Unconditional Love: An Atheist's Sermon

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)

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?

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?

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

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)

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?

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

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!

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

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

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

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.