But instead, with “The Book of Eli,” that is what we get: Violence. Post-apocalyptic violence justified by the Bible. “Some will kill to have it. He will kill to protect it.” Killing and violence justified simply for the sake of religion.

The question is thus begged: How far should you go to advance your beliefs? What violence should you enact to defend your faith? How important is faith (knowledge in the absence of evidence) in enacting violence? How far from this story do we find crusading knights, the Spanish Inquisition, doomsday cults, Islamic terrorists, and anti-abortion assassins? If the Bible is meant to be a book of peace, “The Book of Eli” seems a bit hypocritical.

Perhaps I’m the only one that sees some measure of irony in that the article upon which the world will be resurrected after succumbing to its self-destructive impulses, is the very same article which has already caused so much needless and senseless violence and suffering. It doesn’t matter if the holy tome is the Bible, the Q’uran, or the Torah. The best thing that could happen to humanity in a post-apocalyptic world is to finally be free of the institutionalized ignorance of religion

I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why Lombard allows the Bible to be included in the repository of all pre-war knowledge. Because, simply put, the BIble contains no knowledge. There is no science, there is no knowledge or information which cannot be gleaned from other sources without having to wade through all of the religious drivel.

What religion can survive the criticism it would level against another religion?

In order for a religion to “prove” itself—in order for a religion to disprove its competitors—it must undertake a criticism of other religions. Christianity is not intellectually compatible with Judaism, and vice-versa. Thus, to win converts, Christianity must disprove the claims of Judaism, and vice-versa. And the same is true for Muslims. And Hindus.

How, therefore, does any religion disprove another while at the same time proving their own religion?

It’s an absurd conundrum, because every religion suffers from the same critical flaw—none of them have any proof.

Your “truth” is self-delusion. You reject any rationale that leads to a contrary conclusion that the bible may not be truth and that god may not exist.

Your “love” is a coin into the vending machine of redemption. The purpose of “saving souls” is to save yourself.

Your god is the stillborn idea of a primitive mind. Insofar as primitive minds could not understand the workings of the natural world, the explanation of a mythical god was sufficient to assuage the human fear of the unknown.

Your god is a comical, simplistic caricature of the worst aspects of human nature. This is the god that embodies pettiness, egotism, pride, and jealousy by reserving his most vengeful wrath for those who don’t believe in him or would speak ill of him. This is the god that demands daily worship. This is the god that demands offerings. This is the god that is greedy to want more souls, more belief, more supplication.

Your god is an excuse for you to treat your fellow man with inhumanity. Man’s inhumanity to man is somehow justified when one can find a rationalization within the pages of whatever dusty script one calls “holy.”

“‘Do not flatter your benefactor.’ Say this in a church and it immediately clears the air of everything Christian.” –F.W. Nietzsche, Die Fröliche Wissenschaft

Yes, your God.