Avert Your Eye

Testament

2011-04-25T00:17:00.002-04:00

"Testament"

Someday I must atone for what I’ve done

In the name of the father and the son:

I do not bring peace but I bring a sword—

Witness heaven and hell in one accord.

Abandon that family – follow me:

I will atone for this inequity.

Forgive me, for I do blaspheme today—

I will give my answer on Judgment Day.

But there is a lesson I must learn

Before receiving punishment I earn:

If I should grow again with each mistake

Then I should be condemned for my own sake,

So I may revel in sacred knowledge

I encounter in sinful tutelage.

I inherit my sense of right and wrong

Not from a bequest which didn’t belong

To me, but from what I earned honestly

Through my schooling in blunt conformity

With the blinded oracle of Nature.

I therefore know myself as a creature

Abused by God and cast into a pit

For transcending my ignorant spirit.

Testify

2010-08-20T15:24:00.001-04:00

“Testify”

One swirling, starry night in Bethlehem,

Plucking out an eye, rather than an ear,

Could have been a prophet, priest, or poet;

But, enraptured by patterns and pictures

Of airy canvass, instead seek palettes

In pastel-plastered hands of the divine,

Molded in reflection by the longing

Stirrings of compassion and resentment;

I march underneath the Arc de Triomphe

Of the mind: submerged somewhere deep in time

Lies the glimpse of passion in my paintbrush,

Some speck of love and trauma in my eye -

A lust for wonder that can never die;

Yet the greatest of us can only cry,

While grief remains of all these the greatest,

Highest joy in this transitory world:

Since change is the one medium of love,

My brush flickers: embers burning boldly;

Their glow reveals the beauty of the sky,

As seen by those who steal a glimpse and sigh.

- Teleprompter

Leviathan

2010-02-01T03:03:00.001-05:00

"Leviathan"

An ugliness lies within perception

That draws fire through my words and vision:

Ambition embedded in jealousy

Has been charting my life's trajectory.

Every gathered drop of resentment burns,

Reducing a thousand gnawing concerns -

Yet when lightning strikes, the raging torrent

Sputters: to give life breath without consent,

To give the echoes voice and the void eyes.

Fear will replenish anger and devise

Concentrations of every form of hate,

Which bemoan and also perpetuate

Within the author of new creation.

Either destruction or inspiration

Will consume all the feelings synthesized

By senseless emotion, rationalized.

- Teleprompter

They Will Not Control Us

2010-01-20T00:29:00.012-05:00

You are not the prisoners of context. You are not the prisoners of your own bodies. You don't have to be.

You can transcend this interaction. You can transcend stimulus-response. You can transcend your impulses and urges.

Set yourselves free. You have the key to your attitude. How will you confront the world? How will you defend yourself from the onslaught of circumstance?

You have the power to change. You have the power to stop. You have the power to start over. Will you allow yourselves the opportunity to become something greater than yourself?

Christians say that Jesus died for your sins. What exactly did Jesus change? Did he change the environment? Did he change the laws of genetics? Did he stop complexity arising from simplicity?

How did you and I get here? We evolved. To such great hands does the creator of the Universe entrust its creation! Our current state is the direct result of doing whatever we could to survive.

Fighting, fear and fate. These are the masters of billions of years of natural selection. We have been engineered to survive. You have been engineered to become amoral beings. To be or not to be.

That is the sole moral law of our universe. Every act you consider good is only designed to ensure a fair chance of survival. Every wrong you do is wrong because it hurts another survivor. What's the difference?

Everyone wants to survive. What's fair to me is what I could get in my position if I were you. It's easy to deny someone else. It's preferable to look out for number one. Let me repeat: to be or not to be is the moral law.

However, you are not the hostage of fortune. This is the good news. You can be better by cooperating. You can transcend your fortune. You can defy fate. You can master probability. Do you want to transcend your own mere survival?

We can create a better legacy. You do not have to be controlled by your environment. You do not have to be consumed by your urges and impulses. You each have the ability to question everything you do. Inquiry is the ultimate path to transcendence.

______________________

This post found inspiration in Muse's song "Uprising" and in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

It's A Foundation Beyond Belief...Literally!

2010-01-01T18:45:00.003-05:00

There is a new organization on the block - the Foundation Beyond Belief - that I am proud to bring to your attention. Foundation Beyond Belief will represent and coordinate charitable and educational efforts intended to demonstrate and encourage the generosity and compassion of atheists, humanists, and other freethinkers. The Foundation will also provide a comprehensive education and support program for non-theistic parents.

Foundation Beyond Belief will highlight ten different charitable organizations every quarter. All contributions each quarter will be directed toward these charities - however, individual donors can direct their contributions toward any of the organizations which are featured. You can join as a Member by making an automatic charitable contribution each month in the amount of your choice.

The featured charities may be affiliated with or founded on any worldview as long as they do not proselytize. I believe that the Foundation Beyond Belief can be and will be a tremendous resource not only for atheists and humanists, but for all the people who will be positively affected through the actions of the charitable organizations which are the beneficiaries of the Foundation Beyond Belief.

Members of the public may not realize that many people who are not religious also feel the desire to help other people through philanthropy. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, two of the world's most notable philanthropists, are non-believers. When you watch the suffering all around you in this world, there's a desire to act and to help someone else achieve a better life for themselves. How could you not see the suffering? How could you not want for your fellow human beings the opportunities that you've had for yourself? It's simple, but profound, empathy and compassion.

I am proud to be able to bring news of this Foundation to my readers. Here's a brief video which explains and elaborates many of the details of the Foundation Beyond Belief:

Ex-Christians and William Lane Craig

2009-12-14T17:25:00.007-05:00

Earlier today, Demian Farnworth, author of the blog Fallen and Flawed, sent me a link to this podcast from Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.

Tonight, I will be live-blogging my reactions to Dr. Craig's commentary, having never heard this podcast before. Let's see how this goes.

Question: It seems like more and more Christian apologists are leaving the faith and actively promoting atheism on the Internet. What do you think? Further, is it really possible to leave the faith for intellectual rather than emotional reasons?

Dr. Craig: You could say that the increasing number of people leaving the faith who have studied apologetics is simply a function of the increasing number of people who are studying apologetics.

Other Host: I think we have to look at in on a case-by-case basis. Could someone leave the faith for any intellectual reasons, or is it emotional?

Dr. Craig: I think it's for moral reasons, frankly...I say that not on the basis of case studies or investigations, but on the basis of what Scripture says.

Me: Whoa, I was with you up until then. You haven't done any case studies, you haven't done any investigations - you don't have any stories or rumors. Just Scripture...not very convincing.

Dr. Craig: Scripture says that if you inculcate godliness into your character, you will not fail [emphasis mine].

Me: 'The Scripture says'. I've read entirely too many deconversion accounts where people have specifically related that losing their faith was the last thing they ever wanted to do, that they wanted to serve their God but just could no longer believe. 'The Scripture says' isn't doing it for me, because unlike Dr. Craig, I actually have read up on "case studies".

Dr. Craig: This is why Christian apologists must make sure that we're keeping our lives clean and pure and holy before God.

Me: Fine. But you honestly think every other person who ever deconverted didn't try that? That's the great thing about defending Christianity: it's so difficult that no one can reasonably be expected to live it, so easy that you can get a child to do it.

Dr. Craig: I think, ultimately, that no one either fails to come to faith or falls away from faith due to intellectual difficulties alone. Ultimately, it's a spiritual matter about the orientation of that person's heart, and whether that person truly wants God and is open to God, or whether that person is closing God out of his heart and mind.

The Other Host and Dr. Craig: Some other stuff about Paul.

Dr. Craig: Some of these Christian apologists who have fallen away will often be very open about the moral difficulties which have led to their falling away: immorality, pornography, adultery"

Other Host: It's pretty easy to get burned out...so the last thing we want to do is to start taking a hardened stance towards people.

Me: That sounds like fairly good advice to me for any profession.

Dr. Craig: Another danger is becoming too cerebral...Alvin Plantinga, his book talks about how because of sin we love ourselves instead of God...the Holy Spirit helps repair that and help us respond emotionally to God and love Him. And if we ignore that side of our personality, then we can become dry and burned out.

Other Host: Sometimes people need just a human touch.

Me: Again, that sounds like good advice.

Dr. Craig: I think when you look at the some of the narratives of those who have left the faith, you will find a bitterness and a disappointment with those in the Christian Church because people did not come along side of them and help them when they were going through their time of struggle.

Me: And that's pretty much the end of the discussion on that subject.

Dr. Craig is clearly sincere about his beliefs. When presented with the potential problem of people who shared the same beliefs as Dr. Craig and no longer believe what he believes - it's only natural that Dr. Craig should find a way to reconcile his opinion that he has correct beliefs with evidence that contradicts his beliefs. By dismissing those accounts, which very obviously contradict his beliefs if he grants that some of the people who've deconverted may have done so for intellectual reasons, he's reaffirmed his beliefs from doubt. Once one begins the path of 'there may be intellectual reasons against my belief', one's priority is going to be critical thinking, and one is going to end up questioning one's beliefs.

Of course, there are plenty of religious people who are good critical thinkers. But the beliefs of Dr. Craig clearly have the most important place in his life, subordinating all other interests and motivations. Intellectual reasons for deconversion? No way. It can't be. Get out of here. There must be some other reason for this incident - they must have sinned or something, or maybe they were never Christians in the first place? It's easy to rationalize, and in the end, that's what I think this process is.

When sincere religious believers such as Dr. Craig become aware that other people around them no longer share their beliefs, there's some tension that has to be resolved. If the belief is correct, then logically people wouldn't leave the faith for intellectual reasons. If people may have left for intellectual reasons, then the faith may not be all it's cracked up to be, and that's clearly an unacceptable option for Dr. Craig and for many others who present similar arguments about the true nature of ex-Christians.

Occupational Hazard: Eternal Damnation

2009-12-10T22:26:00.017-05:00

I read a wide variety of commentary on religious topics so I can understand and empathize with those who have different beliefs than I do.

One of the Christian blogs I read frequently is Demian Farnworth's excellently written Fallen and Flawed.

He has recently returned from a one-month blogging sabbatical, and in his return he certainly has not failed to provoke much introspection and discussion, especially in his latest post From Believer to Unbeliever: The Lie We All Fall For.

Demian also has many thoughtful commenters, several of whom have even at times inspired me to rethink opinions that I have held about certain elements of Christianity.

Al is one of the commenters who has earned my respect. He never fails to express himself clearly, fervently, and above all respectfully in accordance with his beliefs.

For this entry, I'd like to post part of Al's response to my comment on Demian's latest article and share my reactions to it with all of you. Please forgive me, Al, for posting so much of your speech on my blog, but I hope you won't mind exposure to an audience of mostly non-believers?

Now, I’m not going to restate what Demian has said so wonderfully above, so I’ll close with this thought: If you don’t “get it,” it’s because you haven’t properly sought it!

By "it", I believe that Al is referring to an understanding of "genuine faith" in Christianity. Now, I know that 'understanding' is far too weak of a word for this context. A more appropriate word would encompass not only comprehension, but also a certain degree of attitude and receptivity. I believe that word may be 'attuned'.

That may be because you don’t want it, and that’s understandable– after all, the free gift of life will ultimately cost you everything if you receive it– If Jesus bought you with His precious blood, that means He must get what He paid for: You and everything that pertains to you: your independence, possessions, opinions, reputation, associations– everything!

Al, if you're right about this, I don't wish to be wrong. Now, what I am about to say in no way do I intend as insult or mockery, but as a sincere and fully non-judgmental observation, perhaps even a compliment: I can tell that you and Demian have given "your independence...opinions, reputation" over to your beliefs. They are secondary to your committment to Jesus. There is nothing I can say that can change that. I know - and that's not why I reply to Demian's articles.

We are in some sense stuck. You believe that I am blind to the spiritual Truth. I believe that there are people just as committed as you and Demian who have given their "independence...opinions, reputation" to Islam, to Judaism, that there is no discernible difference between you and the people who have "lost their faith". I don't list Ken Daniels or Charles Templeton because I believe they earned divine favor through the strength of their alleged works...I listed Daniels and Templeton because I see no difference between their early faith and yours presently. Lots of people have given their "independence...opinions, reputation" to Christianity only to no longer have the capacity to believe it. I know it seems unlikely to you, but it's where I am, and that boils down to why I am engaging you now: I'm not here to talk to you because I'm an agnostic atheist and you're a Christian - I'm here to listen to you and converse with you because I'm a human being who happens to be an agnostic atheist and wishes that people could understand where I've come from.

Or it may be that you DO want it, but just don’t realize it yet or don’t know how to ask for it. Your desire must be wholehearted– holding nothing back. No half-baked idea that you’ll try it out & see if you like it, then decide. Ask, beg, plead– persist; don’t take ‘no’ for an answer!

I do admire and highly respect your attitude: holding nothing back, not taking no for an answer. It's my approach, too. I refuse to hold back any doubts of my former religious beliefs, not taking any answers that are contradictory or fallacious.

As an agnostic atheist, these are a few of the things that I have accepted about Christianity and about religion:

1. I accept that morality has been derived as a product of naturalistic altruism and cooperation.

2. I accept that there are many flaws and contradictions in the Bible, which render much of it to be unreliable and untrustworthy.

3. I accept that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation of the diversity of life on planet Earth, that this scientific facts precludes any literal interpretation of the Biblical text, and that the process of natural selection displays no indication of divine guidance whatsoever, especially from the all-good, all-loving, all-knowing God embraced and proclaimed by most Christians.

4. I accept that there is no evidence for a physical soul which survives death.

5. I accept that there are a multitude of religions, several of which condemn me to eternal suffering or to annihilation for disbelief in their individual religious tenets.

6. I accept that faith reveals just as much to the Muslim and the Mormon as it does to the Christian, and that faith reveals just as much to the Baptist and to the Methodist and to the Roman Catholic as it does to the Lutheran - I accept that each new theological innovation is a product of fallible human beings.

So here comes the big question:

If you don’t get it, God has not yet opened your eyes and, unless you strive with Him to do so, He may never, in which case you will go to your grave still guilty of sin against Him and will be judged and condemned to eternal hell. That’s because you will have embraced the LIE that Demian wrote of in this post, and God will have given you the desire of your heart, allowing you to be absorbed in strong deception, to your undoing forever.

Will I allow myself the chance to "be judged and condemned to eternal hell"?

As I've said before, if you're right about this, then I certainly don't want to be wrong.

But that's a risk I'm willing to take.

It's the occupational hazard of being a skeptic.

And that's something I accept. I accept the possibility that I am "absorbed in strong deception", that I have "embraced [a] LIE". However, I cannot accept the possibility, that there exists some kind of God out there who leads not only atheists and agnostics in deception, not only Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Mormons in deception, but also Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Calvinists, Arminians, the non-denominational, the prosperity gospel crowd, and the Pentecostals and the Seventh-Day Adventists in deception.

If your God exists, then the history of civilization must be a deception, the history of the Christian churches must be a deception, the history of human religious practice must be a deception.

If you don’t see, it is because you are blind in the grasp of spiritual death. Looking at the first comment on this thread I see our old friend, Teleprompter (and I mean that, Tele)– someone whose intellect I greatly respect, even though it is his worst enemy. I read your comment, Tele, and right smack-dab in the middle of it you state your problem: “…but I definitely don’t see…” I love you, my Friend, as Christ loved me when I was His enemy (if you wonder why, I have no answer), but your eyes are sightless in spiritual death– that’s why you don’t see. The god of this world has blinded your eyes.

As a skeptic, spiritual death is an occupational hazard I'm willing to risk. I hope my previous statements in this response explain adequately why I have such a strong willingness to take this risk. I am not trying to be cavalier about this enterprise, but to candidly state my beliefs and why I continue to maintain them even against such high potential stakes as the possible damnation or annihilation of my eternal soul.

We will each and all spend eternity in someone’s service. Pray God it may be His who loves you, and not one who hates you.

I am genuinely grateful that you are concerned for my welfare - I mean this wholeheartedly. If you sincerely believe that my intellect is indeed my worst enemy, then it is only love that could move you to subvert its machinations. However, I believe that this is not the case.

Al, if your God exists, then why would He give me an intellect that He knew would destroy my faith in Him? Perhaps I am misusing the intellect that I have been given. But I do not believe that I am misusing my intellect by applying it in the manner in which it has been entrusted.

The Paradox of Theistic Morality

2009-11-18T17:59:00.017-05:00

Hello again, dear readers! I apologize for the extended layoff, but I have been terribly busy lately. Today's topic concerns the relationship between religious values and morality.

I have envisioned a brief analysis of religion and morality as a casual, but animated, conversational dialogue. I imagine that such a conversation may develop between two close friends, Q and A. Our pal Q is a theist (he or she could be a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian - it doesn't matter) while A happens to be a non-theist.

Q: It's incomprehensible to me how an atheist could have an explanation for morality.

A: Why so?

Q: Well, I've always believed that there must be some form of absolute morality, and that God is the best explanation for our sense of right and wrong. This seems especially likely to be the case in light of the arguments of famous defenders of the faith such as C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig.

A: I think it's highly unlikely that God's morality is absolute. Doesn't the god of the Bible say that it's wrong to murder, yet even in books such as--

Q: --Allow me to interject. Do you believe in right and wrong? If I ask you about slavery, do you believe it is wrong? If I ask you about rape, do you believe it is wrong? If I ask you about theft, do you believe that is wrong?

The bottom line is that we all agree that certain things are just wrong, yet why should we agree to this if there is no objective morality in place?

A: You're asking me why we should agree that slavery and rape and theft are wrong?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, first of all, you're asking me whether we agree. Don't you think that if there were an absolute morality, you wouldn't have to ask me whether I agreed? In that case, wouldn't I just know that they're wrong?

Q: But don't you agree that they're wrong?

A: I do. But it's not because I believe that any god said so.

Q: Then if there is no god watching over you, if there is no ultimate moral standard, then who can tell you not to run out into the street and rape, steal, or kill? Who can tell you that it's not okay to cheat on your wife or your taxes?

A: I think you're finally beginning to understand what I'm trying to say. Who can tell me that it's not okay to cheat on my taxes? Who can tell me that it's not okay to rape or kill or defraud someone?

Q: Are you going to answer my questions, or are you just being cute with me?

A: No, I'm going to answer your questions directly. Allow me to elaborate.

Let's pretend that you have a group of agents in one place. All of them can benefit if they take something away from the others, but none of the others benefit if something is taken away from them. Wouldn't it be the most beneficial for all of the agents if everyone could have security for themselves and their possessions?

Societies decide on what is moral or immoral. Societies are built upon a foundation of respect, trust, and empathy.

If your husband or wife catches you cheating, he or she is going to lose that trust, and your relationship will deteriorate. If the government catches you cheating on your taxes, you'll go to jail -- if you aren't caught, then there will be less money to pay for things like national defense and road construction and social security, and if everybody acts like that, then the relationship of the country will deteriorate. If individuals don't cooperate, everyone suffers.

Do you really need a god to tell you that people will get hurt if you're selfish or rash or cruel? Do you really need a god to tell you that peoples' lives will be improved significantly over the long run if they would only cooperate?

Q: I'm afraid you're missing the forest for the trees. What if the majority of individuals liked or enjoyed rape? Would you still say that it's moral? Wouldn't you still say that it's morally wrong?

A: If there were a society that approved of rape, then perhaps that would be a difficult dilemma. But how likely is it that a society which widely approves of rape can survive or flourish?

Q: How naive you are. Do you realize that patriarchal societies throughout history have engaged in and even justified spousal rape under the law? Here's a case where most of the people in a society see no problem with something, the society is not negatively affected because of this something, and yet you still would hesitate to say that you are not morally opposed to this something.

A: You're right; just because something survives or flourishes doesn't make it fair or just.

Q: Ah ha, fair and just! You're using the vocabulary of absolute morality. How do you have any idea what is fair or what is just? Aren't you arguing that fairness and justice evolve along with the societies in which they develop? You have no justification to say that something isn't fair or isn't just because you have no consistent standard to say what it is that makes something fair or just in the first place.

A: You're right, again. Racial minorities and women and religious minorities and those of differing sexual orientations than the majority have struggled to obtain rights and are still struggling to obtain rights today. How far have we come in discerning what is fair or just, and how far must we go?

Q: How far? Not only are you avoiding my questions now, but you're also just bringing more and more difficulties for your position in this discussion. You can't analyze the past and discern whether something that happened then was moral or immoral unless you have a consistent, absolute standard of morality.

A: Humanity has developed different moral ideas such as justice, empathy, fairness, and loyalty. As we learn more about the universe around us and the reality of our existence, our knowledge about ourselves and about our world increases. As our quantity and quality of information increases, so does our potential opportunity to reflect upon what is fair and just.

When we are able to observe species in nature that have same-sex relationships, we gain more evidence that neither homosexuality nor bisexuality is a choice, but rather something inherent in the nature of certain individuals. When women have more choices outside the framework of their traditional roles as mothers and caretakers, we gain more evidence that women are not inferior to men. When DNA confirms that all human beings originated from the same ancestry, we gain more evidence that there is nothing superior about any one race over any other race.

Humanity's ability to learn more information about our world gives us new ways and new perspectives on what fairness and justice mean. Our circle of empathy expands; our horizon of moral concern is broadened by the new ways in which our lives are interconnected and intertwined. It has become increasingly difficult for humans to sink into their tribal tendencies and neglect those found to be outside the immediate circle of acquaintances, for we human beings have found more and more that our fate is interdependent on the fates of our fellow creatures. There is no nation, no tribe, no race, and no language that can unify or dominate our world - there is no nation, no tribe, no race and no language that can stand alone and take care of itself alone.

Our evolving morality is largely a product of two trends: our inherent moral intuitions which have evolved for the cooperation of our societies, and the ways in which our existence has been changed by technological discoveries - these two elements have combined to shift our moral compass and provide us with new perspectives on the meanings of old notions like fairness and justice. The underlying concepts are the same - the basic cooperative qualities which compel a society's attention have not changed - but the ways in which we perceive each other as a collection of overlapping societies has indeed changed. Our broader moral outlook is a function of the manner in which our way of perceiving ourselves as human beings has changed.

Q: That certainly sounds impressive, at first. You've argued that certain moral concepts develop in an inherently natural fashion because they advantage the development of complex societies, and that an increasing level of understanding between human beings emerging through new technology has also continued to expand the arc of human moral concern. However, how do you get people to accept this morality? Why should I listen to you?

A: That's a great question - I think you are getting this after all!

Before you ask, no, I am not pulling your leg. Let me explain.

Organized religion is a political system which expedites the acceptance of commonly held moral conventions by the masses. Adherence to the dominant religion of a society is an acknowledgment that one accepts the shared moral code of his or her peers. Religion is a system of political values which distills the accepted mores of the day and disincentivizes free riding from those agreements -- put more simply, religion punishes, or threatens to punish, those who do not pull their fair share.

Of course, we have both agreed that the commonly shared values of individual societies shift greatly and vary widely over time and place. The development and evolution of the dozens of widely embraced branches of the three major monotheistic religions is a prime example of this variation between evolving political values.

Thus, your claim that religion is the safeguard of absolute morality is false, because organized religions are almost exclusively interdependent with the majority views of the societies in which they develop.

Therefore, the paradox of theistic morality is this: while most theistic apologists claim assertively and vigorously that their religion is the safeguard of absolute morality, one of the major reasons that religious apologists abhor non-adherence of their religion is because of their fear that the non-absolute moral agreements of society will collapse if enough individuals dissent from the non-absolute "absolute morality" which is the paradigm of the particular time and place inhabited by said religious apologists.

Deliver Us From Evil

2009-09-28T20:05:00.012-04:00

I have had many worthwhile discussions with Demian Farnworth of the Christian blog Fallen and Flawed. Our most recent exchange began with his description of writer A.N. Wilson's reconversion to religion.

I found several of the statements made in Farnworth's analysis to be provocative. Perhaps the most intriguing statement I found was this claim:

Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world. Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.

Since a substantial portion of my deconversion from Christianity has hinged upon the exact opposite argument - that while Christianity cannot adequately explain our complex world, naturalism can provide a working blueprint for life, to paraphrase the structure of Farnworth's claim - I was intrigued to see a discussion of this argument from a viewpoint distinct from my own.

I decided to enter the fray, and set my naturalistic beliefs side by side with Christianity, and attempt to compare which view could actually better explain the complexities of our existence.

I made a brief argument against Christian theism via the origin of suffering.

Traditionally, almost all Christians have interpreted the text in the Genesis creation stories to imply that their god originally created a paradise on Earth, and that only the disobedient sin of Adam and Eve introduced suffering into our world.

If suffering is inherent in the nature of the world, and not brought into the world by the transgressions of humanity – if the evil that happens in the world cannot possibly be the direct result of a Biblical Fall as depicted in Genesis, then traditional Christianity is falsified. Do you agree?

I have found that suffering persisted in our world for an incredibly long time before the first existence of humanity, therefore I believe it is impossible that humanity is the direct cause of evil and injustice in our world, and that therefore almost all types of Christianity are either absurd or implausible.

Here's an excerpt from Demian's reply, which he made shortly after my original comment:

Second, your argument for naturalism hinges on suffering existing before man. I don’t quite understand that. How could suffering exist before mankind? And how do you know? Furthermore, how do you define suffering in terms of naturalism? In other words, if the natural state of things is beast eat beast, how can you say “that’s suffering?” How are you defining suffering, that’s really what’s at stake.

Those are good questions. How should suffering be defined? How could suffering exist before humanity? Here's a hint to what I believe, courtesy of YouTube satirist Edward Current:

At the end of the video, Current's character states:

"You know, it's almost like, here on Earth, it's every species for itself.

Humans don't get any special treatment at all, do they?

It's because life evolves - through natural selection, not Intelligent Design."

My Deconversion Story

2009-09-27T15:04:00.007-04:00

This is the story of my deconversion from Christianity. I originally posted this account on the Forum of the blog "Unreasonable Faith". I hope you'll enjoy it.

I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.

However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.

I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.

Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'

But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.

When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.

Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.

He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.

He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.

When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.

I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.

Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.

The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.

I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.

So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.

So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.

But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"

"What if this isn't true?!"

Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.

I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.

That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".

And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.

So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.

I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.

I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.

It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.

Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:

"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."

My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?

"I think my faith has..."

I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.

In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.

Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.

The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.

Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.

All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.

Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.

And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.

I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.

And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.

The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.

What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.

Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.

Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.

I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.

Is Faith More Reliable Than Science?

2009-09-09T14:28:00.008-04:00

“Science is not only less reliable than faith, but faith is used in science."

Did I miss the science Crusades, the science Thirty Years War, or the science Spanish Inquisition?

How reliable is your faith, exactly? Are you a Christian? If so, what kind of Christian are you?

If you’re a Catholic, you may believe that your god directly revealed himself to a line of men who frequently embodied corruption, nepotism, and hypocrisy.

If you’re a Protestant, you’re already admitting that your faith is not 100% reliable, because why would there need to be a Reformation if faith is generally reliable?

If you’re Orthodox, how do you explain the abundance of Protestants and Catholics if faith is so reliable?

If you’re any kind of Christian, then how do you explain the plentiful and confusing abundance of contradicting interpretations of the same exact sacred texts?

If you're a Muslim, which tradition do you adhere to? How do you explain the existence and persistence of other sects? Why is your faith so fragile? Your holy book is even written in the same universal language, and you still have many of the same problems as the Christians.

You think faith is reliable? The wise walk by sight, not by faith.

An Indifferent Universe: The Original 'Original Sin'

2009-09-01T01:09:00.006-04:00

Here's a thought experiment:

"Sin is the fault of humanity, but it had to be that way, and fortunately, we still have free will.

How do I know this to be true?

Well, for hundreds of millions of years, various animals and plants endured enormous levels of suffering before humanity existed. So it is difficult to claim that the direct actions of humanity are responsible for suffering in our world. However, one could say that suffering was predetermined for humanity. Essentially, it must then be our fault that the suffering of the world was predetermined for us. So everything's our fault (even if it's not), and we still have free will (even if we don't). Christianity makes complete sense."

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

We can now determine that there was never a Paradise - that there was never an Eden - and that the "original sin" of humanity is merely our own existence in an indifferent universe. Sure, Christian tradition can try to pin the blame on a species which only arrived on Earth during the most recent instant of geologic time, but the growing evidence across nearly all disciplines of science can easily refute such a bold and unsupported assertion.

How can I prove that the only reason a god would permit evil is to bring about some other end? How can I know that this is not the only possible world that it is feasible for a god to create? I most likely cannot fully prove either of these things to you; what I may be able to demonstrate adequately is the incoherence of Christian dogma when its doctrines are contrasted with the harsh, vivid realities of our existence.

A Memorandum to God (Part One)

2009-07-28T22:20:00.007-04:00

MEMORANDUM

DATE: ∞

TO: God

FROM: Teleprompter

SUBJECT: Doubt

I hope you are well, whoever or wherever you may be. My friends and family have urged me to contact you over some pressing issues I have encountered. I hope that I am not wasting your time. Here are some of my questions for you:

1. "Your followers call you the judge of the world. You are expected to love justice and fair play. You’re expected to loath all ill treatment of one person by another. A corrupt judge who has no interest in seeing right triumph over wrong is, by biblical standards, a monstrosity.

Moreover, a judge who is found to be living a double life–one condemning criminals and one condoning his own crimes–deserves no such respect, honor or admiration."

- paraphrased from statements made by Demian Farnworth, Christian apologist

So why do you allow so much injustice in your name? Why have you allowed your followers to mistreat women, gays and minorities? Why do you allow wholesale slaughter of tribes with differing theological views?

Why do you condemn those who murder in the Ten Commandments yet simultaneously order the genocide of thousands at Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:34), Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:3), Jericho (Joshua 6:21), Ai (Joshua 8:2), Libnah (Joshua 10:30), Lachish (Joshua 10:32), Eglon (Joshua 10:35), Hebron (Joshua 10:37), Debir (Joshua 10:39), the Negev (Joshua 10:40), and the northern royal cities (Joshua 11:14)? Why did you allow the destruction of the Anakites (Joshua 11:21-22)? Why did you order the total decimation of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)?

Why did you harden the hearts of the kings of some of these cities so that you could wage war against them so that your followers “might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy” according to your commands (Joshua 11:21)?

(NOTE: this project is an ongoing series; I will devote each installment to a new question; once again, thanks for your participation!)

(SECOND NOTE: part of the opening section to this essay is a paraphrase of commentary written by Demian Farnworth on his blog Fallen and Flawed; you can read the essay in which his statements originally appeared here. The paraphrase was borrowed for rhetorical comparison.)

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part Two)

2009-07-17T22:47:00.005-04:00

I apologize for the length of time which has elapsed since Part One. Thank you for waiting!

I received a phone call when I was at home several days later from the pastor of the church which handed me the brochure about Jesus.

I struggled to think of something coherent to say to the preacher on the other end of the line. Here I was, talking to him directly. What was I going to say? Was I going to make a fool of myself?

I told the pastor that I had been handed the glossy bulletin, that I had read it, and that I decided to call the included number to discuss some questions I had about the information in the brochure.

For my first question I stammered, "What does your church think about the Bible?"

He relayed to me the teachings on Biblical inerrancy: that everything in the Bible is truth, and that the Bible is internally consistent. The preacher also mentioned that his church exclusively uses the King James Version of the Bible.

I asked him why the church uses the King James Version? He replied that the King James Version used direct translation from the "original" languages of the Bible. I did not proceed further with this because I am not knowledgeable enough about the history of the Biblical documents to contend with his claims.

Another angle which my conversant preacher had emphasized about the Bible was that it contains God's messages. It was given to humans, but God had written it ahead of time, so the Bible was God's perfect word to humanity.

I decided to ask the pastor about certain tenets of Biblical morality. I discussed certain acts of genocide and crime in the world today: Serbia/Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

Did he agree that these acts were wrong? Yes, he did.

I then cited the book of Joshua: the slaughter of the various tribes of Canaan whom the Israelites supposedly displaced.

If the Bible condones an act of terror that we agree is untenable, then why should I follow its teachings as a moral guide?

The preacher directly informed me that the slaughter of these peoples was really the work of God, not the Israelites, and that they were really evil, anyway.

I asked the pastor, "If God told you to murder someone, would you do it?"

He retorted that he would never murder someone, but if God murdered someone, he would understand why God did it.

Just as God slaughtered many of the Canaanites for their immoral ways, God could similarly "send judgment" to many Americans today for the current state of our immoral society.

But the bottom line, the preacher reasserted, is that Jesus saved us, and God sent the Bible to us. The real important point is whether I believe that or not.

"Do you believe in God?" he stated sharply.

"I don't know," I answered.

"You don't know? But the Bible is God's Word!" the pastor responded. "This book talks about Jesus and why he came, so Jesus was either telling the truth or he was a liar. Do you believe what the Bible says about Jesus?"

"What if the people who wrote the Bible made up the stuff that Jesus said?" I inquired.

(My query was ignored and previous assertions were repeated.)

"How can you not believe the Bible?" he asked incredulously. "It contains the words of Jesus. Do you believe them?"

"I could write a book about President Obama and say that he said something, but that doesn't mean he said it," I retorted.

My acquaintance was not amused by that comment. He abruptly ended the conversation.

"Look, if you don't understand this about the Bible, I can't even talk to you."

I thanked the preacher for the discussion, and hung up the phone.

Maybe I should've used some other analogy besides Barack Obama...my second thought was Harry Potter...never mind.

Some conversations are doomed to futility.

Monday Meter: Losing My Religion

2009-07-14T01:11:00.004-04:00

This post is a day late, but I want to let you know that I am creating a new regular feature here on Avert Your Eye.

Each Monday, I wish share writing that is meaningful from my life.

(Also, Part 2 of Encounter with a Proselytizer is coming soon. Sorry for the delay!)

And here are this week's pertinent thoughts:

"Losing My Religion"

Oh, life is bigger
It's bigger than you
And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no, I've said too much
I set it up

(chorus)
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight, I'm
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

Every whisper
Of every waking hour I'm
Choosing my confessions
Trying to keep an eye on you
Like a hurt lost and blinded fool, fool
Oh no, I've said too much
I set it up
Consider this
Consider this
The hint of the century
Consider this
The slip that brought me
To my knees failed
What if all these fantasies
Come flailing around
Now I've said too much
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream

(repeat chorus)

But that was just a dream
Try, cry, why try?
That was just a dream
Just a dream, just a dream
Dream

Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part One)

2009-07-09T00:01:00.007-04:00

I was working in the sun last week, trying to finish pulling weeds from my neighbors' lawn before the start of a thunderstorm, when a man came up to me and started a conversation.

"Hi there, I see you are a Reds fan, too?"

I was sporting a Cincinnati Reds baseball caps. In fact, I do happen to root for the Redlegs. Last summer, I was fortunate enough to catch Jay Bruce's debut against the Pittsburgh Pirates.

The man introduced himself - let's call him "Jim" - and he said that he lived down the street. He told about his experiences as a young Reds fan growing up in Cincinnati during the era of the Big Red Machine - when Pete Rose, Davey Concepcion, and Johnny Bench proudly strode the environs of Crosley Field.

It was a normal conversation until the man pulled a brochure from his pocket and handed it to me - that's when the realization struck, that he was proselytizing me.

He stated that he didn't know if I had a church home, but let me know that I was welcome to attend his Baptist church. I thanked the neighbor, and stuffed the bulletin into my pants' pocket, eager to finish my work before the rain came down.

I didn't want to harass him about religion - being a former Christian, I know what nerves it takes to talk to a stranger about your church. Anyway, he wasn't too pushy, so I was willing to give him some leeway. I thought that it would be rude to argue with this guy on the street.

After I drove home and put my equipment away, I opened the brochure and inspected its contents. It contained a somewhat typical message about sin and Jesus, redemption and the wages of death. Pretty standard stuff - things I would've heard about, if I had still been in the church I had attended for the previous 18 years.

Then I spied a phone number, denoted with the following inscription:

"Have any questions about the Bible? We'd love to hear from you!"

Being the curious kind of guy that I am, I punched the church's number into my cell phone. I had to leave a message - I let it be known that I had received a tract and that I had some questions about its contents. I asked if it was possible that someone could call me back and that I could speak with someone about the brochure.

That was about a week ago. For a description of what happened when my call from the church was returned yesterday, please wait for (Part Two). Thanks!

30 Great YouTube Channels for Freethought

2009-07-02T23:20:00.016-04:00

The Atheist Blogroll provides a wonderful service for those who wish to participate in the freethought blogging community, and it's also a great resource for those who wish to learn more information about atheism and agnosticism. However, blogging is not the only way in which people can access information about freethought.

As many of you may know by now, YouTube is also a great place to inform one's self about these issues. Disconcertingly, there is no compendium or guide in which to index all of the highlights of the skeptical community's contributions on YouTube.

Therefore, I have composed an informal list of 30 YouTube channels about atheism or freethought that I really enjoy. I am subscribed to all of them. I did not rank the channels which fell out of the top ten in my rankings; those are listed in alphabetical order below my top ten.

Please realize that my preferences are entirely subjective, and I am sure that there are probably one or two channels I have listed which are bigger than the ones I mentioned in my top ten; there are likely some tremendous, outstanding channels out there which I have the misfortune of not having seen before, so if anyone can think of any good additions to my list, I'd be greatly indebted to you for it.

(Also, in the interests of full disclosure: two of the accounts which are included on this list [DefenderOfReason and theowarner] are subscribed to my personal YouTube channel; eight of the accounts included are "friends" of my channel on YouTube [FFreeThinker, AndromedasWake, cdk007, Thunderf00t, NonStampCollector, nathanforst, FactVsReligion, and DefenderOfReason].)

Lastly, I am including a small blurb of information about each channel with every listing.

The Top 10

1) Thunderf00t: A True Master. The PWN'er of creationists everywhere, and an unyielding champion of logic and reason. His "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" series is quintessentially fantastic. You will laugh, you will cry, and then you will write letters to YouTube about vote-botting five or six times.
2) EdwardCurrent: This is satire. Even commentators as wise as yours truly have mistaken Edward Current's uproarious brand of "Christianity" for the real item. Must-see list includes: "What If God Disappeared?", "What If Jesus Ran For President?", and "God's Cool Designs".
3) ProfMTH: Possibly the most intelligent, insightful, and thorough presenter of atheism/freethought on all of YouTube. No one has better arguments against Christianity, if that's your thing. Must-sees include: "Jesus Was Wrong" series and "Jesus Was Not The Messiah" series.
4) NonStampCollector: I have a weakness for animation, which explains why three animators are in my top ten list. NSC has created the most succinct and hilarious atheist counter-points to any claims about the morality or inspiration of the Bible, if that's your interest. Very funny takes on free will, Jesus, and the origins of religious thought.
5) TheoreticalBullshit: Yes, he's a professional actor, and it shows. The ladies will be all over him. But TB also happens to be one of the most brilliant debaters in the YouTube atheosphere. His videos are both highly informative and entertaining. Just watch all of them.
6) Nykytyne2: Nykytyne2 has one of the best voices on YouTube, though there are several others in this list who can match him. He's got an amazingly comprehensive series explaining the deficiencies of the main theological arguments called "Doubt 101" which is on-going. Watch all of those, and then watch "Greater Than Us".
7) DefenderOfReason: A rising star. I watch all of her videos. She is succinct, hilarious, engaging, and thoughtful. Her comedies and sci-fi videos are both funny and mind-bending. Be sure to catch "Crimes Against Humanity".
8) theowarner: Please don't get mad at me for this pick. Okay, you may not "get" theowarner's style at first, but once you appreciate his sensibility as an artist (and he is quite the artist), you will never regret the add. A good introductory video is "The Theology of Kodachrome".
9) 43alley: Again, my clear weakness for animation rears its head. I just eat up 43alley's "An Atheist Reads The Bible" series, which combines excerpts from the King Jame's Bible with cheesy 1970s style cartoons. His channel also features animations to accompany selections from Christopher Hitchens and Eddie Izzard.
10) azsuperman01: This is a sentimental pick: azsuperman's channel was one of the first places I found on YouTube. His account of his experience deconverting from Christianity is highly compelling, and it encouraged me as I was traveling down a similar path. Try his "Questions for Christians" series.

Honorable Mention

AndromedasWake: "Welcome to the Universe" series. All that needs to be said - it will blow your mind.

AtheistExperience: Matt Dillahunty, host of the call-in show "The Atheist Experience", kicks ass. Some have compared his style to Christopher Hitchens on crack. They're right.

BionicDance: What can I say? Another animator, another sci-fi style video-maker. I like what I like, and BionicDance is freakin' sweet.

cdk007: If you want a good summary of complex biological concepts surrounding abiogenesis or evolution, this is where you should go. Still though, he really should get around to registering that PowerVideoMaker. ;)

DarkTheAtheist: This is another channel that, like theowarner, may not appeal to everyone. Dark's British, I think he's hilarious, and he has a killer video intro. If you like Monty Python, you will like DarkTheAtheist.

DrixDZanth: DrixDZanth, oh DrixDZanth, where have you been? He has not made any videos in months, but on his channel he promises that more will be coming soon - and this is a great thing, indeed. He's logical, he's entertaining, and he's pretty much a badass of science. (Well, that's the title of his video series, anyway.)

FactVsReligion: She is really a great film-maker. Most of these channels aren't in this list because it was someone smart or good-looking talking into a camera - there are usually some extra qualities which go into my selections. However, she does fit both of those descriptions quite well.

FFreeThinker: Does anyone know the YouTube atheist community as well as FFreeThinker? I think he friended me maybe five minutes after I made my first video? His "Best of Atheism" videos are well worth watching, as is the rest of his channel, which showcases quality videos from other channels in the atheist community on YouTube.

ghostofdayinperson: Unrepentantly zany. Her videos are beyond description - so why do I even bother? Her music, which she composes herself, is almost as good (and mind-shattering) as her videos.

hairyreasoner: His voice sounds so caressing that people deliberately send him things to read to them in his videos. Honestly, that's the only reason I'm subscribed to him, but trust me, it's a good enough reason.

healthyaddict: She's funny, she's intelligent, she's attractive - why aren't you watching her videos already?

KingHeathen: Hey heathens. I'd watch his videos just for the routine he does every time he has a video (and for the beer). But don't take my word for it, think for yourselves.

misterdeity: If you don't like Mr. Deity, please leave now. This show is a fabulously hilarious parody featuring the comedic trio of Deity, Larry, and Jesse. (But don't forget about Lucy!) And yeah, those readers who are attracted to men should watch this channel just for Jesse.

nathanforst: Nathan Forst is the poor man's next Carl Sagan, and he produced one of my all-time favorite YouTube videos, "Beauty Is Truth". It is one of the greatest tragedies of the Internet Age that "Beauty Is Truth" only has 2,000 views. It deserves your attention.

patcondell: Pat Condell is perhaps the most beloved and the most controversial YouTube atheist today. When I first joined YouTube, I devoured his videos as a parched desert traveler gulps water from an oasis. Now I can't really stand him. However, many of his videos are classics. Warning: if you are religious, you will be insulted.

PBBChannel: Dale McGowan runs this channel. Read his blog The Meming of Life. He provides excellent information on secular parenting. For those who would ordinarily skip over such advice, remember: if it wasn't entertaining, it wouldn't be on this list.

QualiaSoup: Watch "Open-Mindedness". Trust me, you don't have anything better to do, unless you're watching "Beauty Is Truth", NonStampCollector, or EdwardCurrent. "Open-Mindedness" could possibly be the best video on religious skepticism and freethought ever made. Even better, there are many other outstanding videos featured on this channel.

SchrodingersFinch: Have you ever heard of MST3K? The finches unrelentingly mock creationist and ID propaganda, and the results are comedic brilliance, along with a healthy dose of outright pwnage struck for science and freethought.

TheAmazingAtheist: I couldn't make a list of outstanding atheist YouTube channels without referencing TheAmazingAtheist. As long as you ignore the fact that he leads a veritable army of 15-year-old males, you won't regret subscribing to his channel. Most of his videos are quite entertaining, but occasionally he makes one or two that almost force me to unsubscribe to him. Blueberry Pie, anyone?

ZOMGitsCriss: I love her videos, but for some reason I discovered that I wasn't already subscribed to her when I began making this list. Now that that gross injustice has been remedied, I can finally tell you how awesome her videos really are. I won't go Hemant Mehta here, but her channel's definitely worth watching.

Colour My World

2009-07-01T17:15:00.002-04:00

Can you imagine the color blue? Do you know what it looks like? Have you experienced it? Is it meaningful to you? Do you see it all around you?

Can you imagine exuberance? Do you know what it looks like? Have you experienced it? Is it meaningful to you? Do you know how it feels? Do you see it all around you?

What if you were color-blind, to emotion? What if you couldn’t feel that sense of connection: that spark, that vividness of experience?

When I notice my friends’ care-free celebrations, their quiet joy, their loud anticipation of pleasurable sensation, I feel blank. I notice a void: there is a lull where the storm should be, and there is a shattering where there should be calm.

I stretch my arms and flex my muscles: here I am. But why don’t I feel like everyone else does? Why do I have the sensation of dis-ease? Why is my life so awkward and unwieldy?

I wish that I could live in the present: I wish that I could forget about everything and just live for once. Sometimes I am depressed, but I don’t want to die; I merely want to live as if I am alive.

I don’t laugh because I have some insight that others do not; I laugh because I realize that I may never understand.

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part Two)

2009-06-19T16:45:00.004-04:00

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)

MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.

Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:

Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:

No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,

No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,

Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.

You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?

Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.

Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?

Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.

Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.

It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.

God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.

Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?

If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".

Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.

Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part One)

2009-06-19T15:50:00.011-04:00

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

First, I must commend MS Quixote for his well-written and well-argued critique of ED. I recommend his summary of ED and the surrounding controversies to anyone who desires to obtain a solid understanding of what exactly the dilemma is, and what is meant by it, when both theists and atheists refer to it.

Because MS Quixote has done such an excellent job covering the historic origins of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the traditional use of ED by atheists, I will not delve into those sections of his essay here. I hope that my readers of this entry will already have some knowledge of the dilemma, and if they don't, I recommend MS Quixote's summary of it, because he does a much better job of summarizing it then I could have done.

Let's cut right to the meat of this discussion: Quixote's critiques of the dilemma.

MS Quixote asserts that:

Another nemesis of the dilemma is the tertium quid, the third option. If a viable third option is presented, the dilemma is rightly deemed a false dilemma. The dilemmas above appear to be true dilemmas; there do not appear to be other alternatives to dead/alive and pregnant/not pregnant. However, if a dilemma states that children like either football or baseball, it is rather simple to provide other options, say, basketball. Thus, the dilemma is defeated. This is commonly referred to as “passing through the horns of the dilemma.”

Lastly, one may “grasp the horns of the dilemma.” If it may be shown that one or both of the premises of a dilemma is false, the dilemma is successfully defeated. With ED, the theist is able to both pass through the horns and grasp them.

So, is the theist really able to both pass through the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma and grasp them? This is the bedrock of MS Quixote's argument: if I cannot demonstrate that his arguments (which purport to demonstrate that the theist can pass through and grasp the horns of the ED) are invalid, then I cannot state that MS Quixote is incorrect when he claims that the ED argues for theism rather than atheism.

MS Quixote's first step is to demonstrate that the Euthyphro Dilemma is, in fact, a false dilemma, by presenting a viable alternative, a third option, in addition to the two horns of the Dilemma as summarized:

The first horn of the dilemma—Is good willed by God because it is good—locates the good independently of God. The good is conceived of as some standard or other that God recognizes in determining what is good. If this state of affairs obtains, God is subservient to standard independent of his eternal being; there is at least one entity He is not sovereign over. Moreover, he becomes the mere messenger of goodness. Admittedly, this position is untenable for Christian theists.

The second horn of the dilemma—or is it good because it is willed by God—tends to render the commands of God arbitrary. The ED proponent argues with this horn that God could have just as well commanded rape and murder as goods, and that they are evils is only at the whim of God’s command. Furthermore, under the second horn, often referred to as Divine Command Ethics (DCT), it is difficult to make informative claims about Gods goodness, if goodness is solely based upon what God says it is. What does it then mean to say that God is good?

While acknowledging that both horns of the original dilemma are untenable for Christianity, MS Quixote presents his third option:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good.

Ah ha, the ED is clearly bunk, then! So we're finished, right?

Not necessarily.

As MS Quixote aptly recognizes, many proponents of the Euthyphro Dilemma are not prepared to accept this alternative as an answer to the dilemma. In fact, these critics argue that this framing only moves the dilemma one step farther back:

ED is re-erected around the theist’s contention that God’s nature is the good: Is God’s goodness good in relation to some independent standard, or it is good because God’s character is good? The former presents the same problem as the first horn of the original dilemma, the latter, the same problem as the second horn of the original dilemma which again seems arbitrary or whimsical. After all, God’s character could have been anything.

MS Quixote responds that those critics who reply to his offered alternative with this response fail to understand exactly what he really means with his third option:

Theists generally consider the reformulation of the dilemma a clear indicator that the ED supporter has misunderstood the theist contention that God’s nature is the good. Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

The ED supporter has attempted to establish an infinite regress with the reformulation of the dilemma; however, the theist response precludes this outcome by positing God’s nature as a metaphysical ultimate, a brute fact of existence. Brute facts are explanatory propositions that require or admit no explanation themselves.

So God's goodness is a brute fact of existence. But wait, God's nature isn't good; it is the good, according to MS Quixote.

So how we can call God "good" if we have no standard for what is "good"? If "the good" is defined as God's nature, then anything that is God's nature is "the good". But God could be entirely malevolent, and since it is his nature, then complete malevolence is "the good". For who are the pots to question the potter? God can smash all of them if he wants, err, if that's his nature.

And why not? What's preventing God from being completely malevolent? And how do we know that if there is a God, that he isn't entirely malevolent? If God's nature is "the good", and we cannot define "the good" apart from God's nature, then how can we ascribe any qualities at all to this nebulous concept known as "the good"?

If we agree with MS Quixote's definition of "the good", then we now have no coherent standard for whether something is good or evil. In fact, good and evil become meaningless and obsolete; things are either part of "the good" or they are not part of "the good". God's nature defines what is "the good". And those who speak in the name of God get to define what is God's nature!

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Four)

2009-06-13T12:29:00.009-04:00

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is the final installment of the series, part four of four.

For the last time, here we go again:

19. Psalms 34:20 - "He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken."

In my previous installment, I discussed not only Psalms 34:20, but also Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12.

At that time, I had the following remarks about this passage:

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 34:20 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus - in my mind, it hasn't even been established that this is a prophecy at all, especially a messianic one - and that can be said for many of these passages.

It is highly likely that the only person who will believe that all of these passages are obvious references to Jesus is someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into the Christian faith. If there is a God, then God gave us rational minds -- and we should not be afraid to use them. I will reject Jesus before I reject truth, if the truth of Jesus cannot be established. Alas, this is what I have done - and yet I am accused by some of "exalting intelligence above God". Funny, I thought using what you were given was an act of worship....

20. Zechariah 12:10 - "They will look at Me whom they pierced."

The full text of this verse from my NIV Bible:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit (footnote: Or the Spirit) of grace and supplication. They will look on (footnote: Or to) me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

There's really no way to tell if this is a messianic prophecy or not. At best, this passage is vague and ambiguous.

The surrounding passages describe events concerning the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem - this is not exactly an ideal comparison to a Jesus-like figure.

Let me just say, like most "prophecies", it's a stretch to say that this passage really means anything at all. I doubt that anyone will be convinced by my summaries that these are not valid or genuine prophecies. I hate to be this cynical, but let's admit it, most people believe what they want to believe. It doesn't matter if the passage doesn't even say anything about a Messiah - people have been trained their entire lives to see the Messiah in that text, who am I to dispute such a strong intuition, even if it is the result of indoctrination?

Demian, I fear what you are going to say next - you'll say that I don't see Jesus in this text because I'm not a believer. And technically, that may well be true. But I believe that there is no reason to see Jesus in this text.

Let it not be said that there is no level of evidence that would compel me to believe in Christianity - that is not true. If there were prophecies that were unabashedly, explicitly, specifically about a Messiah - and Jesus fulfilled these impeccably, then I would definitely reconsider my position. But that is not the case.

Yet again, I see no reason to accept that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

21. Isaiah 53:9 - "They made His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully."

Thankfully, this is our final Isaiah 53 passage. I have spoken both in previous installments of this series, and in the comments section on your blog, giving reasons why it is obvious to me that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, rather than a Messiah. For those reasons I have already carefully articulated, it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

22. Psalms 16:10 - "For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see the Pit."

Why couldn't this passage be referring to David? My NIV footnote on this verse says: Or your faithful one instead of "Holy One".

Eh, it doesn't really make much difference. It's ambiguous and unclear at best, manipulation at worst. Those who want to believe will believe it, I guess.

I am not convinced that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus - like so many other passages from Psalms, there is no specific mention of a Messiah, and it just seems to text the words that are there, and to twist the meaning of the original text.

23. Psalms 68:18 - "You ascended to the heights, taking away captives; You received gifts from people, even from the rebellious, so that the Lord God might live there."

What does this passage even have to do with a Messiah or with Jesus?

Yes, Jesus is said to have ascended to heights. So is Harry Potter.

Taking away captives? Okay, this could be stretched to say that Jesus is taking away captives from sin, or Satan, or whatever...but this passage doesn't mention a Messiah. It's a song of praise to Yahweh. Why put a Messiah into the text when there's no reason to do so?

Since this passage is so nebulous and incoherent, I strongly suspect that it is not a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

24. Psalms 110:1 - "The LORD declared to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Once again, this is another one of the passages from Psalms (and Psalm of David, according to the notes in my NIV Bible) which appears to apply more to David specifically and contains no explicit mention of a Messiah.

Every single one of these "prophecies" is either flat-out contradictory with Jesus's narrative as portrayed in the Gospels, vague, mischaracterized, misapplied, misread, ambiguous, or is in some other fashion unimpressive and unconvincing. The best prophecies of the 24 are merely ambiguous and vague; the worst, manipulative and deliberately distorted. It is sad that these "prophecies" are considered the foundations for a robust prophetic portrait. Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced.

A Quick Reminder and an Announcement

2009-06-13T01:15:00.006-04:00

Hello readers!

Later today, I am going to complete the final Part 4 of my four-part series analyzing Demian Farnworth's list of claimed prophecies of Jesus.

This week, I will be purchasing The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.

I recommend reading the Amazon customer review penned by John W. Loftus for a clear and concise summary of the book's contents.

I will review each chapter of The Evolution of God on this blog.

My reviews will be an ongoing feature of this blog until (and probably some time after) I finish the book.

I wanted to inform all of you of what is in the works for my blog, and if there are any more interesting developments, you'll be the first to know! Thanks for reading, and thanks for all of your interactions in the comments section, and for all you do.

If you have any other questions, please drop me a line in the comments. Thank you!

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Three)

2009-06-12T16:40:00.007-04:00

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies which he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part three of four.

They say the third time's the charm. Here we go again:

13. Isaiah 53:4 - "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."

Yes, Isaiah 53. I am familiar with the details of Acts 8:26-39, where Philip convinces the Ethiopian eunuch that Isaiah is referring to Jesus in this passage.

I assert that Isaiah is not talking about Jesus in this passage, but about Israel. Why have I reached this conclusion?

From Isaiah 41-Isaiah 53, the servant is consistently identified as Israel.

Isaiah 41:8-9 (NIV) - "But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you"

Isaiah 42:18-19 (NIV) - "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see!
Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD?"

Isaiah 42:24 (NIV) - "Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law."

Isaiah 43:1 (NIV) - "But now, this is what the LORD says -- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel"

Isaiah 43:10 (NIV) - "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he."

Isaiah 44:1-2 (NIV) - "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.
This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen"

Isaiah 44:21 (NIV) - "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you."

Isaiah 45:4 (NIV) - "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name"

Isaiah 48:20 (NIV) - "say, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob."

Isaiah 49:3 (NIV) - "He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.""

Therefore, I feel comfortable concluding that the servant of Isaiah 53 is not Jesus, but Israel, as is apparent throughout this section of Isaiah. It should be clear that this is not even a messianic prophecy - unless one rejects what the text actually says, repeatedly - it is clear that this passage portrays Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant. The misapplication of this passage strongly suggests that this is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

14. Isaiah 53:7 - "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth."

Another Isaiah 53 passage? I can't believe there are still two more Isaiah 53 passages listed after this one.

By any honest accounting, shouldn't text from the same place be counted as only one prophecy? This problem also occurs with Psalms 22 and Psalms 69. There are really only fourteen or fifteen "prophecies" on this list, but the fuzzy math has made it appear that even the vague and misapplied prophecies which are listed here are more numerous than they really are.

I just provided a rather lengthy list of examples from previous chapters of Isaiah to demonstrate why the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, rather than Jesus, so I will repeat my arguments here. However, I will conclude that for the same reasons listed in my previous post, it seems highly unlikely that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

15. Psalms 22:18 - "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

I've already covered Psalm 22 before in this series. Again, there are no specific references to a messiah and the text appears to be about David.

I believe that this is an example of retroactive application from the Gospel writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, and John 19:23-24 all specifically depict soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothing. John even mentions in the text that this happened so that the prophecy from Psalms 22:18 might be fulfilled. A footnote in my NIV text indicates that a few late versions of Matthew 27:35 included a direct reference to Psalms 22:18.

The passage from Psalms 22 is not directly linked to a messiah, but it appears that the Gospels were written to make it appear that Jesus did something that is linked to "prophecy" - even though Psalms 22 is clearly not of prophetic nature. For those reasons, it seems most plausible that Psalms 22:18 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

16. Isaiah 53:12 - "He submitted Himself to death."

Only two more Isaiah 53 passages after this one - we're almost done!

Again, I have provided a lengthy list of examples which demonstrate why the author of Isaiah is referring to Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Given the context of the reading, it is implausible to claim that the passage applies to Jesus.

For the reasons I have previously mentioned in this post, it is apparent that Isaiah 53 is likely not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

17. Isaiah 53:12 - "He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels."

How hard are they even trying? This passage is from the same exact verse as the previous "prophecy". Fuzzy math, indeed.

By this point, I believe that my position on the servant's identity in Isaiah 53 is crystal clear, and it should not have to be repeated why it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

Only one more Isaiah 53 passage after this - we're getting closer!

18. Exodus 12:46 - "You may not break any of its bones."

This verse is similar to Psalms 34:20 and Numbers 9:12. John 19:31-36 claims that prophecy was fulfilled in this manner.

However, Exodus 12:46 clearly refers to the Passover meal, not to Jesus:

Exodus 12:43-45 (NIV) - "The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "There are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it.
Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him,
but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

Now, I know enough about the Bible to see where apologists might make the comparison that Jesus is the Passover Meal, etc. However, there are some major problems for the Jesus narrative if this is the interpretation justifying this passage as prophecy:

1. Only the circumcised could share this Passover. Paul states explicitly in Romans 2:26-29 (NIV) - "If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as those who are circumcised?
The man who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."
According to Christian tradition, Jesus served as a sacrifice for the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike. It presents a major problem to identify him with a Passover meal that is exclusively for the circumcised.

2. This passage says nothing specific about a Messiah.

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

Numbers 9:12 is also a reference to the Passover, and shares the same problems as Exodus 12:46.

For all of the reasons I have listed, it is apparent that none of these three passages is a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Two)

2009-06-11T23:28:00.010-04:00

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicates Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part two of four.

Here we go again:

7. Isaiah 50:6 - "I gave My back to those who strike me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting."

The version of Isaiah 50:6 from my NIV reads "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

It seems apparent to me that the figure identified in Isaiah 50 is the author of Isaiah himself, not Jesus. Isaiah 50:4 states that "The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary."

Furthermore, Isaiah 50:7-9 affirms:

"Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore, I have set my face like flint, and I know that I will not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near. Who then will bring charges against me? Let us face each other! Who is my accuser? Let him confront me!
It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me. Who is he that will condemn me? They will all wear out like a garment; the moths will eat them up."

Is it true that the Gospels portray Jesus as not being disgraced, as not being put to shame, as not being charged or accused? These things may very well be true of Isaiah, but if the Jesus narrative is to remain coherent, these things can absolutely not be true of Jesus.

Because the context of Isaiah 50 implies that the statement is made by Isaiah, and because the statements themselves seem to fit Isaiah well, and not do seem to correspond with the accounts of Jesus from the Gospels, it seems more likely than not that Isaiah 50 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

8. Psalms 22:16 - "They pierced my hands and my feet."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

As you may have discerned by now, I have a high level of skepticism for claims of prophecy which originate from David's exclamations, because it seems apparent to me that it is futile for Biblical interpreters to associate a sinful figure such as David with the supposedly sinless Jesus (especially with regards to verses like Hebrews 4:15).

Further, the footnote under this verse in my NIV suggests "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts / like the lion,", rather than "pierced". Also, none of the New Testament writers cite this verse as a reference to Jesus's crucifixion. At best, this verse is highly controversial and ambiguous, and it's not clear at all that it even references a messiah. Once again, I am quite doubtful that this verse is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

9. Psalms 22:1 - "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."

As I just wrote immediately above, my NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

Do I have to repeat what I just said about my skepticism of conflations of the figures of David and Jesus, while one is portrayed as a sinner and the other is portrayed as sinless? The longer I do this, the more it becomes apparent that the authors of the Gospel are purposely trying to write Jesus into previous texts. What else can I say? There is no specific reference to a messiah in this chapter. For those reasons, it seems clear to me that this passage is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

10. Psalms 22:7-8 - "All who see me sneer at me; they separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.""

Four of these prophecies are from Psalms 22. I understand, you think Psalms 22 is a messianic prophecy.

Clearly, I think this verse is referring to David, as is this entire chapter.

Again, there is no obvious reference to a messiah in this verse or in this chapter. It is ambiguous at best.

Again, I think it is extremely foolish to conflate the figures of a sinful David and a sinless Christ.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 22:7-8 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

11. Psalms 69:21 - "They also gave me gall for my food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

My NIV notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

My objections to conflating the figures of David and Jesus should go without saying by this point, Demian. But here is a great example of why I am so skeptical of such claims:

"You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." - Psalms 69:5

We have already covered this, of course. But I wanted to remind you that it seems a direct contradiction to identify Jesus with a foolish sinner, as the author of this passage is portrayed.

Be honest. Is Jesus supposed to be a sinner? If not, how can this be a valid prophecy?

Furthermore, it is ambiguous and doesn't even specify a direct reference to a messiah. It's about David.

It is apparent to me, once again, that this passage is not a prophecy of Jesus.

12. Psalms 22:14 - "I am poured out like water; and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within me."

Crikey, not another passage from Psalms 22. (In case you haven't noticed by now, a Psalm of David.)

One last time:
1. No specific reference to a messiah is contained in this passage, making it highly ambiguous at best.
2. It's problematic to compare the sinful David and the supposedly sinless Jesus (to say that both figures are the same) because of verses like Hebrews 4:15.

For those reasons, it is apparent that Psalms 22:14 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part One)

2009-06-11T21:56:00.010-04:00

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part one of four.

Here we go:

1. Psalms 69:2 - "Those who hate me with out cause are more than the hairs of my head."

My NIV Bible indicates that this is a psalm of David. I am skeptical of this passage because in verse 5, the writer declares that "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." So if Christians want to suggest that the figure who is hated without reason and who has enemies without cause is Jesus, then should they also suggest that Jesus is guilty and has committed folly? For those reasons, it does not seem likely that Psalms 69:2 is a prophecy of Jesus.

2. Psalms 2:2 - "The things of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed."

At first, there were elements about this chapter that made me feel that it could be a convincing messianic prophecy, but after performing some comparative analysis on differing versions of the text, I have concluded that this is at best an ambiguous and unclear passage, and not a strong prophecy of Jesus - in fact, it may not even refer to a messianic figure.

Here's the text of Psalms 2 as found in my NIV:

"Why do the nations conspire (footnote: Hebrew; Septuagint rage) and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One (footnote: Or anointed one).
"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
"I have installed my King (footnote: Or king) on Zion, my holy hill."
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son (footnote: Or son; also in verse 12); today I have become your Father (footnote: Or have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter (footnote: Or will break them with a rod of iron); you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

For comparison purposes, here is the text of Psalms 22 from a Hebrew-English Bible based on the Masoretic Text which I found at mechon-mamre.org:

Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, {N}
against the LORD, and against His anointed:
'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision.
Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'
Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. {N}
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. {P}

In the NIV version, there are several things which give the verse the appearance of referring to a Messiah:

1. The use of the phrase 'Anointed One' as distinct from the LORD.
2. The capitalization of words such as 'Son', 'King', and 'Father'.
3. The use of the phrase 'Kiss the Son' and the reference to taking refuge - this does sound like something that could be a plausible reference to Jesus.

However, in the comparison version of Psalms 22,

1. 'anointed' is used instead of 'Anointed One'.
2. 'king' and 'son' are not capitalized; I have begotten thee is used instead of 'Father'
3. The term 'Do homage in purity' is used instead of the phrase 'Kiss the Son', and the text generally does not seem to refer to taking refuge in a Son, but rather to taking refuge in the LORD generally.

It seems more plausible that 'son' in this chapter refers to King David, or to Israel itself, rather than to Jesus. Especially since verse 6 mentions that the king will be installed on Zion, and Jesus specifically claims that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it seems most likely that Psalms 2 is not a prophecy of Jesus - though I would certainly like to question whoever oversaw the compilation of the NIV text on their interpretation and rendering of Psalms 2.

3. Psalms 41:9 - "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

My NIV Bible denotes this chapter as a Psalm of David.

Verse 4 of Psalm 4 indicates that the psalmist has "sinned against" God. Once again I ask, do Christians want to associate Jesus with the figure of a Psalm who has openly admitted his sinful behavior? This is in direct contradiction to Christianity's claim that Jesus is without sin. For those reasons, it seems most likely that Psalms 41:9 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

4. Zechariah 13:7 - "Strike the shepherd and the sheep may be scattered."

What exactly is this supposed to be a prophecy of?

In this verse, God says "I will turn my hand against the little ones." What does that have to do with Jesus? Yes, knowing my Bible, I can guess that you're going to say that it's a reference to the apostles fleeing after the crucifixion of Jesus - but to me, that's a definite stretch in this context, because in this verse, it is God himself who is doing the striking and the scattering, and turning his hand against the little ones. This doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus, and the context of this verse does not fit coherently with the Jesus narrative at all. For these reasons, it seems probable that this verse is not a prophecy of Jesus.

5. Zechariah 11:12-13 - "I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighted out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

The author of Matthew 27:9-10 references this verse, but attributes it to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Oops?

Also, this passage is ambiguous at best. God is depicted here as telling Zechariah to throw the money at a potter; Judas is depicted as giving the money to Caiaphas, who is said to have bought a potters' field. Besides that, this passage says nothing about a messiah. It appears that the author of Matthew tried to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but ended up not only citing the wrong prophet, but mangling the prophecy in the process. For those reasons, it seems doubtful that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

6. Micah 5:1 - "With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek."

My version of Micah 5:1 reads "Marshal your troops, O city of troops (footnote: Or Strengthen your walls, O walled city, for a siege is laid out against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod."

What do "a siege is laid out against us" or marshaling troops have to do with Jesus? It seems more likely that this verse refers to an earthly ruler of Israel. Micah 5:4 claims that in the days of the promised ruler Israel "will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth." Yet as I noted earlier, Jesus is on the record as saying that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), so it seems unlikely that he would marshal troops or prepare for a siege, or restore the kingdom of Israel, as the figure identified in Micah 5:2 is described as doing. For these reasons, again, it seems unlikely that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus. This may be another attempt by the Gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfills prophecy, but is clear that Jesus does not match the figure of the powerful earthly ruler described in Micah 5.

Robespierre: A Lesson in Divine Justice

2009-06-08T15:26:00.004-04:00

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."

- Maximilien Robespierre

What if I said the following?

"God's righteousness is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of His righteousness which includes all honesty and virtue, applied perfectly according to His will."

What is the difference between these two statements?

The first statement is widely acknowledged as the creed of a madman. We recognize that abject terror, even in the service of admirable goals, is not at all admirable, but grounds for condemnation and repudiation.

Yet the second statement is widely espoused as a tenet of Christian dogma. What humanity would do, we consider abuse - but when a god does it, it is permissible.

Was Robespierre right to order thousands killed for the interests of the state? Can your God be called good if the result of said God's "righteousness" is the torment of billions?

Robespierre killed for the glory of the state and for himself, and he is labeled a narcissist and a cruel, sick man. Christians claims that their God kills and condemns for His own glory, yet they worship Him.

Divine command morality leads to this state of affairs: history's most notorious villains and the god of the Bible are indistinguishable.

"Considering the Bible and Christianity Without A Prior God Belief Is Meaningless"

2009-04-30T15:10:00.006-04:00

"And, I concur; considering the Bible and Christianity without a prior God belief is meaningless."

Commenter MS Quixote raised this point in the midst of a discussion on the blog Daylight Atheism.

I have seen this point raised so many times that I feel it is necessary for me to address this point directly, once and for all, on record.

First, what exactly does it mean to consider the Bible and Christianity?

I state here that I am assuming that what I mean by "considering the Bible and Christianity" is that I am considering whether I believe the spiritual claims are true. If this can be said more precisely, please let me know how I can summarize this in a more accurate way.

I assume that MS Quixote wants to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that he assumes that other people want to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that this is what he means when he says "considering the Bible and Christianity".

I hope I have made correct assumptions in determining what each of us is trying to accomplish when we consider the Bible and Christianity, because those assumptions are fundamental to this exercise.

In the comments section of the original entry by MS Quixote, I noted that Muslims do approach the Bible and Christianity with a prior god belief, but they still have different god beliefs than Christians.

MS Quixote was gracious enough to recognize this, and amended his statement to say that one needs a Christian god belief before considering Christianity and the Bible in a meaningful way. At least, I hope this is what he meant to say, and that I have correctly stated his position.

In suggesting an experiment with MS Quixote's line of reasoning, I am providing the following counter-examples for comparison:

"And, I concur; considering the Qu'ran and Islam without a prior belief in Allah is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Book of Mormon without a prior belief in the revelations of Joseph Smith is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Bhagavad-Gita without a prior belief in Krishna is meaningless."

I wonder if MS Quixote would have any objections to these lines of reasoning if he encountered them in a discussion from a fellow theist, albeit one of a different belief system than his own?

If Christianity can be a properly basic belief, then can Hinduism also be a properly basic belief? Can Islam be a properly basic belief? What about Mormonism?

According to the basic tenets of these religions, not all of them can be true. Therefore, if one can say that the followers of all of these religions have properly basic beliefs, one can say that out of a large number of the people who have properly basic beliefs, many of them have properly basic beliefs that are wrong.

I believe that this circumstance should give anyone who defends religious belief with the notion of "properly basic belief" a moment of pause.

If a large number of people who have properly basic beliefs about a subject are wrong, then one should acknowledge that having a properly basic belief alone is not good enough as a standard for one to be confident of one's conclusions about a subject.

The idea that only consideration of Christianity with a prior belief in the Christian god can be meaningful does not account for the way human beings actually believe in things and acquire beliefs about the subject of religion. I have given counter-examples of patterns of belief in other religious belief systems to demonstrate where I believe that this argument is deficient.

Lastly, there are probably many areas where I have said something that is not as precise as it could be, or I have said something which is a mischaracterization or a misinterpretation, or I have not been clear enough in articulating my ideas. I openly acknowledge the possibility of errors, and if someone can identify them, I will gladly revise my statements. I freely admit that I am a relative novice in discussions of religion and philosophy, but I hope to learn as much as possible as I increase in experience and practice, and to continue a civil and productive discussion of belief and knowledge and "life, the universe, and everything".

Old Religion and New Atheism

2009-04-26T01:06:00.004-04:00

Sam Harris. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Daniel Dennett.

A surge of criticism of religion's role in society and the nature of religious belief itself has arisen in the last several years.

Many critics have derisively termed the authors of these criticisms and their supports as "New Atheists".

What is the "New Atheism"? And why does anyone care? Is it a category which actually is meaningful and significant, or a rhetorical device used to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and to shut down conversation about religion and humanity's interactions with religion, especially conversation which condemns religion?

Most people would agree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.

However, this does not mean that there is not greater significance to the recent emphasis by atheists to increase visibility of our existence in the public sphere (of athiests) and also to increase exposure to religious criticism in the public sphere.

To determine why this is significant, let's examine what religion is. How do we define religion through the context of our own lives and in the context of our societies? How is this important, and why should anyone care?

Why should religion be criticized in public societies? Isn't religion just a personal choice, an expression of personal values? Why should atheists criticize other people's personal beliefs? Isn't this cruel and needless stigmatization?

Such an analysis of atheists' criticism of religion is sorely misguided and does not accurately characterize the intricate series of relationships between individuals, societies, and religions.

Religion is more than personal choice; it is more often a societal and even a political construct. Throughout human history, religion has been invoked as one of many ties which bind tribes, polities, and social categories of all kinds. With changes in leadership, have come changes in the religious practices encouraged and incentivized by the state.

As a belief, as a state (or states) of mind, and as a practice, religions are invariably linked with their respective cultures. Religion is not only a political experience, but a cultural one as well.

Without the context of our societies and the groups in which we associate, how would any of us resolve our identities as human beings in this modern age?

Some critics have charged that the "New Atheism" is overly politicized. Religion has always been politicized. Any criticism of religion is essentially a political criticism. Religion is just one more imagined community, constructed in the mold of the nation-state and the social club.

Religion is shot through with power and politicking. The Pope is elected. Ayatollahs control the nation of Iran. The ceremonial head of state in the United Kingdom is also the head of the Anglican church.

"New atheism" may not be a new message or a new strategy at all. However, the public campaign for increased critical thinking about religion and skepticism is a political fight.

Did the Ayatollahs descend from the heavens? Did Pope Benedict XVI come down from the Mount of Olives? Did Queen Elizabeth II's mother receive frankincense in the manger?

I personally believe that most atheists' criticism of religion is not a criticism of personal expression -- rather, I believe that it is a criticism of the social and political construct, the established order which is modern religion, which is in turn enabled by poor critical thinking and a deficit of skepticism.

Easter - Why Am I Even Mentioning It?

2009-04-11T22:02:00.002-04:00

In a few hours, Easter will be celebrated once again by the world's Christians.

This year marks my first Easter when I will not be attending church; it's the first time I've had to look at my calendar to see when it was, or be reminded of the festivities by the signs spread across my campus alerting worshippers to service times and by the chocolate eggs and bunnies sprawled upon the dresser of my nominally Catholic roommate.

I belong to a freethinkers' group and tonight they arranged a showing of "The God Who Wasn't There", and neither was I.

If I am trying to find a new way to (not) celebrate Easter, am I still not celebrating it?

Evolution and the God Hypotheses

2009-04-09T01:31:00.008-04:00

Is evolution compatible with religious beliefs?

Perhaps -- it likely depends on the selection of religious belief under consideration.

Is evolution compatible with the existence of an omni-benevolent and all-knowing god?

I believe that it is highly improbable that these two things can coincide, though I cannot eliminate the possibility.

However, there is an intriguing implication for the belief that evolution is guided by a divine hand:

Almost all of the species which have ever lived are now extinct. Does this mean that a hypothetical god has failed? Or is a non-supernatural explanation more plausible?

Would an omni-benevolent god use the mechanism of natural selection to develop the diversity of life? Perhaps there is some utility in this high failure rate, but then one must consider the immense suffering which is implicit in this arrangement.

Competition -- vicious cycles of living and dying brutally -- a state where most animals not able to thrive, but only able to do enough to survive, does not seem like a product of either an all-knowing or an all-loving god.

Let's examine each distinct god hypothesis and decide whether the claims about the nature of gods are consistent with the realities of our existence.

I consider all claims of an interventionary divine being to be a hypothesis: if a god is said to interfere in the natural world, then we cannot simply shrug off difficult questions and deflect criticism with the excuse that such a god is beyond space and time. How can a god which is said to interfere with natural processes be strictly beyond space and time? The claims are not consistent.

Can the existence of gods be proven or disproven? In all likelihood, this is an impossible task. However, I do have every confidence that we can establish the probability or improbability of religious claims.

I believe that the claims of modern religions are extremely improbable in the context of the evidence which we currently have, and therefore I cannot accept them.

David Brooks, Kerosene Firefighter

2009-04-08T11:29:00.020-04:00

David Brooks' editorial from April 7th's New York Times simply tries to do too many things.

Brooks is successful when he examines developments in psychology, but he falls on his face when he tries to extrapolate the broader implications he has presented in the first sections of the article.

Brooks is citing research which supports the hypothesis that human beings are not fundamentally rational actors.

He cites psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work, and I am definitely a fan of Haidt. I readily acknowedge Haidt's conclusions, but Brooks' interpretation is essentially a misrepresentation.

I would say I disagree with Brooks' interpretations, but this criticism goes beyond disagreement. Brooks is just wrong -- his assumptions are faulty and his logic is terrible. As if those travesties were not enough, while evaluating the consequences of Haidt's research, he also misses some of the most obvious and some of the most profound conclusions of all.

He attempts to present Haidt's conclusions as an atheist dilemma.

"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."

However, from the premise "reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it", it does not logically follow that a pursuit of "pure reason" is ill-advised or illogical.

Brooks implies that we should combat irrationality with more irrationality.

That's like throwing lighter fluid instead of water on a burning building. It's a recipe for destruction.

Because we have realized that human beings are not rational actors, we should acknowledge the necessity of examining the basis for our decision-making as closely as possible. Because we acknowledge that humans have a propensity to make irrational decisions, then we must do everything we can to constantly reevaluate our own thought processes.

Brooks pontificates that "most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself". And what ends may we use to achieve goodness? Reason.

Much of organized religion is a stumbling block in this pursuit, which is one of the most important claims of the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

People often make bad decisions precisely because emotion circumvents reasoning, and this is why reason is critically important to improving the quality of human life.

Pope Benedict XVI advised Africans that use of condoms increases AIDS. Because of this poorly reasoned, emotionally-stoked advice, people will die. People will die because the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger failed to properly examine the scientific and medical evidence, and instead relied on his intuitions to arrive at an important decision.

People will die because of this irrational advice. It won't be because Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins waged a war of "pure reason".

It is not when reason is overwhelmed by emotion that reason is unwarranted. Rather, it is just when people do not operate primarily by reason that a faith in reason is most warranted.

David Brooks, the kerosene firefighter, has it exactly backwards.

Is God Deceiving Us? Evolution and Sound Decision-Making

2009-04-08T01:08:00.008-04:00

Alvin Plantinga asks how we can have confidence in our conclusions if we reach them via a brain that is hardwired not for truth, but for survival purposes.

However, if our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what are they hardwired for? Are they hardwired for deception?

Humans are notoriously susceptible to both optical illusions and hypnosis.

If Plantinga is willing to admit that our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what is he acknowledging about the feasibility of a designer? Were our brains purposely set in motion to be deceived?

What is the best explanation? Would a benevolent god really have hardwired our brains for survival but not truth -- deception but not reality?

The god of the Bible may want our attention, our loyalty, our love, and our devotion, but such a god does not want us to perceive it clearly, if Christian and other theistic claims are to be accepted.

This would imply that any such god is either indifferent or malevolent.

If human beings are not wired for sound decision-making, then who could blame Adam or Eve for their transgresion in the Genesis story? Who could blame Lot's wife for looking back at the burning city? If human beings were intentionally wired for deception, then we are really the victims of the divine, if the apologists' claims are to be accepted.

A God who does not want human beings to see the truth is the inevitable result of this line of reasoning, and clearly possesses unacceptable consequences for many commonly-held religious beliefs.

Under this scenario, the Biblical god would be every bit as guilty of deception as Satan himself.

When Possibility Is Not Enough

2009-04-06T19:48:00.004-04:00

It has been suggested that, having laughed at Christopher Columbus and Thomas Edison, we should not laugh at those who assert the possibility of the supernatural, because their claims may also be confirmed at some point in the future.

However, this vague notion of possibility is not enough to establish credibility for most religious claims, especially when the argument is not even fully honest.

There is a basic contradiction in this line of thinking: we must keep our minds open to all possibilities of future supernatural discovery, while simultaneously limiting our menu of choices to a select few ancient tribal narratives.

Because we know less than we may in the future, we should turn to those who knew far less than we do now? That's quite an absurd and confusing position to hold.

I hope that those who would assert this argument would not let themselves become entrenched in any specific supernatural position just because of cultural and traditional biases.

Can those who claim to be open-minded, who exhort others to be open-minded to the possibility of the supernatural, actually be open-minded in practice as they are in preaching?

It's possible.

Believing in Belief

2009-04-05T17:48:00.007-04:00

I have interacted with many evangelical Christians over Internet blogs and forums. One common claim I have heard is that I was never really a Christian.

If you have read my story on this blog, you'll recall that I was raised as a Christian and deconverted because I decided that the evidence for its validity was severely lacking.

But was I an actual Christian? At first, this question annoyed me greatly. I believed that this claim was nonsensical and absurd at best, and that it was a stinging personal insult and rebuke at its worst.

However, I have now realized that the answer to this question is not entirely black and white. Of course, that conclusion alone should not surprise me. Few things in our existence are entirely black and white.

What shocked me is the realization that I may not have been an actual Christian before I deconverted.

I am trying to remember what exactly it was that I believed in during this time. Did I believe in a higher power? Did I believe in the Bible? Did I believe in the community of my church congregation? Did I believe in the power of faith or belief itself?

Why do these questions matter? These questions are critically important because they attempt to define what Christianity is, and in doing so attempt to determine what exactly it means to be a Christian (or to be a religious person of any persuasion) in today's environment.

I did believe in a higher power. I prayed to my God before meal times and before I fell asleep at night and while I was in church services. Did I believe in the Bible? Yes and no. I had not read all of it. I believed that some of its claims were figurative and that some were literal. I don't think this made me any less of a Christian. I viewed the creation story in Genesis as figurative while acknowledging the reality of evolution, though I fully embraced its claims about Jesus and his supposed sacrifice for humanity. I believed in the eternal existence of heaven and hell, though I had no idea who would end up in each place (I had not made up my mind about universalism or other approaches, but I knew that the Bible said that Jesus was the only way, and I could never get past that reality).

However, as much as I believed in the technicalities of Christian dogma, I also believed strongly in its pragmatic aspects. I believed in the power of faith. I had faith in my government and my society and my family and my friends -- and in God. I also believed in the power of the community in my church. I knew that they were basically good people. I saw my church as a positive influence in my life and as a positive influence in my community.

A nagging question pervades my thoughts: did I really believe in Christianity or did I believe in being Christian? Did I have a belief or did I believe in having a belief? Was I part of a belief community or was I a believer? I don't know the answer.

I don't know if I really was a Christian before I deconverted.

However, if I was not really a Christian, than most of the people in America who proclaim Christianity as their religion probably are not Christians, either. Of course, this assumes that there is an objective definition of what a Christian is, which is probably not accurate.

The major question is this: what do you believe in?

Do you believe in belief? Do you believe in community? Do you believe in faith? Do you believe in charity? Do you believe in good works?

Do you believe in Christianity because it provides an outlet for your other beliefs which you already have, or do you believe in it because you are a sincere follower, you've thought about it at length, and you really do believe that its claims are accurate?

It appears that many people in the world practice Christianity not because they have extensively researched the issues and determined that it is better than all the other religions and spiritual traditions in the world, but because it provides a framework for their other beliefs about themselves and the world which they have adopted from society and family and tradition.

And of course, the same thing is more than likely true for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and practically every other religious tradition on the planet.

I am tired of asking and answering "what" questions about religion. Now I am much more fascinated with the "why" questions. Why do people believe? Why do individuals believe a certain way?

Was I ever a Christian? Maybe not. Is anyone ever a Christian? Maybe not. Have you ever been a Christian? Maybe not.

Do you believe in a book? Do you believe in a revelation? Do you believe in belief?

Religions often try to be none of these things and all of these things at the same time, for everyone. The whole process of examining religion just confirms my opinion that the religions of our world are human-originated social constructs and not divine manifestations.

Natural Selection and the Haber Process

2009-04-03T22:40:00.004-04:00

The Haber process is responsible for the synthetic mass production of ammonia.

The ammonia is used to make nitrogen fertilizers, which play a critical role in feeding about one third of Earth's population.

The ammonia from the Haber process is also used to make ammunition. Germany used the Haber process during WWI to do this. Some have speculated that Germany could not have waged WWI (or waged it for as long as it did) without the benefit of the Haber process.

So this technology is simultaneously responsible for preserving the lives of over a billion people...and could ultimately be responsible for the deaths of just as many?

Natural selection is comparable to the Haber process. It has led to us, for instance. However, almost all of the species that have ever existed are extinct.

Would an all-knowing, all-loving, all-good god use this kind of mechanism to bring us into existence?

This Is Not A Post - Why Everything Must Be Questioned

2009-03-05T16:15:00.004-05:00

If religion is accurate, it should withstand scrutiny.

Why question it? Why not appreciate its beauty and value?

Does a sunset lose its beauty or its value when examined?

If in the act of examination, a sunset is no longer a sunset, then what is it?

We should decide for ourselves.

The Paradox of Revelation

2009-03-04T18:19:00.009-05:00

Many religious believers, including both everyday followers and famed theologians, privilege revelation over rational inquiry and analysis as a method for attaining results and insights.

Yes, revelation is a noted method indeed, producing such famous works such as the Qur’an, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Talmud, and many others.

But nearly all religious believers do not take the sum of these works together, but rather believe in them separately. Revelation produces many fruits, but most believers only choose to consume a select few products from this tree of specialized knowledge claims.

If believers really have confidence in revelation as a method of gathering information, why don't they take all of revelations' results equally seriously?

That is, if the individual believer is going to emphasize revelation over analysis, then what makes the revelation of Paul inherently better than the revelation of Buddha or of Joseph Smith?

Believers are forced to admit that revelation in and of itself is generally a poor method for obtaining results, producing contradictory and vague insights.

There must be some additional, exterior standard applied to the products of revelation to determine whether they have any merit as the basis of a belief system.

However, revelation shouldn’t even need to be sorted out in this manner, should it? Shouldn’t it just be “self-evident” if it is divinely revealed? Revelation by definition should not necessarily appeal to any exterior standard for its confirmation.

But revelation never really is self-evident, is it? It does require some exterior standard for evaluation as the basis of a possible belief system.

Thus the thousands of religions, and even the thousands of variations within Christianity! Revelation can produce claims, but it's lacking a mechanism to sort them out, to see if they're plausible or believable.

If you are a religious believer, and you are privileging revelation over rational analysis, do you:

(One) hijack rational analysis to try and provide some kind of support for your revelatory claims, which (by definition) should not need to be supported in such a manner?

(Two) admit that you have no way to evaluate any of your religious claims on the same basis as competing claims derived from revelation, therefore rendering any religious claims you may possess indistinguishable from religious claims you do not possess?

The Ash Wednesday Challenge

2009-02-25T17:24:00.003-05:00

As many of you may know (or may not know), today is a religious holiday known as Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the religious season known in the Christian calendar as Lent. It is tradition for followers to give up something during the Lenten season.

I wanted to try a different approach: why not do something differently or try something new for 40 days?

I'm sure you can come up with something. Of course, you don't have to limit yourself to any set period of time or any particular thing.

Consider this a challenge.

The Power of the FSM Compels You!

2009-02-24T10:48:00.004-05:00

Exchange from the blog "Unreasonable Faith":

Teleprompter: As long as you’ve prayed to the FSM, I’m sure it doesn’t matter what “religion” you are.

D.F.: Are you implying that praying to the FSM is a religion? IT’S NOT!!!! It’s a relationship! It’s communion! We eat his flesh and drink his blood! It has NOTHING to do with religion! It’s spiritual…communion…tasty…worship.

Teleprompter: It is a religion - and you are a HERETIC - you will burn in the sauce forever!

D.F.: Sorry to inform you, Teleprompter, and believe me when I say it breaks my heart, but YOU ARE THE HERETIC.

Obviously, the FSM has not chosen you to be a TrueFollower™. Perhaps you think you are a follower, but let me be clear — you are NOT a follower, and HAVE NEVER been a follower.
You have been deceived by pirates. Unless you repent, then it is YOU who will burn in sauce forever! Ramen!

The Atheist Blogroll and ThunderfOOt

2009-02-21T18:38:00.006-05:00

Avert Your Eye is now a member of The Atheist Blogroll!

You can view the blogroll in this blog's sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to atheist bloggers from all around the world.

Hoo-ray!

If you would like to join *the* Atheist Blogroll, please visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Of course, I'm also going to throw in a mention of ThunderfOOt. As many of you may already know, ThunderfOOt is one the most popular anti-creationist, pro-science YouTubers.

His video "YouTube vs. The Users", which admonishes YouTube for not addressing votebots has been removed, and his account has been suspended for two weeks.

If you would like to make a mirror of ThunderfOOt's video, please visit the following website and download ThunderfOOt's banned video:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=4d77967b07dff9ac4012e8015643d9c840c71670e93b4d0b

Literally hundreds of users are re-posting mirrors of this video. Please support these efforts to reduce censorship on YouTube and support ThunderfOOt.

And if you're interested, please go see Mojoey at Deep Thoughts and check out The Atheist Blogroll. Thanks!

Science and Religion: Which Works Better?

2009-02-21T15:10:00.001-05:00

Let’s compare the scientific method to religion --

Scientific method: Observe. Deduce hypothesis. Make prediction. Perform experiment. Analyze results. Repeat for consistency.

Religious method: Observe. Deduce hypothesis. Do not make a prediction. Do not perform an experiment. Do not analyze results. Reject alternative explanations, even if they explain things in reality better than your hypothesis does. Or, revise hypothesis to accept alternative explanations. Then, either hold conflicting beliefs, or gradually define your hypothesis out of existence. Do not question. Repeat for consistency.

Strange Thoughts and More Like Them

2009-02-20T20:53:00.002-05:00

The inner workings of the brain are something I can only contemplate given my severely limited knowledge.

It must be like some kind of machine.

I heard someone speculate once that there must be programs which can "crash" the brain, just as there as programs which can "crash" a computer.

I wonder what such a program would be like?

******************

There is an image which keeps re-appearing to me again and again, in several guises:

The lego constructions I used to build when I was very young: the elaborate manipulation of the bricks, followed swiftly by near inevitable destruction or implosion.

Numerous colonies of bacteria in a plate, consuming agar, reproducing themselves into oblivion.

A panel from the comic "Peanuts" when Linus spends a long time carefully molding a soap replica of a Navy clipper, only to see his creation obliterated by his sister Lucy.

Things arisen, things consumed, things destroyed.

And this visage repeats over, and over, and over.

What do I make of it?

I think that is a question for all of us.

There's Probably No Good Reason for this Post...

2009-02-11T22:04:00.010-05:00

...Now stop worrying and enjoy my pictures.

Thanks are extended to:

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/

for the nifty Bus slogan generator,

inspired by the recent Atheist Bus Campaign.

The cake is a lie. Or is it? Schrodinger's Cake, anyone?

I feel a lot of empathy for my friends who have gluten allergies.

On the Nature of Spirituality (Part One)

2009-02-11T18:14:00.005-05:00

As an atheist, how do I understand spirituality? How do I understand the religious inclinations of individuals?

Some sources have suggested that certain people have varying predispositions for the mystical or the spiritual.

For some people, "god" is reality - god exists for them and for them, he is indeed real. That is not necessarily a disconnect from reality -- for some people the mystical is as plain as daylight.

Then again, for schizophrenics, many things are also plain as daylight. But I'm not here to make that comparsion. I want to emphasize that this is a tough topic to negotiate: there are many complicated causes and effects of the practices of spirituality and mysticism.

Most of us are inclined to believe in the supernatural, for whatever reasons we may have, whether psychological, cultural, etc.

Some of us describe ourselves as "spiritual but not religious". Some of us are more accurately "religious but not spiritual" -- like a lot of people who profess that they're Christian or Jewish, etc. but rarely worship and only nominally think about and participate in their religion.

Some people really do have a self-proclaimed "spiritual" sense but don't believe in any particular religion, like Sam Harris. It would also be helpful to consider Carl Sagan's perspective on awe and wonder in our lives when considering this particular form of "spirituality".

I know a few friends (this is purely anecdotal) who have rejected Christianity but still felt in touch with a certain kind of "mystical sense" and became neo-pagan or polytheist/pantheist.

It seems from the way our psychology and perhaps our society has formed, that some people have a real need for religion or spirituality or mysticism in some variety. Now, I realize that it is highly debatable whether people actually "need" spirituality or mysticism. Do people need these things the way a drug addict needs drugs? Or the way a hormonal teenager needs sexual outlets? Or the way that a lonely person needs someone to talk to? I don't know where we should place the spiritual "need" in these categories. However, that uncertainty does not negate the existence of the "need" itself. As long as atheists refuse to address this base component of spirituality, most people will not understand atheism. Religion often serves as a proxy for many emotional attachments and states. Statistics may indicate that the non-religious are no less moral than the religious, but statistics are not enough to create understanding, or evolution would be far more widely accepted in American society than it is today. As long as atheists cannot or refuse to understand the emotional basis and implications of spirituality, people will not understand us.

I believe that this spirituality is an inner component of our psychology, and that each of us interprets this differently due to cultural and environmental influences. Some of us also feel this urge more strongly than others do.

Just because I believe that spirituality comes from inside of us, instead of from some external creator force, does not mean that I casually disregard it or see it as unnecessary to our lives.
There are many emotions and such within our minds that we feel, which may or may not be necessarily "true", but that we almost all acknowledge as perfectly valid feelings, such as love, anger, fear, etc.

I fully acknowledge that many urges which originate from inside of us are negative, and that perhaps spirituality is one of these negative urges which should be eliminated, controlled, or reduced. I understand this point of view. I do not know whether or not I agree with it.

I perceive spirituality as one more emotion we encounter in our existence, just as we experience fear, love, hope, anger, happiness, and many other feelings.

For me, spirituality is a perfectly valid feeling, but I have acknowledged that spirituality probably comes from within us, and also that each of us is especially prone to use confirmation bias to mold the perceptions we have of our internal spirituality so they conform to our culture's external sense of religious piety.

Craig Hogan speculated recently that our universe is actually a hologram, based on "noise" from the GEO600 machine. This is what I think about in terms of "spirituality".

My spirituality consists largely of a fond respect for the absurdity of our universe: if it is true that our entire universe is a hologram, can we honestly say that it is any stranger than, say, SpongeBob Squarepants living in a giant pineapple under the sea?

We human beings are all spiritual in many different forms: sometimes it is expressed through our love of religion, our love of a career, our love of nature, our love of humor, our love of family, our love of certain traditions, our devotion to patriotism or to sports or to politics.

Are other atheists so cocksure that they want to take a popular stand against the essence of "spirituality"? Yes, such an opinion may be valid; it may be correct for all I know -- but now it is suicide. When theists ask us why we can live our lives in a moral way, it isn't because they think we're evil -- it's because for them, spirituality is linked to all of these other positive values.

I agree that this connection is a profoundly negative one. But rather than focusing on a complete rejection of spirituality, it would be wiser and more efficient for us to shift the topic of spirituality away from the religious sentiments which divide us and towards the emotional sentiments which we all have in common.

I have nothing against Carl Sagan's or most liberal Christians' or Jews' or pantheists' spirituality. My problems lie with dogma. I have nothing against faith. My problems lie with blind faith.

I just want people to be able to make a knowledgeable decision about religion. Organized religion has claimed a place of unquestioned privilege in the realms of spirituality and morality which I strongly feel it has not deserved for much of human history. For me, it is long past time to reclaim morality and spirituality back from the vise grip of organized dogma.

I have no problems with individual religious experiences or even organized religion itself. My main frustration is with the monolithic oppression of dogma -- fundamentalism and ignorance devastatingly at work. That is the message atheists need to convey.

Atheists are not opposed to spirituality or morality -- not opposed to emotion or feeling -- not opposed to family or patriotism or service -- most atheists are opposed to the ignorance, prejudice, and anti-intellectualism which are strongly identified with religious fundamentalism and even many guises of so-called religious moderation.

Doubt, not dogma. Spirituality, not religion. Faith, not blind faith. Healing, not heresy.

The next segment more geared toward religious believers.

Dear Christian

2009-02-11T18:00:00.004-05:00

I am inclined to believe that atheists will never be able to conclusively prove that the generic “god” does not exist. I can’t foretell this, but it seems that there are too many obstacles and unknowns to justify such a belief.

However, I believe that I am fully justified to not believe in the god of the Bible, the god of the Qur’an, the god of Joseph Smith, the god of Scientology, and many other gods which we know of now.

In all likelihood, I cannot disprove the existence of these gods. But there are things of which I know now which to me make it highly unlikely that any of these gods would exist.

Is evolution true? Then I cannot take the Bible literally.

Is the Biblical revelation, and more importantly, the interpretation of Biblical revelation, inconsistent? Then I cannot take the Bible (or most forms of Christianity) seriously.

Is the mind a product of the brain? Then I see no reason why I should believe in the concept of the “soul”.

A metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is more or less fine until I start to doubt the coherency of Christian dogma. But the incoherency is more or less defensible or avoidable until I doubt the existence of the “soul”.

Then I must proceed in doubting the premises of Christianity, due to this continually evolving set of circumstances.

If, once I begin to doubt the premises of Christianity, I cannot defend them, nor convince myself of their meaning or relevance or application or even existence, then I cannot in good faith profess Christianity as my religion, and then I feel compelled to move on to something else.

I am not here to insult or denigrate you.

I just want to express my beliefs, my experiences, and my struggles. I want to illuminate the discussions of religion and faith and skepticism. I want to contribute to our knowledge. I want to engage others in intelligent, calm, rational argument.

I am sure that you want the very same things that I do.

I'm Sort of Noteworthy!

2009-01-22T11:32:00.002-05:00

Hey everybody....

I was mentioned in a blog entry today on Daniel Florien's excellent, semi-popular blog Unreasonable Faith. Go check it out!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/22/the-bible-argues-against-blind-faith/

Hoo-ray, I'm sort of noteworthy! My 15 seconds of Internet fame may be upon me.

Unconditional Love: An Atheist's Sermon

2009-01-18T18:01:00.003-05:00

I believe that the best kind of love is unconditional love.

It is the best foundation for any type of serious relationship, and the most enduring type of love we know. Whether it is a married couple, a parent and child, a friend and a friend, or even a Saviour dying for his people, unconditional love is far and away better than any other type.

Even though I am not a Christian, I admire the story of Jesus, specifically the "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" part. I agree that dying for someone else is a very strong form of love and I would say that dying for someone based on unconditional love is the strongest love of all.

It is most directly this principle, in my opinion, which has allowed the Christian religion to fluorish for the last few thousand years. The reason which fundamentalist Christianity and Islam will ultimately decline is because they are not predicated upon unconditional love, but are based on conditional love instead. "God won't love you unless you do everything exactly the way we say it" may give these religions an evolutionary advantage. It may help them retain membership through coercion and other threats. This "fire and brimstone" theology, however, is doomed to fail, because it is counter-intuitive to the best human definitions of love.

One of my goals is not to debunk religion, but to debunk fundamentalism in religion. Much of the renewed vigor of atheists in recent years is directly attributable to a rise in global fundamentalism. However, I do not wish for my atheism to turn into fundamentalism. I admit that I appreciate the beauty and morality which can be found in many religions of our world. However, I will not hesitate to point out when certain elements of religion harm human beings instead of helping them.

I believe that there are other ways to help people besides religion, but I must admit that for many purposes religion is the most efficient means we have to decrease suffering, and as a moral utilitarian, I sincerely appreciate anything which decreases suffering in our world.

Fundamentalism is not unconditional love: it is not the unconditional love of Jesus. He spent time with prostitutes and theives and tax collectors (well-known frauds), and told them that there was a larger hope for them beyond the boundaries of their society's conception of religious dogma. Jesus brought into the world a sense that their was something innately more powerful than the religious law of his times, and in that sense he was correct: he gave license for many humans to unleash their unconditional love in the same way that he would give his love and forgiveness unconditionally.

Many people in our society say "the sacrifice of Jesus is necessary for salvation" or "the sacrifice of Jesus is necessary for forgiveness", and then attempt to exclude from that message of love and hope all who do not disagree with them on religion. However, from my readings of the Gospel, I remember that Jesus forgave sins before he died -- before he sacrificed himself on a cross, he still forgave sins. Because he forgave the sins of humanity, he was branded a heretic by the religious establishment of his times. Jesus advanced the idea that one human could forgive another, outside of the boundaries of the religious establishment. Of course, theology accounts for this being possible because he was a god, but what Christian will also deny his human nature, for to deny that is to deny his sacrifice?

I believe that he was a good man; maybe not as good as Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. They're close. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, was also a great leader. He tried to bridge the divide between Hindu and Muslim believers in his homeland, by saying that his god was neither Hindu nor Muslim, but above both.

I do not believe in Jesus' divinity, but I do believe in his message of love and forgiveness, as I also believe in the Buddha's message of compassion, though I also do not believe that the Buddha had a divine experience. Fundamentalists tell us that we can only experience unconditional love and forgiveness if we adhere exactly to their beliefs. If we believe this message, then we are denying our own humanity, for the capacity exists within all of us to be as unconditionally loving and forgiving as Jesus or as compassionate as the Buddha.

Religion can help us become better people when it is not divisive, petty, power-hungry, fearful or jealous.

1 John 4:16,18-19 (NIV) reads, "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him...There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us."

This passage is one of the best statements in the entire Bible.

Jesus brought love into the world to supercede the law. Fulfilling the law was the only way to reach God: fulfilling the law was the only way to reach the divine. And if one could not fulfill the law, one could not reach God. Early Christians recognized that it was impossible to fulfill the law. They recognized that there is a value in humanity infinitely more important than a law which is based on divine command: perfect, unconditional love.

The law was based on fear -- the law was based on fear, not love. And "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". The essential positive message of Jesus is that people are free to love other humans in him because he loved humanity. The number one doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the law, freeing us to love other people as he loved us.

Love is more important than any divine law: this is the most important principle of Christianity. And it is a principle which fundamentalist Christians conclusively ignore. They always complain "hate the sin, love the sinner" or "what you're doing is wrong because it's against God's law" or they read passages from Leviticus in an attempt to feel smug with their knowledge of the law.

But Jesus and the early Christians knew that true love comes unconditionally, not through any divine law! The major problem with divine law is that basically your god is saying "this is good because I said so!" The early Christians knew that this didn't make sense -- they probably knew that the god of the Old Testament who orders genocidal massacres of thousands "because he said so" didn't make sense.

A much better, more profound message is "love because God first loved us". It is a more human message, and what better way to illustrate the shift of focus in religion from the divine to the human level by sending a human (Jesus) to preach this new message!

Jesus and his early followers were radical theological revolutionaries. Basically, Jesus was a kinder, more compassionate version of Martin Luther or John Calvin. The early Christians' new principle -- the way to access love, the way to access the divine -- is through unconditional love, not through the law, not through fear, and not through punishment -- was an amazing and spectacularly successful message. However, that message is perverted by all those who say "believe in Jesus or go to hell!"

John 3:16 is most Christians' favorite Bible verse, but what about John 3:18, which states that all those who do not believe are already condemned? True love is not made perfect through fear or through fear of punishment, as 1 John 4:18 so clearly states.

This is why I do not believe in the god of Isaiah 8:13 (NIV):

"The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

or the god of Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV):

"'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

or the god of Hebrews 10:31 (NIV):

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

I do not believe in that god, such a god that is to be dreaded or feared. For love, unconditional love, is not made perfect through fear, or especially through fear of punishment, as the section from 1 John 4 so clearly demonstrates.

I believe in unconditional love and compassion, shared by such religious innovators as Jesus, Buddha, and Guru Nanak. What is love?

I look at 1 Corinthians 4:4-13 (NIV):

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

This is the love in which I believe. The Biblical god often boasts -- is easily angered -- keeps record of wrongs -- is not patient. Yet once we know of true unconditional love, this "poor reflection as in a mirror" shall pass away.

Everything shall pass away eventually: "where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away". One of my goals is to put these "childish ways" of religious dogmatism behind.

Jesus said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" to those who crucified him. Yet the Old Testament god could not forgive Adam and Eve, who didn't even know the difference between god and evil? Who in the history of the entire universe would the words "forgive them, for they know not what they do?" apply to better than to Adam and Eve? That is indeed a "poor reflection in a mirror" of love.

Love is the greatest of all things. And whenever a manifestation of love is found, it deserves to be celebrated and embraced by all, regardless of its origin. Conversely, whenever something that stands in the way of love is found, it should be criticized and admonished, regardless of its origin.

There are many things in Christianity which celebrate love, and there are many things in Christianity which go firmly against the grain of love. Though Christianity as we know it may pass away, true love will never fail, as long as there are humans to spread unconditional love.

This is why I celebrate Jesus, but not Yahweh, and forgiveness and love, but not fire and brimstone.

What Is Love? Examining Biblical Claims (Part One)

2009-01-11T22:58:00.009-05:00

This post is the first in a series of posts where I'll be critically examining Biblical claims.

The Text:

1 John 4:16-18 (NIV) -- "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

vs.

Isaiah 8:13 (NIV) -- "The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV) -- "'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

Hebrews 10:31 (NIV) -- "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Conflicting Claims:

The Biblical god is love. The Bible itself declares that "there is no fear in love"; yet the god of the Bible declares himself as "the one you are to fear" and "the one you are to dread".

Furthermore, the Bible declares that "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". However, Bible readers are exhorted numerous times to "fear" their god. While an argument may be made that "fear" referenced in some verses has a different definition than the "fear" referenced in other verses, I am confident that the explicit inclusion of terms such as "dread" and "tremble" should illuminate for us what kind of fear to which the text is referring, if the translation I have in front of me is has an accurate translation (it's NIV). So, the Biblical audience is repeatedly urged to fear their god, but those who fear are not made perfect in love, which their god is claimed to be. Is the Biblical god a god of fear or a god of love? According to the texts, the Biblical god is alternately both a god of love and a god of fear. However, the verses are clear here that fear is not a sound basis for love. Fear is not what love is. But the Biblical god is presented as a being to be feared, whom one should dread and also tremble in its presence.

But Aren't You Rejecting Love?

I believe that there is a greater love outside the contents of this book than there is within its contents. Yes, fear does nothing to grow or enhance love for one another. However, the Biblical god relies upon coercion and fear. Why not love for love's own sake?

Much of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) was written by people who had a different understanding of the world than we do today. At that time, violence and bloodshed was a critical part of survival. Fear meant protection. Fear meant safety. Fear meant respect. The world was a much different place for those who wrote the Bible than it is today. One can imagine why people living in such fearful times would associate "fear" with "power". There's no real harm in acknowledging that our world has changed in the last few thousand years, and that our moral standards have also changed in the process. I agree that love, with a solid foundation in human empathy, is a powerful and worthy quality. I also agree that extreme levels of fear are counterproductive in preparing the groundwork of love.

Why NOT Do Something? Why Not?

2008-12-22T16:50:00.005-05:00

A few people have asked me recently, "Why do you care about being an atheist?"

The main argument seems to be "why would anyone care about not polluting the atmosphere, or not allowing children to ingest harmful chemicals, or not killing someone, or not eating meat...so why should you or I or anyone care about not having a religion?"

Wait a minute, you ask? Aren't all of those things you just said substantive, constructive examples of the value of NOT doing something?

Yes! I may be a terrible practitioner of sarcasm, so I'm just going to tell you what I'm saying instead. Huzzah!!

People ask me all the time: what's the value of not doing something?

There's plenty of value in not doing something harmful or wasteful or empty. I believe that the practice of religion often falls into one of these three categories.

Sure, there are benefits to practicing religion: a sense of community, the establishment of a moral framework in individuals, and the introduction of some powerful incentives to help others.

One of the problems with religion is that even the benefits of religion can turn out to have extremely negative effects.

Religious communities are helpful until they exclude others. Relgious communities are helpful until they begin to fight over divisions in dogma. Religious communities are helpful until they start to awaken the divisive tribal instincts of humanity.

The religious establishment of a moral framework in individuals is often misguided is sometimes dangerously incomplete. Unfortunately, one of the properties of religious belief is that individuals can often be easily manipulated for nefarious purposes by believing that some act of discrimination or violence is the will of a supreme being. Religions which allow individuals to come through religious training and teaching enabled to harm others in the name of said religion show a dangerous lack in the rigor of their moral framework. Any religion that can be disguised as hate or intolerance probably contains an element of hate or intolerance waiting to be unleashed. A religion of peace can be identified by the actions of its followers: no matter what religious adherents say, if the followers of a religion are peaceful, then the religion is peaceful. Now, I do realize that many religions have a fringe element or two which defies the peaceful teachings and traditions of a religion in order to practice hate. This I understand, and this would not prevent me from labeling a religion as a "religion of peace". However, when the number of fanatics spikes to the range of millions upon millions, then I will have serious doubts as to whether a religion really does represent an agenda for peace, especially if the religion under consideration has established a history of coercion as a method of conversion and political dominance, and if societies founded upon the ideas of a certain religion breed the repression of and intolerance of certain undeserving elements of the population, then it will further be confirmed that a particular religion is not a religion of peace.

It doesn't do much good to establish a moral framework in individuals when the framework itself is much more hole-y than holy.

But in its defense, adherents of religion also tell me that religion is a powerful force for good in our world: examine how religion compels kindness and respect and charity towards others.

Yes, I believe it is positive that certain adherents of religion are motivated to do something. But I do not believe that religion is the most efficient or preferrable way to do good in our world.

Why do we do good which we do? Many religious people do good for its own sake. This is the most admirable instinct of humanity. But I also fear that at least on a subconscious level, many people who are religious are only "good" because they feel that they will be rewarded either in this life or in another possible life eons into the future.

Religious people sometimes like to tell me that we have "free will", and that this is why there is evil in this world. Yes, there's evil because we "sinned", and thus brought evil into the world. The deity in charge (according to the story) allowed us to have a "sinful" nature, allowed us to bring "sin" into our world, because we have "free will". And why do we have free will?

Theists say we have free will, "because it is better for us to love our god of our own accord, and not through force or manipulation, as automatons -- to do so would not be true love."

And yet certain theists tell me that it's OK to do something good because of a forced system of reward and punishment? The concepts of heaven and hell, it has been said, are the ultimate bribe and threat -- eternal pleasure or eternal punishment: the choice is ours.

But is this system of "divine command ethics" really love for its own sake? If we have "free will" because we are supposed to love this creator for our love's own sake, but if we cannot do so because of a forced system of reward and punishment, then we are really incapable of love for its own sake toward any divine creator deity who would construct such a system.

Surely those theists who believe that we have "free will" because it is better to love for the sake of love would hesitate before contradicting themselves and telling me that a system of reward and punishment is really better than loving something for its own sake?

What kind of love is best -- a kind coerced or a kind given voluntarily? Have we still not made up our minds?

But people still say to me, well -- it's better that people are motivated to do good, even if the system is unfair or doesn't make sense.

That is still debatable. I don't know if people would be any more good or any less good without religion.

Personally, I think people would be just about the same. People who wanted to pass on moral values to their children would still do so - people who wanted to learn about morality would still do so. People who wanted to ignore morality would still do that, too, just as they do today. I don't see how much would change. The same things which motivate people to do good or bad now still motivate people to do good or bad whether there is a divine being overseeing us all or not.

Also, there are a lot of people who don't have ties to religion who do good things. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the most important and generous philanthropists of our time, are not religious. Bill Gates said that religion is "inefficient". I agree with him.

As the signs placed in Washington D.C. this holiday season by a humanist group suggest, "Why not be good for goodness' sake?"

I think we can all agree that this is the best kind of love there is.

Yes, sometimes religion does manage to overcome all of these obstacles and ultimately does become a positive force in peoples' lives. Sometimes religious communities form that don't criticize those who have a different interpretation of dogma and don't stigmatize those who aren't members of the community. Sometimes people are able to select the parts of religious tradition which they consider to be good moral guidelines and manage to have a positive impact on society by living through these principles. Sometimes people do good things for the right reasons because that's how they interpret religious teachings: many religious followers see the examples of Buddha, Guru Nanak, or Jesus Christ, and think that it really is more important to do something good for its' own sake rather than to earn a reward or avoid a punishment.

We know the good that religion can accomplish, and I strongly believe that we can still manage to accomplish almost all of this without the aid of religion. I know it will take a lot of hard work, dedication, and perseverance, but I believe we can do this. And I believe we should do this.

We can overcome the negative aspects of religion and we can emphasize the positive aspects of religion in our societies and in our communities and in our families, without serving a specific religious purpose.

I don't want religion to be eradicated. If religion can do the positive things which I mentioned, and avoid the pitfalls which I also mentioned, I believe that it can have a valuable influence on our world and should be allowed to fluorish in that form. However, I also believe that we can accomplish all of the positive things that religion does now more efficiently with greater impact if we're not hampered by a religious message or agenda.

Talking about atheism and the ethics of humanism is something positive we can do. If religion is going to be something we're not doing, it's going to take a lot of effort to do that.

I am absolutely in favor of doing something in order to not to do something so we can instead do something else. I am in favor of promoting reason and rationality and atheism so we can avoid the negative entanglements of religion and instead rely on secular ethics and the morality of empathy to form communities, establish a moral framework, and provide incentives for positive behavior.

What is the value of NOT doing something?

It's infinitely greater than the value of doing something harmful, or not taking something harmful which could be positive and turning it into a positive force, or not replacing something negative altogether with something less harmful and more beneficial to everyone involved.

"Why do you care about NOT having a religion: you wouldn't attend meetings for a non-stamp-collecting group, you don't read non-Twilight blogs, and you don't describe your hair style as a non-Mohawk, so why care about not having a religion?"

The value of not having a religion is measured in the absence of all the negative entanglements of religious belief and practice and by the accquisition of all the positive traits of a morality based on empathy and compassion. There are many ways to value the absence of a negative quantity.

Yes, it is not what we do not do that is meaningful; it is what we do that is meaningful. Not having religion means that I do possess the freedom to think about morality for myself and do good for its' own sake - it means that I do have the ability to research scientific phenomena without having to justify my discoveries through religious doctrine - there are plenty of things that I do because of my lack of religion that are meaningful to me.

This is why my atheism is important.

What Is Tolerance?

2008-12-22T16:23:00.003-05:00

I made the mistake of watching Lou Dobbs the other day. He was talking about the furor over President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give an Invocation on Obama's Inauguaration Day.

Dobbs said that "tolerance means disagreeing without being disagreeable". No Mr. Dobbs, that's not what tolerance means. Tolerance means accepting other people for who they are, and not discriminating against them for what they stand for or look like or who they sleep with.

Rick Warren is not a good example of tolerance. Sure, he's civil. Civility is the beginning of tolerance, but it is not its entirety. Many people have made this mistake before. When people say vicious or hateful things through a calm and polite facade, that's not tolerance...that's deliberate deception and it's a fraud perpetrated on the public.

I appreciate what Rick Warren's done for the evangelical movement in certain aspects, widening its previously narrow focus on certain trademark cultural issues to include fights against poverty, AIDS, and global climate change. I admire Warren's efforts in these areas, and if I ever saw him, I'd thank him for that. Then I'd strongly admonish him for standing against gay rights.

Rick Warren's not a saint, OK? Neither is Barack Obama. They're both human, but they both have a lot of followers who trust everything they say and think everything they do is motivated by purely altruistic reasons. That's just not the truth - because no one is motivated by purely altruistic causes. That's one of the fundamental principles of human nature -- and we as a species tend to get in trouble when we forget that about our fellow human beings. Let's forgive Obama, but let's not forget this.

Rick Warren thinks homosexuality is not natural. Maybe it's not his fault that he believes this?

I have no way of knowing that. However, that doesn't excuse inaction on our part. We know homosexuality is not a choice. We know people who happen to be homosexual deserve every right that heterosexuals have. It is our responsibility to remind President-elect Obama of this reality. It may be too late to make it right this time, but in the future we can implement this change.

I have confidence because history is on our side. I have confidence because the facts are on our side. I have confidence because the youth are on our side. However, as we saw with the drive to pass Proposition 8 in California, those who want to impede the recognition of these rights have many resources and a lot of energy.

But think about this: twenty or even ten years ago, very few people would've been said to be in favor of gay marriage. Now, it's almost a consensus about liberals. Soon, it'll be a consensus among liberals and moderates. My own grandfather who's voted Republican almost his entire life is certainly no friend to liberal causes most of the time, and as recently as five years ago expressed his furor over the possibility of legalized gay marriage, but now he is open to the possibility. I don't expect him to protest or anything, but the public is drifting towards our side of the issue, and I know we're right, and I know we're going to make this happen.

Let Rick Warren say his prayer. I'm going to say a prayer with my actions. Like Frederick Douglass said, "I prayed for twenty years, but I received no answer until I prayed with my legs".

Let's be civil. Let's not be a doormat and let those who oppose progress take advantage of our civility. Sure, I'll let Rick Warren pray for me, and then maybe he'll let me think for him.

Tolerance: being nice is good. Being nice while working to defeat your opponents is even better.

This Song Is Awesome

2008-12-14T05:42:00.002-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8&feature=related

No further explanation necessary.

By the way, I'm thinking of a doing a parody of this video for Richard Dawkins. I already have lyrics. :D

This could be fun.

I Miss My Church, But Not Religion (Part One)

2008-12-13T22:38:00.008-05:00

I miss my old church, the way it used to be. The way it was when I was a little kid.

It's at times like these I remember 1 Corinthians 13:11, when a passage attributed to Paul instructs people to put away childish things.

Now, it may very well seem out of place for an atheist to mention a Bible passage in his blog about atheism. I understand that -- but the context of this entry is my Christian childhood, so please take that into consideration before you condemn me.

Anyways...

I remember a lot of things about my old church as it was when I was growing up. I recall sunday schools and vacation bible studies. It was fun for me because there were all these kids in one place -- and the activities were always very structured. I was one of those children that thrived on structure and I was deathly afraid of having to interact with others on my own initiative. I didn't know how to interact. I was kind of developmentally delayed - not talking until I was in preschool and so forth. It took me years to become something other than a social pariah.

I loved going to church. It gave me purpose -- it gave me meaning. And most of the time, this had little or nothing to do with religion. It was just another place to be, another thing to do. It was a safe place for me, a place where I could be myself.

The elderly ladies of my church always lavished their attention on me when I was a child, and often times there were other kids which with I made friends and spent time doing things.

At one time in my life, my church was a very stable place for me emotionally, and it came as quite a shock when it ceased to have that role in my life, and practically became a destabilizing influence on me.

For much of the time which I attended, my church seemed to be cursed in one aspect or another. Whether it was the succession or absence of pastors, the reoccuring inability to pay the bills every month, or the steady flux of congregants who left our church due to job relocation or a change of denominations, it seemed that things were just going badly. In spite of this hardship, I still felt that it was a good place for me and it was an institution worth serving.

My earliest memory of church is tagging along with my mother to services and trying to follow her fingers through the lines of the hymnal book as we sang songs. I remember staring at the images of the cross, the ceiling lights, and the pulpit, wondering in awe what it all meant. I've always had an appreciation for the beauty of a church, even though the cost of that appreciation has been the decreased comprehension of many a sermon throughout my childhood.

Around age six, I had an enthusiastic, energetic sunday school teacher who was the first person to motivate me to be Christian. Of course, I had no idea what anything meant -- it's just that she was the first person to instill in me the idea that "Jesus loves you". She was a wonderful and engaging person; a wonderful teacher of children. I had a lot of difficulties in my life at that age, and her patience went a long way toward my early devotion to Christianity. Few people took the positive messages of Jesus of Nazareth more to heart than she did. Even though I no longer share her beliefs, I will be ever grateful for her benevolent and kind influence over my childhood.

I still didn't think about religion very much at that point. I did manage to progress slowly and purposefully. By age eight, I could follow along in the services without getting lost. I could sing songs without losing my place in the hymnal book. I was becoming a competent churchgoer.

It was at the age of eight that I first received the Holy Communion. I had to take a few classes on it, but I still had no idea what any of it meant. I think the Roman Catholics have a superior idea by waiting longer for the administration of Holy Communion. This is a reflection of my agreement with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to force religion on children who have no way to properly analyze its merits or disadvantages. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to take children to religious services, as long as you don't push the faith on them aggressively.

After I received my first taste of communion (grape juice and a wafer - even most of the adults wouldn't drink the alcohol. After trying the communion wine as an adolescent, I don't blame them. I never touched the stuff unless we ran out of grape juice)...

After I received my first communion, I received my first personal Bible. It wasn't the Child's kind, containing mostly illustrations and only minimal substantive details -- it was the genuine article, Nehemiah and Colossians included.

I am a child of the spring. I have a birthday that is fairly late in the academic calendar year, so as a consequence I was also younger than most of my school classmates - which never seemed to help my social insecurity, unfortunately.

In April of that year, I had received my very own Bible from my parents, as a mark of my growing maturity in the Christian faith. That summer would become a very pivotal time in my life in terms of my relationship with Christianity.

After school ended for the year, I joined my church's youth group and attended a Christian summer camp for the first time (though I only went for three days instead of the full week since I was such a young tyke at such an unfamiliar place.)

I was more involved than ever before with Christians. We played games and ate food and did fun things; sure, we talked about faith a little bit, but it wasn't anything I hadn't experienced before. I'm not sure if I took the part about religion seriously or not. Sure, I didn't know what any of it really meant, but my faith had still become a major part of my life.

When I was nine, I finally opened that Bible my parents had given me the previous year. Unfortunately, I skipped to the end and read that just as children as prone to doing. (Who doesn't want to find out what happens at the end, right? I mean, imagine following Christianity for years, reading the entire Bible, and then finding out that Satan wins in the end. What a bummer that would be.)

Unfortunately, the first book I read from start to finish was "Revelations". Naturally, it scared the complete sh*t out of my nine-year-old self.

Of course I knew I was sinful - I'd disobeyed my parents before; I'd even acted up in school a few times (though I usually just quietly did what everyone else was doing).

At the age of nine, I had my first thought that this hell thing was actually real, and that I could actually go there. It was my first experience with a vengeful god.

At around that time, my mother was thinking about leaving our church. I mentioned all of the troubles our congregation had been experiencing. She was just tired of dealing with all that went awry. She put a lot of effort into supporting that church, and I think she was really burned out by it.

I thought we should stay. To my childish eyes, I didn't see a lot that was wrong with it, and it still meant a lot to me emotionally.

The Negativity of Atheism?

2008-12-13T21:37:00.005-05:00

As I have repeatedly emphasized, I am an atheist.

I lack belief in the supernatural, in deities, in religion. I reject it.

Therefore, many people have accused me and other atheists of being overly negative. I'd like to analyze this sentiment.

On one hand, of course atheism is negative. That's the basic definition of atheism -- we don't believe in certain things. So sure, technically one would be correct to say that atheism is essentially negative.

However, I'd like to look at atheism another way.

Sometimes, not accepting a belief is ultimately positive. For example, I could say that Jainism is often positive because it doesn't condone violence. I also believe that my parents taught me a positive lesson by teaching me not to steal.

So what does atheism offer?

Atheism doesn't teach us that we are fundamentally bad people. Atheism doesn't teach us that believing something without evidence is virtuous. Atheism doesn't teach us that we are incapable of being rational moral agents - that we are incapable of behaving decently without the supernatural intervention of a deity. Atheism doesn't teach us that some humans will be condemned to eternal torture for offenses committed over a limited amount of time -- that morality by fiat is unacceptable except when condoned by divine scripture. Atheism doesn't teach us that some basic human instincts are reprehensible or should be avoided (humor, sexual urges, etc.). Atheism doesn't blame us for our own genetic predispositions and then condemn us for "sin" -- by saying that we have "free will" even though many critical elements of our lives have been pre-determined by genetics or circumstance.

Yes, atheism is negative. And I sincerely appreciate atheism for what it isn't.

Finally, I hope you all have a very Merry [Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, Humanlight, Eid, New Year]!

In Defense of Atheism

2008-12-09T21:49:00.005-05:00

The following is a lengthy letter which I composed to respond to critics of atheists and atheism on another blog.

I have omitted the handles of those to whom I responded to protect their identity.

"Hi all…
(a): You said that there cannot be morality with a god. I disagree.
Let me ask you something: does your god declare something to be good because it is, or is something good because he declares it to be that way? If your god declares something good because it is, that means that there is a form of morality above and beyond your god, and therefore he could not be all-powerful or all-good. If something is good because your god declares it to be that way, then all of your god’s morality is subjective. Then how do you know that what your god does really is good?
Let me ask you something else: Who is more moral? An atheist who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child, or a Christian who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child? The atheist, who believes that there is no life after this one, is willing to sacrifice everything, but the theist believes that he will be rewarded in the next life for his actions. Isn’t the person who is willing to do something good without being rewarded more of a moral person? Are you really a moral person if you have to threatened with eternal punishment or bribed with eternal reward to do the right things?
(b): You said that if atheists were true atheists, they would have nothing to demonstrate or protest about.
I disagree. Atheists are not protesting something which we don’t believe in. If this were the case, I would feel sorry for atheists. However, you have been mislead. Atheists are protesting the actions of Christians and other theists. We protest the discrimination against atheists and other non-religious people in the United States and around the world.
Also, you say that atheists “don’t know god and hate him”. Do you even know any atheists? (b), atheists don’t believe in any gods. There’s nobody for us to hate. We do condemn many of the actions of religious people which with we disagree. However, it would be silly for us to hate something in which we do not believe. Also, I know a great deal about religion. I used to be a Christian; I was for most of my life so far. Then I asked myself “what if it’s not true?”, and then I examined the evidence for Christianity and for other religions, and I found it to be severely lacking. I enjoyed my time as a Christian. I tried to live my life according to those beliefs as best I knew, and I still think that there is a lot of good moral lessons in Christianity and also in other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism and Islam, and I try to live by my own interpretation of morality. You have to admit, almost all Christians do this, too. Do any of you take the Bible 100% literally? No? Then you are doing what I am doing. You live your life according to the sections of the Bible that you think are moral, and you disregard the other sections.
(b): Do you know what the First Amendment means? It means that our government cannot give preferrential treatment to any religion or to religion. That means that the atheists have every right to place a sign on public property if the government is allowing Christians to place a sign on public property. It’s entirely Constitutional.
(c): You say that an atheist “is the worst kind of moral vermin”. Hmmm….
I’m not sure how you can justify that statement. You’re the one who “mocks” atheists and insults us, too. I don’t insult theists just because I disagree with them on theological questions. Most of my friends and relatives are Christians. I respect them for who they are, even if our beliefs differ. Do you remember the Gospel passage where Jesus of Nazareth says “let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”? It’s John 8:7, if you want to look it up. Better yet, look up Matthew 7:5. “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”. Your own beliefs condemn your vicious treatment of atheists and other non-believers. As I said earlier, most atheists know a great deal about religion. We’re not atheists because we know nothing about it; most of us have done our research and decided that it just didn’t seem to be true, or that there was enough evidence to prove its claims.
Also, you ask “what is good?” “what is morality?” “how can atheists explain the presence of good in our world, or morality, or both?”
My sense of morality is grounded in the human empathy I share with my fellow human beings. You ask if rape is just a matter “of human reproduction”. I would not want my daughter or sister or mother to be raped. It’s hardwired in our personalities that rape is wrong. We don’t like rape because we know it’s consequences, and we sincerely don’t want it to happen to others. Are there psychopaths who don’t share this hardwiring? Yes, and this is why we have police and a legal system. My basic code of morality is that I should always minimize both actual and potential suffering, while always maximizing both actual and potential happiness. It’s based on the Golden Rule, it’s based on our shared human empathy. Good is what increases our happiness and reduces suffering; evil is what decreases our happiness and increases our suffering, both in actual and potential quantities.
Also, I am not a “Social Darwinist”. You’re right to say that evolution inherently says nothing about morality. It is a description of the natural world, not a proscription for how we ought to behave as human beings. However, there are some things that have been developed by evolution in part such as our basic human empathy that do help tell us what is moral and how we should live as human beings.
(b): You wrote that a “moral atheist is an oxymoron” and asked why an atheist would do anything for his or her offspring, and why an atheist would even bother to have children.
(b), the only inherent difference between us is that I believe in one fewer deity than you do. That’s it. Atheists feel the same natural love towards other human beings which Christians and other theists do. I believe strongly that love is its own reward. That’s one reason why atheists have children. Is all of your satisfaction from being a parent contingent on the circumstance that there happens to be a deity in control of everything? I believe that atheist parents take as much pleasure in the mental, moral, and physical well-being of their children as theistic parents do. I am too young to have any children, but from what I have witnessed, there are many intrinsic rewards for parenting, and I’m not sure what believing in a god has to do with the benefits of raising children.
You also write that a “true atheist” would be “entirely self-absorbed”. Why? Atheists have the exact same incentives for loving others that theists do, apart from belief in a god. As I said earlier, our love and compassion for other human beings is based on our empathy, that is natural to all human beings, and which all of us share. Belief in a god has nothing to do with how we treat our fellow human beings. It is a non sequitor.
I agree with your basic assessment (taken from Geisler and McDowell), that there is one ultimate moral code. It is one based on our shared human empathy. This is why all of those cultures share some of the same values, and it has nothing to do with belief in a god or any particular religion.
(c): you say that atheism is “parasitic” on “theistic morality”. No, I disagree. I think “theistic morality” is parasitic on our natural human empathy and the concepts of morality which societies around the world have deduced from it, with or without your particular religion. People who are pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Aborigine, Native American have all deduced these moral truths without the aid of Christianity. I believe that this is powerful testimony for those who say that belief in any god or in any particular god is necessary for morality. Some of the most moral religions in the world are thoroughly atheistic, such as Jainism. The Jains have some of the most powerful doctrines of non-violence in the world. You will struggle to find a religion that has a less violent history. Yet they have no god. I have studied Christianity as a former Christian, and I have studied many of the world’s other religions. Please try to explain away the existence of so many people who do not believe in a god or in your god who live such a moral life. Your premise is strongly called into question by their existence. Research Jainism. Research Buddhism. Both are strongly moral in their traditions and guidance, and both are inherently atheistic. Also, many societies in today’s world that have the lowest crime rates are predominantly or have very large numbers of atheists. Look up the statistics for Japan or countries in Scandinavia. Large numbers of atheists, but very low crime rates. There is no causation between morality and religious belief. None. Your argument is flawed. Atheists can be just as moral as Christians or other theists.
I have no quarrel with any of you, on a personal level. You have suffered because people have told you things that weren’t accurate about atheists and atheism. I came here, to your website, to help set the record straight. I am sure most of you are good, reasonable people. Even though we may disagree on theology, I hope that we can respect one another as people, even if we do not respect each other’s beliefs or lack of beliefs.
There are so many more things I wanted to say to you, and so many errors I saw on this website that still need to be corrected, but I have other things and committments which I must do and which I must keep. I encourage all of you to think for yourselves. Don’t take what I say or what anyone else said for granted. Check my facts. I easily could have misspoken about something. Think for yourselves. Thanks for listening to what I have to say.
I hope you have more positive experiences with other atheists in the future. Peace."

What are your thoughts on this? How did I handle the situation? Is there anything else I should have said? Is there anything I did say that I shouldn't have said? Is there something I could've said better?

Thanks for your opinions.

Obama Thirst!

2008-12-06T22:48:00.005-05:00

Have you ever seen the "Power Thirst" videos on YouTube?

If not, I recommend you go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs

I have written a parody of PowerThirst about Barack Obama. However, I doubt that I have the technical prowess necessary to make a video out of it. Anyone reading this is welcome to make a video using my text, as long as he or she acknowledges that this is my text and includes a link to my blog. Also, please notify me of this by putting a comment on my blog telling me of this. Thanks!

Here's the script:

********************************************

Hey!?!

Do you wanna feel soooo patriotic?
Try Obama Thirst!

President-Elect for people who need

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF LEADERSHIP!

With all new ideologies like: change, hope and progress!
It's like adding judgment to an executive office.

Sound the alarm!!
You're gonna be UNCOMFORTABLY PATRIOTIC!

What's that? You want A STEADY HAND?
Then how about JOE BIDEN?
Made with knowledge -- real knowledge!

Plans! They'll make lots of them!
It's government for the people -- ALL THE PEOPLE!

This isn't Bush's White House - This is Obama's House!
THE WHITE HOUSE!

Knowledge!/Leadership!/Knowledge!/Leadership!/Experience!/Honesty!/Integrity!

More rights than YOUR NATION HAS LAWS FOR!

They'll be so good, the State of Nature'll be like "slow down!!!!!!"

And they'll be like "VOTE CHANGE!", and kick it in the face with their ENERGY BASE!

They'll have so much leadership - LEADERSHIP - they'll be working all the time!

Iraq-war ending/Legislating/Rights-protecting/Consumer-protecting/regulating

ELECTORS!

They'll have soooo many electors! 365!

Give Barack to your country, and it'll ENHANCE YOUR LIFE!
Making the next four years ABNORMALLY GOOD!

His father was a KENYAN!
People may watch him govern and think he's KENYAN!
His mother was a KANSAN!
He grew up a KANSAN!
He'll be President and then he'll retire back to KANSAS!

Hey, GO WITH THE SURE THING!
Don't gamble on your President!

*Billlllllll Ayerrrrrrrrrrrs*

Try Obama Thirst!

The President who'll make you so...

Some Songs for Atheism

2008-12-06T21:01:00.006-05:00

I'd like to share a few songs which I feel I like. I feel that these songs contain messages that are useful for atheists. Please don't expect this to be any kind of universal or comprehensive list: it's entirely composed of selections I enjoy from my own collection. Also, the only semblance of order in my list is alphabetical. Finally, please keep in mind that this list applies exclusively to me, and it very well may be that nothing on this list has any relevance for anyone else.

#1: Beautiful World (Colin Hay)
#2: Bicycle Race (Queen)
#3: California Dreamin' (The Mamas and the Papas)
#4: Dark Horse (George Harrison)
#5: Eleanor Rigby (The Beatles)
#6: Exodus (Bob Marley)
#7: For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield)
#8: Get Up Stand Up (Bob Marley)
#9: A Horse With No Name (America)
#10: I Like It (Dixie Chicks)
#11: Imagine (John Lennon)
#12: Mississippi Delta City Blues (Chicago)
#13: No Woman No Cry (Bob Marley)
#14: Not Ready to Make Nice (Dixie Chicks)
#15: Now That You've Gone (Chicago)
#16: Ohio (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young)
#17: Red Rubber Ball (The Cyrkle)
#18: The Sounds of Silence (Simon & Garfunkel)
#19: What A Wonderful World (Louis Armstrong)
#20: Losing My Religion (R.E.M)

Dealing with the Holidays

2008-12-06T19:59:00.003-05:00

It can be tricky to go through the holiday season as an atheist.

I went home from university for the Thanksgiving holiday. I had a great time. I got to see a lot of my friends. We played Risk, watched movies, ate at restaurants...we even played Ultimate.

I think my parents are doing pretty well. I told my mother about being an atheist, and she took it about as well as I could expect. I'm not sure if my father knows about it yet. I haven't explicitly told him about it. He's a difficult person to talk to about sensitive issues. I love my dad, but he's one of those men who seems to have a difficult time talking about or expressing his emotions sometimes. He had a rough relationship with his father, and sometimes I wonder if he still apprehensive about it.

I try to do my best not to be disruptive. When we prayed for the Thanksgiving meal, I just mumbled a few words while the rest of my family was praying. They're not too serious about it. It'll be a bit more difficult when I go to see my other relatives over Christmas; they tend to make a bigger deal of it. Hopefully I won't have to attend church with them. It's not that I dislike church attendance in principle, but it feels really uncomfortable to be there now that I'm not really a religious person.

My parents asked me to go to a Christmas concert with them at my mom's new church, but fortunately I was able to come up with an excuse. I'm not sure why my mother asked me to go to a Gospel concert even though she knows that I'm not really interested.

I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side about it. I want to be able to feel comfortable not practicing religion, and so far I'm doing the best I can.

I was with my friends at a restaurant the day after Thanksgiving, and the speakers were blaring with Christmas music. I have nothing against Christmas music; sometimes I am even fond of it. It has its own special nostalgia for me. But the day after Thanksgiving is much too soon for me. After several weeks, it does get a bit tiresome. Why not save it for the week or two before Christmas? It's almost as bad as people who put up Christmas lights right after Halloween (which I've seen many in my old neighborhood do).

If I had just one wish this Christmas, it would be that all the little children of the world would hold hands and sing....

:P

Weekly Church Sign No. 2

2008-11-16T19:12:00.003-05:00

You are more moral than your god.

If your children, whom you knew everything about including the number of hairs on their heads, disobeyed you, would you lock them in your basement and punish them for all of eternity?

Yet people claim this to be the original source of morality? People say that without this influence, morality would perish? No, morality continues in spite of the influence from religion, not because of it.

I Am An Atheist (Part Two)

2008-10-16T15:55:00.006-04:00

As a college freshman, I was enrolled in a world religions course. We examined many of the eastern religions (such as Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism) and discussed many of the fundamental qualities of faith, the sacred, and belief itself.

It was in this context that my strongest initial doubts about my faith and my religious beliefs arose. All of these religions shared many of the same fundamental tenets, yet all of them made claims of exclusivity.

I thought about my own religious beliefs in relation to the ones I had been learning about. Why was I a Christian?

Then I began to see how religions could have evolved from one another. This cast even more doubt onto my already beleagured faith. I considered how the human mind works in accordance with religion. I considered how societies interact with religion. If I had born in India, would I be a Christian? If I had been born in Turkey, would I be a Christian? If I had been born in China, would I be a Christian?

Then I looked at the claims specifically made by Christianity in this growing context of doubt.

I began to wonder, what evidence is there for any of the things happening in the Bible that it says happened? I began to do some research on the subject, and I found no compelling evidence that Jesus even existed...let alone that many of the Old Testament events themselves were historically accurate. Add to this the confusion and plagarism found in the Gospels, and the disputed authorship of Paul's letters. My Christianity just no longer made any sense to me.

But most of these things were still secondary. It was not my exposure to other religious beliefs that was the underlying challenge to my own faith (though it was a pivotal experience that led to my current views). My primary challenge was my nature.

Once I began to doubt my religion, I could examine why and how I felt the way I did, the reasons for why I acted the way I did, and the reasons why other people acted the way they did. I saw the universe as explainable by natural causes.

I told you earlier, that I spent a great deal of time thinking...especially thinking about human nature. My atheism is one of the results of the culmination of this thought process.

I saw how it could have been possible that humans could have invented religion, and why people would believe in it. My religion lost its lustre.

So one day I say to myself (after a few intense days of doubt): Maybe I am an atheist.

Should I call myself that? Would it be appropriate?

If I can live for one day while calling myself an atheist...one day, two days, three days....

Maybe I am an atheist.

I can no longer believe in Christianity. Also, I decided that I no longer believed in the supernatural, because that didn't make sense to me anymore, either, just like Christianity no longer made any sense. So I no longer believed in any religions.

I am an atheist. I am not going to use any other terms. As I see it, the only way to eliminate the negative connotation of the word is to change it by the force of our ideas. So for now, I am prepared to embrace its usage.

I am an atheist.

"Jacob wrestled the angel, and the angel was overcome." -- Bullet the Blue Sky, U2

Weekly Church Sign

2008-10-16T13:34:00.004-04:00

Check out this awesome website:

http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/

You can create your own church signs. It's really cool.

From time to time, I may post my humorous church signs on this blog.

I Am An Atheist (Part One)

2008-10-15T22:03:00.014-04:00

I wasn't sure exactly how to say this, so I'm just going to dispense with the formalities in the title.

I was born, and have been raised as a Christian. However, I have recently had an epiphany and soon became an atheist there after.

Why? Well, it's taken me my entire life to get to this point.

As I said, I was born into a Christian family. I was taken to a Lutheran church every Sunday. When I was eight years old, I received my first Holy Communion. On that same Sunday, my parents gave me my very first Bible.

It was one of those ubiquitous NIV "Study Bibles for Kids". Its pages are well worn: I took my Bible with me to church camp every summer for eight years. I've read most of the Bible. I admit, I'm not strong on Malachi or some of the other minor prophets, but I'm very familiar with almost all of the New Testament, in addition to Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, Jonah, the Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. I'm not an atheist who knows nothing about religion. Also, I do have some knowledge of other religions. I am currently in an Eastern religions class, and I have had many friends of the Muslim and Jewish faiths.

Anyways, back to the story. Around the time I entered high school, I was confirmed as an adult member of my church. As one of the requirements of my confirmation, I had to write and deliver a statement affirming my Christian faith, which I did.

As I entered high school, I was a confirmed member of my Lutheran church, actively trying to be strong in my Christian faith. I tried to adhere to Christian principles in how I lived my life. I believe I have good values and morals.

Entering my freshman year of high school, I had very few friends. I was developmentally delayed when I was very young: I was 2 or 3 when I was diagnosed with a mild form of autism. I never really seemed to fit in much with other kids. I never really understood how to fit in, either. I've never been a social butterfly. When I was in junior high school, I had known people from the band and honors classes, but I didn't really connect with them.

However, I gradually started to make friends my freshman year of high school. I'm not sure exactly how it happened. I just became more open to other people, and more willing to put myself out there. I think my Scouting background helped me with this.

I became a Cub Scout when I was in the fourth grade, and I was just a small boy. I was a runt of a little kid: when I was that age, I refused to eat almost everything, and I was very uncoordinated, so I wasn't athletic, either. I had very few friends at that time, and I had very little confidence in my ability to make friends. Most of the few close friends I had known moved away or lost touch with me. I had trouble approaching new people.

Most people enter Cub Scouts either as a Tiger or a Bear. (In Cub Scouting, the groups are according to age. Tigers are usually 5 or 6 years old, and Bears are usually around 7 or 8 years old...however, it might be Wolf that matches with that age group...I'm not completely sure.) So most people have been in Cub Scouting for a long time by the time I entered. I was ten years old when I first became a Cub Scout...so I didn't really know what I was getting myself into.

Let me just say it...I absolutely hated Cub Scouts. I'm not really a fan of the program. It's a bunch of little kids running around wrecking havoc. It's no wonder that adults have to do everything with the Cub Scouts...they're so young, they can't be expected to do anything for themselves. But that does take a lot of fun out of the program. The first few meetings I went to were absolutely chaotic...so many young boys flying around our elementary school cafeteria...I was swept up in this madness and I felt as if I had no idea what was going on. By the time I was ready to leave Cub Scouts in the fifth grade, the sum of my accomplishments consisted of:

1. Two poorly built Pinewood Derby cars.
2. Barely finishing the Arrow of Light requirements...and I mean, just barely.

So I had my doubts about the Scouting program. However, two of my closer friends from my Cub Scout den had decided to check out Boy Scouts and see what it was all about. So I decided to follow my friends' lead and cross over into a Boy Scout troop...just to see what it was like.

Well, I had an amazing experience in Boy Scouting. Several of my closest friendships to this day, were forged in my Boy Scout troop. I remember the first meeting I went to...how lost I felt. I remember my first campout...how my mother made me take a weather radio and I had to borrow my friend's camping gear because I didn't have any!

Scouting taught me how to be a leader...how to be self-reliant, and take responsibility for my own actions...how to function as a member of a group...how to be confident in myself...how to make friends. It was invaluable for me. I gained more and more leadership experience.

My first job was as an assistant patrol leader. One of my friends from my Cub Scout Den was our patrol leader. My job was to represent our patrol at troop meetings when the patrol leader was absent, which I did. After that, I became our patrol leader, which I did for about six months. I served for more than a year as the Troop Scribe: I was in charge of taking notes at all of our meetings (which is difficult to believe considering just how poor my handwriting really was at that age.) I was eventually appointed as Senior Patrol Leader of our troop, the most important youth position in the entire troop: I was the direct link between the adult leadership of the troop and all of the other boys. It was my various and extensive failures in this position that taught me a lot of what I know about leadership.

Almost no one listened to me. I learned how to get people to take me seriously...however, sometimes it is still a problem for me. I'm not the kind of person who is often angry at people; usually I am angry about ideas or specific things. It's hard for me to be a disciplinarian; it just doesn't feel natural to me.

However, I learned from this, and by the time I left my Boy Scout troop, I became a widely respected leader within the troop. But I didn't leave before finally earning the rank of Eagle Scout...the highest rank in Scouting. It was a goal of mine that took me six and a half years to complete. Only 2% of people who enter Cub Scouts ever attain the rank of Eagle Scout.

So where was I? Ah yes, I was a freshman in high school, still only a Star Scout (two ranks below Eagle Scout.) The experience and knowledge I had gained through Scouting up to that point had given me a world of confidence. It is no coincidence that I had served as Senior Patrol Leader the very summer before I entered high school: that is one of the things that motivated me as I entered my new environment.

I began to reach out to new people, just as I had learned to do through Scouting. The knowledge was deep within me to do this, but it took Scouting to unleash it.

For years, I had been quietly observing the social interactions of my peers. I have spent a great portion of my life thus far, thinking. Much of that experience has been thinking about how to get along with my classmates and other people I encountered. I spent a lot of time thinking about this.

It was when I was in high school that I openly talked to people who weren't Christian about my religious beliefs for the first time. It was when I was a freshman that I first heard some of my friends were atheist. Of course I heard it secondhand. This was high school, after all.

Initially, it greatly shocked me. I was thinking "atheist?!?"

It was such a wild and crazy thing to believe. I didn't really understand what it was. I had been a Christian my whole life; I firmly believed it. I lived my life by that belief. To say I was perplexed is a bit mild.

On an interesting note, it was freshmen year that I read the entire "Left Behind" series...as well as a 1500 page history of Christianity. I also read "David Copperfield" by Charles Dickens that year. I read quite a bit. I've always loved to read, and I would read during the school day in my spare moments so I wouldn't have to interact with my classmates when I didn't feel like it.

It was sophomore year that a few people I knew openly revealed their atheism or agnosticism when I was in their presence. Okay, the phrase "in their presence" sounds weird, but no one ever said anything directly to me...remember, I was still somewhat socially awkward. Even though I had made many more friends by sophomore year, most of the people I was surrounded by were still locked in their perception of me from earlier years or still didn't know me well enough to confide in me.

Well, I didn't really talk about it with anyone then because I had other things on my mind; and the people who were atheist or agnostic that I knew really didn't care enough to talk about it. I had risen to the rank of Life Scout, only one rank below Eagle Scout. My classes and activities were really stressing me. I was a class officer, an officer of our French club, a member of our Academic Team for fine arts, a member of our French academic team...I was going insane, haha.

And it was sophomore year that I read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"...which is about 1400 pages in length.

Junior year, some of my closer friends told me that they were atheist. The people I had known before who were atheist or agnostic were just people I barely knew, or people who weren't really close friends of mine. This time, my friends wanted to talk religion with me.

So we did. I, of course, dutifully performed my role as Christian apologetic..though at that point, I had never heard of Christian apology, or apologetics. I just defended my personal beliefs about Christianity for weeks and months on end, during my Study period in the physics classroom.

We argued about it a lot first semester...but it was barely mentioned during the second half of the year. There were two people I was arguing with: one of them was a close friend, and the other had detested me since elementary school (he had bullied me then) but was friends with the other person in the discussion who was a close friend of mine.

I will refer to one of them as "the bully" and the other one will get the pseudonym "Jason".

The bully was really a jerk when we tried to discuss religion. He was always saying that Christians are idiots, and really foolish. Of course, he was much more vulgar and crude and profane in saying this than I can possibly convey to you....

"F***ing Christians and their God" was a typical statement from the mouth of the bully. Mind you, he was no intellectual. The only reason he had ever become atheist, I later discovered, was that Jason had convinced him of it, and the bully blindly followed Jason's example. There are, indeed, some atheists who refuse to think for themselves.

However, Jason was highly intellectual...and much more tolerant of my views and he was also willing to listen carefully to what I had to say. I also have an intellectual bent. I mostly enjoyed my discussions about religion with Jason.

Jason never really convinced me on anything involving my Christianity. He really didn't have that much to do with my decision-making. Of course he questioned the dark moments in the history of Christianity, but I attributed these to human fallacy and stated that it wasn't the Church's fault. He talked about homosexuality, and the Bible's condemnation of it. He talked about his friends who told him they were born homosexuals. Of course, I told him that I felt the New Testament really wasn't against homosexuality. But as a natural extension of that, he began to question my interpretation of the Bible itself. How could people like me pick and choose what they wanted to listen to, he asked me. I told Jason I believed the Bible to be the Word of God. Well, said Jason, if it is God's Word you should take it seriously. I had already admitted to Jason that I took some parts of the Bible literally and some figuratively. He inquired how I could tell the difference between the two. Of course, I told him the Holy Spirit guides believers on how to interpret the Bible. So the discussion eventually come to a consensus, and to a close. Jason was still an atheist, the bully was still an asshole, and I was still a Christian.

It was also junior year that I began to read novels by Kurt Vonnegut. I really love Kurt Vonnegut. I'm pretty sure that I was moved to tears the day I heard of his death...the only other people who made me cry when they died where Charles M. Schulz and my great-grand-aunt (two entirely different people, haha.)

I read Slaughterhouse Five. I read Player Piano. I read Cat's Cradle. I read A Man Without A Country.

These works made me question my faith (well, it was almost exclusively Cat's Cradle that made me question my faith). But I still believed that God existed, that He was the Christian God (part of the divine Holy Trinity) and that He was a loving, caring God devoted to His creation.

Most of the experiences I endured that tested my faith before I became an atheist were retroactive in effect: while I was still a Christian, they merely raised interesting points. As soon as I began to seriously doubt my faith, they reaffirmed the direction of my belief.

It was during my senior year of high school that I earned the rank of Eagle Scout.

I had worked on the finer details of my project for most of the previous summer, and it was during the fall of that school year that I led and completed my project, my project was approved, and my family and my troop held an Eagle ceremony to recognize my achievement.

Senior year was also the year I read Slapstick, yet another excellent novel by Kurt Vonnegut.

I was overwhelmed all throughout my senior year of high school. I had no idea where I wanted to go to college; I was lost in the chaos of the college application process. A thousand thoughts were swirling in the back of my mind.

I had no time to think. As I have said earlier, I've devoted a considerable portion of my life to thinking. This constant white noise in the back of my consciousness, this mental clutter and static, was frustrating me a great deal. Looking back now, this is the first time in my life that I saw religion as just another part of the white noise in my mind.

Every time I had an "impure thought" or wanted to mutter a curse word, I blamed myself. I wasn't trying hard enough. I didn't have enough faith.

If you ever have to sit through three years of a Lutheran catechism class, take my advice:

At least 90% of the time, the answer is faith.

The answer is almost always: faith.

I had always tried to live up to the moral standards of my religion...but for the first time in my life, I felt I was failing at this task. I couldn't control my thoughts...heck, I was a hormonal 17 year old male...how could I have? I was blaming myself...for how nature made me. I didn't realize this at the time, of course. It took doubt to make me see this reality...how I was slowly driving myself insane with self-judgment and self-criticism.

But even at this point, I was still a Christian.

Well, this is all I can manage for now. I will add the rest later...especially the part where my Christianity quits making sense to me.

Where Do I Start?

2008-10-15T20:52:00.005-04:00

Hello.

I am not sure where to begin. I assume I should tell you what this blog is supposed to be about.

This blog is meant to be about religion, specifically my thoughts on it, as well as a comprehensive discussion of religion and morality. This blog is also meant to be a launching pad for serious discussions of these topics by its readers.

I want to tell you my story. I'd like to tell you of my spiritual journey up to this point. I'd like to outline my rationale for my current beliefs, and deal with related issues of religion and spirituality and the supernatural.

I want to warn you all to be considerate and thoughtful when addressing these issues.

However, please DO NOT be politically correct. Do not be afraid to offend anyone. I know this seems like a paradox, but it is not. Let me explain: if you are considerate and thoughtful of other people's intellectual rights, you will respect their right to say or believe anything. However, if you are considerate and thoughtful of other people's intellectual rights, you also will not be afraid to challenge people's assumptions and thinking, because if you really care for other people, you won't be afraid to respect their ability to make their own decisions.

So those are my outlines for the discussion and exchange I want to create and foster here.

Next, I will tell you of my own path, and I'll tell you a little bit more information about myself, too.