You Are Not Alone

A message to anyone who has lost religious faith:

If doubts have replaced your religious faith, please understand that you are not alone-- regardless of your age, gender or race.

Some people embrace non-belief at a young age and feel very comfortable with the idea of godlessness. Other people grow up non-religious and never know what it's like to lose religious faith. And then, there are those like me whose faith was everything until it came apart like wet cardboard.

If you're new to losing your religion, try not to be afraid. Others have faced the same fears you have and end up fine. If you do feel afraid and alone, search for a local support group; or consider an online group where you can safely explore and express your feelings while you gather your thoughts. Processing these new emotions is important. Unfortunately, I must add a disclaimer here: I assume you're living in a somewhat free society-- and even free societies aren't always as free as advertised. So, don't expose yourself if you honestly think expressing your thoughts will endanger your life.

And to that previous point: While the non-religious community needs more of us to become visible and vocal, you don't have to come out of the closet immediately-- or ever. Only you should decide when to open up about your non-belief. Do not feel ashamed if you want to avoid losing your livelihood or a close family bond. Again: try making some non-religious friends through local groups or in online groups while you gather yourself. That way, you don't endure feeling alone while remaining in the closet at the same time.

You have a right to decide the manner in which you come to terms with your newfound non-belief. After all-- your private and personal beliefs shouldn't be a public debate. The day may come where you have the courage and need to come out of the closet. Fantastic! Just realize that a heavy price may come with being open-- depending on your circumstances. But also know that you will also bolster a community in need of further acceptance and understanding by modern-day society. Such a display of courage can bring about great rewards for yourself and others, too.

I hope one day the subject matter of my blog is laughable to all. When that day comes, people will no longer remain fearful concerning their privately held non-beliefs.

Until then, may comfort, camaraderie, and inner peace replace the religious faith that you have lost.

Where Is Your Faith?

Hebrews 11:6 speaks of how pleasing God is impossible without faith.

That faith spoken of in Hebrews-- I have lost it.

Faith seems to be described as its own evidence when I read Hebrews 11:1; It's the substance of things hoped for-- the evidence of things not seen. Faith is the certainty of something that has no visible evidence. Perhaps author and philosopher Peter Boghossian describes faith best as pretending to know things you really don't.

Regardless, I have lost the stuff. For I cannot sit and listen to preaching and buy into any of it any longer. I remember the first sermon where I couldn't swallow what the preacher was feeding to me from across the pulpit. He was preaching an Easter sermon and expounding on how so many people saw Jesus Chris after he rose from the dead. He spoke of it as though it were verifiable fact-- as though he were there too and saw him along with the host of people he named! Something in my brain started to reject the notion that we can know with any certainty that the gospel accounts were true. I just couldn't do it any longer. A switch flipped in my brain. Perhaps I have been turned over to a reprobate mind.

Each time I darken the doors of the church, I hear the clarion question-- Where is your faith?

I don't know. I lost my faith along the way while trying to justify it long ago-- when I actually had it! Now it's gone; I don't know where.

And I'm not so sure I want it back any more, either.

How ironic! Merely trying to prove faith destroys its unquestioning, trusting nature.

A Christmas Card for a Closet Atheist

Peace Be Unto You

Yes . . . I still receive Christmas cards. But, I don't mind.

Since the cards I receive usually come from acquaintances, friends, and loved ones, I still take time to read them. The fact that I no longer consider myself Christian is still largely undisclosed to most people who know me. So, it makes sense that people still send me Christmas cards.

And who knows? Perhaps they would still send Christmas cards to me if they discovered how I really felt about Christianity. Maybe they would try to use the cards as a means to stir up convictions in my heart concerning my apostasy. Nonetheless, the fact remains; I don't mind the Christmas cards.

So, I get a particular card wishing me peace for this holiday season. I honestly appreciate the sentiment. They even took the time to hand write a personal note which also wished me a happy New Year. That felt good to read.


Peacemakers-- the Children of God

This lovely card concluded with an afterthought from Matthew 5:9 which reads:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

After reading that, I tossed the card aside. But then, I started to wonder about the implications of that verse.

Next, the questions flooded my mind.

Exclusive?

The verse from the book of Matthew implies that peacemaking is a virtue that can identify one as a child of God. If such a virtue identifies one as a child of God, then is the virtue of peacemaking exclusive to Christians? In other words, are the only people capable of pursuing peace the children of God?

What if a Muslim acted as a peacemaker and denounced the radicalized versions of his or her faith? Could that person then be called a child of God based on the teachings attributed to Jesus concerning peacemakers?

What about an atheist who engaged in peacemaking endeavors? Could that individual be named as a child or God?

The Nobel Peace Prize

Could the Nobel Peace Prize be a reliable standard for declaring someone a peacemaker? If so, what if an non-Christian became a Nobel Peace Prize laureate? I wonder would that individual still qualify to receive the label "child of God".

What about an atheist laureate? Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't have a high enough standard to be use as the criteria for a true peacemaker. The award seems to hold at least some integrity because the laureates have usually pursued an outcome of peace in the face of adversity on a national or international level. But, perhaps this standard isn't what Jesus had in mind during his sermon on the mount. If that's true, then what do those standards for a peacemaker look like?

What Did Jesus Mean?

Is it possible that being called a child of God had more to do with how one behaved rather than the religious doctrine one professed? After all, being called a child of God carries the connotation that one is saved and has a relationship with God as a Christian. Perhaps that verse from Matthew records an attempt by Jesus to suggest that the children of God only need to be peacemakers, rather than adhere to any specific religious doctrine. These are, after all, the words of Jesus, right? Couldn't he have meant that?

Did Jesus even mean to equate peacemaking with being a child of God? How can one think that peacemaking is an identifier for the children of God after considering the following quote attributed to Jesus?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Matthew 10:34-35 KJV)

Since Christians generally accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God-- and often call him the prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6), it would make sense that Jesus would equate peacefulness with being at least one identifier of God's children.

But according to Matthew 10:34, Jesus would not have us be confused or mislead-- peace on earth is not his objective. Yet, the same source that revels Jesus' teachings about peacemakers being called the children of God also revels to us that Jesus has no interest in bringing peace to earth. Instead, bringing a sword to divide people against one another is an expectation we should have concerning Jesus.

Perhaps peace requires strife and that was the true idea Jesus wanted to convey. Is this what Jesus, the son of God, means when he says that he came to bring a sword to earth to cause strife while still at the same time says that peacemakers are called the children of God? Does this mean the true peacemakers are those who cause strife in the name of a higher purpose or cause? Could killing for God, should he ever command it, be a possible action of peace?

Hoodwinked?

Though all this line of questioning, I do not mean to suggest that Jesus ever lied to us about what he really means concerning peace. I don't claim to know exactly what he said or meant; I was not at the sermon on the mount 2,000 years ago and I don't have authoritative understanding concerning his declaration that he came to bring a sword-- not peace-- to earth. Therefore, I do not have enough evidence to accuse him of deception. However, as I contemplate the quotes which both come from the book of Matthew, I can't help but wonder if people added words to Jesus' teachings over the centuries as the book of Matthew entered circulation.

How can we be sure the words of Jesus were never altered once they were written down-- assuming his words were correctly recorded in the first place? Consider the book of Mark: an ending by a second author was appended to the book of Mark according to many reputable scholars. Even a few main stream study Bibles make a note of this occurrence. How then can we know that the book of Matthew never had revisions by multiple authors? And in those possible revisions, how would we know if words were attributed to Jesus that he never actually said?

And Again, I Say: Peace Be Unto You

Shall we solidly conclude then that only children of God are the peacemakers of the world? This is a worthy question to ponder during the holiday season.

Also to consider: Can non-believers be peacemakers? And . . . what can we all do-- believers and non-believers alike-- to spread more peace throughout the world and towards those close to us in our lives.

Think about it. I'll try to think about it, too. I see nothing wrong with endeavoring to be peacemakers if that means making the world around us a better, safer place.

May peace be unto you all-- not only for this holiday season, but to the fullest extent possible!

Happy Holidays!

So . . . How Do You Feel About God?

So . . . if you happened to have read my recent post A Storm is Brewing, then you might consider this post to be part two.

My mother-in-law and wife have a mother-daughter talk over the phone. I can only hear my wife's side of the conversation. And I hear something like:

I just don't like going to church . . . I dunno . . . I just don't feel comfortable there. I mean, I give you Mother's day, Christmas, Easter . . . I just can't come every Sunday. I just don't feel comfortable there . . . . No, no . . . it's nothing that anybody has done . . . No, I don't want to go to that church either . . . I know this is important to you and this is an important part of your life but I'm just not like you in that way . . .

Uh-oh.

Later, my wife told me what prompted her end of the conversation. Her mother asked her, "So, how do you feel about God?"

My wife totally went into politician mode on her and evaded the question by discussing a slightly different, but related topic. She just talked about not liking church.

So . . . the MIL is making her rounds. She asked her grandson . . . then next she's asked her own daughter. Now, I think my daughter and I are next on her list.

I guess I had better plan what I'm going to say. And I better hope my daughter doesn't out us from the closet.

The Least of Us

With the First Amendment, the Framers of the Constitution bridled Congress from making legislation which gives preferential treatment to any religious establishment; Likewise, Congress shall make no law which prohibits the free exercise of a religious faith or establishment-- for free exercise of one faith demands on some level the rejection of another.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

From the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

For if Congress introduces legislation that gives any religious establishment power over the people, then Congress by default places prohibitions upon any other group which differs from the religious establishment in question.

What better barometer do we have for measuring the true level of our freedom as a nation than to investigate how minority groups are treated? Often the minority is the least popular, least powerful group whose rights are rarely realized to the same, full extent as the majority.

On that premise, I submit the idea that the treatment of the agnostic and the atheist in the United States is a gauge of our true state of liberty concerning matters of religious freedom. If the non-religious don't have freedom from religion in the same way that believers may embrace their faith, then I dare say only the members of the most popular religions truly have the right to enjoy their own religious beliefs to the fullest.

Whenever society decides that liberty and justice is not for all, the treatment that befalls the least of us will eventually become everyone's lot in the end.

Perhaps It's None of Your Business

On my way into the grocery story, I overheard a mom speaking with her son-- who appeared to be around the age of five or six. They were walking right along beside me, so I wasn't trying to eavesdrop. Their proximity made hearing this tidbit impossible to ignore. I've changed the names for privacy sake.

son: Tony is mean to me.

mom: Well, don't play with Tony . . .

son: I wasn't playing with him. He was just mean. I play with Sally.

mom: How is Sally doing? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church Sunday? Did you tell her we missed her?

Huh? Did you ask her why she didn't come to church? 

Admittedly, their conversation was none of my business. But perhaps, that notion answers her question just as well.


I wonder sometimes if the majority of issues between believers and non-believers could be solve simply by people minding their own business concerning matters of faith.

A Storm is Brewing

A storm is brewing; I think I may be outed soon.

See . . . evangelical Christians have a duty to evangelize. As a former Christian, I was trained to share my faith, my mom was taught this way, my mother-in-law believes this and practices this, and passages like Matthew 28:19 imply this duty. Over and over, I've heard that parents are charged with teaching their children "the faith"; Christians who are seeking a spouse are admonished to avoid marrying non-believers (1 Corinthians 7) and convert their spouse if neither of them were in the faith before entering matrimony.

To make this duty towards evangelism more complicated, the various flavors of evangelical Christianity have their own outline of creeds and articles of faith which detail the preaching and obtaining of salvation and how to introduce the gospel to others. Some evangelical Christians can accept the differences of other Christians sects while other Christian groups cannot. So then, a strong drive to teach others about the correct Christianity can be seen in some believers. They will attempt to convert anyone outside of their belief system-- even other Christians outside of their specific denomination.

When I stopped looking through the lens of Christian duty, I found it curious when various Christians claimed they are under attack by secularism, the "new atheism", Islam or the government. I say this because many Christians are unaware that they sometimes go beyond simply sharing their faith; rather, they find themselves imposing it. And when non-believers (theist or not) push back in order to maintain their liberty to worship as they please (or to not worship at all), some Christians can become offended by that.

Since Christendom contains members who assume their faith is the only correct viewpoint, such believers tend to unwittingly posses a sense of entitlement for preferential treatment-- for no policy can exist outside the ultimate authority and bridle its overstep; for without their faith, there could be no good or correct policy in the first place. So naturally, these kinds of Christians feel attacked when others simply remind them that the world shouldn't be required to follow suit and adopt their religious faith.

All of which brings me to the problem at hand.

My mother-in-law approached my son about matters of faith recently-- behind closed doors. My son told me and his mom about this incident shortly after it happened. My mother-in-law cornered him and asked him if he believed in God. My son has told me in the past that he does not, but he responded to her question with an emphatic yes. He even recounted that he tried to use such a tone in his voice that made her inquiry sound crazy. She proceeded to tell him that he doesn't need his parents' permission to have a relationship with God. And well . . . I don't dispute that. What worries me is that her probing implies that she doesn't trust that we, his parents, are doing what we should and she feels now that it's her duty to impose Christian faith on our children since we don't seem to be doing so. I also hate to see my son caught in the middle of this issue. He's being pressured to deal with matters that shouldn't be of his concern, yet. Neither of my children deserve that.

My wife, on the other hand, became incensed to the point of planning a day to confront her over this issue. She seems quite ready to revel that she's done with church and God and wants her mother to leave our kids alone concerning matters of faith.

Me . . . I'm not ready to have that talk. I don't want my mother to know that I'm no longer a believer in Christianity-- let alone God. I don't want to deal with all the questions my mother-in-law will have as to how or why I could have come to be this way. And worse-- I'm not ready to deal with my mom's feelings at this point in our lives. I know I don't have a lot of time left with my mom relative to how long I've already had. I don't want to ruin what may be the last years of my relationship with my mom.

Also, I feel my son is grounded in what he does and doesn't believe. I am not opposed to him being a believer; my only hope is that he thinks for himself. I have not forbidden him from believing in God. I have only asked him to make sure that whatever group he connects to, he thinks for himself and chooses which ever deity he worships for himself. I am also teaching my daughter this way. So, I'm not too worried about my mother-in-law converting my children as much as her dragging them off to church when they have decided for themselves that they are non-believers as well. That will become hard to explain and forcing them both to play along for years to come isn't fair to them.

And finally-- right or not-- I feel that I would face discrimination upon being outed concerning my non-belief in God. My place of employment often appears in a local, Christian-based business magazine. Upper management assumes everyone is a believer and they take the liberty to forward pro-Christian e-mail chain letters with the tone that anybody is stupid who disagrees. I've seen non-believers lose their jobs for reasons that to me, seemed to boil down to their being too outspoken about their unconventional thinking. To be fair, I only think one person actually lost their job for being openly atheist on YouTube while in the same breath mentioning his place of employment. Dumb move. But, I think when you make yourself open about non-believe, that becomes a marker against you and may be the deciding factor should you ever find yourself being re-evaluated by management.

It seems an unfortunate destiny awaits me-- that duty bound Christians will continue to pry until they pry away the door to my closet. Waiting for this day is like watching a brewing storm; I worry about the damaged relationships the storm might leave behind in it's wake.

On Happiness and Atheism

Since becoming a non-believer, I found myself seeking the most important thing in life. In my upbringing, the preachers and teaches seared into my brain the notion that the kingdom of Heaven always perched highest on the tree of importance. Nothing came before church, Jesus, God, service, obeying your pastor and huddling closely to your church family.

I feel none of those obligations now. Despite that, I had (at the very least) maintained the same level of happiness as before leaving Christianity-- and quite possibly, I had even gained more happiness once I recovered from the initial shock of losing my faith. But now, I began to wonder what life is really about in the face of a new paradigm that includes evolution, mortality that may not have an afterlife, and a universe that doesn't seem cognizant of our existence: and, an existence that may not have a purpose outside of what we name for ourselves coupled with our own drive for survival.

In such a situation, what is paramount to life? As far as my personal philosophy goes-- I am ecstatic to say that I have simplified the solution down to one fundamental element:

Happiness.

I have also come to learn that happiness may very well be a skill that can be learned and honed. I have a new blog to explore this notion: Happiness Inculcate. I hope to see you there; I hope you find it useful.

Maybe the Nones Will Help Us

The March 12, 2012 edition of Time Magazine presented an interesting cover story entitled Ten Ideas That are Changing Your Life. This story was broken up into ten sub-articles each written by different authors. I found all of the articles highly interesting. But, due to the theme of this blog, I wanted to focus on only one particular article here-- The Rise of the Nones, by Amy Sullivan. She shares how the population of non-religious people is growing to an all time high in the United States (about 16% of the US population). But, this group isn't referencing mainly atheists or agnostics. The majority of this group seems to be made up of church-goers who have become tired of dogmatism; theists who are still seeking spirituality and fellowship with other believers-- but they refuse to be described by or bound by any particular denominational or sectarian label within Christianity.

So when filling out surveys, these people mark their religious preferences as "none".

Thus the title of the Time Magazine article: The Rise of the Nones.

This trend causes me to wonder if the Nones will help us atheists to be better accepted by the rest of the religious world. Have the Nones let go of dogmatism in exchange for tolerance and acceptance of non-believers? Will the Nones regard us atheists and agnostics as actual contributers to society rather than the cause of God's wrath upon America?

I wonder if this trend concerning the Nones is a sign that more and more people of religious faith are becoming flexible enough to believe without imposing upon others. Can the Nones fully appreciate and accept both sides of the coin concerning freedom of religion?

Can the Nones help us?

Maybe they can. Or, perhaps it's all wishful thinking on my part.

Time will tell. And when the results finally come in, I really hope the news is good.

No, This is About Power

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI gave his September 2010 speech in Europe, his words about atheism have been on my mind. Particularly these words here:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”

I've seen plenty of arguments for and against this notion. And I've personally been in a few on-line arguments with other people over this issue.

I hope that when I share my opinion here, that I don't come across sounding as though I'm completely "right" and any opposing viewpoint is completely "wrong". Rather, I hope that my opinion can at least be thought provoking or perhaps even stir up a meaningful dialog on the subject matter.

And, my opinion may very well be met with silence. That's OK, too. I feel the need to get this off my chest at the very least. Writing helps me to do that-- even if no one comments or even reads this post.

Let us assume that Hitler was unquestionably an atheist and that the Nazi regime was undeniably--without debate-- the result of an atheistic philosophy and world view though and through.

Even with such an assumption, can we still not think of other large scale crimes against society that were committed in the name of God?

And can we still not see that many people who subscribe to the wold view of atheism can still do good and make great contributions to society?

I have slowly come to the opinion that arguing the level of religiosity found in either Hitler or the Nazi regime alone cannot completely help us learn the dire lessons that we need to grasp from history.

I personally think that it's clear that Nazism was not about atheism-- not when the belt buckles of some soldiers would read: Gott Mit Uns.

Nazism was not about atheism when religious imagery was mix in quite well with the propaganda of the Nazi party.

But, I'll dare say that Nazism was not necessarily about theism, either.

No, in my opinion, this is about power.

Anyone that wants to control how you think, how you live, who you consider your enemies, who you worship, and who you may not worship is only seeking power. A person seeking absolute power can come heralding the name of Christ or come denying the existence of God. And followers of either ideology can find themselves mindlessly supporting such a wantonness drive for human control.

I admire the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. They tried to fashion a government that allowed belief in God without imposing religion upon anyone. After fleeing from a monarchy, they understood well that mindlessly following any ideology is the truest danger of society. We need to be free to argue, disagree, live our own lives, and state opinions that are unpopular. We need to learn to do this and still respect each other's humanity and refrain from resorting to violence to resolve ideological disputes.

When force is used to impose an ideology on others, then the moral tenants of the ideology in question are probably only an afterthought.

Because in the end, it's all really about power.

Recent Reflections Concerning Religion

I have finally found a quite, rare moment to write . . .

Lately, I noticed that I was developing hostility towards religion. I didn't notice this within myself until I felt extremely annoyed at the notion that religion and myth are such powerful forces in so many lives. Ironically, I had come to admire the works of Joseph Campbell as my life's journey brought me to a posture of atheism. Campbell eloquently shows how the influence of myth is powerfully ingrained in the human psyche. Religious metaphor moves and inspires people-- without question. And at first, this was an intriguing and beautiful discovery to me despite my growing sense of non-belief. But in these recent weeks, his ideas were starting to bother me more and more.

I especially noticed this when a dear friend of mine recommend that I read a book entitled The End of Education. This book seemed to really rub my nose in "it" by constantly expressing that religion is a fixture in most of humanity. At this stage of the evolutionary cycle, human kind cannot, as a whole, expect to suddenly detach from religion any time soon. As a result, education's engine may run best when wrapped up in a mythological or religious-like narrative. The author of this book was not advocating religion itself, or any specific religion. Just the idea that narrative in a mythological style may be the best seeds for planting the important lessons of life.

And he quoted Joseph Campbell on top of everything else as he made his case!

And that's when I came to realize something . . .

It's OK if religion hangs around for a while.

I've come to realize that nothing is wrong with being inspired by a myth or a religious faith. Nothing is wrong with drawing inspiration from a narrative. Our minds almost seem wired for this. Yes, our minds seem to have an ingrown place that is wired for mythological narrative, faith talk, and religion. If that be true, who am I to be angry about this?

I have also come to realize for myself that while I can personally do without religion, others cannot or will not. It is not my place to judge people whose lives are driven by faith.

Also, I cannot prove that god does not exist. And while the burden of proof rest upon the claimant, I cannot be totally certain that the claimant will never find evidence for their deity's existence.

That doesn't mean that I've become a theist again. Not at all. That only means that I realize that I have no right to push someone into thinking that there is no god.

Just as a theist has no right trying to push god upon me.

I thought about what I wanted to see happen in society as an atheist or agnostic. What did I really want to see change in society around me?

Here's all the change that I ask for concerning the clash between the religious and the non-religious. I wish that more people would take time to:

1. Understand that I want religious people to have the freedom to worship their deity. This is their right as human beings.

2. Understand that I want to exercise the right to interpret religion just as freely as other religious people already get to do. So, whatever deity I have or do not have in my life is my business and my personal right. I should not be treated differently because of this.

3. Understand that I do not deserve to be threatened with eternal torture of the hereafter or with imminent death in the here and now simply because I have a difference of opinion. Remember: Someone else has a deity that breaths threats of eternal punishment for you in their prediction of the afterlife, too. So, are you going to drop your faith and follow theirs now? No? Please, then, do not expect this of me.

4. Understand that I do not want to turn the world into an atheistic society that has flushed away all religion. I want religious people to maintain their freedom to worship. I would simply ask that more religious people become tolerant of non-religious people.

5. Understand that if you have to always speak for your deity, punish for your deity, and badger others for your deity, then perhaps your deity is mute and impotent: that's (after all) the mark of a lifeless, idol god. I'm not saying . . . but, I'm just saying. Give your deity a chance to take care of him or herself before you terrorize and threaten others on your deity's behalf.

6. Understand that I realize that I could be completely wrong about the existence of God. I revisit that idea frequently, but I'm very comfortable where I am right now in my non-belief.

7. Understand that you could be completely wrong about (at the very least) your faith. Be open and tolerant therefore, of those with whom you disagree.

8. Understand that freedom is enjoyed best when everyone can enjoy it. Everyone cannot enjoy our nation if any specific religion is oppressed by Government or controlled by Government. The same potential for tyranny holds true if any specific religion oppresses our society or rises up to control and assimilate our Government.

After mulling over these reflections for a few days, I felt much better. My hostility towards religion dissipated. Just as Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". While this is true, the problem comes when your neighbor cannot stand the fact that you disagree and (as a result) wants to actively break your legs because you are different.

So, in that vein: I do not hate god or religion-- rather, I hate the notion that people feel they ever have a right to force an ideal upon me with which I disagree. And when speaking in those terms, it doesn't matter if the ideal is a religious one or not.

Baby Steps

In my previous post, I discussed my recent feelings about whether I should remain in the closet or not about my atheism.

A day needs to come where keeping my dirty little secret no longer feels necessary.

Again, I'm not doing anything radical at the moment. But here's my first baby step towards coming out to the real world.

See . . . I never dropped my membership from the denominations with which I am still affiliated. I grew up being part of the Missionary Baptist Church but converted to Apostolic Pentecostalism at 18 years old. I never formally cut ties with the Baptist church when I moved. My last years as a Christian were spent being part of the Church of God based in Cleveland, TN. But, I never formally cut ties with the Apostolic Faith Church, either.

So, for my first baby step, I wrote a letter to the Church of God state office in my area and formally withdrew my membership. Below is a copy of the letter I wrote. I have edited out any personal information because at this time, I am not yet ready to share those details online:

XXXXXX COG State Office

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern,

Please accept this letter as my formal request to withdraw my membership from the Church of God organization headquartered in Cleveland, TN. At the time that I joined this denomination, I was attending XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

My personal beliefs concerning God, Salvation, and the Bible are no longer fully aligned with all of the statements of faith held by the Church of God organization.

No one has done anything to drive me away from XXXXXXX or from the Church of God organization as a whole. I do not harbor any animosity towards anyone in the organization and everyone at XXXXXXXXXX was very kind and caring towards me and my family during my membership. My decision to withdraw my membership solely rests upon the personal changes in my faith when compared to the doctrines of the Church of God.

I realize that this letter will not be pleasing to receive, but ultimately I must be honest concerning the conflicts between your articles of faith and my current personal beliefs. Therefore, I hereby tender my withdrawal of membership and I wish you good fortune in all your endeavors as a church and organization.

Respectfully yours,

XXXXXXXXXXX

I know that this letter isn't radical. But this was a very big step for me. I didn't just ask to withdraw my membership. I let them know that I don't agree with their doctrine any longer. Although, I didn't say way or how.

And I think that may be the crux of the whole issue between the religious and the non-religious.

I shouldn't have to explain. And I won't. If someone from the church calls, I will simply say that my private beliefs have changed. It's honestly not the business of anyone else what I believe about God and why. My right as a human being, as an adult, and as United States citizen is to have my own private opinion about God and exercise that belief to my liking.

Well . . . assuming I'm not harming others, being cruel to animals or destroying the property of others, that is.

Anyhow . . .

That is my First Amendment right -- just as the members of other religions may enjoy this right, too.

I hope to one day write the other two denominations a very similar letter. But, my ties with the Church of God were much weaker and shorter lived. I'm not making too many waves writing a letter to them.

I need to grow up a bit more before writing to the other two denominations. I hope to develop the strength in time.

I'm proud of my little baby step. Even if it is only a small one.

Concerning the Idea of Coming Out

Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time knows that I've tried to remain anonymous. I want my blog to remain a place where I can freely voice my thoughts without worrying about some acquaintance or family member outing me. I also stay anonymous to avoid any possible persecution or discrimination in the event that a customer of my employer or a co-worker find this site and pin it to my identity.

Perhaps I'm worried about nothing. But, I don't really want to take that chance. So, I seriously doubt I will ever disclose my full identity on this blog.

However, I do feel that I need to start making steps to come out of the closet in the real world-- apart from cyber space.

Recently, two bloggers that I follow were outed in different ways-- only days apart from each other. Both seemed very displeased about the whole ordeal, but found that their world didn't totally crumble once the smoke cleared. Yes, they must make adjustments now that important relationships have become strained and stretched. But a bit of relief seems to have come as a result of taking off the mask.

And another benefit may come from being outed.

According to a recent talk given by Greta Christian entitled "What Atheists Can Learn from the LGBT Movement", she states that the number one phenomena that generated more tolerance for the LGBT community was the coming out of members.

Coming out of the closet, according to Greta Christina, causes people who would normally be intolerant of the LGBT community realize they personally know someone from that community. Potential opponents are forced to put the human face of a friend or loved one up against their intolerance. As a result, tolerance slowly displaces prejudice because the members of the LGBT movement are no longer "them". Rather, they are now our brothers, cousins, sisters, fathers, mothers, friends, and children.

As it should be.

The people who were outed by their blogs may wished it never happened, but these outings may actually serve as two more important steps forward for the atheist community as a whole.

In light of Greta Christina's talk coupled with the outing of the two bloggers I've mentioned, I now have a much stronger desire to come out of the closet myself.

Again, not here on this site. Although, I think I might start sharing a few details about myself that I would normally keep private. I'm mulling it over for the moment.

But as for life outside of the blogsphere, I have decided to slowly take baby steps towards coming out to the people from which I've hidden for several years now.

In my next post, I'll share my very first baby step towards coming out of the closet.

KABOOM!!!

What happens when you mix atheism with skepticism?

Does it really go KABOOM?

Perhaps the better question to explore is why skepticism has the potential to lead someone to an atheistic posture.

Skepticism is simply shunning belief that is not accompanied by strong, supporting, verifiable evidence. You recognize that you simply cannot afford to take everyone at their word all the time. This realization even encompasses the grand authorities in one's life.

You should endeavor to think for yourself.

Nothing is wrong with consulting people smarter than you. I like to call such people "experts".

But I do not like to label anyone an "authority". The title "authority" implies that such a person not only knows the truth of reality, but dictates truth in an infallible manner.

Experts, in my view, are well skilled in their craft and their knowledge is extensive. They have honed their abilities to a level of professionalism. But they can make mistakes. You should speak up when they do or when you don't agree with their actions. Or when you want evidence to back up what they are saying.

Authorities, in my mind, dictate truth whether right or wrong. They demand you always accept what they say as truth without any proof beyond the simple fact that they said so.

So when someone says that all the nations of the world must believe in God their way and that there is no other way to know God-- a skeptical person defers to doubt towards that specific believer. And that doubt will most likely generalize to that believer's God as well.

When all major religions push to make the world believe just as they do, God's followers start sounding very suspicious. They all cannot be exclusively right. And unless only one religion is right, all religions must yield a little to the others. So then, who has a right to warn others of the coming wrath of their god?

I say that mixing skepticism and atheism is at least a reasonable practice even if skepticism doesn't necessitate a turn towards atheism.

However, I think the real danger is when someone mixes radical Fundamentalism with technology. That seems to be the true formula that goes KABOOM!

"I Don't Hate God" or "Hay is for Horses"

Sometimes when fundamentalists openly criticize atheists, they claim that we hate god.

As though we are enemies or something-- like we're in league with satan to help oppose god's divine plan. As if to say that we want people to join us in hell.

If there is a hell, well . . . hell . . . I don't wanna go there. But I don't believe there is a hell. So, I'm not trying to make anyone else go there, either.

As with god, atheists tend to not believe that satan exists, either. So . . . it's hard to be purposefully aligned with an entity that you don't think exists.

Atheists are usually adaemonic, too. Unless, of course, you're an atheist that is into Unix or Linux. In that case, daemons are quite real!

Is adaemonic even a word?

Humor me for a moment and picture a barn that is closed and has no windows.

Is a horse in that barn?

If I don't believe a horse is actually in the barn, does that mean I hate horses?

Hey-- I'm just sayin' . . .

Don't Blame the Blasphemer

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against a deity, causing many offended worshipers to angrily spew death threats and stage destructive riots.

In such a situation, who did the most harm?

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against any given deity and one or more of the various followers apprehend and murder the culprit.

Who was wrong?

To me, any free nation that supports a blasphemy law (national, or international) is reminiscent of a parent who is willing to do anything in order to circumvent a child's temper tantrum. Such a parent hopes to avoid all conflict because the child is in control and not the parent.

Many children hold their parents hostage in this way.

So then, at what point will the child decide to become reasonable and stop making unrealistic demands without the threat of throwing tantrums? What will finally satisfy the insatiable drive of a spoiled, rotten little child?

At what point will any sort of blasphemy law curb violent outbursts from worshipers of a deity that has been insulted? Who (or what) is protected by blasphemy laws? Who is the true victim when a potential blasphemy law is broken?

Who is the victim when someone is fined, flogged, or even place on death row for blasphemy?

Are we not all blasphemers against at least one other deity? Even theists refuse to pay honor and respect towards any deity in which they do not believe.

Yes, even the theists who desire to enforce the absurdity of blasphemy laws is in some sense guilty of blasphemy themselves!

Does blasphemy injure worshipers so horribly that they have a right to call for fines, imprisonment, beatings or even capital punishment in order to protect their faith?

Why follow a deity that can't protect his worshipers, his religion, his specially chosen leaders, or --for that matter-- himself?

Why follow such an inept being?

I dare say that such a deity is asking to be blasphemed.

And furthermore, the worshipers of such an inept deity needn't throw tantrums.

After all, it's not the blasphemer's fault that their deity cannot stand up for himself.

Dodging Bullets

Nope, nobody has been shooting at me or anything.

At least, not with real bullets.

I was sleeping-in this past weekend. My kids know the drill. My oldest son clambers onto the kitchen counter and grabs a bowl for himself and his little sister. He fixes two heaping bowls of cheerios for themselves while ol' daddy-O catches up on some Zs.

Mommy's out at the gym.

My kids know how to get to Cartoon Network, Dress Up Who, and Noggin.com. They know how to find their favorite TV shows on our Roku box.

They'll be fine.

Yet, I still wake up with a start after hearing the doorbell. Nobody was expected to visit. Who the hell is at the door?!

My kids get antsy and want to know who's outside.

I try to pretend that nobody is home and hope whoever it is will go away. But the kids have given away the fact that people are home.

It's my mother-in-law.

I like my mother-in-law. I do-- honest. She's not bad, overall. We had a rocky start, but we've long sense cleared that up.

My mother-in-law had left something at our house and wanted to grab it since she was in the neighborhood.

I was really, really wishing this would be more of a "grab-n-go" sort of thing. We established that my wife had accidentally taken what my mother-in-law was looking for with her to the gym. So at that point, I was hoping she would leave.

But nope. She didn't. Rather, she took advantage of the fact that now I'm her captive audience of one and proceeded to preach to me.

Not in a mean, ugly, nasty way. She's not like that with me.

But she started probing deeper than I would have liked.

She asked me a really hard question. She asked me "why".

Why did I stop going to church? Why did I lose my connection with God? Why?

What happened to cause me to lose my fervor?

She told me she could take anything I had to say. She urged me not to worry. She'll understand.

She asked me if someone hurt my feelings at church. She asked if she said something to offend me. She asked me if I saw some injustice that caused me to turn away from church. She asked me if I felt neglected by the ministers.

She expects that I have some grievance with church and church life. She thinks that I'm bitter about something someone said or did. Or maybe I've just become slightly confused about the truth of God's word. She seems to think that if I would just share my hurts and frustrations I would come around because God would give her the words to help comfort me and encourage me to return to church.

She asked if my wife (her daughter) was keeping me from going to church. My wife has openly voiced her disdain towards church with her mom (but not towards God. Those are two very different things, here).

None of the things that my mother-in-law expects is the issue at all.

"Tell me. You can tell me, son", she urged.

I can't. Not now. Maybe in time (not!).

She was persistent, but I managed to dodge the bullet.

I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up, though.

I know she can handle me confessing to an array of things that keep many people from church. But I'm almost certain she'd be floored if I told her I have become an atheist. I simply have come to doubt god's existence. As a result, the church life has lost it's importance to me as an individual.

I bet I'd leave her speechless, until she tells my mom.

And that thought brings a lump to my throat.

Of Leprechauns, Flying Reindeer, UFOs, Invisible Dragons, and Such

My daughter came home totally convinced that leprechauns are real.

I mean, totally.

She came home bubbling over with excitement, telling us of how the leprechauns came and stole their cookies and ice cream while they were out to play. Apparently he came back in the room and ran around some. But nobody actually saw him do this.

My daughter explained that leprechauns move far to fast to see them.

But, the little green man did happen to leave his hat behind as he rushed away.

I found her excitement adorable on the surface. But deep down, I worried that my daughter being indoctrinated with credulity.

For what observable phenomena of nature proves the leprechaun to be real? How am I to distinguish the invisible dragon which leaves no trace from a non-existent dragon? What difference do UFOs and space aliens make if only a select few ever get to see them while the rest of our world moves along, unfazed?

We demand observable proof for many of the important things in our lives. We want to see the person at the cash register give us our change. If a utility bill appears to over charge us, many of us will investigate. Should we hear surprising news, we may double check the information by checking out more than one (reliable) source.

Why not do this for leprechauns, flying reindeer, UFOs, invisible dragons, and such?

Besides, credulity can be quite harmful. Confidence jobs thrive off of credulity as well as superstitions of a harmful nature (think: inquisitions and witch burnings). Vicious rumors can easily spread simply because people have a tendency to believe first and ask questions later (if at all).

But to challenge the validity of an idea is the heart of skepticism (and in a sense, freedom, too). Challenge the claimant of any idea for supporting, observable phenomena.

This is also the heart of science. Before accepting an idea, treat that idea as false until observable phenomena can distinguish it as true.

So again-- what is the difference between an invisible leprechaun that leaves no trace and a non-existent one? What is the difference between an invisible dragon and a non-existent one? What of flying reindeer and UFOs? What is the difference between their undetectable nature and their non-existent counterparts? (Can a sentence like that be proper? Non-existent counterparts??)

I'll dare say that an atheist has only gone one step further with this thinking. Rather than only applying this thinking to leprechauns and invisible (and non-detectable) dragons, this challenge is aimed at God and religion, too.

My Personal Problem with Pascal's Wager

I'm willing to bet that many tomes have been written on subject of Pascal's Wager.

Therefore, I am NOT going to try and reinvent the wheel. I'm just sharing my personal feelings about Pascal's Wager. No formal, scholarly arguments here.

In a nutshell, Pascal's Wager suggests that due to the uncertainty in all things, deciding God's existence comes down to a coin toss. If that is the case, one would be safest to err on the side of caution and believe in God.

Sounds good and reasonable.

But taking his approach can quickly get complicated and defeat the purpose of taking a "safe bet".

Pascal's Wager, to me, is recursive to the point that our uncertainty can never be banished. So-- unless you simply choose a belief system or tailor your own, you will always be plagued by the problem of Pascal's Wager.

If I did decide to believe in God again based upon Pascal's Wager, in what manner shall I believe?

If I begin to worship God as Ganesha, a Muslim can easily come along and propose Pascal's Wager to me with his or her specifications. Should I err on the side of caution and become Muslim now because Allah will punish me for remaining an infidel?

And when I convert to Islam, what do I do when a Christian comes along and presents a Christianized version of Pascal's Wager? Do I then convert to Christianity and risk the ire of my former Muslim brethren?

And when I then become a Christian, what do I do when a Pentecostal comes along and gives me the Pentecostal version of Pascal's Wager? And what do I do when I get the Pentecostal Apostolic Faith version? And what do I do when the Church of God version tells me not to accept the Apostolic Faith wager?

And the rabbit hole goes even deeper. But, I'll stop there.

With that perspective, my "soul" is no more at risk with me being an atheist than being a theist.

Anyway, maybe I'm off base. Regardless, that's my personal problem with Pascal's Wager.

Anecdotal Evidence

For those of you who don't know, my mother-in-law is an evangelist. She is an Apostolic Faith evangelist who is chairperson of the missionary department at my former church.

If I told her now that I am an atheist, her head would spin around three times. Then she'd rebuke the devil and lay hands on me until she pushed me down through the floor.

That's how I'd imagine my "coming out" experience, anyhow.

See why I stay in the closet?

She came to our home for a short visit (on the night that I'm writing this). And she told us a cute little anecdote:

A little boy gave a report about how God created the heavens and the earth according to Genesis. After his report, the teacher began to ask him a few questions.

Can you see my hair?
Can you see my blouse?
Can you see my shoes?
Can you see my face?

The little boy didn't understand the teacher's line of questioning. But he answered "yes" to all of her questions.

Then the teacher asked, Can you see God?

The little boy sheepishly answered, "no".

Then the teacher explained to him how he need not believe in God because we cannot see God. Since we cannot see God, he does not exist.

The teacher was an atheist.

Then the next little boy gave his report. He directed his questions towards the class:

Can you see the teacher?
Can you see her shoes?
Can you see her blouse?
Can you see her hair?

All the students answered "yes".

Then the little boy asked, Can you see her brain?

The students answered, "no".

Then the little boy concluded his report:

Well then, she must don't have no brain.

I admit that I found the story cute. And my mother-in-law has a knack for delivering a good punch line.

I laughed to myself.

But, sorry, that story doesn't count as sound anecdotal evidence.

An autopsy would revel that the teacher in the story indeed has a brain. Although, she might not have been all that smart.

A CAT scan would also revel her brain too, I guess. So, I suppose we have no need of cutting people open to prove they have brains.

The mistake? Many theists seem to misunderstand. Atheists do not doubt God's existence simply because we cannot see God.

Atheists doubt God's existence because no one can produce sound, physical evidence that proves God exists.

The Bible doesn't count. We can't prove God actually wrote it. The same goes for any other sacred scripture text.

Philosophical arguments and "common sense" arguments (such as the complexity of the universe or the human eye) are only opinions. More physical evidence seems to support the idea that the universe can exist without a God of any sort rather than the idea that any particular God created the world.

I didn't say that science disproves God's existence. Perhaps an impersonal God exists. Maybe a Personal God exists.

Maybe personal gods exist because the people keep making up different, personalized gods with their imaginations?

Regardless, the theists aren't proving God's existence either.

Again, belief in God is by faith-- not by sight.

Nor by CAT scans or ultrasound.


See? Atheism isn't quite so unreasonable after all.