THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT OF GODS:

Why does an all-loving God allow evil and suffering? In the philosophy of religion, this paradox is known as the Problem of Evil. It frequently serves as the primary justification for skepticism regarding the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity.
“The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omnipotent (all-powerful). Before He created the world, He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it. It is useless to argue that the pain in the world is due to sin. First, this is not true; it is not sin that causes rivers to overflow their banks or volcanoes to erupt. But even if it were true, it would make no difference.
If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man. The usual Christian argument is that the suffering in the world is a purification for sin and is therefore a good thing.
This argument is, of course, only a rationalization of sadism, and in any case, it is a very poor one. I would invite any Christian to accompany me to the children's ward of a hospital, to watch the suffering that is there being endured, and then to persist in the assertion that those children are so morally abandoned as to deserve what they are suffering. In order to bring himself to say this, a man must destroy in himself all feelings of mercy and compassion. He must, in short, make himself as cruel as the God in whom he believes. No man who believes that all is for the best in this suffering world can keep his ethical values unimpaired, since he is always having to find excuses for pain and misery.”
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? (1930)
Background: The Problem of Evil
In the philosophy of religion, the Problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). The existence of evil seems to be incompatible with such a God. The Problem of evil is generally formulated in two forms: the Logical problem of evil and the Evidential problem of evil. The logical form of the argument attempts to illustrate the logical impossibility of the coexistence of God and evil, while the evidential form attempts to illustrate that, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God. It is then generally concluded that a deity with these attributes does not exist.
Logical problem of evil presented:
• P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
• P2. There is evil in the world.
• C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god DOES NOT EXIST.
Evidential problem of evil presented:
• P1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
• P2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
• C3. (Therefore) There DOES NOT EXIST an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good god.
A third form of the Problem of evil, the Experiential problem of evil, is the difficulty of believing in a concept of a loving God when confronted with evil and suffering in the real world, such as epidemics, wars, murder, and natural disasters, in which innocent people become victims. The problem of evil has been extended to non-human life forms, to include animal suffering from natural evils, such as predation and disease, and human cruelty against them.
The suffering of African children in the Congo under the rule of King Leopold II was part of one of the most brutal colonial regimes in modern history.
Below are historically grounded visual references from that era, followed by a concise narrative that places their experience in context.
Children in the Congo Free State (c. 1885–1908)
Historical narrative
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Congo Free State—personally controlled by King Leopold II of Belgium—became the site of forced labor, mass violence, and widespread famine tied to the global demand for rubber. Entire villages were compelled to meet extraction quotas under threat of mutilation, hostage-taking, or death.
Children were especially vulnerable. Many were separated from parents held as hostages to guarantee rubber production; others suffered malnutrition, disease, and displacement as communities collapsed under coercion. Missionary and diplomatic reports from the period describe villages emptied of men, families torn apart, and young people growing up amid fear and deprivation.
Modern historians estimate that millions of Congolese people died during Leopold’s rule—through killings, starvation, exhaustion, and epidemic disease—making the Congo Free State one of the clearest documented cases of large-scale colonial atrocity. International outrage eventually forced Belgium to remove the territory from Leopold’s personal control in 1908, though the human toll could never be undone.

The Bible: A Patchwork of Primitive Thought, Not Divine Revelation

Let’s begin with the claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. That assertion collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, inconsistencies, and historical revisionism. The Bible, as it stands today, is not the pristine voice of a divine being—but a human document shaped by centuries of political agendas, mistranslations, and mythological thinking.

1. Authorship: Ignorance Mistaken for Inspiration
The Bible was written by tribal men—farmers, fishermen, and priests—living in the Bronze and Iron Ages, not by people with any access to divine omniscience. These authors knew nothing of microbes, galaxies, or democracy. They believed the earth was flat (Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1), that diseases were caused by demons (Mark 5:1–13), and that women were the property of men (Exodus 20:17, Numbers 31:18). Such views are not merely outdated; they are dangerous when misapplied to modern ethical dilemmas. 

2. Translation and Transmission Errors
Let’s follow the paper trail: the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It has been translated into Latin (Vulgate), then into English, German, and countless other languages. With each translation, idioms shift, meanings change, and editorial choices introduce bias. Even the King James Version—revered by many—was authorized not by God, but by King James I of England in 1611, a monarch with political motivations and a desire to unify religious factions.

How accurate can a text be when something as basic as the word “virgin” (Hebrew almah, meaning “young woman”) gets mistranslated into parthenos in Greek, creating the whole Virgin Birth narrative (Isaiah 7:14 vs. Matthew 1:23)? That’s not inspiration—that’s poor translation. 

3. Editorial Manipulation
The Bible is not one book. It's 66 (or 73 in the Catholic version), cobbled together over centuries by councils of bishops who voted on what to include and exclude. The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and later councils played gatekeeper roles. Books like the Gospel of Thomas, Book of Enoch, and Shepherd of Hermas were excluded not because they were false, but because they were inconvenient to the emerging orthodoxy. Divine truth doesn’t require a vote.

Moreover, key texts have been edited. For example, the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) are not found in the earliest manuscripts. These were later insertions, yet they’re cited as sacred truth. 

4. Contradictory and Confusing Metaphors
When something makes no sense, apologists say it's “metaphorical.” But which metaphors are we to take seriously, and which are symbolic? Is Hell a literal lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15) or a metaphor for separation from God? Did the Earth stand still in Joshua 10:13, or was that poetic language? The flexibility of metaphor makes the text a Rorschach test: it says whatever the reader wants it to say.

Hence, for every interpretation, there’s a contradiction. God is loving (1 John 4:8), yet demands genocide (1 Samuel 15:3). Jesus says to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), yet speaks of eternal punishment for those who don’t believe (Matthew 25:41). Truth doesn’t contradict itself. Dogma does.

5. Outdated Moral Framework
Let’s not pretend Bronze Age ethics are timeless. The Bible condones slavery (Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5), child sacrifice (Judges 11:30–39), and genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). It punishes rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:28–29) and condemns entire populations for the actions of their ancestors (Exodus 20:5). This is not morality—it’s the law of the jungle dressed in holy robes. 

6. Conclusion: Obsolete by Design
The Bible is not just obsolete—it was never equipped to serve as a universal guide to human behavior, science, or governance. Its relevance fades with every medical breakthrough, scientific discovery, and moral awakening.

To say the Bible is divinely authored is to insult divinity. No all-knowing being would endorse slavery, demand blood sacrifices, or obscure truth in ambiguous parables. The Bible is not misinterpreted. It is simply mistaken. It is a historical artifact—valuable for understanding the past but no more divine than the Epic of Gilgamesh or The Iliad.

Let us move forward—not in denial of the past—but in recognition that humanity’s moral compass must be guided by reason, empathy, and evidence, not ancient men's confused and contradictory writings. Ultimately, Claims made without proof can be rejected without proof. For if no evidence is needed to make a claim, none is needed to dismiss it.

If the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?

Mike Van Allen    

 If there were Gods, they would have to beg my forgiveness. But I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other 4,176 false gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent. If it is able, but not willing? Then it is malevolent. If it is both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If it is neither able nor willing? Then why call it God? If every trace of every religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true, and mankind would figure it all out again. I don't believe in life after death, but I do believe in life before death. I don’t believe in any gods/devils, religions/cults, angels/demons, heaven/hell or afterlife, blessings/curses, any powers in prayers, voodoo, spells, jinxes, wishes, miracles, superstitions, karma, witches, magic, ghosts, goblins, Santa Claus, Easter bunnies, zombies, vampires, fairy tales, myths, astrology, fortune telling, Ouija boards, prophecy, clairvoyance, fate, luck, witchcraft, crystals, the supernatural, unicorns, destiny, or the concept that everything happens for a reason. However, my life is not void of beliefs. I believe in using logic and reason. I also believe that most people like myself are curious and have a sincere interest in wanting to know their life's purpose, the origins of the universe, and the identity of a moral compass, or any sort of "rule book" to live by - if any of these things should exist. I believe that people enjoy stories, entertain theories and tend to hold onto the ones that work for them. I for one enjoy human psychology and philosophy. But I also believe people tell stories that are not true and these untrue stories are passed down and believed for generations. I do have beliefs. I believe that people have a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect their mood, thinking and behavior such as depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors and any of these mental health conditions can lead to interesting stories to be believed by generations to come. I believe that people lie, misrepresent and honestly misinterpret things. I believe that people have fantasies, dreams, hallucinations, see mirages and have financial incentives and huge egos that can sometimes take on a life of their own. I do believe - that before video recordings and other technologies - people thought they observed events that never happened, which partially explains why we stopped getting new miracles. I also believe in the power of peer-pressure, group thinking, home training, the strong emotional desire of wanting to belong, religious training, miseducation, brainwashing, propaganda, socialization, tribalism, and the sheer wish that something was true. People have various cognitive biases such as "confirmation bias" and "conservatism bias," or the "commitment effect" - just to name three or twenty kinds of common biases. Most people inherit their beliefs from their less informed parents. It's not a coincidence that your gods have the same name as your maternal grandma's gods, or that Jehovah's Witnesses (such as my maternal grandmother) don't suddenly sprout out of Muslim countries. I do find it particularly strange that as science and technology advances, science is never informed by religion, but religion continues to be unsubstantiated by science. The earth is older than 9 thousand years, actually it closer to 4.5 billion years old. The bible hasn't told us anything that has later been confirmed by science. We never got a cure for disease from the bible. We have found dinosaur's fossils going back 240 million years but not a single plank from Noah’s Ark, or evidence confirming any of the other holy stories. We were told God created the heavens and earth, but apparently God failed to inform the farmers that the earth was the third planet from the sun, or we had other galaxies besides the Milky Way. I believe that people will accept a fictional explanation as an answer to significant questions of life's purpose and its beginnings, as opposed to accepting that we simply don't know. I share Donald Trump's belief that most people are gullible, and the human psyche is limited and predictable. Ignorance, jealousy, hate, fear, and tribalism are pervasive. Selfishness, greed and apathy will ultimately be the cause of our Armageddon. Thus, hope for mankind is not love, but a cultural transformation, and we scientists don't know how to do that. Holy books were literally handed to future believers, and many believers never even read their own holy book completely nor the opposing holy books to compare and contrast. Even if there were gods, until they made themselves known to me, it wouldn't be consequential for me. There is an inverse relationship between peoples' reading materials and the strength of their religious convictions. The lower the scientific literacy levels and the less diverse the reading materials are, the stronger and narrower their religious conviction tend to be. I try to base my conclusions using math, logic, facts, and reason, not emotional wishful thinking. So, I'm an agnostic-atheist! It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled, and I accept science, and mathematics as fact and it informs my lifestyle and decisions that I make such as dieting and exercise as just two examples. I accept conclusions that are peer-reviewed, science-based, evidence-based and reached through deductive and inductive reasoning. I accept the general theory of relativity. I accept that the universe can endlessly expand and contract, I also accept evolution, and natural selection but, I am willing to denounce each of my beliefs as soon as I have contradictory evidence, and I will not be ashamed of myself for having had those past beliefs, making my discarding them all the easier. Some questions theist must answer. If an omniscient omnipotent, perfect being is the mastermind behind the bible, why does the book reflect only the culture, science, history, literature, technology, morals and values of the era in which it was written? Why does it have so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies? Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is faith required? Why is God hidden? Why are there natural disasters? Why are there so many starving people in our world? Only in an alternative reality can you be silent on: the death, war, nuclear weapons, and torture, or passive on racism, healthcare and feeding the poor and hungry, environmental issues and still think of yourself as moral and Pro-life. Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but they exhibit anger, hate, jealousy, wrath, and vengeance, and constantly in need praise and worship then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what denomination, or kind of Christianity you profess; there are still only two types: one is the member of a Christian religion, and the other is someone who is actively living like Jesus. (Matthew 25:45) Which one are you? Me? I do unto others as they would want done to them and/or as I would want them do unto me. I work to live a healthy and happy life while continuing to make the world a more habitable place for all. I preach the gospel but I only use words when absolutely necessary.     

One of the many flaws of the God story is that he has an absolute plan for everything but punishes people for their actions as part of that plan. That's just plain evil. 

     Does truth really exist? On one hand, arguably there is no one single truth but subjective personal and political truths.  Conceivably, there is only perception, which speaks to a profound philosophical view on the nature of reality and human understanding. What we often consider to be "truth" is, in reality, subjective and shaped by individual perspectives. This idea aligns with a broader existential or relativistic outlook, where objective truths are elusive or non-existent because each person's experience and interpretation of the world is inherently unique. In this light, the notion of absolute truths urges us to recognize the power and limitation of our perceptions in constructing reality. This perspective can be both liberating and disorienting; it liberates us from rigid, dogmatic thinking but also confronts us with the uncertainty and variability of human experience. Realism in literature underscores how fiction and narrative reflect this very subjectivity, where a single, overarching truth does not bind characters and events but are instead a tapestry of individual perceptions, each with its own validity.

     Then, on the other hand, there is objective truth, grounded in science—truths that are immutable and indisputable, no matter who you are or what you believe. Whether you’re rich or poor, young or old, religious or secular, these truths remain the same. They transcend race, creed, education, and status. Take, for example, the simple fact that 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't matter if you are a Taliban fighter, a Tamil Tiger militant, Pope Francis, or the Saudi Crown Prince—1 + 1 will still equal 2. You can add it in the morning, in the afternoon, in Egypt or Poland, whether it's the year 1800 or 2020, and the result will be the same. A slave and a master will reach the same answer, just as a South African grandpa and a 7-year-old Vietnamese girl will agree on the solution.

That is the beauty of objective truth.

     Try building a bridge or a skyscraper with the belief that 1 + 1 equals 3, and see how that goes. Your structure will collapse because reality doesn’t bend to beliefs. Similarly, knowing tomorrow’s temperature will be 40°C in Thailand won’t change the weather. No matter how strongly you believe otherwise, it won't alter the global climate.

     And if you were to jump off the Empire State Building, gravity would take you down just the same, regardless of what deity you worship or how much 'positive thinking' you've been exposed to. The laws of physics don’t care about belief. (Please don’t try this, of course.)

     If God existed, why didn't he kill Satan? Read the Old Testament. God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully but kill satan?? What kind of evil ass MaryPhucker do you think he is? 

     In either event, live a good life. If there are just gods, they will not care how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I never requested that the universe be created. I never asked to be born. I never begged for existence or eternal life. Therefore, why would I owe a deity anything? Some theists tell me that life is a gift from God. If it is a gift, then why is payment expected in the form of worship? It's like getting charged for a service you never ordered. How do I owe anyone anything? 

Even if you had a "perfect" squared box, an imperfect person, with imperfect sight couldn't confirm that it was "perfectly" square with an imperfect measuring device.

My personal aversion to homosexual behavior does not in any way impede my public political, cultural, or social commitment to the full rights and dignity of LGBTQ individuals. Likewise, my public defense of the civil and human rights of Muslims, Christians, and Jews does not negate my personal intellectual and moral rejection of the doctrines of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Skepticism is my nature, freethought is my methodology, agnosticism is my conclusion, atheism is my opinion, and humanitarianism is my motivation.