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.
Showing posts with label non belief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non belief. Show all posts
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Monday, March 12, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The Goodness (and Evilness) of God
I ended up having to work late hours one weeknight. As a result, I overslept and my children missed the school bus (again). So, I had to take them to school (again) myself and then head on to work.
As I was returning to my car from signing the "tardy" sheet for my kids, I see another parent ambling along with his child into the school building.
Well, at least I'm not the only parent oversleeping.
I found myself staring at this guy as he was making his way down the sidewalk. But, I didn't know why. I felt like I was being rude, but couldn't help myself. And even stranger, this guy was staring right back at me. But the more I stared, the more familiar he looked. Then, in the tone of a question, he called out my name.
Suddenly, I remember who he was and we both became so excited to see each other. I decided to hang around my car until he came back out. We talked for over an hour! We hadn't seen each other in probably twenty years! We tried to catch up up on each other's life-- which explains why we talked for so long.
This poor fellow seems to have had a lot of hardship in his travels. I am not envious of him at all.
We met in a Christian youth group when we were kids, so I had to sort of keep my guard up. He still used Christian "language"-- now and then he hinted that he was still trying to grow his relationship with God and such. But he openly admitted that the evangelical persona that he projected years ago wasn't really him.
He was also quick to admit that he was quite baffled at how a person can endure hardships and suffering still make sense of the Bible after actually reading through it.
He seems to be where I was a years ago just before I abandoned my faith. He's reading his Bible-- I mean, really reading it and paying attention to the words. And as a result, he's noticed that God doesn't shy away from taking credit for creating evil, and perhaps even causing it.
Not many Christians that I know of will even let their mouths form such words!
He cited how King Saul was vexed by a spirit that God sent. He talked about how God admits to even creating evil. He talked about how he doesn't see things any longer as "good" verses "evil" and God verses Satan. Rather, he simply sees God causing everything to happen for what ever reason that he sees fit. Sort of like the way God treated Job by openly allowing Satan give him one helluva time.
Then oddly, my old friend concede that God must know what he's doing.
But curiously, he would often hedge his praise towards God with the phrase, ". . . I guess" throughout our conversation. Such as-- "God must know what he's doing . . . I guess".
He seemed hesitant and doubtful about mainstream Christianity now with his newfound insight flooding in interesting implications.
But despite the vibe I was feeling from him, I wasn't sure if he was ready for me to be totally honest and open about my current atheistic perspective.
So, I played along for the moment.
We exchanged numbers. I think we'll talk again soon (if I can find the slip of paper. I'm an idiot! I should have put it in my phone on the spot).
The evolution of his religious beliefs will be interesting to observe should we keep in touch. And should I ever revel to him my current beliefs, his reaction would be quite interesting to witness as well.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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:
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.
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:
I admit that I found the story cute. And my mother-in-law has a knack for delivering a good punch line.
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 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.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Liberty Enlightening the World
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
-- John Adams
Our nation absolved allegiance from the British Crown in order to rule itself on July 4th, 1776 by issuing the Declaration of Independence.
This event makes every Fourth of July special. Each Fourth of July marks one more year that this nation has remained free. And today, we've reached 233 years now.
Let us all contemplate how wonderful liberty is. Let us all appreciate our freedom by learning about where it came from in the first place.
Let us be grateful for all servicemen and servicewomen who sacrifice and join our all-volunteer military so that our freedom is protected.
Be grateful for the democratic process and our elected officials who participate in this great political experiment. And be grateful for our justice system. Even with the flaws and frustrations of our legal system, we could be worse off.
And be grateful that we can complain to our elected officials and even poke fun at them when it suits us, because we have freedom of speech and expression.
And, thank your God, should you believe in him (or her) -- exercise your freedom of religious expression.
And if you are a non-believer, breath in the fresh air of freedom because you may exercise your freedom of personal expression and freedom of any sort of religious oppression.
Think of how ancient Greece and Rome once stood as beacons of light to the rest of civilization. Then consider how these empires fell and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Consider the events which characterized the Dark Ages, then think on the Age of Enlightenment and how it emerged from that period of darkness. Consider how great minds, great discoveries, and great words of expression re-kindled the flame that illuminated the dark world once again.
Know that liberty is the cornerstone of enlightenment; Liberty enlightens the world.
Think on the original name of our great Statue of Liberty. Consider how it was a gift from the French who helped us during our Revolution. Then take time to contemplate the French's role in the Enlightenment era. And take time to think about how a French sculptor took symbols from the best of world civilization and embodied them in our greatest monument of freedom -- a token given to our country to celebrate it's centennial birthday.
Celebrate this day. Eat some potato salad and barbecue. And if your vegan, eat some barbecue tofu in honor of this day.
If you had to work today, I hope you can still take time to celebrate. Sit back, relax, and enjoy your freedom -- even if you have to take a rain check and celebrate tomorrow.
-- John Adams
Our nation absolved allegiance from the British Crown in order to rule itself on July 4th, 1776 by issuing the Declaration of Independence.
This event makes every Fourth of July special. Each Fourth of July marks one more year that this nation has remained free. And today, we've reached 233 years now.
Let us all contemplate how wonderful liberty is. Let us all appreciate our freedom by learning about where it came from in the first place.
Let us be grateful for all servicemen and servicewomen who sacrifice and join our all-volunteer military so that our freedom is protected.
Be grateful for the democratic process and our elected officials who participate in this great political experiment. And be grateful for our justice system. Even with the flaws and frustrations of our legal system, we could be worse off.
And be grateful that we can complain to our elected officials and even poke fun at them when it suits us, because we have freedom of speech and expression.
And, thank your God, should you believe in him (or her) -- exercise your freedom of religious expression.
And if you are a non-believer, breath in the fresh air of freedom because you may exercise your freedom of personal expression and freedom of any sort of religious oppression.
Think of how ancient Greece and Rome once stood as beacons of light to the rest of civilization. Then consider how these empires fell and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Consider the events which characterized the Dark Ages, then think on the Age of Enlightenment and how it emerged from that period of darkness. Consider how great minds, great discoveries, and great words of expression re-kindled the flame that illuminated the dark world once again.
Know that liberty is the cornerstone of enlightenment; Liberty enlightens the world.
Think on the original name of our great Statue of Liberty. Consider how it was a gift from the French who helped us during our Revolution. Then take time to contemplate the French's role in the Enlightenment era. And take time to think about how a French sculptor took symbols from the best of world civilization and embodied them in our greatest monument of freedom -- a token given to our country to celebrate it's centennial birthday.
Celebrate this day. Eat some potato salad and barbecue. And if your vegan, eat some barbecue tofu in honor of this day.
If you had to work today, I hope you can still take time to celebrate. Sit back, relax, and enjoy your freedom -- even if you have to take a rain check and celebrate tomorrow.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Why I Still Can't Bring Myself to Believe Again
Much was brewing in my head, but I had no time to pour it out.
But now the time has come.
A frequent commenter here at this blog, Tandi, recommended reading an article: Why I believe again.
Tandi is a Christian who holds on to her faith. She also hopes that perhaps one day I will consider returning to the faith. Despite our present differences, I have high respect for her and I can understand her desire to win back the apostates of Christianity.
And since I have respect for her, I try to follow up on her reading recommendations.
So, I read the article that she suggested.
I will expound upon my feelings concerning the article in a "round about" and verbose way.
I wanted to keep it short, but I just don't know how. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if . . .
Ah, never mind.
If it helps, read my post in small chunks or parts.
Or I suppose you'd save more time by not reading my post at all, huh?
Um, let's not go there.
Well if you do stick around, I will start with an event that happened a week ago from this post.
I went to church Easter Sunday. Yeah, me. I went to church. Really.
Don't get too excited, though. I did it for my mom. My brother usually drops her off at church on Sundays but lately he is, er . . . incapacitated. So, I took my mom and my kids. My wife went the previous Sunday with my mom, so she refused to visit church this Sunday-- and forget about it being Easter.
Gee, Easter could have even been part of the reason for why she didn't want to go to church.
All in all, I guess it was finally my turn.
The church visit wasn't what I had expected; why, Church was actually quite pleasant!
I didn't realize that I had missed all the familiar faces. I also had to acknowledge that I missed worship and praise (just a little). The running around, the jumping and the hollering of praise at the top of one's lungs! Spontaneously running laps around the sanctuary-- people trying to keep a lid on their exuberance, yet they can't help themselves.
What a rush! I remembered when I was like that.
And the singing was beautiful. I was reminded of songs that I used to love and cherish.
I even sang along with some of the songs.
At service, we sang a favorite hymn of mine: Because He Lives. In the past, I was so convinced when I sang that song . . .
But this time when I sang along, I wasn't so sure.
And I wasn't so sure when the preacher kept repeating himself while trying to retell the Resurrection story. He was trying to give the Gospel accounts more life, but his message to me fell quite flat.
Sitting through the sermon was the worst of it. So, that is to say the church visit wasn't all that bad. I can forgive a bad sermon. I've sat through plenty in my life. One more would not hurt.
When it was all over, I walked away wondering why I had a nice time. Maybe it was time to go back to church again. Maybe turning to atheism was too rash of a decision.
Decision? Can belief (non-belief) be a decision?
Anyways . . .
I thought hard about my Easter Sunday experience for the next few days.
I reflected on how I could have ran around and jumped up and down like everyone else did. I felt that same energy I felt as though I was still a believer. But I didn't participate because I know that in my heart I didn't believe as I once did; I didn't want to be sacrilegious. To express that kind of praise and spirit-filled exuberance while still holding on to an atheistic mindset would be something of a mockery to their worship experience. I didn't want to do that out of respect.
And, I didn't want anyone to think that I had made new commitments to church again.
That realization reaffirmed that I was only a spectator.
I also noticed something else. I only enjoyed church because it was a welcomed distraction from the uncertainties I'm currently dealing with in my life. The running, the shouting, the songs of certainty all causes one to feel better.
I found myself thinking of my church visit in the context of the daunting personal problems which have recently started staring me in the face.
Life springs up fortune and misfortune. Blessings and catastrophe. Opportunity and famine. Life and death.
So then, certainty and uncertainty becomes the backdrop in which I reflect on my church visit. I noticed how in church, Christ is certain to have been raised from the dead, he is certain to return for his church, and his followers are certain to rise again through the same resurrection power of Christ-- unless while living they should look skyward and witness his return upon the clouds.
I am certain of death. I've seen it. I've seen my loved ones go the way of all the earth. I slowly and reluctantly trod the same path of my father and uncles while drawn by the same inexorable pull. I see my mother closer and closer to death, daily. She, following her husband. Me following my mom with my wife by my side. And our kids are not too far behind. We all are shackled together while being pulled to the grave-- like a line of inmates chained together so as to prevent any escape from incarceration.
Yes, I'm certain of death. But, I remain uncertain about what will happen to me after I die. Let alone, what will happen to me (and other loved ones) while I (and they) still live.
And now, I am beginning to think that religion is simply an anesthetic for the guaranteed pain and uncertainty of a life that must end in death.
In and of itself, using religion as an anesthetic is fine. But if that's the case, religion isn't the only worthwhile brand of anesthetic available in life. And I've come to terms with accepting the fact that life is indeed uncertain, fragile, volatile, and defined in the context of certain death.
Somehow though, I personally feel that I am better informed and more self aware after acknowledging that this life might be all that I get. I can stare back at the face of life and respect it-- daunting problems and all.
So when I read the online article in the New Statesman, the author seemed only to say that belief in Christ answers all uncertainty and is therefore the truth. The whole of life is best enjoyed when one believes in a creator and is therefore the truth.
I disagree on both points. Christ does not answer all of my uncertainties. He answers all questions, but I am not convinced of his answers. So, such answers are of no help to me personally.
And I find that I enjoy music, arts, and the nighttime sky perhaps more now than as a past theist. I love my favorite music and enjoy it all the more because I don't feel condemnation for listening to it any longer! (if it wasn't gospel music, it was ungodly in my former belief system. And sometimes certain gospel songs weren't even holy enough!). And for me, not knowing how the universe began and how the stars fell in place makes the nighttime view more magical to me. How fascinating that we may exist only because matter was simply doing it's thing! A billion-to-one chance out of billions upon billions of planets!
I also don't look down on creation as I once did as a believer. This is not to say all believers had this perspective. But, I know that I certainly did once. I looked at the world as the sinful leftovers of a fallen universe because Adam, Eve (Lilith?), and the serpent introduced iniquity into existence.
I see now that this universe may very well be all we have. We had better cherish it and enjoy it. Trusting in a next life, I found myself severely restricting myself in what could probably be the only life I will get to have. That is the mistake that I was personally making. I can only speak for myself and of my own Christian experiences.
Your millage may vary.
Some people do not want to face this uncertainty. And I suspect religion numbs this painful, unpredictable embrace between life and death.
That's fine with me. Nothing is ignoble or backwards about being attracted to religion for this reason. Just don't force your beliefs on others*. Share your beliefs-- but don't force them.
* Among those who have commented on my blog so far, I am not accusing anyone of this. I'm only trying to underscore my overall gripe towards fundamentalism of any sort.
Religion is a better anesthetic than hurting others and hurting oneself. But when it comes to dealing with life's uncertainties, being hurtful isn't the only option to practicing religion.
As for me, I numb the pain with enjoying my life while I can, assigning purpose to my life, loving my family, and doing the best I can to leave something behind for my kids.
I also numb the pain with coffee abuse, blogging, and good reading.
That "laughter stuff" is a good antiseptic, too. A very occasional drink helps me out. A fun movie. Even the routine drudgery of work. No matter how much I complain, I do like my job.
And there are some other things that I won't mention here. You know. I don't wanna be accused of TMI and all that.
So at this point in my life, I still can't bring myself to believe again. Religion doesn't help me with my uncertainties because I'm still uncertain about what the ancient religious texts assert.
In light of all this, I'd rather just face the uncertainties of life head on. Even death.
But I do appreciate reading the article in the New Statesman. While I do not agree with the author, I still respect his point of view.
Belief works for him. Non-belief works for me.
Perhaps my feelings about his article could be summed up as simple as that.
But now the time has come.
A frequent commenter here at this blog, Tandi, recommended reading an article: Why I believe again.
Tandi is a Christian who holds on to her faith. She also hopes that perhaps one day I will consider returning to the faith. Despite our present differences, I have high respect for her and I can understand her desire to win back the apostates of Christianity.
And since I have respect for her, I try to follow up on her reading recommendations.
So, I read the article that she suggested.
I will expound upon my feelings concerning the article in a "round about" and verbose way.
I wanted to keep it short, but I just don't know how. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so sue me if . . .
Ah, never mind.
If it helps, read my post in small chunks or parts.
Or I suppose you'd save more time by not reading my post at all, huh?
Um, let's not go there.
Well if you do stick around, I will start with an event that happened a week ago from this post.
I went to church Easter Sunday. Yeah, me. I went to church. Really.
Don't get too excited, though. I did it for my mom. My brother usually drops her off at church on Sundays but lately he is, er . . . incapacitated. So, I took my mom and my kids. My wife went the previous Sunday with my mom, so she refused to visit church this Sunday-- and forget about it being Easter.
Gee, Easter could have even been part of the reason for why she didn't want to go to church.
All in all, I guess it was finally my turn.
The church visit wasn't what I had expected; why, Church was actually quite pleasant!
I didn't realize that I had missed all the familiar faces. I also had to acknowledge that I missed worship and praise (just a little). The running around, the jumping and the hollering of praise at the top of one's lungs! Spontaneously running laps around the sanctuary-- people trying to keep a lid on their exuberance, yet they can't help themselves.
What a rush! I remembered when I was like that.
And the singing was beautiful. I was reminded of songs that I used to love and cherish.
I even sang along with some of the songs.
At service, we sang a favorite hymn of mine: Because He Lives. In the past, I was so convinced when I sang that song . . .
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, all fear is gone.
Because I know, He holds the future.
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
But this time when I sang along, I wasn't so sure.
And I wasn't so sure when the preacher kept repeating himself while trying to retell the Resurrection story. He was trying to give the Gospel accounts more life, but his message to me fell quite flat.
Sitting through the sermon was the worst of it. So, that is to say the church visit wasn't all that bad. I can forgive a bad sermon. I've sat through plenty in my life. One more would not hurt.
When it was all over, I walked away wondering why I had a nice time. Maybe it was time to go back to church again. Maybe turning to atheism was too rash of a decision.
Decision? Can belief (non-belief) be a decision?
Anyways . . .
I thought hard about my Easter Sunday experience for the next few days.
I reflected on how I could have ran around and jumped up and down like everyone else did. I felt that same energy I felt as though I was still a believer. But I didn't participate because I know that in my heart I didn't believe as I once did; I didn't want to be sacrilegious. To express that kind of praise and spirit-filled exuberance while still holding on to an atheistic mindset would be something of a mockery to their worship experience. I didn't want to do that out of respect.
And, I didn't want anyone to think that I had made new commitments to church again.
That realization reaffirmed that I was only a spectator.
I also noticed something else. I only enjoyed church because it was a welcomed distraction from the uncertainties I'm currently dealing with in my life. The running, the shouting, the songs of certainty all causes one to feel better.
I found myself thinking of my church visit in the context of the daunting personal problems which have recently started staring me in the face.
Life springs up fortune and misfortune. Blessings and catastrophe. Opportunity and famine. Life and death.
So then, certainty and uncertainty becomes the backdrop in which I reflect on my church visit. I noticed how in church, Christ is certain to have been raised from the dead, he is certain to return for his church, and his followers are certain to rise again through the same resurrection power of Christ-- unless while living they should look skyward and witness his return upon the clouds.
I am certain of death. I've seen it. I've seen my loved ones go the way of all the earth. I slowly and reluctantly trod the same path of my father and uncles while drawn by the same inexorable pull. I see my mother closer and closer to death, daily. She, following her husband. Me following my mom with my wife by my side. And our kids are not too far behind. We all are shackled together while being pulled to the grave-- like a line of inmates chained together so as to prevent any escape from incarceration.
Yes, I'm certain of death. But, I remain uncertain about what will happen to me after I die. Let alone, what will happen to me (and other loved ones) while I (and they) still live.
And now, I am beginning to think that religion is simply an anesthetic for the guaranteed pain and uncertainty of a life that must end in death.
In and of itself, using religion as an anesthetic is fine. But if that's the case, religion isn't the only worthwhile brand of anesthetic available in life. And I've come to terms with accepting the fact that life is indeed uncertain, fragile, volatile, and defined in the context of certain death.
Somehow though, I personally feel that I am better informed and more self aware after acknowledging that this life might be all that I get. I can stare back at the face of life and respect it-- daunting problems and all.
So when I read the online article in the New Statesman, the author seemed only to say that belief in Christ answers all uncertainty and is therefore the truth. The whole of life is best enjoyed when one believes in a creator and is therefore the truth.
I disagree on both points. Christ does not answer all of my uncertainties. He answers all questions, but I am not convinced of his answers. So, such answers are of no help to me personally.
And I find that I enjoy music, arts, and the nighttime sky perhaps more now than as a past theist. I love my favorite music and enjoy it all the more because I don't feel condemnation for listening to it any longer! (if it wasn't gospel music, it was ungodly in my former belief system. And sometimes certain gospel songs weren't even holy enough!). And for me, not knowing how the universe began and how the stars fell in place makes the nighttime view more magical to me. How fascinating that we may exist only because matter was simply doing it's thing! A billion-to-one chance out of billions upon billions of planets!
I also don't look down on creation as I once did as a believer. This is not to say all believers had this perspective. But, I know that I certainly did once. I looked at the world as the sinful leftovers of a fallen universe because Adam, Eve (Lilith?), and the serpent introduced iniquity into existence.
I see now that this universe may very well be all we have. We had better cherish it and enjoy it. Trusting in a next life, I found myself severely restricting myself in what could probably be the only life I will get to have. That is the mistake that I was personally making. I can only speak for myself and of my own Christian experiences.
Your millage may vary.
Some people do not want to face this uncertainty. And I suspect religion numbs this painful, unpredictable embrace between life and death.
That's fine with me. Nothing is ignoble or backwards about being attracted to religion for this reason. Just don't force your beliefs on others*. Share your beliefs-- but don't force them.
* Among those who have commented on my blog so far, I am not accusing anyone of this. I'm only trying to underscore my overall gripe towards fundamentalism of any sort.
Religion is a better anesthetic than hurting others and hurting oneself. But when it comes to dealing with life's uncertainties, being hurtful isn't the only option to practicing religion.
As for me, I numb the pain with enjoying my life while I can, assigning purpose to my life, loving my family, and doing the best I can to leave something behind for my kids.
I also numb the pain with coffee abuse, blogging, and good reading.
That "laughter stuff" is a good antiseptic, too. A very occasional drink helps me out. A fun movie. Even the routine drudgery of work. No matter how much I complain, I do like my job.
And there are some other things that I won't mention here. You know. I don't wanna be accused of TMI and all that.
So at this point in my life, I still can't bring myself to believe again. Religion doesn't help me with my uncertainties because I'm still uncertain about what the ancient religious texts assert.
In light of all this, I'd rather just face the uncertainties of life head on. Even death.
But I do appreciate reading the article in the New Statesman. While I do not agree with the author, I still respect his point of view.
Belief works for him. Non-belief works for me.
Perhaps my feelings about his article could be summed up as simple as that.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Train Up a Child
I often wonder what to do about my kids. I want to teach them what I've now learned about the Bible. I want to teach them not to take the Bible so literally.
But at the same time, I do not want to forbid them the opportunity to believe in God if they want to do so. Nor do I want to forbid that they explore church. But, I want them to know up front what I know. I want church and the Bible to have the burden of proof in their minds, rather than they grow up believing in God, church, and Bible unquestioningly. I don't want them to assume that clergy and the Bible in particular are the ultimate authority on all things.
But being in the closet makes this very difficult. My mother and my mother-in-law both pump my oldest son with teachings about God. Yet, this only fills him with questions that I have trouble answering without giving away my non-belief. My daughter is very young -- that's primarily why I don't mention her as much as my son. But, she is going to a Christian based daycare. She gets bombarded, too.
I don't want to totally intervene and plainly tell them God is no different from Santa Clause. Who knows. One day, I may change my own mind about that. However, I don't want them to blindly obey a scripture text without knowing something about what archeology and history revel concerning any given scripture text.
Also, I know my son will start to leak my non-Christian views to my two "moms" and blow my cover should I start plainly sharing my views.
So, what should I do?
I feel like a coward sometimes by avoiding many of my son's questions. I feel selfish, too. I feel selfish for not telling my children what I think is best for them in a plain, outright fashion-- all because I don't want people to know that I've changed.
Yet, I also feel selfish for wanting to curb their developing faith in God. I want them to be their own persons and decide for themselves. But, I want them to posses the information that I have learned as they make their personal decisions about God.
Funny how the Bible says to train up a child and they will not depart from the path that you teach them. My mother did this with me; it didn't turn out so well thus far. And I secretly hope that fundamentalist Christianity doesn't work for my children, either.
So, what should I do as they grow up?
I suppose all I can do is teach my kids to think for themselves. Let them learn the Bible, but let them learn the faculties of reason and skepticism, too.
Otherwise, I 'm at a loss as to what to do.
But at the same time, I do not want to forbid them the opportunity to believe in God if they want to do so. Nor do I want to forbid that they explore church. But, I want them to know up front what I know. I want church and the Bible to have the burden of proof in their minds, rather than they grow up believing in God, church, and Bible unquestioningly. I don't want them to assume that clergy and the Bible in particular are the ultimate authority on all things.
But being in the closet makes this very difficult. My mother and my mother-in-law both pump my oldest son with teachings about God. Yet, this only fills him with questions that I have trouble answering without giving away my non-belief. My daughter is very young -- that's primarily why I don't mention her as much as my son. But, she is going to a Christian based daycare. She gets bombarded, too.
I don't want to totally intervene and plainly tell them God is no different from Santa Clause. Who knows. One day, I may change my own mind about that. However, I don't want them to blindly obey a scripture text without knowing something about what archeology and history revel concerning any given scripture text.
Also, I know my son will start to leak my non-Christian views to my two "moms" and blow my cover should I start plainly sharing my views.
So, what should I do?
I feel like a coward sometimes by avoiding many of my son's questions. I feel selfish, too. I feel selfish for not telling my children what I think is best for them in a plain, outright fashion-- all because I don't want people to know that I've changed.
Yet, I also feel selfish for wanting to curb their developing faith in God. I want them to be their own persons and decide for themselves. But, I want them to posses the information that I have learned as they make their personal decisions about God.
Funny how the Bible says to train up a child and they will not depart from the path that you teach them. My mother did this with me; it didn't turn out so well thus far. And I secretly hope that fundamentalist Christianity doesn't work for my children, either.
So, what should I do as they grow up?
I suppose all I can do is teach my kids to think for themselves. Let them learn the Bible, but let them learn the faculties of reason and skepticism, too.
Otherwise, I 'm at a loss as to what to do.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Christian Ex-Atheist
Jesus was not the first character to be born of a virgin, to be adored by wise men, and to heal the sick, to suffer and die on a tree or a cross, to be buried in a tomb, and to rise again on the third day only to ascend into the sky. This had happened before. This is an old story. And Christianity's way of dealing with this problem is to ignore it.
-- The God Who Wasn't There -- movie trailer
Despite my beliefs concerning god's non-existence, I still think one may not be able to disprove (or prove) god's existence. Also, deconverting from Christianity does not mean one's only option is to become an atheist. One may certainly remain theist while still discarding religious practice -- or choosing some other set of religious beliefs to replace the former.
But, I'm particularly puzzled at how an atheist can deconvert into a Christian. The ex-atheist seems to have been genuine in his or her former skepticism; no different from my former and genuine adherence to Christianity.
But after that similarity, the experiences of the ex-atheist seems to be the inverse of my experience as an ex-Christian.
What happened? How does the ex-atheist make such different decisions with the same information that I now have? Or, did they every have the same information after all?
As for me, faith is a veil that hides facts and observations. People ignore alternative ideas when they blindly hold to faith -- regardless of how much truth may be in the alternative way of thinking.
I'm an ex-Christian because I finally learned about textual criticism, archeology, and that the bible is quilted together by various authors with various agendas -- none of which are divine. I've learned about the mystery religions and that actual contradictions do exist within biblical scripture.
How does someone develop a new trust in Christianity if such facts never change?!
How does an atheist one day turn around and allow faith to take over their reasoning? How does one start ignoring such evidence after seeing it?
I'll admit, one doesn't have to become an atheist after discovering the fallibility of the bible. And one doesn't have to remain atheist if something causes that person to suddenly believe in god.
And of course, anyone has the right to become a Christian ex-atheist.
But just remember . . . converting to Christianity from atheism requires actively ignoring a lot of important facts.
I guess that is why Christians walk by faith and not by sight.
-- The God Who Wasn't There -- movie trailer
Despite my beliefs concerning god's non-existence, I still think one may not be able to disprove (or prove) god's existence. Also, deconverting from Christianity does not mean one's only option is to become an atheist. One may certainly remain theist while still discarding religious practice -- or choosing some other set of religious beliefs to replace the former.
But, I'm particularly puzzled at how an atheist can deconvert into a Christian. The ex-atheist seems to have been genuine in his or her former skepticism; no different from my former and genuine adherence to Christianity.
But after that similarity, the experiences of the ex-atheist seems to be the inverse of my experience as an ex-Christian.
What happened? How does the ex-atheist make such different decisions with the same information that I now have? Or, did they every have the same information after all?
As for me, faith is a veil that hides facts and observations. People ignore alternative ideas when they blindly hold to faith -- regardless of how much truth may be in the alternative way of thinking.
I'm an ex-Christian because I finally learned about textual criticism, archeology, and that the bible is quilted together by various authors with various agendas -- none of which are divine. I've learned about the mystery religions and that actual contradictions do exist within biblical scripture.
How does someone develop a new trust in Christianity if such facts never change?!
How does an atheist one day turn around and allow faith to take over their reasoning? How does one start ignoring such evidence after seeing it?
I'll admit, one doesn't have to become an atheist after discovering the fallibility of the bible. And one doesn't have to remain atheist if something causes that person to suddenly believe in god.
And of course, anyone has the right to become a Christian ex-atheist.
But just remember . . . converting to Christianity from atheism requires actively ignoring a lot of important facts.
I guess that is why Christians walk by faith and not by sight.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Great Trickling Away
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:3,4
I'm not qualified to interpret these findings with any authority. But, I am entitled to an opinion.
And so are you.
So, check out these Gallup Poll findings regarding how much Americans think religion is a influence in our country. Another set of findings show an approximation of how many Americans believe in God, or a "Universal Spirit", or in neither (Atheism).
The implications of these findings are interesting to me. After reading over this, I'm of the opinion that a slight dip in religious influence is starting to happen along with a slight rise in skepticism. Nothing major -- but I think these numbers express a very slight decline in literal, fundamentalist religious belief. But, see for yourself and you decide. I could very well be off base in my opinion.
But if this is true, I would not be surprised if the religious right start to vigorously campaign against this trend away from strict faith. I'm also of the opinion that this cycle of belief and non-belief could simply be a natural occurrence that will continue to rise and fall in or society.
So maybe these number are only meaningful in our generation.
Here are the links below:
Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout
Belief in God Far Lower in Western U.S
2 Thessalonians 2:3,4
I'm not qualified to interpret these findings with any authority. But, I am entitled to an opinion.
And so are you.
So, check out these Gallup Poll findings regarding how much Americans think religion is a influence in our country. Another set of findings show an approximation of how many Americans believe in God, or a "Universal Spirit", or in neither (Atheism).
The implications of these findings are interesting to me. After reading over this, I'm of the opinion that a slight dip in religious influence is starting to happen along with a slight rise in skepticism. Nothing major -- but I think these numbers express a very slight decline in literal, fundamentalist religious belief. But, see for yourself and you decide. I could very well be off base in my opinion.
But if this is true, I would not be surprised if the religious right start to vigorously campaign against this trend away from strict faith. I'm also of the opinion that this cycle of belief and non-belief could simply be a natural occurrence that will continue to rise and fall in or society.
So maybe these number are only meaningful in our generation.
Here are the links below:
Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout
Belief in God Far Lower in Western U.S
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Nobody At Home
A winter weather advisory recently went out for my local area, but everyone was expected to still come to work. But as the day went on, businesses decided to close and let employees go home early due to the worsening conditions of the weather. Icy rain and high winds were causing accidents on the interstate and power outages in some residential and business areas.
I made my way home after our employers gave us permission to leave. Shortly after getting home, my wife also arrived. She said that she heard some schools may let out early. Maybe our son would come home early, maybe he wouldn't. She wasn't sure.
Then I though, "Gee, I wonder how will we know if our son's school has dismissed early? The local news doesn't always announce this kind of information. And, I can't always hear the bus drive past our home. And how will my son know that we're home should the bus drop him off? He will most likely assume no one is home if he doesn't see some obvious sign that we're here. I'd better let the garage door up, or something."
I understood my son's mindset. As a result, I predicted that he wouldn't ring the door bell because he would assume nobody was at home -- I knew that he wouldn't see any use to knock or ring the door bell.
So to prevent unnecessary suffering for my son, I figured I should leave some sign that we were home. Just in case his school had an early dismissal.
Then just as I perceived all of this, I allowed myself to get distracted and failed to lift the garage door to our home.
I totally forgot to follow through with my plan. My idea melted away as I became concerned with other things around the house. I also think that in the back of my mind I had a mindset too -- I partially assumed school would not dismiss early.
A good hour or so went by before my wife decided to sit down on the couch to watch a movie. Then she heard a whimpering sound at the door.
There was my son, standing in the icy cold rain, crying and lamenting that no one was home to let him in the house! He'd stood at the door crying for about an hour before we realized he was there!
Yet all along, we were home. He just didn't know we were inside. And we didn't know that he was outside.
We whisked him into the house and got him out of his cold, wet cloths. We dried him off and had him put on some warm pajamas. Then we quickly made him a hot cup of coco.
We treated him like the prodigal son who finally came home.
We profusely apologized to him and let him know that we didn't realize he was standing outside.
We felt horrible. Personally, I felt like a very bad parent. I felt especially bad because I figured this would happened, but I neglected to prevent it. I simply forgot to push the button to the garage to let it up. All of this could have been avoided.
But after he got warmed up, he started to play and was happy again.
On that day, I learned the dangers of making assumptions. Mindsets should constantly be challenged. And, if you have a good idea -- follow though with it. Especially if that good idea can help someone or even save a life.
But, I learned even more a few days later.
At the time when I was just beginning to suspect the bible was man-made, I prayed. I begged god to help me avoid the path of non-belief.
Just like my son crying at the door to get in from the cold, I cried out to god for help. I begged him to rescue me from the assault against my beliefs.
Yes, it was very bad of me to anticipate our son's early dismissal, and yet I still forgot to prepare. But I can say that when we heard him crying outside, we let him in -- and we did it quickly.
But, when I cried out to god in my hour of need all I heard was silence.
I felt remorse on the day that my son was locked out in the cold. But, I also realized deep down inside, I was simply a good person who made a bad mistake. I will learn from my past negligence and become a better parent because of it.
But for god to ignore his children at their darkest spiritual hour -- what does that say about him?
Maybe that means god isn't home.
I made my way home after our employers gave us permission to leave. Shortly after getting home, my wife also arrived. She said that she heard some schools may let out early. Maybe our son would come home early, maybe he wouldn't. She wasn't sure.
Then I though, "Gee, I wonder how will we know if our son's school has dismissed early? The local news doesn't always announce this kind of information. And, I can't always hear the bus drive past our home. And how will my son know that we're home should the bus drop him off? He will most likely assume no one is home if he doesn't see some obvious sign that we're here. I'd better let the garage door up, or something."
I understood my son's mindset. As a result, I predicted that he wouldn't ring the door bell because he would assume nobody was at home -- I knew that he wouldn't see any use to knock or ring the door bell.
So to prevent unnecessary suffering for my son, I figured I should leave some sign that we were home. Just in case his school had an early dismissal.
Then just as I perceived all of this, I allowed myself to get distracted and failed to lift the garage door to our home.
I totally forgot to follow through with my plan. My idea melted away as I became concerned with other things around the house. I also think that in the back of my mind I had a mindset too -- I partially assumed school would not dismiss early.
A good hour or so went by before my wife decided to sit down on the couch to watch a movie. Then she heard a whimpering sound at the door.
There was my son, standing in the icy cold rain, crying and lamenting that no one was home to let him in the house! He'd stood at the door crying for about an hour before we realized he was there!
Yet all along, we were home. He just didn't know we were inside. And we didn't know that he was outside.
We whisked him into the house and got him out of his cold, wet cloths. We dried him off and had him put on some warm pajamas. Then we quickly made him a hot cup of coco.
We treated him like the prodigal son who finally came home.
We profusely apologized to him and let him know that we didn't realize he was standing outside.
We felt horrible. Personally, I felt like a very bad parent. I felt especially bad because I figured this would happened, but I neglected to prevent it. I simply forgot to push the button to the garage to let it up. All of this could have been avoided.
But after he got warmed up, he started to play and was happy again.
On that day, I learned the dangers of making assumptions. Mindsets should constantly be challenged. And, if you have a good idea -- follow though with it. Especially if that good idea can help someone or even save a life.
But, I learned even more a few days later.
At the time when I was just beginning to suspect the bible was man-made, I prayed. I begged god to help me avoid the path of non-belief.
Just like my son crying at the door to get in from the cold, I cried out to god for help. I begged him to rescue me from the assault against my beliefs.
Yes, it was very bad of me to anticipate our son's early dismissal, and yet I still forgot to prepare. But I can say that when we heard him crying outside, we let him in -- and we did it quickly.
But, when I cried out to god in my hour of need all I heard was silence.
I felt remorse on the day that my son was locked out in the cold. But, I also realized deep down inside, I was simply a good person who made a bad mistake. I will learn from my past negligence and become a better parent because of it.
But for god to ignore his children at their darkest spiritual hour -- what does that say about him?
Maybe that means god isn't home.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Passion Against the Christ
Now that I have labeled myself as an atheist, I'm beginning to see how colorful and amalgamated my new cohorts truly are.
I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.
I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.
I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.
I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.
I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.
And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.
Hey -- I gotta eat.
So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.
I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.
We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.
In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.
But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.
I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.
Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.
This seems to happen in any facet of life.
I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?
So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?
No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.
I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.
Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.
But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.
If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.
So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.
Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.
I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.
I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.
I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.
I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.
I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.
And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.
Hey -- I gotta eat.
So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.
I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.
We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.
In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.
But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.
I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.
Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.
This seems to happen in any facet of life.
I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?
So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?
No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.
I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.
Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.
But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.
If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.
So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.
Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Tolerance
With all my God-bashing lately, perhaps I sound a little harsh and intolerant.
I don't mean to sound that way . . .
I don't have an issue with someone practicing religion. I don't mind that United States currency says, In God we trust. I'm not bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase, One nation, under God. However, I do wish that more people realized that our Pledge never included this phrase until 1954.
I don't really mind prayer in schools. Besides, students can pray in their hearts whenever they want; prayer cannot truly be stopped. Here is a seemingly little known fact: student lead meetings of a religious nature are allowed in public schools. Federal Law allows this. Yep, that's right. Students may have a Christian club or prayer meeting before or after school as an extra curricular activity and pray! pray! pray! And believers of any faith can enjoy this freedom. This can also be practiced during a school's "activity period" or "booster club" period. The only catch is that the organization must be student prompted to ensure the free will of all participants.
So, people should stop saying that prayer has been taken out of school. Rather, such people should use their present freedoms to continue praying in school. Then, focus their rant towards something else more needful -- like generating better funding for their neighborhood school.
Now, I'll tell ya what I truly dislike: intolerance.
Religion should be a private matter because free will must be upheld. This is why prayer in school may continue if students organize for themselves; free will is exercised. The prayer sessions are made private, yet the schools are not forcing religion of any sort. That's the spirit of the First Amendment.
May I also submit that Christians should exchange the notion that culture should be dominated by Christian principles with the idea that they should simply attempt to witness to people. Our government is secular and doesn't need to specifically reflect Christianity. Such a mindset comes from a distortion of an Old Testament concept which assumes the United States has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Just try to win souls one by one. After all . . . didn't Jesus say, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? Consider the notion that Christians should have desire for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . and not to busy themselves with turning the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And what of Paul the Apostle's words when he says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? He says to "come out from among them and be separate".
Paul didn't say, "You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile."
Christians shouldn't act like the Borg.
Be tolerant of other people's faiths and the lack thereof; I will be tolerant of yours in return.
Share your faith. Make your point. Disagree with me; Witness to the world.
I'll make my points and share my non-faith. I'll disagree, too. Enlighten the world.
But, if we agree to disagree -- no one has to get nasty.
I think we can all get along just fine with that attitude.
If everyone within the spectrum of faith and non-faith could better get along, I would be quite glad!
I don't mean to sound that way . . .
I don't have an issue with someone practicing religion. I don't mind that United States currency says, In God we trust. I'm not bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase, One nation, under God. However, I do wish that more people realized that our Pledge never included this phrase until 1954.
I don't really mind prayer in schools. Besides, students can pray in their hearts whenever they want; prayer cannot truly be stopped. Here is a seemingly little known fact: student lead meetings of a religious nature are allowed in public schools. Federal Law allows this. Yep, that's right. Students may have a Christian club or prayer meeting before or after school as an extra curricular activity and pray! pray! pray! And believers of any faith can enjoy this freedom. This can also be practiced during a school's "activity period" or "booster club" period. The only catch is that the organization must be student prompted to ensure the free will of all participants.
So, people should stop saying that prayer has been taken out of school. Rather, such people should use their present freedoms to continue praying in school. Then, focus their rant towards something else more needful -- like generating better funding for their neighborhood school.
Now, I'll tell ya what I truly dislike: intolerance.
Religion should be a private matter because free will must be upheld. This is why prayer in school may continue if students organize for themselves; free will is exercised. The prayer sessions are made private, yet the schools are not forcing religion of any sort. That's the spirit of the First Amendment.
May I also submit that Christians should exchange the notion that culture should be dominated by Christian principles with the idea that they should simply attempt to witness to people. Our government is secular and doesn't need to specifically reflect Christianity. Such a mindset comes from a distortion of an Old Testament concept which assumes the United States has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Just try to win souls one by one. After all . . . didn't Jesus say, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? Consider the notion that Christians should have desire for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . and not to busy themselves with turning the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And what of Paul the Apostle's words when he says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? He says to "come out from among them and be separate".
Paul didn't say, "You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile."
Christians shouldn't act like the Borg.
Be tolerant of other people's faiths and the lack thereof; I will be tolerant of yours in return.
Share your faith. Make your point. Disagree with me; Witness to the world.
I'll make my points and share my non-faith. I'll disagree, too. Enlighten the world.
But, if we agree to disagree -- no one has to get nasty.
I think we can all get along just fine with that attitude.
If everyone within the spectrum of faith and non-faith could better get along, I would be quite glad!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What If?
Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
That's logic.
-- Lewis Carroll
Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?
I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".
My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?
The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.
"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.
"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"
Hmmmm . . .
So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?
Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?
I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.
Momma chose Jesus for me.
That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.
That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.
So then . . .
If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.
Thanks to logic.
That's logic.
-- Lewis Carroll
Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?
I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".
My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?
The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.
"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.
"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"
Hmmmm . . .
So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?
Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?
I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.
Momma chose Jesus for me.
That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.
That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.
So then . . .
If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.
Thanks to logic.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Broken Friendship
I do admit -- sometimes I miss god.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
Oh what peace we often forfeit! Oh what needless pains we bare.My troubles would melt away.
All because we do not carry, everything to God in prayer.
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
An Unfortunate Anniversary
Eight years ago, on the day of this blog post, my dad died.
While we weren't very close, we cared for each other and we had respect for each other. We had a connectedness that seems to exist between all fathers and sons, regardless of the quality of the relationship.
His death was hard at first, indeed. But over time, dealing with it has gotten much better.
I smile when I think of him now. At first, it wasn't always that way.
I cannot say that his death was the cause of my slide into non-belief of my former Christan faith nor did this event single-handedly cause me to tread down the path towards atheism.
Years would go by before I'd reach the point where I am now. But no doubt, his death was a catalyst to my slide. I think this is where it all really began.
Here's the story:
My dad came over to visit us (my parents were separated) and we noticed he didn't look so good. He told us that, too. He thought it was just terrible gas, but said he would go see a doctor.
He never really got out of the hospital after that.
He made a downhill progression in his heath because of lung cancer.
Funny thing is, a few months before my dad's illness manifested, I determined in my heart that I would start praying for him every night.
And I did. I usually neglected praying for my dad because he was estranged. But, I decided I would stop being so negligent. I was passing judgment on him by thinking praying for him would do no good towards seeing him saved.
So, I started praying earnestly for his soul's salvation.
The timing of his illness was such that I started to wonder if my payers brought some curse upon him. At this odd coincidence, I stopped praying for everyone -- in fear someone else would fall ill like my dad. My spiritual life was paralyzed.
As my dad's condition worsened, I would visit him in the hospital from time to time. Other relatives and loved would come to visit. Some came way from other states. We knew in our hearts that time was running out for him. But . . . being believers . . . we hoped for a miracle.
Just in case. You never know what God might do.
But, if God didn't do anything, I knew my dad was going to die. And that was that.
An evangelist in our family said that she had received an inspiring "word" from the Lord. She said that God asked her concerning my dad, "why do you worry as though there was no hope"?
There was innuendo in this question. Why are you worried, oh ye, or little faith? I can heal your dad. Didn't you get the memo?
I can save him at any time. Why are you concerned?
And some people in my family that heard those words, took those words to heart.
My dad got baptized before all his strength failed him. But, to my knowledge, he never had the all important speaking in tongues experience that Pentecostals expect from someone who is truly saved. Without this experience, you cannot be saved in the view of many Pentecostals. Especially the type I was and the type that my dad started to hang around after he became sick.
He never got better. He never spoke in tongues. After a few short years passed, so did he.
But at the funeral, the other Pentecostal relatives rejoiced because they claimed God saved him.
But God broke one of his own rules if he truly saved my dad!
Well . . . he's God. He does what he wants.
In reality, a prophesy was made and everyone had to save face. God said there was hope. He insinuated that my dad would be saved according to the evangelist months ago.
So, God must have saved him somehow, since he didn't heal him.
I never bought into that "prophesy". I fully expected my dad to pass. Just not so soon I suppose.
So, there were no hard feelings towards the evangelist who uttered the words. Not from me, anyhow.
But, I was confused and this was the beginning of my problem.
How could someone speak for God and say something that was wrong or untrue? Either God made a mistake, we misunderstood what God was trying to say, or the minister speaking for God was wrong.
Well, if we misunderstood what God said, then God isn't that great of a communicator.
If the evangelist truly heard from God, then God was wrong. (or lied??) Why? Because my dad did not fulfill the criteria for being saved according to the very God who made the prophesy! Only my close family (and family friends) felt my dad was saved. Everyone else at the church would initially show sympathy when they learned my dad had died. Inevitably, members would ask if he spoke in tongues before he died.
When I told them "no" or that I wasn't sure, their silent regret shown upon their faces. That was all I needed to see. They felt sorry for me. In their minds, I had to deal with the hardship of my dad spending eternity in hell.
I was forced to witness a contradiction for the first time. I had to see people who speak for God say wrong things.
I didn't lose my faith at that point. But, I became very angry at God over the next few years. And worse, people at church seemed very insensitive. I began to feel like a person in a swimming pool crowded with people. As I start to drown, I flail and panic. I cry out and splash. I thrash around. But no one in the crown sees or hears me.
Staying at that church felt like staying in that swimming pool.
So, I got out.
But, I still believed in God and in the Christian faith. I just needed to find a better place to practice my beliefs. But first, I had to stop being angry at God.
I hoped I could find a place that could help me understand why God didn't save my dad after I made an effort to pray for him. The timing was so awful for everything.
For a while, I felt like I was the one that killed him because I decided to pray for him.
Talk about classical conditioning. My "prayer life" suffered greatly after that. I started to develop a phobia of prayer.
Eventually, I remembered the verse in the Bible that says, "It is appointed that all men die, and then judgment."
That made me feel better. Everyone has to face that journey. All life experiences that transition.
From that idea, I began to accept the thought that God didn't let my dad die out of cruelty or meanness. Dying is the taint from sin that we all have to deal with (that's what I told myself, at least).
But, why did he not save him after I prayed so fervently? Doesn't God want to save everyone?
And how come we can just bend the rules of salvation like that? We say people are saved when it's convenient. But, we're preached to with strict fervor and admonition that there is only one way to be saved.
I was puzzled.
And so it began. The seed was planted.
From then on, I started to ask myself if there was something wrong with what I believed.
People tend to use religion to comfort themselves when their loved ones die. That didn't happen for me. Religion made the passing of my dad worse in more ways than I can go into on a blog post.
Now without religion -- I feel much better about the passing of my dad.
Without religion, I can know that my dad will truly rest in peace.
While we weren't very close, we cared for each other and we had respect for each other. We had a connectedness that seems to exist between all fathers and sons, regardless of the quality of the relationship.
His death was hard at first, indeed. But over time, dealing with it has gotten much better.
I smile when I think of him now. At first, it wasn't always that way.
I cannot say that his death was the cause of my slide into non-belief of my former Christan faith nor did this event single-handedly cause me to tread down the path towards atheism.
Years would go by before I'd reach the point where I am now. But no doubt, his death was a catalyst to my slide. I think this is where it all really began.
Here's the story:
My dad came over to visit us (my parents were separated) and we noticed he didn't look so good. He told us that, too. He thought it was just terrible gas, but said he would go see a doctor.
He never really got out of the hospital after that.
He made a downhill progression in his heath because of lung cancer.
Funny thing is, a few months before my dad's illness manifested, I determined in my heart that I would start praying for him every night.
And I did. I usually neglected praying for my dad because he was estranged. But, I decided I would stop being so negligent. I was passing judgment on him by thinking praying for him would do no good towards seeing him saved.
So, I started praying earnestly for his soul's salvation.
The timing of his illness was such that I started to wonder if my payers brought some curse upon him. At this odd coincidence, I stopped praying for everyone -- in fear someone else would fall ill like my dad. My spiritual life was paralyzed.
As my dad's condition worsened, I would visit him in the hospital from time to time. Other relatives and loved would come to visit. Some came way from other states. We knew in our hearts that time was running out for him. But . . . being believers . . . we hoped for a miracle.
Just in case. You never know what God might do.
But, if God didn't do anything, I knew my dad was going to die. And that was that.
An evangelist in our family said that she had received an inspiring "word" from the Lord. She said that God asked her concerning my dad, "why do you worry as though there was no hope"?
There was innuendo in this question. Why are you worried, oh ye, or little faith? I can heal your dad. Didn't you get the memo?
I can save him at any time. Why are you concerned?
And some people in my family that heard those words, took those words to heart.
My dad got baptized before all his strength failed him. But, to my knowledge, he never had the all important speaking in tongues experience that Pentecostals expect from someone who is truly saved. Without this experience, you cannot be saved in the view of many Pentecostals. Especially the type I was and the type that my dad started to hang around after he became sick.
He never got better. He never spoke in tongues. After a few short years passed, so did he.
But at the funeral, the other Pentecostal relatives rejoiced because they claimed God saved him.
But God broke one of his own rules if he truly saved my dad!
Well . . . he's God. He does what he wants.
In reality, a prophesy was made and everyone had to save face. God said there was hope. He insinuated that my dad would be saved according to the evangelist months ago.
So, God must have saved him somehow, since he didn't heal him.
I never bought into that "prophesy". I fully expected my dad to pass. Just not so soon I suppose.
So, there were no hard feelings towards the evangelist who uttered the words. Not from me, anyhow.
But, I was confused and this was the beginning of my problem.
How could someone speak for God and say something that was wrong or untrue? Either God made a mistake, we misunderstood what God was trying to say, or the minister speaking for God was wrong.
Well, if we misunderstood what God said, then God isn't that great of a communicator.
If the evangelist truly heard from God, then God was wrong. (or lied??) Why? Because my dad did not fulfill the criteria for being saved according to the very God who made the prophesy! Only my close family (and family friends) felt my dad was saved. Everyone else at the church would initially show sympathy when they learned my dad had died. Inevitably, members would ask if he spoke in tongues before he died.
When I told them "no" or that I wasn't sure, their silent regret shown upon their faces. That was all I needed to see. They felt sorry for me. In their minds, I had to deal with the hardship of my dad spending eternity in hell.
I was forced to witness a contradiction for the first time. I had to see people who speak for God say wrong things.
I didn't lose my faith at that point. But, I became very angry at God over the next few years. And worse, people at church seemed very insensitive. I began to feel like a person in a swimming pool crowded with people. As I start to drown, I flail and panic. I cry out and splash. I thrash around. But no one in the crown sees or hears me.
Staying at that church felt like staying in that swimming pool.
So, I got out.
But, I still believed in God and in the Christian faith. I just needed to find a better place to practice my beliefs. But first, I had to stop being angry at God.
I hoped I could find a place that could help me understand why God didn't save my dad after I made an effort to pray for him. The timing was so awful for everything.
For a while, I felt like I was the one that killed him because I decided to pray for him.
Talk about classical conditioning. My "prayer life" suffered greatly after that. I started to develop a phobia of prayer.
Eventually, I remembered the verse in the Bible that says, "It is appointed that all men die, and then judgment."
That made me feel better. Everyone has to face that journey. All life experiences that transition.
From that idea, I began to accept the thought that God didn't let my dad die out of cruelty or meanness. Dying is the taint from sin that we all have to deal with (that's what I told myself, at least).
But, why did he not save him after I prayed so fervently? Doesn't God want to save everyone?
And how come we can just bend the rules of salvation like that? We say people are saved when it's convenient. But, we're preached to with strict fervor and admonition that there is only one way to be saved.
I was puzzled.
And so it began. The seed was planted.
From then on, I started to ask myself if there was something wrong with what I believed.
People tend to use religion to comfort themselves when their loved ones die. That didn't happen for me. Religion made the passing of my dad worse in more ways than I can go into on a blog post.
Now without religion -- I feel much better about the passing of my dad.
Without religion, I can know that my dad will truly rest in peace.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Church of the Atheist
I stated in an earlier post that I really don't think one can seriously call atheism a religion. I argued that religion in the most common definition requires the worship of a higher power or governor of the universe (AKA god). Atheism rejects this notion. At best, atheism is a philosophy. Passion about an idea isn't a religion -- but can be described as religious. But again, not in the sense that Christianity is a religion.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Isn't this meeting the same as going to church? I mean, you're meeting to encourage each other. Christians do the same thing when they meet for church.
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
So Now What?
This is my first impromptu post. All the other posts so far were thought out and pre-written before I published them. But, I don't feel like doing all that this time.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Religion, Spirituality, and Atheism
Time for an English lesson:
Religion: noun
a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
The life of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
Antonyms: (That means opposite, by the way . . . .)
agnosticism, atheism, disbelief
Spiritual: adjective
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material
2. of, concerned with, or affecting the soul
3. of, from, or related to God; characterized by divine or godlike nature
4. of, or belonging to a church or religion; sacred5. relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural
Now . . . . lets start our e-musings in light of these defined terms.
Religion is a set of beliefs or practices. I assure you that the beliefs and practices within the same religion don't always match. For instance . . . Resurrection Sunday doesn't always fall in the same month with Passover – which was essential to the crucification and resurrection of Christ. Tradition trumps beliefs and has caused Easter to follow it's own schedule which only matches Passover most of the time.
Spirituality deals with matters of spirit – the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural. But, not necessarily with any specific religious rules or dogma. Many times, yes, but sometimes, no.
Fundamentalism is considered to be strict adherence to a belief set within a religion. The belief is often taken literally and accepted unquestioningly. Usually a religious text and spiritual leader give the layout for the religious rules of the fundamentalist group. Fundamentalism usually involves spirituality.
Fundamentalist believers of religion have no room for opposing viewpoints within or from outside of their sect. As a result, such religious groups often splinter due to disagreement over doctrine. These disagreements often turn into power struggles for authority. This, in my opinion, is to be expected; Imagine the difficulty of turning metaphysical things into rigorous rules upon which everyone must agree!
Try getting a group of people to gaze at a cloud and insist they all perceive the exact same image. Everyone is entitled to an opinion – especially with finding shapes in clouds, wouldn't you say?
Spirituality minus religion allows people to acknowledge the metaphysical and experience the metaphysical without strictness of any sort. Everyone can see whatever image they desire from the cloud in the sky. Why not? After all . . . it's just a cloud. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?
Of the three great religions – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – fundamentalist belief is most exuberant and (I dare say) most dangerous. All three fundamentalist variations of these faiths lean towards the expectation of a cataclysmic series of events. These events will herald the act of God taking back control of the earth (Taking back? What happened to his omnipotence?) War and conflicts are almost welcomed – at the very least, expected. Thus, invasions, suicide bombings, terrorism, and military retaliation are viewed as necessary to fervent, radical fundamentalist believers. Some even think that these events can accelerate the advent of the Apocalypse.
Am I saying that the world would enjoy total peace if all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians disappeared?
No, absolutely not. I am saying, however, that fundamentalism needs to largely disappear. Spirituality is welcomed to stay – regardless of the religious faith.
Oh, and as final note – I really wish people would stop buying into the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheism can only be considered a religion to the degree that someone is devout or zealous over a concept or idea. Concerning the true definition of the word “religion”, atheism is no more a religion that my devotion to keeping myself caffeinated with fresh brewed, organic, 100% Arabica coffee made from fresh ground whole beans.
No instant, pre-ground, or stale coffee – please.
Religious? YES!
A religion?
NO!
Religion requires a deity as the object of worship and often has a leader who is the object of leadership towards the rules and acts of worship and adoration to the deity in question.
Atheism is the opposite of religion. A-theism. No belief in a deity or god. No object to worship or adore or serve. No religion to follow, as a result.
If you are one that says atheism is a religion, then what is the opposite of religion?
Agnosticism?
Spirituality?
Science?
Reason?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Freemasonry and the American Revolution
The History Channel showed an interesting segment concerning the role Freemasonry played in the birth of the United States. From as early as the Boston Tea Party, Masons played a large role in the growth and establishment of the United States during the Revolution.
Interestingly, Freemasonry in the US fueled the Revolution through one of it's great ideals:
Free Thought based on Reason.
While God is acknowledged – reason – not faith – is the virtue of the Freemasons of the Revolution. This is why Muslims, Jews, and Christians all come together under a unified order. The lines of religion are blurred – making reason and action the choice stance against the challenges of life.
This rejected the religious tyranny prevalent in Europe at the time of the Revolution.
Many of the founding fathers were Masons. Masonic connections spanned across nations and this came in handy for keeping the US Revolution alive. Ben Franklin used his masonic connections to get desperately needed aid from France so that their lodge brother General Washington would not cave in during the war.
With Freemasonry so intertwined with the birth of our republic and with Freemasonry being so non-embracing and non-endorsing of any specific religion – how can we say the US is a Christian nation?
Freemasonry encouraged reason and open mindedness – the very ideals of freedom. Fundamentalist religions so often enforce closed mindedness because free thinking is quite incompatible with Fundamentalist theology.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Always Right, Even When It's Wrong
I recently read a comment on-line where someone gave a rebuttal to the argument that the Biblical text had inconsistencies and contradictions within it. It went something like:
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Even with the alleged contradictions of the Bible text, the events to which the text points still could have happened. Mis-representation of an event doesn't mean the event did not still happen. For example -- if a person finds and confirms a bona fide contradiction between the Gospel accounts about the Resurrection, the Resurrection still remains possible and has not been dis-proven. The contradiction only means that writers were slightly incorrect about their accounts. Perhaps this even proves the accounts because the variation in story is natural when multiple views are given of the same account by witnesses.
(this is only a paraphrase, by the way)
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
What must be true if the Bible is true?
What must be true if the Bible is only a myth?
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
