to be terrified of.

Then, in a second time (in the New Testament) in the coming of Jesus,
he is expressed as a god of love and mercy, who before (in the old testament)  forbade the sick and crippled to enter the Tent or the temple, to worship him,

but then, he himself touches the lepers, heals the lame,
talk to sinners, and even allow women to speak! and sit at the table with him!
And finally, he accuses the priests of having made the temple a cave of thieves!

There really is to go in confusion!

because many people who for years have been raised with laws that are said to have been dictated by God, (which I do not believe)
and then they are seen to arrive to one who by the prophecy is the son of God
but they mistake him for an heir to the King David house,
and while they think that he will make them victorious in the kingdom of God
so they think they will become powerful
instead he preaches to turn the other cheek, and gives forgiveness to everyone,
and he says that he is the new law and that the law of Moses is no longer valid
and you do not have to follow anymore

it's normal that you go in confusion!

Then, returning for a moment to the old testament, in the ten commandments that is said that God gave to Moses,
one of them says: do not kill!

But! how come then these to conquer a city they start to murder everyone, including the newborns!
Why did they stone women, only because of suspicion!
Why do newborns kill if they're female !?
Is there something wrong with these murders, where were they written that could be done?

Perhaps the tables were small and there was no writing and then these things have added to memory, as the small clauses in the documents that represent the rip-off when you realize it late ...

But I still have to ask myself:
How can a righteous god, who with love, create his creatures, command, to men to kill his creatures?

I just do not understand this ...

However I am going very far, what I would like to say is that in reality I believe in God, a Creator God, who as such loves his creatures
what I do not believe is what some men wrote about him, turning this in their favor, but making it clear that it was for God that this was done.
Same thing that happens now, that is someone makes profits using the name of Jesus, asserting that it acts in its name, this I find it a horrible blasphemy.

What I believe is that every person should rely on his own intelligence as regards finding the truth, and act according to his own conscience, when he does his own actions towards himself and towards his neighbor
so we would all be fine and in the world we would live better with a lot of harmony.

Bye! :)
Brain-Dancer's avatar
Brain-DancerHobbyist Writer
Seeking truth will answer many questions.  Seeking affirmation for a conviction you already hold will just get you confused.

I never wondered how mankind could doubt the existence of God, especially in our hedonistic society.  It makes logical sense to negate the concept of an absolute authority if you only want to answer to yourself.  That is also why religion fails.  It is a replacement for God by usurping the name of God.
What you have here is a lot of suppositions that fail not only literary scrutiny but logic as well.  You have taken excerpts and asserted false premises.  Something my logic professor said was a no-no.

This is a common error when people are challenging the validity of the existence of God.  It is like someone saying that you don't exist and to prove it, they change the address of your house or edit your social security number.  Your family and friends insist that you are real but others point out the contradictions in your information and assume that you are a fictitious character.  Even as you arrive, they insist that your information doesn't match their facts, no matter what you or anyone else says.

Don't laugh, it has happened.

People are opinionated and self-appeasing.  Threatened by the concept of a higher being's existence, because we trust in our own limited intellect, we flail against concepts such as faith not realizing it takes more faith to trust in Dawkins and others that think their concepts are the one true 'god'.  That men, such as we, who don't even understand the simplest mechanisms of life, state that we are the highest form there is.

Evolution is still an unproven theory no matter how you look at it.

Christianity is filled with flawed people for sure and I'm one of them.  Being a believer and a studier of the Bible has improved my life.  Before I wouldn't have hesitated to beat or rob you.  I was bitter and angry and for what society would call, good reasons.

People ruin other peoples lives because they seek to dictate and hold sway over others.  Ultimately we ruin ourselves when we trust the words of men and don't test to see if they are the truth.

The Bible says for us to question, seek, judge, not people but circumstances and pretenses.

Still, the ones who say there is no god, are also implying that they know this to be true.... how?

Such can only be called... arrogance. Indeed I'm Arrogant... 
Asaroe's avatar
God doesn't exist. Never has. The bible was written by dumb people and is sprinkled with translation errors that sometimes destroyed people's lives. End of story.
Brain-Dancer's avatar
Brain-DancerHobbyist Writer
Yep for you... end of story.

No doubt.
Asaroe's avatar
Look, I don't doubt that there is an entity higher than everything that lives on earth. Call it god, call it aliens. But the old man in the sky who looks down judgingly doesn't exist, and even if he does, if he wrote the fucking bible, he can go screw himself.
Brain-Dancer's avatar
Brain-DancerHobbyist Writer
A bit arrogant are we?

You write as though you're angry about something and you're focusing it on your perception of God.

The Bible never depicts God as some old man, woman or human at all, in the sky or any place we could identify.  

This misnomer was contrived in folklore and pagan mythology.

Most people with a grudge never have read the Bible thoroughly, but go off of hearsay rather than look for truth.

That way they feel justified in their rantings and in ignorance curse celestial beings that are greater than themselves.

In our society overall, however, people are taught to be cynical, manipulative, coarse and yes, prideful. 

We live with myopic viewpoints and pretend indifference to those who would batter down the weak walls of ur conceited castles.

It's your prerogative to believe what you will because it's part of Free Will.

But to lambast the beliefs of others is not cool.

Many people find solace, hope, and joy in their beliefs, doing good actually for those around them. 

You would lump them in with the tyrannical, debaucherous and arrogant that sees belief as a tool to control and manipulate others.

A good rule of thumb is live and let live.  Share if asked, make a decision, keep questioning and looking.
Asaroe's avatar
See, that's my problem with most Christians. They justify their actions with the fucking bible. I don't care if you believe in god, but if you truly want to do everything the bible says, and push it on others, just because of some god, then you have a problem.
LunerEclipsed's avatar
LunerEclipsedStudent Digital Artist
I’m not most Christians. You’re being a bully and putting us into stereotypes! Of course there are bad people but that doesn’t include one religion. I know you said “most” but that still sounds like the entire lot. I may believe in one thing but that doesn’t mean i’ll push my opinion into another person’s face! How dare you. And don’t say that i’m like most Christians since Panesbian (Pansexual+Lesbian) and will defend another person from another religion anyway so stop.
Brain-Dancer's avatar
Brain-DancerHobbyist Writer
What you're saying is take away the foundation because I have no problem with the building.

I don't know why you have an issue with the Bible, but it seems a bit extreme.

Again, your choice to read or not read.

Likewise, your choice to listen or don't listen.

Someone pushes, what's wrong with walking away?
J-McKeon's avatar
J-McKeonStudent Filmographer
KatieJackson138's avatar
KatieJackson138Hobbyist General Artist
This also could be very bad continuity errors in the bible itself. Not saying you're wrong or anything, but no one is perfect, including the people who wrote the bible anyway.
Midnight-Synesthesia's avatar
I think that your interpretation is wrong however I do respect it.  There are many people that call themselves a Christian and it actually makes people that follow the path look stupid.  I apologize for that.
DynamicSynthesism's avatar
First let me say that I'm not particularly religious, and that I don't even believe that the Bible is the literal word of god. But I'm sorry, but I have to say that your logic is still very deeply flawed. Looking at your argument premise by premise:

1) your assertion that there is a contradiction here isn't sound. I believe it's quite obvious that the references which state that everyone is to be responsible for their own transgressions are talking expressly about humans... not God or gods or rabbits or clumps of dirt, etc. Thus, the later reference that Jesus (i.e. God) died for our sins has no logical bearing on that verse, or vice versa.
2) This is arguably accurate
3) This is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY FALSE. A sacrifice can be anything. If I give a woman my seat on the bus, that's a sacrifice that I made for her comfort. It certainly doesn't need to involve me dying (unless her jealous husband decides to shoot me) let alone the obliteration of my soul. Yes, some types of sacrifices can involve death--but there isn't any suggestion anywhere (in or out of the bible) that this is the only meaning of the word. That has never been the case. Not in the past and not now. 
   Jesus' sacrifice on the cross had nothing to do with dying. The human form of Jesus's body would have died eventually anyway--just as all human bodies do. His sacrifice had to do with the pain of taking the sins of the world upon himself--as I believe is made amply clear in numerous passages. God is said to be completely pure and free of sin. Being in the presence of sin causes him mental discomfort. So taking on the sins of everyone--so that they could be forgiven was his sacrifice. Not death and certainly not the obliteration of his soul.
   (3a) and (3b) are logically inert statements that do not work with (3c) to create a logical conclusion. And the quote of Mathew has virtually nothing at all to do with any of three sub-premises. As I understand it, the verse is simply saying, don't fear men, fear the devil. Or perhaps, more literally, fear the kind of evil that can get you sent to hell. The bible does not explicitly or implicitly or in any other way define [sacrifice] as the destruction of the whole being, including the soul. It uses the word sacrifice (in some places) in one of the senses that can mean death. And it may also create a similar analogous reference to the soul. I think you would be hard pressed to argue convincingly that these references are intended to be taken literally. But in any case, the way such a reference is used in one (or even many) places in the bible does NOT define how the word MUST be interpreted in every place in the bible. That would be like saying that because I refer to the word [store] in such a way that it is obviously a big building where people sell things... that when I say [I store up knowledge] that I must mean that I buy knowledge from some big building.
   Your conclusion is no less absurd. 
   Moreover, given that your premises and conclusion are ridiculous, your statements about these flawed conclusions are also absurd. Even if your conclusion were sound, it would not really explain some of the things you say it explains--because, quite frankly there isn't anything to explain. When Jesus asks a question, it isn't an indication that he lacks knowledge. Have you never heard of a rhetorical question? He is asking his question to make the person he is asking think. Not to express ignorance.
   Your argument about God never 'acting' after Jesus dies on the cross is actually rather interesting--and probably your cleverest point, by far. However, it is also deeply flawed. There is a clear pattern in the bible, from the Old Testament to the New--Where God becomes increasingly less and less involved in peoples lives. Even in the Old Testament, people typically didn't see God, they saw his (figurative?) finger, or a burning bush or an angel, or they heard his voice, etc. By the New testament, God never is seen. Angels come to visit Mary--not God. And, as you yourself note, these angels continue to visit people after Jesus dies--so there really isn't ANY discernible difference which is delineated by the death of Jesus. What we see shortly after his death is exactly the same as what we saw shortly before his death.
   Your argument that Jesus hasn't returned is also very weak. Just because I say at 9 AM that I'll return later today and I haven't returned by 2 PM doesn't mean that I'm not going to return. And the fact that someone who IS going to return hasn't returned yet is no argument at all--and requires no explanation.
   Your comments about God no longer doing spectacular things has a certain measure of truth. As mentioned above, in the Old Testiment God is  credited with doing some pretty spectacular things. But (other than Jesus) by the New Testament, most of the flashier miracles (and Godly actions) have long since disappeared. No more floods. No more parting of seas. Few if any healings. And so on. Another point can be made. The bible's miracles, such as they are, happen over hundreds of years. Today, you claim that miracles DON'T happen... but I would have to ask what evidence you base this on. Many Christians will tell you that they've seen God perform miracles in their lives. There are also (rarely believed) accounts of more miraculous things that happen from time to time--such as the statues of Mary that bleed at the eyes. Or the (fairly well documented case) of the whole town that became impervious to injuries. According to the accounts of many reputable witnesses, these people could have their bodies beaten with a sledgehammer and suffer no damage. Then there are the many miraculous phenomena which are now typically associated with the occult. And so forth and so on. You may not have first had knowledge of these various miracles, but I don't think you can accurately say that you KNOW that miracles don't happen either. That's simply an assumption from your extremely limited perspective.
   Your comments on ghost sightings is also clever and humorous... but I don't think it really needs to be rebutted, given all I've already said.

   Having said all this, let me acknowledge that you are correct about the various books of the bible having been redacted throughout history. Moreover, these books were clearly written by various men with very different objectives--some of which distinctly clash with the views of other authors. These facts make your attempts to reduce these various points to premise points in a logical argument even more pointless--since what one book says may have absolutely no logical bearing on anything that is said in another book.
   Given this, you would have far greater success arguing that the Bible is not "word-for-word" the word of God. I think there is an overwhelming abundance of biblical evidence for this conclusion--although I won't go into the actual making of those arguments. The bible does, on many occasions, contradict itself. And there are numerous other anomalous problems with assuming it is the exact words of God--even if you allow that those words are being filtered through the hearts and minds of men. Unless you acknowledge that this means, those men's personal opinions tainted and changed those words, making them less than entirely reliable.
   This, however, does nothing to invalidate the possibility that the Bible may have been INSPIRED by God; or the possibility that it may very well have a great deal of value with respect to informing and guiding the lives of men.
   Personally, I don't think any conclusive evidence can be provided one way or the other.
kenna20's avatar
kenna20Student Writer
Hah i enjoyed this xD 

The bible do seem to counter itself quite alot.
Starluscious's avatar
Starluscious General Artist
Circular logic you've instilled with a pinch of sarcastic bitter retorts and mocking scoffing. And you think God will applaud you in heaven for putting down His Word, and His creation?
CeaciliaSolo's avatar
CeaciliaSoloHobbyist General Artist
God exists in full. You can look outside at the clouds and see that there's a God.
Jesus was apart of the trinity, he sacrificed himself. God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Jesus laid himself down. 
I don't know where you guys get this stuff, but if we are evolved from monkeys, and cells, who created the cell and the monkey. 
Instead of putting so much time into proving that God isn't existant, look and try to see why he is real.
Philhellenike's avatar
PhilhellenikeHobbyist General Artist
I fully support hilarious interpretations of the Bible for the purposes of pointing out how little many people actually know about the Bible. 
However, you're wrong. Also the last bit of your description is wrong.  
They say half of storytelling is prepositions, and the Bible may just be the world's best example of that. You see, a lot of theological idiocy has resulted from the misinterpretation of a single three-letter Greek word: γαρ. It means "for". Paul says "Jesus died for our sins". But this could mean one of several things. It could mean "Jesus died in order to appease God because we had sinned", which as you pointed out doesn't make a whole lot of sense if Jesus is God. This isn't actually what most Christians believe though, but it's what most people assume this phrase means when they see it.  It could also mean "Jesus was offered to <insert personification of evil here> instead of us" which is actually the traditional interpretation (called substitutionary salvation). This is what you often see depicted in Renaissance art for example. Or it could mean "Jesus died because of our sins" i.e. because we are bad people a person who was beautiful and pure and innocent was killed. This is the interpretation that most progressive protestants (such as myself) favor. Since we don't believe in Hell and the idea of eternal punishment for the wicked (which, as you might have noticed, is not actually in the Bible). 
The whole point of this book is to record the deeds of God. The Bible neither proves the existence of God, nor defines just what God is: which would be the necessary first step for proving God's existence (or nonexistence). It exists to inspire it's readers to get to know God. Unfortunately few people can be bothered.  Certainly however the Bible does not suggest that God doesn't exist, even indirectly. The Bible is a collection of texts from many different time periods written by people with contradictory goals and motivations, which hasn't even featured the same set of texts for most of it's history. It has a few inconsistencies, though fewer than you'd think given this strange backstory. 
AnOddRose's avatar
AnOddRoseStudent Traditional Artist
You don't believe in Hell?
DynamicSynthesism's avatar
Nice logical presentation. Focusing on just the various possible meanings of the single word 'for' demonstrates just how lacking in logical integrity the original arguments were.
Well played.
pierro-studio's avatar
pierro-studioStudent Writer
That part where sacrificing destroys the soul and everything is utter nonsense. It is simply forbidden because God doesn't want people to be killed for him ("you shall not kill", I don't have the exact verses, but it's in the 10 commandments).

The ones that destroys the body and the soul are the sins. That's it.

So now that 3rd point is in the trash, everything is indeed right, but the point is not made.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Sign In
©2019 DeviantArt
All Rights reserved