|
Essays
|
|
Confessions of a Christian Basher
Confessions of a Christian Basher I’ve had another epiphany. Fireworks are lighting up in my brain. These jolts of understanding hit me a lot more often since I realized atheism than they did before that time. I wouldn’t say it necessarily has anything to do with atheism; instead, it has to do with the regular practice of thinking, something I can honestly admit I avoided in the past and the very thing that led to finding myself among the heathen. I suppose I ought to qualify myself–my epiphanies might better be described as "duh" moments because it always turns out my brilliant insight was staring me in the face asking to be noticed, or worse, remembered all along. This time it arrived after a brittle confrontation with a Christian. I was accused, indirectly, of Christian bashing–of ripping people to shreds for their beliefs. I was properly aghast at the charge. Sure, I can be a solid foe once you poke me, but I don’t attack people outright with no provocation. And while I try to be honest about my thoughts and feelings regarding religion, especially Christianity as I know more about that one, I’ve never ripped a person to shreds physically or emotionally. Long ago in that horrid institution known as high school, I learned my lesson. Before this particular incident I remember a few others in which I said or did something on purpose that hurt another person. This time, I was older and wiser and frankly should have known better. I’d like to say it was the fault of the culture, but nah, it was just me being jealous and acting out. I told another girl that my mother disapproved of her as a friend and that I could no longer be hers. My mother had said no such thing. I’d joined a bandwagon of girls unloading on this one, took my turn and for that, cried all the way home. I called her as soon as I arrived there and apologized. I don’t know why I said it and the look on her face when I did told me I’d hurt her. I can’t recall ever doing such a thing again. I don’t like hurting people. I don’t like confronting people. I don’t like having people angry at me. I don’t even like it when people don’t like me. I’m basically a relationship wimp. Part of the reason realizing atheism was hard for me was the subsequent realization that a lot people don’t like atheists very much, to say the least. So, why would someone think of me as an antagonistic, hurtful person now? A Christian basher? Why would someone imagine me thinking to myself, "Why don’t I insult my Christian friend today?" The idea is silly. One would think a person would need a reason to automatically assign injurious motives to another person’s behavior. As far as I can tell, I’m not generally known as a basher in the company I keep; so why did this person assume I meant to hurt her? I’ve heard of this plague of Christian bashing before. I’ve been told that we live in an anti-Christian society. That’s a rather bizarre claim, as there are churches everywhere with their billboards advertising their moral and intellectual superiority with cutesy sayings. They’ve got their God in our Pledge and on our money and in our oaths. Could an atheist get elected president in this anti-Christian climate? Are you out of your mind? According to one poll I read recently, a convicted felon is a better choice for voters than an atheist. Why do some Christians think they’re being bashed all the time? Well, I figured it out. The truth is they aren’t being bashed. Duh. Bashing would be harsh, threatening, or belittling criticism, especially involving personal insult. Bashing Christians would be calling them "stupid" or "idiotic." It might involve large groups of people agreeing in public that Christianity is ridiculous and ought to be wiped out. Certainly telling Christians they should leave the country if they don’t like the way we do things here would qualify. But that’s not what’s been going on. The truth is that those who claim that Christian bashing is a common occurrence are either so sure they’re right about everything or so scared they’re wrong, that questioning or disagreeing with their beliefs is tantamount to a vicious attack. Any sort of humor aimed at their religion is blasphemous vitriol. Their beliefs, and therefore they themselves, are venerable and beyond reproach. They can attack you, mind you, and they do so with gusto and quite a bit of self-righteous snobbery. But do not dare stand up for yourself, or worse, demand respect by going against what they’ve stated as fact. That’s Christian bashing! And if you’re an atheist you don’t have to say or do anything to bash a Christian–apparently just being you will do the trick. Granted, I’ve gone so far as to not only declare my atheism (Effrontery!), but write a book about it (Slamming!), run a website about it (Knocking!), and regularly write letters to editors concerning separation of state and church (Bullying!). This is all, apparently, purposeful Christian bashing. When Christians do these things it’s out of love and concern for our nation and their fellow man. When I do it, it’s ripping people to shreds for their beliefs. Knowing what I am and what I do, a Christian can take virtually anything I say, especially as regards religion, as bashing. Me: What’s up with the Pope, eh? Christian: How dare you impose your non-values on me! Me: The Christian Right has taken over the Republican party. Christian: Stop ripping me to shreds because of my beliefs! I don’t like upsetting people. I wish I could stop all this bashing. But, I fear the only other option is to agree with everything Christians say. I’ve never been a good candidate for Stepford so I guess I’ll have to learn to embrace this new label. I’m doing well so far, I think, as this entire essay has been one long example of Christian bashing. Hey, when you find something you’re good at, you ought to stick with it.
Something really riles me about chain letters propagating nonsense, defended as truth, unquestioned by people too lazy (or more likely too apathetic) to find out the truth. I received such an email a short time ago called, Did You Know? In this missive, lies and half-truths were mindlessly copied from another website (can't say which one as it appears to be everywhere) and passed on as if they prove that we are a Christian nation. Well, I had to do something about it. So I replied. DID YOU KNOW that the post you copied or forwarded from a religious right website is full of LIES and half-truths meant to further misunderstanding of separation of state and church? YOU SAID: >>>>As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!>>>> THE TRUTH The US Capitol does NOT house the Supreme Court of the United States. The two representations of Moses on the Supreme Court building present him in a context in which he is depicted as merely one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure. This sculpture is on the BACK of the Supreme Court building, so it is NOT what you see walking up the steps to the building which houses the Supreme Court. The sculpture is intended to represent three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by three great lawmakers. You can read the artist's description of the symbolism in his work at the website linked to at the end of this message. The other two lawmakers are NOT facing Moses. They all face forward. The two tablets Moses holds are BLANK. See a picture of this sculpture at the link below. YOU SAID: <<<<<As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.>>>>>> The doors of the Supreme Court building don't literally have the Ten Commandments in each lower portion. The lower portions of the doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets with Roman numerals I-V and VI-X. YOU SAID: >>>>>>>As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! >>>>>>>> The wall "right above where the Supreme Court judges sit" is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze featuring two male figures representing the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government. They are flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right by a group representing Justice. See pictures at the link below. The friezes on the north and south walls (see pics of these also) depict a procession of 18 great law-givers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louix IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon. According to the office of the curator of the Supreme Court, these figures were selected as a representation of SECULAR law. Note that Moses is not given ANY special emphasis in this depiction. Also, the ONLY portions of the Commandments depicted are PARTS of 6-10, chosen because they WERE NOT religious. YOU SAID: >>>>>>>There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.>>>>>>>> THE TRUTH: There are SOME. YOU SAID: >>>>>>>James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.">>>>>>> THE TRUTH: This statement appears NOWHERE in the recorded writings or utterances of James Madison and is completely contradictory to his character as a strong proponent of separation of church and state. This quote was included in a book by apologist Dave Barton who has since admitted he has no source for it. YOU SAID: <<<<<<Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.">>>>>> THE TRUTH: Again, these words appear NOWHERE in the writings and utterances of Patrick Henry. More of Mr. Barton's lies. YOU SAID: >>>>>>Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.>>>>>> THE TRUTH: Congress has indeed retained paid Christian chaplains since 1789 (not 1777); this practice was strongly opposed by James Madison. This practice was challenged in an August 2002 lawsuit by Michael Newdow. Sadly for freedom of conscience in America, he lost his case. YOU SAID: >>>>>>>Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.>>>>> THE TRUTH: The religious diversity of our founders is a complex subject, and can't be neatly encapsulated by a statement as inadequately substantiated such as yours. For more info on this area, see this site: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bjcpa1.htm YOU SAID: >>>>>>Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over many.>>>>>> THE TRUTH: Yes, Jefferson was concerned the courts may overstep their authority and make law as opposed to interpreting it, as was James Madison. But this really has little to do with the subject at hand (the endorsement of Christianity by government) only in so far as the courts interpret the law in opposition to the wishes of the extreme right. YOU SAID: >>>>>The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.">>>> John Jay, one of the Constitution's framers, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He wrote in a private letter: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." YOU SAID: <<<<How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?>>>>>> Well, DID YOU KNOW?
There are about 30 MILLION Americans
who claim no religion?
This post was taken generally
from this site:
Also important for
understanding separation:
The A-Word There was a time in our history when the idea of a woman exposing her midriff sent decent people everywhere into swoons and fits of indignation. Recently the FCC refused to act on complaints about the F-word being broadcast during the Golden Globe awards. We’ve come a long way, baby. So why have I spent the last ten years trying to drag myself out of the closet about who and what I am? It’s that word; the A-word that I refuse to dance around but can’t seem to utter without feeling my cheeks burn. The first time I said the A-word I became flustered and apologized for it. "Yes, sorry, gee whiz, I guess I’m, well, you know, an atheist--but I like Jesus, he’s okay by me!" I often wonder how many atheists live in the world of secrecy and timidity I once called home. Haven’t we all heard the stories of the guy who got his car keyed over the Darwinfish; Peg Downey’s neighborhood posting Decologues in their yards; and children coming home asking Daddy why God is going to punish him for saying he didn’t exist? We’ve read the quips in the paper labeling all the bad guys "atheists," or putting all society’s ills on our nonbelieving backs, or telling us all to just leave the country. We’ve been conditioned to fear being what we are, by people who fear us. We’ve allowed the nervous to keep us quiet, obedient, and docile so that they can continue believing what they believe without having to face the possibility that they could be wrong. But, times change. Anytime you’ve been conditioned to see a behavior as bad, all it takes is a bit of practice to become accustomed to engaging in it. Society has to get used to new things too; but it can’t get used to atheists going around using the A-word in public until we all start doing it. Do you think the first women to wear bikinis didn’t have to put up with some horrified old ladies and closet-lusters screeching about the indignity of it all? Wasn’t this nation going to hell in a handbasket then? But the girls bucked up and wore their suits because they knew what they liked and were proud of it. I went to a writer’s conference recently and sitting at large tables with other writers for two meals, I knew I’d be asked the inevitable question: what do you write? I could have pretended my nonfiction didn’t exist, just said "fiction," and left it at that. But the workshops had plenty of mention of Christianity in them (generally the speakers espousing theirs) and I felt it almost my duty to bring some diversity to the gathering. So, I bucked up, waited for the question and when it came, I said I write about atheism...with no more todo than if I’d said horses. Nobody’s head spun around; nobody grabbed me by the hair, called me Satan’s minion and dragged me from the room. Nobody wanted to talk about my book either, but, well, you can’t have everything. When I went to check out a restaurant for the latest Atheists Meet-up, I knew the person I talked to would want to know what sort of meet-up we were planning in their establishment, so I wasn’t surprised at all to hear the A-word slip out of my mouth. "We’re atheists," I said and then apologized. "But we won’t hang a big sign up or anything." A guy sitting at the counter drinking coffee smiled. I smiled. No one was going to spit up pea soup and levitate. Everything was going to be alright. It’s just a word, just an idea, just a different possibility, that’s all. To many people, the mere existence of atheists is a thorn in their sides. There will always be those who gaze fondly back at the good ole’ days when minorities and women knew their place, kids didn’t pierce their bodies, atheists were evil and good Christians didn’t have to worry about separation of church and state because the various heathens were cowed into silence. Those people won’t like hearing the A-word and may give you a dose of shock and indignation should you choose to utter it. But they can’t stop the growth of religious liberty; they can’t box up all the Pagans and Wiccans and Native American spiritualists and store them in a dark attic. And they can’t stop atheists from daring to suggest, even by merely saying the word, that their god doesn’t exist. So, use the word and use it often. It takes a little practice, I’ll warrant. But, putting it out there and getting it over with does wonders for your self-esteem. The more I use it, the more I can say it without even thinking about it. Sure, I get a few interesting looks, but no one’s burnt a cross on my lawn, thus far. Just give the startled a little reassuring smile, maybe a pat on the arm. After all, you’re culture-jamming their cherished meme; it’s unsettling, but they’ll get over it. After all, times change.
September 25, 2003 You may find it strange that a nonbeliever would spend so much time on the question of religion. I can see where it may appear I am obsessed with it and that might give you cause to think that I am uncomfortable with my lack of belief. Perhaps you might like to assuage your own sense of doubt by assuring yourself that atheists are bothered by religion because deep-down they know that God is there and wants them to believe. But that isn't it. That isn't it at all. There are, actually, many atheists who don't care about the religion issue in so far as it doesn't affect their lives. But I, on the other hand, am very interested in religion and feel it directly affects my life all the time, most often negatively. Thus, my concentration on religion--its history, the question of its validity, its adherents and its influence on society--is spurred not by doubt, but by frustrated curiosity. We are so different. And I felt compelled to know why and how. My interest is borne of my desire for unity and a common purpose with my fellow man. I want to be like everyone else; but I'm not. If I can figure out what makes us different, perhaps I can also discover how we are alike. What made me this way? Why am I, in particular, so curious about what makes us different? I can't say. But we all have our little foibles, don't we? Some of us study psychology, others astronomy, still others the mechanics of car engines. We ought not seek hidden agendas for each person's fascination with oddities of life, such as astrology or spiritualism any more than we would for those who seek to study foreign languages. So lay to rest your notions of God tugging at the thoughts of atheists whenever they delve into the subject of belief. We are very different; that much is obvious. I had to know why. I'm going to be perfectly honest with you here, so, at least finish the next few paragraphs before giving up in disgust or you'll not get the entire picture. There was a brief time, perhaps only lasting a moment or two, I can't remember, after I discovered I was atheist, that I thought perhaps the difference between us was that I was smarter than you. I'd like to explain why because, while it isn't true, I was perfectly reasonable in thinking it for the short time I did. The idea occurred to me because I read the Bible in search of Christianity, thinking the key had to be in that book and all I needed to do was read it to understand why people believed in it. It was in reading the Bible that I got that "aha" moment, when I said to myself: I'm an atheist! And it was the Bible that gave me the idea that I was smarter than believers. You see, the Bible has some very strange stories in it. There are things told of in that book that are hard to believe. And there are things in that book that are impossible to believe. Women weren't made from ribs. Animals don't talk. Fruit doesn't contain knowledge. Atheists aren't vile and wicked. The sun can't stand still. And infinite, omnipotent deities would hardly revel in the smell of burning sacrifices. The list is almost endless--the book (and its god) is so very human. So, I came away from my reading thinking that no intelligent person could possibly believe the Bible was true, divine, or meaningful. Therefore, people who did believe it must be rather stupid. It did not take long for me to see the error in that idea. All I had to do was think about the people I knew who did believe the Bible was, at least mostly, true. Even better, all I had to do was think about people in general. A lot of people aren't very smart, that's true. But a lot of people are reasonably intelligent and still believe the Bible is the inspired word of a god. Some people are very smart and yet still believe in a lot of the Bible stories. So, there went that theory. It's not intelligence that makes me different. There are Christians in the world (probably a lot of them) that are a lot smarter than I am. So, the difference had to be found somewhere else. I concentrated for a long time on learning from Christians. What do they believe? How do they believe? Why do they believe? In debating them, I was able to see where we, pretty much equal in intelligence, parted ways. The differences, I found, lie in how we think about the world. I'm not saying it's all in our world views; on the contrary, that only begs the question: why are our world views different? No, it's in the way I think, the manner in which I engage in thinking, and the things I allow myself to think about. Believers, it seems, practice acceptance. Nonbelievers do not. We all want to have knowledge; but we differ on what we think knowledge is. People who believe in a supernatural realm, gods, astrology, life after death and other equally questionable ideas do not acknowledge the difference between what we can know and what we must believe. That, I think, is the fundamental difference in how we think. I make only one assumption and it is an assumption that I must make. That is the assumption that reality exists. We all make that assumption because we have no choice but to make it. In that respect, I am no different from you. We start at the same axiom: reality exists. From that point, we begin asking questions. Again, we are the same in that we have the same questions: Who am I? What is life? How did we get here? Why are we here? These are natural questions arising from the axiom that reality exists. But where we part ways is in the answering of those questions, of course. The believer engages in belief. He believes an answer; it's a made-up answer, but he does not acknowledge that because doing so would destroy the belief. I do not engage in belief. I know that there are no answers to those questions and, after studying them, realize that some of them are not even appropriate questions. Why do I not engage in belief? Because of the way I think. There are two ways to think. One is the with complete, harsh honesty and the other is as we are taught. When we are taught to think in the usual way, we aren't really taught to think at all; we're taught what to think. When we accept what we've been taught, usually because we've been taught to do so, we engage in parroting, not thought...we deceive ourselves into believing we are thinking; but we've been taught to do so. We've been taught to accept information as if it's knowledge and to parrot it without actually thinking. Many people appear to be thinking, the wheels are turning and the mouth may move; but in reality, they are doing something else that we are taught to do: rationalizing. They are busy creating ways to ignore facts and evidence, or ways to incorporate them without revealing to themselves that their beliefs are incorrect. We are taught to do this and it must have some benefit, psychologically I imagine, or we wouldn't accept it. Somehow, and for some reason, neither of which I am aware at this point, I did not learn to accept completely. I know I was taught to accept because I acted it out for many years as a youth and young adult. But at some point I recognized what I was doing and began to dissect my behavior. I realized I wasn't engaged in actively honest thought. It was when I started truly thinking that I found myself without belief. Total, complete self-honesty is discussed among practitioners of various spiritual beliefs, including Christianity. So, let's be clear that I don't mean to say that people who don't practice it are dishonest; they're not. They just don't engage in complete, total honesty with themselves, or others, about the vast majority of information that passes through their minds. And those of us who do engage in total self-honesty when it comes to reality, aren't immune to self-deception; we may fight against it in some areas, while clinging to it in others. So, you see, we are really not so different after all. If some Christians write articles about this total self-honesty idea, how is it that they are still Christians, if what I say is true? Good question. The biggest difference between you and me is focus. Believers have two categories in their "honest thought file:" questionable and dogmatic. There are some ideas that believers have with regard to which they do not allow total and complete self-honesty. Those ideas are called: beliefs. Beliefs are ideas we have that we have not looked at with total honesty. Because if we did, we would not have them. (Remember, if you have facts, you don't need belief.) Beliefs are passed from one generation to the next, are cherished, fed and cared for; they are shielded from criticism, from question, from honest examination. How do I know this? I examined they way you think and the way I think. You start with the assumption that reality exists, just as I do. But then you go on to assume something else: god. You assume god with no basis, no evidence, no knowledge. You assume god because it answers the questions that you need answers to: who are you? why are you here? This assumption is not warranted. The only assumption warranted is that reality exists. From there, every other determination you make must be based on evidence. When we look for evidence of deity, it can't be found. But you continue to accept the existence of deity because you've been taught that what you feel, what others tell you they feel, and what makes you feel good, are all evidence. Totally honest thought would tell you they are not. Why isn't what you feel meaningful? Because if it is meaningful for you, it must also be meaningful for the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, and the atheist. But you do not accept their feelings with regard to which deity is the correct one, or which method of worship is correct. You do not accept their stories of life-changing miracles as proof of their beliefs. If their feelings are not evidence for their beliefs, then yours are also not evidence of yours. Human feelings are subjective and are not evidence of what is real. Reality is as it is, regardless of what you feel or believe about it. So, we both start at the assumption that reality exists and from there you assume there is a god (your preferred god) while I say, where? Where is this god? You say in your heart. I feel no god in my heart. I experience no god in my life. Why should I believe you and not the Hindu? Why should I believe you and not my own observation? You point to an old book with fine, delicate pages, written in beautiful language and say it is historical truth. You say that because you've been taught to believe what you read if it confirms what you've been taught to believe about reality. But I looked at it with total, complete honesty and said, "where is the evidence that this is true?" And you say this book is true because it contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. You say that because someone told you it's true. You read books on prophecy and accept what they say is true because it confirms your belief. I say, there is no evidence that these prophecies came true and I point to other prophecies made that didn't come true. But you ignore that because it doesn't confirm what you have been taught to believe is true about reality. Somewhere along the line you were taught that some things are to be believed and others you may question. I missed that. I was never taught to believe anything. No one ever told me, "this is what you must believe." Because of that, I have only one file: the honest thought file. Everything I think about reality is in there. I don't have a dogma file hidden from honest thought. There is nothing sacred in my thought process; nothing to be protected or rationalized. Well, I've overstepped my bounds there. There has to be something in a dogmatic file somewhere in my thinking process because I'm human. Perhaps it relates to my feelings about myself, or my parents, or freedom, or chocolate. The difference is that with regard to religious beliefs, I wasn't given the dogma folder. Why? I'd like to say it has only to do with upbringing, but I'm not sure of that. I think there is a certain amount of personal choice in the matter; however, I would not go so far as to say that choice is conscious. Our parents may attempt to teach us beliefs; but we may be wired in such a way as to avoid the indoctrination. As well, our parents may attempt to teach us critical thinking skills with which to avoid beliefs, while some hard-wired need for conformity, unity and acceptance may lead us to adopt the beliefs of our peers. But it stands that if we have beliefs, we were taught them from someone. And the more doggedly we cling to those beliefs, the more we must protect them from total, honest thought. Because total, honest thought tells us that knowledge is based on factual evidence while belief is based on faith. They are not the same thing. Total self-honesty tells us that we simply do not have answers to our natural questions. Who are we? Why are we here? What is the universe? What is existence? We just don't know. And we may never know. Accepting answers that make us feel better is self-deceit.
On
Christmas So, Christmas was about Santa and trees and presents, stockings and family and warmth. I knew the Christ part was about Jesus and that some people thought he was god, or the son of god. I knew the basic story about the inn and the manger and the swaddling clothes. The wise men, the star, and all that. And I knew about Pilate and the cross as well, though we’ll save that for Easter. I sang Christmas carols. I loved them all. My favorites were Joy to the World and Hark, the Herald Angels Sing. I also loved We Three Kings. Sure, I loved Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and Jingle Bells too. But, my point is that I enjoyed the religious music without considering the meaning behind it. I knew what I was singing; it just didn’t mean anything to me beyond its traditional importance. We sing the carols because that’s what we do at Christmas. I knew that Christmas still meant more to other families, other kids. I didn’t think they were odd. I just didn’t have the same feelings about the tradition behind the holiday that they did. One Christmas, when I was about twelve, I got out the Bible and searched for the story of Christmas. I read it and thought it was rather poetic. But it never struck me as true. It was tradition to me. We celebrated the holiday because we were taught to but the meaning had been replaced by non-belief. My parents didn’t believe. So I didn’t believe. I didn’t actively disbelieve. I believed that Jesus lived and that he died. I believed he was a prophet of god, but I wasn’t sure what god was. I believed Jesus was special; but I believed we were all special in our own way. I believed that the way in which Jesus was special was in his awareness of god. But, with all that, he was still not truly a part of Christmas for me. When I married, my husband and I continued in the secular practice of the holiday for the reasons my parents did: tradition and enjoyment. And that is why I still do. Some years ago, when I was hit in the head with the realization that I didn’t actually believe in the same kind of god that everyone else did and after a few short days, that I didn’t believe in a god at all, it changed nothing about Christmas for me. Christmas is still a celebration of Western tradition, giving and receiving, and family togetherness for me. It always will be. However, upon my coming to atheism, I found an interest in religion, especially Christianity probably because it is everywhere around me. So, I began reading. I learned quite a bit about Christmas. I learned, most importantly, that the celebration of the solstice came first. The decorated trees, often lit with candles, the yule logs, the mistle-toe, etc. all came before the Christians adopted the birthday of Mithras, December 25th, as the day of their savior’s birth as well. Christians simply absorbed the pagan solstice celebration into their religion, and then claimed the holiday for themselves alone. So, when you see those signs on church billboards that read "Jesus is the reason for the season," you are reading a blatant lie. What Christians have done throughout history angers me. They spread their cult through lies, murders, burning the writings of the opposition as well as the opposition, through rewriting some works to make Christianity appear to be more than it was, to make it appear as if it were true and accepted as historical. What Christianity has done to our history is unforgivable. Christmas is very much a pagan festival. So, when a Christian tells me that I am being a hypocrite for celebrating it, I tell them it is they who are hypocrites. They have taken all the trappings of the solstice and laid them atop their savior’s birth. They are celebrating the birth of the sun, not the birth of the son. They are actively practicing sun worship. They can pretend all they like that Christmas is theirs but they don’t even know when their god was born. You’d think he would deserve more than some pagan holiday with his name stuck on it. You’d think they’d have honored him with something more appropriate. But then, they weren’t doing it to honor their savior. They did it to win converts by simply adopting their pagan holidays, absorbing their rituals, taking over their ancient religions until they’d winnowed out the other gods and were able to force Europe into their fold. They did it for power. I defiantly celebrate Christmas without Christ. Frankly, I think millions of people celebrate a Christ-less Christmas. They just don’t think about it so much. Millions call themselves Christian, go through the motions of Christmas (maybe even go to church), singing the songs, decorating the tree, leaving cookies out for Santa without so much as a thought to its origins. Just like me as a child, they are nominal Christians who, if they thought hard enough about it (an unlikely event) they might realize their own atheism. Happy solstice to you. On Suicide and Belief December 17, 2001 This weighed on me heavily. It caused me to consider and evaluate my thoughts regarding others' beliefs. Does what others believe matter to me? Yes and no. It does bother me that people believe in things because they prefer comfort to truth. But, at the same time, I have an appreciation for the fear the human animal must live with and the sadness at the prospect of lost existence. I have considered these feelings thoroughly. I have come to the conclusion that I, personally, cherish truth above all. I don’t have a deep nor desperate need for comfort. I don’t know why that is; it just is. Perhaps the ability to accept and live with atheism is imbedded in the personality. What is my responsibility to a friend that claims consciously that faith in deity keeps her going? Is it my duty to refrain from promoting the atheist and rationalist ideal in her presence? I definitely can’t lie to such a friend and pretend to believe or even pretend that belief is okay. And yet, perhaps belief is okay. Perhaps belief and ritual were born into the human spirit out of dire need of, not comfort, but preservation. Perhaps, long ago when the world was even more cruel than today, when survival was the priority, not material gain, without the comfort of belief in afterlife and protective deity humans could not have made it through the trial with their sanity in tact. Perhaps. I don’t want others to become atheist. It’s not that. I do want people to understand what truth is and what it isn’t. I’d like people to think logically about what they believe in and accept that they are choosing faith and belief over knowledge and fact. If people understood and accepted that, they would no longer try to force their beliefs on others and they wouldn’t judge others by a book they could now acknowledge was written by ancient men. But, maybe that’s too much to ask. Maybe once people admit what their belief really is--comfort--they’d lose the comfort. When I think about my friend, I think about the few other people who have expressed similar ideas. Others have said that without their faith this life would be meaningless and there would be no reason not to end it all. Still others have accused me of intellectual dishonesty in not killing myself. If I believe that one day the sun will burn out and life on earth will end, they say, there is no reason for me to live. I have no purpose, no meaning, why don’t I just off myself? If you were honest about your atheism, they say, you’d kill yourself. Well, certainly, if belief in deity is the only thing keeping you from slitting your wrists, by all means, believe. But, admit that you are believing because you can’t bear the thought of nonexistence. You can’t bear the thought that this is all there is to it. This life, ugly and horrific as it may seem at times...is all there is. Stop trying to tell me that your belief has anything else going for it. It’s just a pacifier. That being said, there is no reason left to proselytize. So, why don’t I kill myself? Because this is all there is! This life is it! It’s all I’ve got! There’s no second chance as far as I can tell. Why would I end it when there is nothing else? This life is precious to me. When times were tough and I thought life was shit and I couldn’t stand to look myself in the mirror; when I thought everywhere I went people whispered behind my back; when I couldn’t get through a day without drinking a six-pack; when I hated myself and everyone else, I thought a lot about killing myself. I couldn’t do it, though, because sometime after sunset I knew there would be a dawn and a new day and I knew if I could just figure out how, I could be better, I could have a life worth living. And I did manage that. If I’d killed myself, I’d have gotten nothing. What I don’t understand, actually, is why theists don’t kill themselves more often. The only reason I can imagine is that they believe that suicide is against the will of their god. Some claim their god makes them suffer here on earth as a test of some sort. That's a horrible thought. What sort of god would test its creatures in such vile ways? Why do people willingly praise such a god? Why do they claim such a god is completely loving, or worse yet--love itself! Or, if not a test, then suicide is a sin because it is destroying the gift of life that god gave them. So, basically, they don’t kill themselves because if they do, they don’t get the eternal heaven promised as a reward to those who obey god. They don’t kill themselves in hopes of paradise after this life on earth. But that's not really why they don't kill themselves. They don't kill themselves for the same reason the vast majority of other humans don't--they sense their own mortality. They subconsciously know that death is the end. We have a strong survival instinct that doesn't make sense if there is a god. If there is a god, this life is not so precious. The real fun will start after this life, when you hopefully get into heaven and get to live with your creator. So, we are to believe that people live their lives, struggling through, waiting to die and get it over with so they can enjoy life? I don’t think so. We have a strong survival instinct because we fear death. Why should we fear death if there is a god and an afterlife? We sense the end, we sense our mortality...not god. To me, life has precious meaning because of its finiteness. I know that I have to live each day, striving for meaning and purpose, enjoyment and pleasure, love and joy. Because this is all I’ve got. If this wasn’t all there is–if I believed there was some heavenly paradise after this...I wouldn’t have made it through my teens. What might I offer a theist who may have some small inkling of desire for
truth yet clings to belief and hope to cope with the trials of life (which I
admit can be quite overwhelming for many of us)? I would offer them
several ideas to ponder and mull over. I think we can all honestly say that it isn't the state of death that
frightens us so much as the act of dying. I think that if we approach life
with acceptance and joy, we will most likely approach death in the same way.
On Why I Don't Believe That would include the idea that we are sinful. We're not special enough to be considered sinful. The sinful state implies (no, explicitly states) that we were once perfect and "fell" from that perfection. While I never considered myself an especially wonderful human, I have never been able to think of myself as especially bad, either. I don't have an inner sense of self-loathing. And when I look at humanity, even at the horrors we commit against each other, I don't see this as related to once being perfect and falling, so much as a result of our animalism. Many people will claim that animals don't do the things humans do. But if you study enough, you will learn that that isn't true. The animal kingdom isn't a peace-loving world. It's a jungle out there. And the higher the animal on the evolutionary scale (meaning the higher evolved his mind) the more capable he is of acts of aggression against others with forethought and, yes, malice. Watch Discovery a little more often and you'll see what I'm talking about. So, I didn't buy into the disease. You have to accept the disease in order to want the cure: salvation. In order to be a Christian, I would first have to accept that humanity is special, and then somehow bad and displeasing to its all-loving, perfect creator. I don't. I think humanity is an evolved animal with good and bad qualities. I don't think humans are special. 2. January 2002: I experience no god I used to have experiences that I thought were divine. I remember pondering the way-cool questions of life like "what was there before there was anything?" "How did the universe come about?" I remember contemplating god, not as that vile creature in the OT, but as pure energy, or love. I'd lie awake in bed at night and let myself fill up with this energy/love. It raged through me like lightening, sparking, tingling. I knew it was god enveloping me. Now I don't know that it was god. Now, I think it is just something that happens when I think about love and beauty. If it's a god, it's too subtle a deity to request anything of me...it obviously wants nothing from me. When presented with the idea that there is definitely a god and his name is Yahweh and his book is the Holy Bible and his son is Jesus...I don't believe it. I don't believe it because when I look at the world, I don't see any evidence of a god. The world doesn't appear miraculous to me. Yes, I wonder by what mechanisms life on earth managed to come about and I marvel at the fact that it did. But when I look at life, I don't see a guiding benevolent hand. Quite the opposite, I see randomness, stops and starts, evidence of screw-ups, and nothing benevolent. There is nothing loving in animals eating one another and fighting to survive in the face of being eaten. I know, I know, the typical Christian answer to that dilemma is that the world used to be perfect, god made it perfect, but man screwed it up. So, I'm supposed to look at the world and see evidence of god? Or man? God made a perfect world, this world is the result of man? Sounds suspicious to me. Sounds like an excuse for why this world doesn't really evidence a deity at work. What is it about believing in god that leads people to come up with all these elaborate explanations? When I am told that the god would naturally want to communicate his plan for me and that plan can be found in the Holy Bible, I don't believe it. I don't believe it because I read the Holy Bible and if a god inspired it, I want no part of that god. But, in all honesty, when I read it, I was convinced that the god told of in it didn't exist. If he does exist he's be both love and a consuming fire, he admits he created evil while his adherents deny it, he tells his people not to kill then orders them to slaughter their enemies down to the women and children...and their pets! But he let's the guys keep the virgins as booty...uh, huh. It is claimed that this god is never-changing, he never changes his mind and yet he repents quite a few times, once he was so sorry for what he did he wiped out every living thing on earth save a select few in a world-wide flood. And then there's the biggest change of all...from OT to NT when this god goes from tribal war-monger to love and compassion (supposedly) in the person of JC. Now god really wants us to love one another, we are told. Except that those who don't believe that Jesus is who he says he is are condemned. Funny, it was Jesus himself who made that claim. Suspicious... So, I don't believe the Bible is in any way related to deity. It contains obvious mythical elements and the god in it is no hero. When I am told that this god (existing and having a biography and plan) incorporated himself and became man incarnate in the person of Jesus, I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a number of reasons not the least of which is that virgin births and resurrections are mythical stories meant to express greater truths. But that is biased say the Christians. If you're going to say that those things can't happen, you've left no room for belief that they in fact did. Okay, I say. I'm saying that as far as I can tell, those things don't happen. They don't happen in our lifetimes. It's possible that they happened a long time ago. But, I have to wonder why those kinds of things no longer happen. The reign of the gods of Olympus is over, the gods of Egypt and the Norse are now considered mythical. Why do we continue with this one god-concept as if it has a basis in reality when all those other gods are left in the ancient world. I believe that if the Christian god did indeed exist, he would not hide. He would still be at work obviously in this world. The only way he's at work now, according to Christians, is in vague tingly feelings, and in occurrences not easily distinguished from natural events. He is evidenced only in the belief that people still have of him. The resurrection of Jesus, if it did occur, had little effect. Christianity is not the majority religion in the world. Most people in the world don't believe it. I just have this feeling that if the omnipotent, omni-benevolent Christian deity did actually exist, he wouldn't have sent his self/son to earth only to be witnessed by a few people and have his plan spread by word of mouth. I just think he'd be here right now, evident with cold hard fact. I know there is an answer to that. Christians have an answer for everything. The answer here is freewill. But, suffice to say...I don't believe that either. 3. November 2002: The story
makes no sense: I'll stop there for a moment because I have to mention that the Bible, the Big Book of Christianity, says nothing about this in the story of the Fall of Man. In the original, mankind just got tossed out of Eden onto his butt and had to toil some hard land for a change. The woman was to suffer in childbirth and serve her husband...the only real punishment in the deal. But there is nothing about man now being depraved, about the world now being imperfect. That all comes later in the New Testament when the Christians were trying to explain their cult and win converts. But back to the story as told by the majority of Christians I know: The reason God did this testing is unclear. If the creatures had been created perfect, they could not have failed such a test. So, when looked at critically, what we see is a supreme being creating a race of creatures designed to fail a test so that it could inflict punishment and then come to the rescue with a plan. I'm not sure...but isn't there a human syndrome something like that? Remember the film Endless Love? Wasn't that about a young kid, obsessed with a girl, who tries setting her house on fire to rescue her and her family so they will think he's a hero and like him? Sounds eerily familiar to God, doesn't it? He sets us up, punishes us and rushes in with the salvation hoping we'll be so engrossed in our own humanity that we won't notice he's managed to shift blame for the way we were created away from himself and lay it onto our backs. And in not noticing, we give him all the praise for saving us. It's just too human. It's too base and despicable. But, what is the grand plan to save us from our sin (regardless of its origin)? It's a bizarre twist that has to be swallowed hard with dry wafers (and maybe a good deal of wine) to be believed. God incorporates himself into three distinct creatures while still remaining one. One part of him (which is also him) impregnates an engaged woman by some mysterious means and she gives birth to the other part of him (which is also him), thereby becoming his own father and his own son while all the while still being only himself. Then, to top that, he has himself (down on earth with the depraved--even living as one of them--while at the same time remaining up in heaven) killed as a sacrifice. Pay special attention to that event: he has himself sacrificed to himself so that he will be able to save humankind. What is the sacrifice? It couldn't be death on the cross, because gods don't die. Some say it was the suffering, but we all know that a few hours of suffering on a cross is nothing for a god, especially in light of the horrendous torture humans sometimes endure at the hands of others. So, some say it was in taking on all the sins of the world that was a sacrifice to god. It tortured him to have to do it. It tortured god. So, now I'm looking at an unlimited, omnipotent being who created humans designed to fail so that he could have himself tortured and then call it even. Our depravity is so despicable to god, some say, that he can not stand to be in our presence--and yet, he created us anyway. I'm thinking sadomasochistic psycho. But that's not the end. The sacrifice, the torture, the unendurable pain of being human and experiencing the sin he created us with wasn't actually the salvation. The salvation is in believing this story. That is what saves you: not what god did as his own self/son, no. What he did means nothing because he could have done any bizarre thing. He just happened to have chosen self torture. The condition, if you want to be saved from the horrible mess of your creation, is to believe the story. It's almost like a sick joke, isn't it? First, believe that you are filth due to your own (or rather your ancestor's) desire for knowledge of good and evil--it is your own fault you are depraved. Then believe that a god could impregnate a woman and become a god/man and suffer and die and live again--believe it is true without a doubt. Then believe that, while you remain depraved, after you die, you'll somehow be perfect again and live with this god/man and you won't be inclined to sin anymore. If it is possible for you to withstand the temptation to sin in heaven, why weren't you created that way to begin with? Why don't you get salvation now, as a human? Why is it only given after death? Why is your salvation hinged on only one thing: believing that story? Why is it only those who can believe such a story are saved? Can people even choose to believe things? Well, I certainly don't believe the story--it's insupportable; it can't stand up to the scrutiny of reason, testing and examination. It is something that simply has to be believed, which, in my opinion, clearly shows that it is false. August 21, 2004: The story makes no sense, part 2: There's something about salvation that I don't understand. Besides needing to be "saved" from being the way we were created through a bizarre act of incorporation and self-torture, I don't understand what salvation is. If you reread the story of creation, you find that Yahweh didn't want humans to live forever. He hustled Adam and Eve out of the garden "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever." They'd already become "like one of us" knowing good from bad--get them out quick before they live forever! This, of course, makes absolutely no sense in light of his threat that they would surely die the very day they ate the apple of morality. Christian apologists have told me that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat daily from the Tree of Life--making them conditionally immortal. Yahweh knew that, should they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (and he knew they would), they'd be corrupt and he'd take away their daily portion of immortality. But the Bible says nothing like that. It takes considerable twisting of the words to get that idea from them. What it says, pretty plainly, is that A&E were mortal creatures--they had not eaten, and were not given permission to eat, from the Tree of Life. Yahweh threatened them with immediate death should they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He says nothing of the Tree of Life and we may easily assume they didn't know of its existence and were too naive to have known how to find it until they learned about morality. What was it about morality that knowledge of it would include knowledge of mortality? It's a mixed-up retelling of ancient creation stories, which just goes to show that these things are properly dramatic and effective as oration and become rather silly once their ability to evolve is eliminated by being put to paper. What we seem to be looking at is the expression of ancient man's coming into self-awareness--awareness that he exists, that he is no longer a mere animal and must develop a morality, and that he is mortal. But according to the apologist, this story is not metaphor, it's true and makes sense on its face. There's just that one big problem of salvation. What is it in believing that Jesus died and resurrected and was the son of god and/or god himself that suddenly makes humanity uncorrupted and able to have "everlasting life?" If, as perfect, sinless creatures (who still managed to sin), they get a daily dose...a conditional everlasting-until-you-do-something-very- bad-life, how can Christians be certain that as reformed believers they won't still be on a daily-dose-of-immortality basis after death? Yahweh apparently had no intention of letting A&E be like gods. He says, apparently to his other two parts, "See!" (as if to say, "I told you so!") "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" The snake, who was supposedly Satan, told A&E that God was afraid of that very thing; he told the truth. As Yahweh cursed A&E for doing the deed and then said "I told you so!" to himself, he was obviously upset about it. So, if the plan was to have mankind live like gods (knowing good and evil and being immortal) why was he so upset? Why would he curse them, toss them out of the garden, and make them mortal, only to later encourage a blood sacrifice of himself to himself to give them morality and immortality? It doesn't make any sense.
|