“It’s Headquarters, Sir.”

As a Christian, Romans 1:18-21 always bothered me. I understood the premise that people inherently knew there was a God. By virtue of the existence of the world about us, if nothing else. As Paul is developing his theology in this culminating work, he goes on to state, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom 10:9)

That seemed, at least to me, to be patently unfair. Nature was enough to condemn a human, but not enough to save them. Oh, I was aware of the exegesis of Romans 2, and the idea of the law of God imprinted on human hearts, and God being aware of the depth of knowledge of individuals—but in the end it all sounded like excuses to me.

A straightforward reading would seem to me to damn a Mesoamerican in 40 C.E. to hell. They knew there was a God, but had no way to know Jesus was raised from the dead. It was one of those items that gnawed at me, but I figured God knew what He was doing, and perhaps some day, in heaven, He could explain, or I would understand.

Of course, on this side, my perspective has changed. A bit. By far and away, this is the primary passage thrown at an atheist, followed with “you really know there is a God. You are just suppressing the truth.”

And, to a large extent, I cannot blame the Christian for saying this. They are firmly convinced this came from God. Who am I, a mere human, to say otherwise?

Imagine within a battle, a Colonel orders the troops to take Hill 445. But a moment later a lowly Private comes up, handing him a piece of paper, and the Colonel immediately retracts his previous order. They are to no longer take Hill 445.

Does the Private outrank the Colonel? Obviously not. But if the Private was carrying a message from a General, the message itself, because of the person behind it, is enough to force the Colonel to change his orders.

It is the same situation here. I can write, and draw and proclaim as long and as loud as I want that I cannot find a belief of God anywhere within my mind. I can point to others that have talked with me, and are equally confirmed that no such belief exists.

It doesn’t matter. The Christian believes they hold a message from God—a personage that outranks me. And because God says otherwise, I must be wrong.

It doesn’t matter that Paul was poisoning the well. That he was setting up a non-believer in a certain stance by which they were doomed to fail. Like saying, “Any person that disagrees with me does not understand the situation.” Pity the poor sap that dares to then disagree with me. I have already declared them ignorant.

It doesn’t matter that Paul was preaching to the choir. He was writing to Christians. People that, by being Christians, already believed in God. No one was going to argue with Paul, “Gee, I’m not so sure I believe in God, can you explain further?” Rather, they would nod their heads in agreement, “Yep. Yep. They sure know there is a God.”

It doesn’t matter that Paul did not mention a miracle of Jesus. Curious, considering he was writing to Jews (who would either be familiar with the happenings in Palestine, or be in communication with those who were) and Christians (who already believed in Jesus.) If you could travel in a time machine, back to mid-First Century Palestine, wouldn’t you be looking for those who had actually seen the miracles performed by Jesus?

Would you care about nature, or rather what people had encountered Jesus? The souvenir to come back with is, “I talked to so-and-so who was FED by Jesus at the feeding of the 5000.” Or “Saw Lazarus.” Or “Was blind, but was healed.” Why would Paul, of ALL things to convince Jewish Christians that everybody knew there was a God, use nature and not Jesus?

It doesn’t matter that Paul was using a God-of-the-Gaps argument, due to lack of knowledge as to how the world came into being. Nor does it matter that the argument is non-sensical. (“His invisible qualities are clearly seen”? I thought the definition of invisible…was…oh, never mind.)

It doesn’t matter that Paul lumps all the bad things as examples of what these rejecters of the knowledge of God do, whereas we see no difference in committing these acts between believers and non-believers.

All that matters is that, to a Christian, Romans 1:20 says I secretly know there is a God. And that message is from God. For me, less than a Private, to declare “There is no God” means I have attempted to usurp a higher-ranking officer. Either I am a liar, or I have self-deluded myself.

I am never quite sure how to respond to Romans 1:20. Having been there myself, I understand that the person is completely convinced as to the truthfulness of the statement. My saying, “It is not true” is like shooting a pebble at a mountain. It won’t move. I can point out all the questions as to Paul’s writing it, but they are still convinced it came from a God. It is inspired. I won’t budge them a millimeter in this regard.

I can point out that the list of sins is not me, and they will find some other sin, or claim I am secretly concealing a sin.

I guess all I can say is that I cannot find this God. If I am self-deluded or lying to myself, fine. Help me out. Saying, “You really believe in a God” clearly is not convincing me. If the person chooses to toss out Romans 1:20 and walk away, feeling they have accomplished something—so be it. But if they want to be persuasive and compelling, they are going to have to show me (and millions like me) this God in such a way that it breaks through the self-delusion or lying.

And, on a personal note, the reason this verse is not potent, is that I started off believing a God. One that created a universe. One who’s “invisible attributes are clearly seen.” I did not deconvert to engage in the variety of sins listed in Romans 1. In fact, I engaged in a vehement pursuit of God. If that pursuit caused my thoughts to be futile, my heart to be darkened, and myself to become a fool—is the person suggesting I should not have pursued God?

Baked Noodles

Oracle: I'd ask you to sit down, but, you're not going to anyway. And don't worry about the vase.
Neo: What vase?
[Neo turns to look for a vase, and as he does, he knocks over a vase of flowers, which shatters on the floor]
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I'm sorry...
Oracle: I said don't worry about it. I'll get one of my kids to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is: Wwould you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?

At times the Euthyphro Dilemma surfaces in our discussions. Is it Moral because God has decided it is Moral (thus making morality arbitrary on the whim of God) or must God do it because it is Moral (meaning God is bound by some standard)?

One of the common Christian responses is that God is bound by his internal Character of Morality. That within God is this “thing” we call “Character” and the rest of God must follow that Character.

Essentially this reduces to the simple premise that God can only do Moral acts. No matter what God wants, no matter what God tries, no matter how God acts in a situation, the result is that the only thing God can do must be moral.

Imagine if God grabbed a machine gun and randomly shot into a crowd. The only people he hit were the ones that it was moral for God to shoot. If it was not moral, then God couldn’t shoot them, regardless of desire or ability.

If God can only perform Moral acts, how did the creation of a creature (the human) come about? A creature that can commit an immoral act?

So God is busy creating. He has made the seas, the sun, the moon, the stars, fish, birds and mammals. He comes to the creature “human.” God is bound to only do moral acts. No wonder he has proclaimed everything “good”—Everything God ever has done or ever will do is good!

And in the creation of humans, God makes them with an ability—an ability to perform an immoral act. Something that even God cannot do. Whatever Gen. 1:27 may mean by God creating humans in his own image, part of that image CANNOT be the obligation to only perform moral acts.

In that state, prior to The Fall, were humans Moral, non-Moral or Immoral?

With a God that can only perform a moral act we can safely eliminate Moral and Immoral. First, humans could not be Immoral, because God would then have created immorality. Something that by defining God as performing only moral acts—God could not do.

God could not create an immoral creature.

Secondly, humans could not be Moral. See, humans have the ability, capacity and complete freewill to perform an immoral act. If “Morality” includes such an ability, then God could have it too, and still be Moral.

BUT, by limiting God with this alternative, we have defined something as “Moral” that does not have this ability. Whatever a human could be—it could not be the same “moral” as God.

Therefore, it would seem by limiting God to doing solely “Moral” acts, the process of creating a human that has the ability and freewill to perform both Moral and Immoral acts means that humans must be something other than Moral (‘cause they are not like God) or Immoral (‘cause God would have performed an immoral act.) Some in-between of non-moral.

Now comes the tricky part. Clearly humans could go immoral—God set a standard his Character defined, “Don’t eat of the tree” and by virtue of eating of the tree, humans violated God’s Character. Humans did something God could not.

But could humans ever become moral? What possible action could they do: Not eat of the tree? They were doing that already.

By providing this alternative to Euthyphro, we have God creating humans that could only exist in two states—non-moral or immoral. They was no opportunity, no tree by which they could ever improve. The situation only had one direction to go. Bad.

Of course we all know what happens—the inevitable. Adam & Eve eat. Go from non-moral to immoral; forever dooming humankind.

God then makes the curious notation: “Man has become like one of Us; to know Good an Evil.” Gen. 3:22. It would seem that when God said humans were made in the image of God, that obviously did not mean an exact replica. One of the things the humans did not have was the ability to know the difference between Good and Evil.

Curious. We have a God that knows what Morality and Immorality are, but can only commit a Moral act. Who creates a human that does not know what Morality and Immorality are, but can only commit an Immoral act!

While this alternative may resolve Euthyphro (my jury is still out on that), even if it did, it makes for a strange Christian God.

And we are still left with what God meant by humans becoming like Gods in that they know what Morality and Immorality are.

Does it mean “knowing” as in experiencing? The problem for the Christian in this, is this would mean to truly “know” evil is to experience the opportunity to decide and decide to act against God’s Character! If humans now knew evil by choosing to violate God’s character, and God says humans know evil like God knows evil…it would follow that God had chosen to violate his own Character.

Which, of course, blows this alternative to bits.

Does it mean “knowing” as acquired facts? That the humans have gained the definition of Morality and Immorality, by new information? There are three problems with this!

First, can Adam & Eve be held responsible for committing an act they did not know was wrong? Without this information, they would not have understood what the meaning of the word “Don’t” is. Does it mean for a limited time? Do? Only when ripe?

What if I told you, “See that fruit on that tree? Whatever you do, griznist that fruit!” Don’t you need the definition of “griznist” to know that to do with it? Eat it? Not eat it? Peel it? Toss it to make fire? Who knows?

Without the requisite knowledge, God may as well be speaking a completely foreign language to Adam & Eve. They could not possibly have known any different.

Second, if this was merely information, what prevented God from providing it prior to giving the instructions? What is it about God’s Character that he did not want Adam & Eve to know?

Thirdly, how did they obtain this information? It was not exactly written on the fruit. We understand a person investigating a situation, or reading a book, and learning raw knowledge. Here, all they would have learned was a new taste, at best. Somehow, the information would have to be “downloaded” into their brain.

Presumably either by God, or within God’s control. Was there something in God’s Character that mandated God had to give the knowledge of immorality after humans committed an immoral act? And was there something in God’s Character that prevented him from doing it before?

Bottom line, what I see is a philosophical, highly technical reliance upon a splitting-hair definition of “God’s Character” to avoid Euthyphro. While it may manage to barely squeeze through, in light of applying it to the analogy of Genesis, we end up with a bizarre puzzle that the pieces cannot fit.

Bakes my noodle, it does!

Hated Statistics Class

In the evolution/creationism debate, we often see an argument in which the creationist puts together computations of various processes, and by multiplying out the probabilities of each of these events occurring, forms some long number, claiming that it is extremely unlikely this process could happen. Therefore, the claim is made, evolution is extremely improbable.

The premise being that there are two choices: Evolution or Creation, and if the creationist can make evolution less possible; by virtue of the only other choice, creation must be more plausible.

Now, I may not be well-versed in evolution, but I am well-versed in arguments. And this one smells rotten.

Statistical odds are derived by reviewing relevant data. We could sit by an intersection in the road. Over the course of time, by counting the number of cars that go through the intersection, and comparing how many went to the right, and how many went to the left, we can determine the “odds” of a car going to the right. We can count red cars, two-door cars, cars with broken windshields. We can use a whole variety of factors to make the odds of a red, two-door car with a broken windshield going to the right as compared to the left.

And we can look at other intersections. How are the odds affected if by going to the right, one heads to the country, and going to the left, one heads to a city? What if there is advertising to go one way or another? What if there is a signal?

And, after careful observation, and utilizing the information obtained, we can safely place our new McDonald’s on the intersection that is more likely to be traveled. (Thus affecting the odds for the next statistician that comes along.)

So the creationists look at the odds of how evolution could happen. Often what we see is some proposed process or time line, and the number of mutations or changes in generations that must happen, and the chance that these changes could both occur AND occur in the time allotted.

Eventually they pop out with some number that seems incredibly huge, saying the chance of this occurring is 1 in 10 to the 2000th, or a 10 with 2000 zeros behind it. A number so large, it takes two people to read it.

Now, I seriously question that it is a true dichotomy between evolution and creation. While admittedly I cannot see a third alternative, 200 years ago, people could not see evolution as an alternative, either. 100 years ago the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics would be laughed at as science fiction. For all I know, 200 years from now, a new theory will be proposed and demonstrated, and evolution with creationism become footnotes with geocentricism.

I further question the method of obtaining the statistics on evolution. One item that is often over-looked is that the processes are considered sequential (one after another) when they could be happening simultaneously. Like determining how long it takes to fill a stadium with 50,000 people one at a time, as compared to a stadium with 50 entrances able to take one at a time. Another item is that some processes may necessarily entail a change, so it is NOT another completely wide-open field. Like rolling a rock down a hill, if it goes to the right of a bump, the next foot of travel will necessarily be the right of that bump. It is not as if every instant, the rock could go right or left.

But even assuming we DO have only two choices. And assume that the statistical odds of evolution happening are 1 in 10 to the trillionth billionth power. A 1 with a trillion billion zeroes behind it. A number with so more zeros than a person could count in a life time.

Does this minuscule, teeny-tiny, vastly remote possibility make creationism more likely? Well, to know THAT, we have to know what the statistical odds are for creationism to do the same thing.

And that is where the problem rears its head. We have no way to obtain the statistical odds of what a God would or would not do. Statistics are derived from observation. We can’t observe God. Ergo—no statistics on God.

Look, what are the odds that God will have oatmeal for breakfast tomorrow. Come on. This is an easy one. No proteins, or processes or speculation as to the earth’s condition 450 Million years ago. Oatmeal. Breakfast. Oh, what’s that you say? God is on a supernatural plane, so we cannot see what He eats or when? Right—no way to determine whether it is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 10 the trillionth billionth power as to whether God eats oatmeal.

Or God sneezes. Or God speaks. Or God does anything, because we have no way to observe the raw data to come up with the statistic in the first place!

On the one hand we have evolution with a 1 in 10 to the trillionth billionth power chance. And on the other we have “No information available.” Simply put, because of the definition of God, we can’t use the same method we can with observable nature.

So what good is this argument? None, really. As we cannot make the comparison. Sure, we understand that if evolution has a 1 in 10 chance, and creationism has a 1 in 9 chance, using this argument creationism is more likely. Evident as pie. But instead we have evolution with a 1 in some astronomical number chance and creationism with no way to calculate its chance at all.

To use a euphemism, we are comparing apples to oranges.

But a creationist never goes there. A creationist never explains that the same method it is using on evolution can never be used on creation.

I suggest we put the shoe on the other foot.

“There is a 1 in 10 the trillionth trillionth billionth power that creationism could occur.”
“Where did you get that statistic?
“Good question. Where do you propose I look for statistics as to the probability of creationism?”

As a trial lawyer, one thing we learn is that people hold stronger to a conclusion they derive themselves. If I point out every step and every inference of every step, coming to a strong point, the jury will politely listen and retain the information. But if I lead them every step of the way, and leave the last point tantalizingly out there, they come to the same conclusion, but since they “figured it out,” it is a more firmly held belief. Because it is theirs, not something someone told them.

I get the same impression here. The creationist points out all the remote possibilities, piles them on, comes (eventually) to this grandiose number, compares it 747’s in junkyards, and then stops. The person is supposed to come to the conclusion that therefore, evolution is so remote, creationism must be more plausible.

No creationist ever provides the statistics to compare. Because, by the very definition of God being unknowable, no statistics are available.

If both possibilities cannot use the same method, it is useless to use it to determine what is “more probable.”

Story Problems

Remember the process of learning math? First we were provided numbers, and what they meant so we could correctly circle “3 pennies.” Then we were taught that putting together “2 Pennies” with “3 Pennies” produced “5 Pennies.”

Soon we had those arithmetic sheets. You know the ones. With 100 questions of:

“2 + 3 = ____”
“1 + 2 = ____”

The challenge was how many one could do within a certain time, so we could learn to add more quickly. As our education progressed, eventually we were introduced to “x.” It seemed amazing whereas up that point letters and numbers were strictly forbidden from intermingling, once Algebra came along, we were free to incorporate “x” and all its friends like “y” and “z” and the other letters.

We solved for “x.” We had little idea that the rest of our mathematic career would be wholly consumed with finding that enigmatic “x” (and all its friends.)

Wouldn’t it be neat to go back to those sheets of problems, now that we know about “x”? Happily we could have answered each question “x,” “x,” “x,”… “2 + 2 = x” is a perfectly legitimate math equation. The teacher could not mark us as incorrect, because technically 2 + 2 does equal “x”!

Of course that is silly. The reason we did those problems was to learn information, not to merely provide a technically mathematically correct statement. We learned “2 + 2 = 4” so that someday when we see “2 + 2 = x” we could use the basic math skills learned to discover more than just “x.” We would learn that “x = 4.”

Yet as silly as that is, it is a technique I often see employed in our discussion about God. “God” is used (in the place of “x”) to make a logically possible statement, yet it really doesn’t provide us with any new information.

“How did the universe come into being?”
“God.”

“Who establishes morality?”
“God.”

“How did life come from non-life?”
“God.”

The answer of “God” becomes a convenient tool by which a person can appear to have a resolution, yet upon closer inspection, we haven’t learned anything new at all. O.K, so “God” made the universe. How did God create Time? How does supernatural “cross over” to natural and affect the natural plane? Was God involved at only the Big Bang, or at various times along the way, or intimately active with every single nuance and step?

Did God create Freewill to do evil, if he can’t do evil? If God know everything, how could he create humor which depends on surprise? Did God create suffering? Is God complex or simple?

Numerous people confidently answer the question of how the universe started with “God” yet provide a variety of answers to these questions. Even within a particular religion, such as Christianity, the problem of theistic evolution, vs old earth creation vs young earth creation vs open theism, vs complete God control rages as Christians who equally agree as to the “God” that made the universe, fight over what that particular God looks like.

It’s like everybody agrees the answer is “x,” but no one can agree as to what number “x” is!

We so often see the confident, almost arrogant claim of “absolute morality” vested in a God. Yet the simple question, “Can God Lie?” remains a puzzle. When is genocide acceptable? When must a murderer be punished? When can they be shown mercy? What is the degree of punishment for what infractions?

Again, even with the agreed starting point of “God,” depending on the particular theist one talks to, these questions start to fragment off into differing and competing answers.

Is saying “God” any better than answering a second-grade question of “2 + 2” with “x”?

It is fun to watch pages and pages of material and time wasted on “who has the burden of proof in the discussion on God?” Atheists claim that since theists are making an affirmative statement: “There is a God,” the burden must squarely rest on the theist. That it is far more difficult to prove a negative, so atheists complain arguing “There is no God” is akin to arguing “There is no Easter Bunny” or “There is no invisible flying spaghetti monster.”

Theists claim that God-belief is so universal, and of such a majority, that since atheism is the minority position, clearly the burden should be on the atheist.

The tussle back and forth limps on to this day.

Frankly, I don’t mind assuming the burden of Proof. The only thing I ask is that the theist provides me with a description of their God. Tell me what “x” is, before I start to discuss whether it is a correct answer!

“God” is this nebulous answer that we grapple with trying to determine how possible it is, in light of the universe we observe, and because the theist leaves the answer deliberately mysterious, we feel as if we are wrestling with the wind! We are informed that this God is so much more powerful, so much more knowledgeable, not to mention not even material, so there is no possible way in which we could ever comprehend its existence. That if we had this knowledge and understanding, in addition to our observation, we would clearly understand that such a God exists.
If it was put into a math equation, it would look like this:

“Universe + Unachievable knowledge = Certainty that God Exists”

The only thing that is a constant number in that equation is: “Universe.” Everything else remains unknown! I feel as if we are discussing a problem similar to:

“2 + y = x” (Ain’t math fun?) Then we debate what is “x”? A bit useless, as whatever “y” is, will make a big difference as to what “x” is!

If “y = 8,” then x would have to be “10.” If “y” is 4, then x is “6.” If “y” has to be somewhere between “0” and “100” then x has to be between 2 and 102. But without knowing what “y” is, x could be just about anything!

Worse, we discuss concepts such as “freewill” and “consciousness” and “morality” and “love” and “life,” all of which add a different variable within this equation. Simply saying “God” is not enough. It is as if the person has said, “The Answer is ‘x,’” when every book, every teacher, every professor and every answer key as a different solution and a different answer as to what “x” is.

We also learn that whatever “x” was in the first math problem does not mean that “x” will be the same number in the next. Yet somehow, when using “God” in the place of “x” we are to presume it is all one and the same.

“What has every culture included within its society?”
“God.”
“Right. Therefore my God exists.”

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Where did we make that leap? Just because the answer to the first question is “God” does not mean much. In fact, more people disagree than agree with your particular concept of God.

“The universe requires a designer.”
“Okay….”
“Therefore my God exists.”

No. At best one has proven a deistic type entity exists. Over and over I see this leap from “here is an argument for God—therefore the Calvinistic Protestant Christian Inerrant Literal Bible God exists.” It presumes that all “x’s” are the same. If Intelligent Design proves “x” exists, and the Christian is attempting to prove “x” is “God” then the jump is made—Intelligent Design proves the Christian God exists.

No, not all “x’s” are the same.

Look, you want these arguments for God? You want them to prove something? You want “God” to be a real answer? Give us more than a three letter word. Give us some concrete descriptions of what this answer is. Don’t answer every question with the same “x.” Give us an answer that has some information within it.

Bashed Potatoes?

“Bashing Christians.” I have heard that phrase now twice in as many days. What exactly must one do to “bash” a Christian?

The impression given is that we have run out of arguments; we have run out of debate; we have depleted all common courtesy. That all we have left is the ability to hurl unrelenting insults, with no basis. The image of a man, towering over his victim, and beating him with a stick over and over without cause.

Admittedly, I can be quite involved in my discussions on-line, and certainly suffer from arguing a topic about four posts too many. I am sure that a few people have walked away from me feeling a bit black-and-blue. But is that “bashing Christians?”

Is simply discussing Christianity from a skeptical point of view enough to achieve the label of “Bashing”? Why? A Christian is claiming to hold “Truth.” Not some minor, little “truth” like one falls if one steps off a cliff—rather some big “Truth” that was instituted by the very entity that created the concept of truth, created the language by which we can say truth, created the lips, the tongue, the ears and the mind by which each person who reads this understands immediately what I mean by “truth.”

You have God on your side! “If God is for you; who can be against you?” Rom. 8:31. Skepticism should not be feared—it should be welcomed! Every question and inquiry would give stronger demonstration of the viability of Christianity.

It seems rare, but once in a while I get a case where I hold truth. Every piece of evidence, every testimony, every inference falls directly in line with our theory of what happened. Every corner turned just gives greater justification, and more light on exactly what we propose.

I would LOVE to take those cases to trial! Oh, what fun to watch the story unfold exactly as I portrayed in my opening statement. “Please, please,” I beg my opponent, “Take this to trial. Ask any imaginable question you have. Show again and again how right I am.” They settle.

A Christian is claiming to have ten times that amount of truth on their side. While it may not be as clear-cut as a human civil lawsuit, at the least they should welcome the opportunity to display the strength of their arguments and how skepticism emphasizes how strong their case is. Enough to convince the skeptic to settle.

Yet with this immeasurable amount of truth by which the Christian claims to support their position—what do we see? “You skeptics are too hard. You ask for too high a burden of proof. You just want to bash Christians.” They act like this is some school board debate as to whether to charge a dollar more to see the Varsity Basketball games in order to pay for new uniforms.

As if this is just one of many debates in which one human attempts to persuade another. The best argument God is not on your side? The fact you don’t act like it.

So what exactly are we doing that is “bashing Christians”? Have you ever asked yourself that? Rather than a reflex response of “that is bashing Christians,” have you paused for a moment and wondered why the other person is saying what they are saying?

Isn’t a sign of being a Christian that the world should hate you? (John 15:18-25) I would think the conversation would be more like this:

Christian: Are you bashing me?
Non-Believer: No.
Christian: Nuts. Because a sign that I am doing it right is that you should hate me.
Non-Believer: Why should I hate you?
Christian: How I live should convict you of the sin in your life.

Christians are commanded to love each other. John 15:12. We are supposed to be able to pick you out because of your love for each other. John 13:35. And THAT is why a Christian should be bashed. Because you are showing us up on how well you are at this loving thing.

Is that what we are saying? Are Christians hearing, “Wow. You guys sure display a level of compassion and concern for each other that is far above anything a human could do.” We all know the phrase: “Christians are the only army at war in which the wounded are killed.”

We deconverts have been in church. We have been in ministries. For years. We know the level of “love” Christians display for each other. (If sarcasm was measured by grains of sand, there is not enough sarcasm in the universe to cover that last sentence.)

Why are Christians complaining about being bashed? This is key--Because they recognize that they are not being bashed for the right thing! We cannot pick out Christians by reviewing the list of charitable contributors. We cannot pick out Christians by how they treat their fellow humans. We cannot pick out Christians by what they drive, by what they buy, by the people they associate with.

They aren’t being bashed for being loving—they are being bashed for being hateful.

Oh, don’t get self-righteous and assume that simply because we do not care for your attempts to legislate morality, that you must be doing something correctly. You DO understand that the Pharisees portrayed in the New Testament were also attempting to legislate morality and equally were hated for it. Somehow I don’t see bashing them as being approval from the Christian God for what they were doing.

First of all—it isn’t bashing for us skeptics to question precepts that Christians are attempting to foster as truth. If it is, (and truth from a God!) any question should be welcomed and addressed—not avoided and complained about.

Secondly, if you are going to be bashed—how about being bashed for the thing that your Bible says you will be hated for—your morals! All the arguments in the world become unconvincing if you don’t act like you believe it, either. You want to convince me you have faith in God? Rather than buy the newest, fanciest car, use some of that money toward a monthly contribution to a local homeless shelter. Care for the poor, the orphans, the widows. Rather than watch football on Sunday afternoon on your Big Screen TV; go to a nursing home and watch it on a 13” black and white with a lonely grandparent.

Start showing such a love for each other that we all want in.

Stop complaining about bashing if you are being bashed for the right thing.

Being Offensive

The world focuses attention on being politically correct. Avoiding some statement that might offend some particular group or person. Inevitably, by the very nature of concentrating so hard on not saying something, we invent whole new ways to be offensive.

Something that struck me recently, though, is that in the world of religious quips, it is more acceptable to add a statement or notation. To ask one to refrain is considered rude. (A great example is refraining from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.”)

This point was brought home by two incidents.

First, I still receive those general e-mails from friends and family which often include a verse at the end, or a statement about God blessing me. They know I am an atheist. They are well-aware that such statements have no meaning to me. But I am part of the crowd receiving the e-mail. A crowd that is mostly Christian. Should they erase that part from the e-mail before sending it to me to be “politically correct”?

Second, on a blog which concentrates in defending Christianity, an entry was placed about praying for an individual’s health. Since it is typically a free-for-all regarding discussion, not surprisingly a person eventually posted a comment regarding how prayer was ineffectual. The Christians were (also not surprisingly) shocked at the heartlessness of the comment. I have been told by people they are praying for me. Should I ask them to not, out of “political correctness”?

Don’t misunderstand me—I am not offended by some verse in a letter, or a statement of “I’ll pray for you.” Our society is pervasive with such things, and my particular environment has traditionally been inundated with it. I tend to overlook it.

But what if I did the same? What if I included in my e-mail a quote? Something along the lines of:

“Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand. – Mark Twain”

I already know my friends and family would be shocked. Offended. Taken aback. They would be hurt and puzzled over how mean it is that I would dare include such a blasphemous statement when I know they are a Christian. As if I was being deliberately odious.

Isn’t that a bit of a double standard? While I may not be bothered so much by some verse or quip, other people are. Yet Christians are not equally receptive. Part of it is the fact they are convinced they hold truth. That they are entitled to do such things, because it is the right thing to do. Adding a verse in a letter that might…just might lead someone to Jesus is the equivalent of giving a warning that drinking bleach might…just might be hazardous to one’s health.

While I am equally convinced that getting people to think with clever quotes is the “right thing to do” that is superceded by the fact that it offends others. Which is the wrong thing to do. Therefore I exercise restraint. Christianity cannot take that extra step. Offending others is part of the stamp of being a Christian.

If they are not offending us, they must be doing something wrong. If I dare ask, “Hey, can you not bother to send me a verse?” that is proof positive that the one thing they absolutely MUST do is send me a verse! It is validation that I must be “feeling the heat” and it is time to turn up the temperature.

Occasionally, in my discussions ‘round the net, I come across a Christian who says “I will pray for you.” I desperately want to tell them not to bother. It is a waste of time. Yet I know, if I dare even breath the slightest protest, they will only waste more time and effort in the endeavor. My request to not, is proof that they must.

I understand both the Christians on the blog being offended by the statements regarding the ineffectiveness of prayer, as well as the person who posted, since it was traditionally a blog that was open to such arguments. Christians have no problem (and I invite them) to post a comment on my blog regarding the fact I am going to hell, or am an apostate, or became an atheist because of some terrible sin. I will be more than happy to engage them in that discussion.

It seems a bit odd to have a blog such as this, and then complain if someone posts a comment that is not complimentary. But, Christians often feel that if we dare “return fire” on their sacred cows, it is rude and insulting. Why? Why can a Christian tell me “I will pray for you” and we must find that acceptable, but if I reply, “Good, I will think for you” then I am just being a nasty person.

Where is it written that a religious statement, regardless of the intention, must be viewed in the most positive light? Have I lost the opportunity to be offended?

Rather than pray for me, take a few moments and hug your spouse. Hug your child. Call up a friend and chat. It has more benefit.

It seems to me, the most politically correct thing to do is either stop tossing out religious post-it notes, OR stop being surprised when a few post-it notes come back your way.

What's New?

I recently acquired a satellite radio and will confess that one of my guilty pleasures is to listen to Christian Talk Stations. Last Tuesday, I was listening to Albert Mohler discuss the media’s impact on families.

One thing he emphasized was to reduce media content itself; we should reduce the physical medium by which we receive information. He talked of the fact that when radios first came out, homes only had one. With the introduction of the transistor, homes gained more.

How when Television first came out, homes only had one. Now we have TV’s in every room. Or when we had one telephone in a house, rather than one telephone per appendage.

He was intoning that we should vastly reduce the number of items, since before it was “better.” That we were more wholesome, and Christian and Moral back in the Olden days, prior to this media explosion.

(Yes, the irony was not lost on me. I chuckled as I listened to a program on channel 170 out of almost 250 channels requesting we reduce our input! The fact that we even have so many choices made this broadcast possible.)

I thought, “Is older necessarily better?” But more importantly, “Why hasn’t God caught up with the times? When will He get involved in the communication explosion?”

We can moan and complain how complex machines have changed our lives. We could claim that before Television and Cable and MTV, life was simpler. Better. More wholesome.

The reality is that life is…different. In some ways better. In some ways worse.

At one time the only way to communicate was by one person talking to another. Then writing was invented, making it possible to communicate from one person to a number. With the invention of the printing press, mass communication was introduced, allowing numerous people to share the same information.

With a systematic postal system, we could communicate to one particular person across the world with a specific writing. What took months to deliver began to take weeks. Then days. The radio/telephone provided us an opportunity to actually talk with another person who was many miles away.

Along came faxes, internet, e-mail, text messaging, and now with broadband, video interchange. There is so much opportunity to interact, that many of us feel like we can NEVER unplug and go back to that one-on-one conversation. Too busy faxing, e-mailing and blogging!

Is it better? Sure, I can obtain the instructions to build a Navajo house, with a simple Google search and a click of a button. Is it worse? Yes, I can also access illegal pornography 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

While listening to Rev. Mohler attempt to persuade his audience to (apparently) go on a machine destroying binge, I was not convinced. We have these items and media and content available to us. Rather than turn a blind eye to them, we should teach discretion about utilizing them.

But where has God been in all this? Why hasn’t God caught up in the media craze?

According to Christianity, the last time God actually appeared on earth was sometime in 33 C.E. Plus or minus 3 years. Then, for a short period of time, he inspired (however we want to define that) some authors to write about him. By 150 C.E., this dried up, too.

For a short period of time, people could perform fantastic miracles, raise the dead, handle snakes, and even their shadow would heal others! But those ended, too.

For almost 2000 years God has been silent. Oh, there is still the claim of some internal “feeling” or a passing thought one attributes to an internal communication. There are claims of some miracle happening where a person is cured of cancer. Nothing like a blind person seeing simply because he happened to be standing in the right spot on a sunny day! No dead rising from the graves!

For all the hype and pomp about “God working” all we see are people, contributing money, time and effort, so that other people are benefited. No church building appears overnight—it takes bonds, and contributions and building committees and campaigns. People do not miraculously flock to church. That takes programs, and visitation, and signs and lights and special events. No coins appearing in fishes to pay for churches.

Imagine if God really did inspire some author in this century. She or he would be lambasted by the public for daring to equate their writing to the level of inspiration!

For nigh 2000 years, Christianity has had the same Television. The same phone. The same radio. No upgrades, no new gadgets—nothing that has kept up with the times.

One problem with American law, is that it inherently is always a little behind the times. Many statutes are implemented to react to a situation, not to anticipate a situation. We had to enact a whole new group of laws with the advent of financial transactions by telephone. Another set because of automobiles. Yet another because of automatic weapons. Another because of the internet.

Over and over we see a new technology or event, and subsequently a law created to monitor that technology.

Yet the Bible (and consequently the Christian God) has not equally kept up to the task. Unlike the law, it never modifies. It is caught in the same four walls. We now have issues with abortion. Or the morning after pill. Or contraception.

Issues not contemplated in the First Century. And now Christians struggle, because their Bible, which was prepared by people who never dreamed of the state of the world today, is unequipped to handle our problems.

The Bible archaically handles women in authority. We now have women CEO’s and leaders of Government who can’t teach an adult male Sunday School thanks to the Bible. The Bible discusses how one should treat their slaves. Not very relevant in today’s society.

Today we have frozen embryos. The Bible is silent as to that situation. We have the possibility of cloning. Again, the Bible is silent. We have step-children and multiple divorces and evolution and cosmology and interaction with a huge variety of beliefs and cultures. All of which the Bible is completely inadequate to deal with.

At what point does one question that it is time for God to step in and provide some new insight? See, the one answer—“There is no god” fits every question. Why did the ancient Hebrews write from a perspective limited to their knowledge? Because there was no god giving direction. Why did the New Testament writers address their concerns, with their limited knowledge? Again, no god.

Don’t act shocked—every religion holds that some other religion demonstrates a remarkable limitation of knowledge because there is no god behind it. Christians make fun of Mormons, as their books and beliefs appear to be so human. But become somber if you dare question why the New Testament is ill-equipped to handle the technological advances of today.

Why hasn’t God provided any new insight? Because there is no God. That answer fits every single time.

Perhaps Christians should not be asking if older is better, but rather at what point does older become out-dated.

Let's Get Dangerous

A question by a fellow blogger was: If there is no God; how ought we to live?

The first thought that passed through my mind was the trite response: “If there is a God; how ought we to live?” Sorta depends on the God, doesn’t it?

Ever study the Aztec religion? They believed a god sacrificed himself to become the sun. Only the trick was that in order to sustain the sun, all the other gods had to provide their blood. To replenish the god blood, human blood was provided. Which meant sacrifice. Lots and lots of sacrifice.

The blood of humans was believed to be the source of the sun’s movement. Blood of warriors killed in battle was an offering. Sacrificed captives provided blood. Even women who died in childbirth were thought to provide appropriate reparations.

If the Aztec pantheon was the actual god, then the way in which we “ought” to live would be a great deal more bloody! Of course, no one reading this blog would ever think that such a god is feasible.

But imagine convincing an Aztec of this. “If we stopped sacrificing humans, how would the sun move?” Oh, you could argue about planetary movement, and stars and orbits, but they come back with the undefeatable, “What if you are wrong? Millions of us have been sacrificing humans for centuries. And the sun has been moving as long as we have done it. If we stop, and you are wrong—we all will die! Safer to keep doing what we have always done, isn’t it?”

Is that much different than the common notion of a God? That millions believe, and somehow it seems “safer” doing so?

In America, we have “In God we Trust” in our pocket, “Under God” in our schools, “You shall have no other Gods before me” at our capitals. “So help you God” in our courtrooms. “God bless America” on our bumpers. “Oh God; You Devil” in our DVD players.

We even hear “God Bless You!” when we sneeze. At countless corners we have churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques. Entire channels dedicated to God. Billboards, stickers, books, a genre of music, and days off from work, all thanks to God.

I am not huge on arguing for a proposition based on statistics, but I think I am on very safe ground to state that the vast majority of people within my community believe in a God.

And let’s face it—the God that most Americans believe is a pretty “safe” God. A sort of Grand Administrator who’s job it is to keep the Earth spinning appropriately around the sun, leave us alone as long as we are doing well, step in if we get a little too rowdy so as to bring us back in line, and occasionally reward us with a cure for cancer. Or a good parking spot.

By believing in this vague notion of an Executive Benefactor, we can continue to live out our lives as we desire to do with a sporadic thought of “Wonder if S/He could help out on this one?” Either by giving that person who just cut us off a flat tire, or rewarding us with a green light for NOT giving said person the finger.

Yes, there are some who are more engrossed in their belief of God. No passing fancy for them! Yet even they get sick and go to the doctor, work and worry about money, get hurt and look for human comfort. Are they much different? Pragmatically, is God really that much more than a glorified ATM?

But living without a God? That seems a little…well…dangerous! That means when we hurt someone, there is no “Grand Righter-of-Wrongs” who can swoop in and take care of the problem we created. Nope—we have to do it ourselves. How easy is that?

Or while careening down a hill of snow on a pair of fiberglass sticks, there are no angels guiding us away from the ever-present maples. Nope—we could become a red stain on bark all by ourselves.

In fact, stating one does not believe in a god generates more curious looks and questions, rather than shrugs. It makes one stick out. “Don’t you want to go to heaven?” “You hate god.” (The equivalent of hating puppy dogs and tiny kittens.) “How can you be moral?” “How do you explain all those millions of other people that believe in God?”

The word “atheist” produces a picture of a grumpy old man shooing kids out of his yard. No atheist could possibly be fun—they must all be miserable. (Ironically, the other image is that of a hedonistic orgy organizer who is into sex, drugs and rock-n-roll with complete abandonment. No atheist could ever be the middle ground of just a normal human with normal idiosyncrasies)

Either way, they are sure to not be on God’s good side.

Somehow the picture that there is no God seems “unsafe.” As if God will be especially put-out by those who say he does not exist. We know saying “God Dammit” invites possible admonishment. Bad Karma. But “God is nonexistent” invites disaster. The sun may stop!

Without a God, we must work out our own lives, determine our own morals, explain and attempt to persuade others why those morals should be imposed, listen and learn from others as to why their position may be more appropriate, and no longer rest in the hope that “someday, somehow” everything will be all right.

Without a God, we may need to take a deep breath, and actually do the right thing even though society around us is alarmed that the sun will stop moving.

How ought we to live? Dangerously.

A Rolling Stone

In my wanderings, I came across an outstanding parable by Abacquer on the God of the Gaps argument. Here it is in its entirety:


Now let’s talk a little bit about evolution, because I assure you the proponents of Intelligent Design are not telling you anything remotely resembling the truth about evolution. And if you’ll permit me, I’ll use a parable to get across to you how idiotic it is to speak of filling in all the gaps in evolution.

Imagine there is a giant boulder sitting on top of a high hill. One rainy and windy day, the boulder’s purchase is so eroded that it finally tumbles down the hill scouring a huge groove in the surface of the hill. The way down is rocky and clogged with debris, so the boulder, as it tumbles, bounces this way and that, popping up in the air when it hits an outcrop or a fallen tree. At the bottom of the hill, the boulder bounces off the ground and falls into the lake beyond, where it sinks into the mud and is covered over by water.

Hundreds of years later some men come by and notice the great furrow cut in the surface of the hill. The furrow is incomplete because over time parts of it have weathered away, and a subsequent landslide has destroyed portions of it, and there were times when the boulder was airborne. The rock itself lay hidden beneath the muddy floor of the lake. The men try to explain what caused this furrow. One man, the theist, says that God created the furrow. The other men like this idea and they go back to their village and spread the good word, culminating in Fred Franklin writing a book that tells about God creating the furrow.

Several hundred years after that a theist and a scientist come to visit the furrow.

The scientist climbs the hill and studies the rock at the top. He tests rolling small rocks in various places on the hill’s surface. He studies the sides of the furrow and compares them to pictures of furrows created when other boulders rolled down other hills. After much study, he announces that something massive, probably a large boulder or a slab of stone, slid or rolled down the surface of the hill sometime in the past.

The theist points to the missing areas of the furrow and says “If a rock rolled down the hill, where is the evidence here? There are gaps in your evidence, and therefore you must be wrong, and God must have done it.”

The scientist explains that (a) even if his hypothesis is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that the “God hypothesis” is correct, and (b) it’s possible that over time that some of the furrow would be filled in by landslides or other sorts of erosion.

The theist refuses to abandon the God hypothesis (despite the fact that there is no proof.) So the scientist takes a pick and a shovel and digs up a spot in the center of the landslide. Sure enough eventually he uncovers evidence of the rolling boulder beneath several feet of gravel and dirt, a deely gouged stone and compacted dirt matching the profile of the furrow above and below the slide.

“See?” he says.

“See what?” the theist says. “You uncovered a stretch that is only six feet long. How do I know that if you dug upslope or downslope another six feet you would find any evidence there? You haven’t uncovered the whole furrow! Therefore, you’re wrong, and God did it.”

So the scientist removes the rest of the landslide. It takes many days, but it reveals the furrow like structure almost the entire length of the formerly covered area. In the meantime, while the scientist is doing real work, the theist preaches and glorifies the greatness of the god that cut the furrow. Once the landslide is removed the scientist identifies two thousand three hundred and seventy eight pieces of evidence that point to a large slab of stone rolling through that location following a path that connects up the furrow on both ends.

“See?” he says to the theist.

“See what?” the theist says. He points to a 3 foot gap between evidence #1,536 and #1,537. “You haven’t demonstrated that a boulder rolled through this three foot area.”

The scientist shakes his head while wiping dirt and sweat from his brow. “No, and I’m not going to. I’ve amassed more than enough evidence to demonstrate that a boulder rolled down the entire length of this hill. There is enough evidence on either side of this gap to safely assume that the boulder which caused impact #1,536 also caused scrape #1,537.”

“Your theory has holes in it. How can you accept that?”

“You’re not thinking, sir. The only way to be 100% certain that a boulder rolled down this hill would be to go back in time and watch it happen. That’s clearly impossible. Over time some of the evidence will be destroyed, and therefore gathering all of the evidence after the fact is similarly impossible. Nonetheless I’ve been able to find enough evidence to support that hypothesis.”

“Why should I take your word for it?”

“Oh you shouldn’t. It’s still just a hypothesis. Now I need to publish my findings, those findings will have to be reviewed by other scientists, and they will need to come here and conduct their own experiments to see if I’m right or wrong. They will likely perform other sorts of tests that I haven’t thought of, they may propose alternative hypotheses that will need to be tested, and I will need to stay out of their way and let them work. Only after my findings have been independently reproduced and thoroughly reviewed and confirmed will my hypothesis become a theory.”

“And then it is simply accepted as fact?”

“Oh no, theories can be and are challenged all the time. Over time through scientific advances we come up with new and better ways to test old theories. The best theories will endure the test of time.”
“So when will you know for sure?”

“I don’t understand?”

“When will you be able to say beyond all shadow of any doubt that a giant boulder rolled down this hill?”

“Never. Science doesn’t deal in 100% certainties, only in probabilities. Personally I’m 90% certain a boulder rolled down this hill, science will never be certain. Science may approach 100% certainty, but it can never say ‘for sure’… new information may be found in the future that casts an accepted theory into doubt. That’s why Science is so wonderful, it’s not doctrinal… it’s open to new information.”

“So you admit you can’t prove with 100% certainty that a rolling boulder did this.”

“Yes, of course I admit that.”

“Then I can’t see why you would expect me to believe that. I am 100% certain that God created that furrow.”

“Well what evidence can you provide to support your hypothesis?”
The theist pulls his holy book from his pack, opens it, and begins to read. “Yea and verily, it was upon the morning of the ninth day that The Lord touched the great hill with the tip of his divine finger and scratched a long furrow in it leading to the lake and said. ‘See how I your God have marked this hill. Look upon this mark and remember it is I who …’”

“I’m still waiting for evidence,” the scientist interrupts.

The theist holds up the book. “This is the word of God.”

“That is the word of Freddie Franklin. The fact that he wrote that story to explain the great furrow is interesting from an anthropological perspective, but it doesn’t amount to proof either way. Besides, I can provide evidence that this furrow is 750 years old. Freddie Franklin only lived 300 years ago, so he didn’t see it being formed. Therefore I repeat, where is your evidence?”

The theist flips to another page and begins reading again. “I stood upon the Earth and trembled as God cut the furrow in the soil …”

The scientist interrupts again. “That’s not evidence dammit. You can read that book from end to end and it doesn’t amount to one iota of evidence beyond ’someone said so’.”

“Well where is YOUR evidence?” the theist demands.

“Are you kidding? I just spent two weeks digging up this…”

“No, I know you’ve uncovered a few scattered bits of evidence to support your delusional rolling boulder idea, but where is your evidence that God DIDN’T create this furrow?”

“Why on Earth would I ever try and prove that?”

“What?”

“Science finds conclusions which fit the evidence. You have a conclusion based on no evidence at all. That’s not science, it’s storytelling, and I can’t see why you would expect me to disprove it. I’m not the one making an outrageous claim here. You’re the one who is claiming an invisible supernatural being made this feature. That’s one hefty claim, and you need to prove that it is true.”

“You don’t seek proof of the almighty… that would be blasphemy.”

“I’m not asking you to prove the existence of your supernatural entity of choice, I am asking you to prove that this furrow was created by a supernatural entity. And DON’T start reading from that book again. That’s not evidence.”

“This is all the evidence I have, and it’s the only evidence I need.”

And off the theist goes to his village to profess how Science was unable to disprove that God made the great furrow. Leaving the exhausted and exasperated scientist to shake his head and get back to work discovering the truth.

So it is with evolution my friend. The amount of evidence which has been gathered which supports evolution is overwhelming. It is a truly phenomenal quantity of evidence. It is more than enough evidence to allow one to safely assume that A evolved to B even when there is a gap in the evidence between A and B.

And, as the scientist notes in the above story, gaps in the evidence for evolution do not equal proof of creationism. If someone managed to scientifically disprove evolution as we understand it today, that would not mean that creationism is proven. Creationism would be just as much poppycock then as it is now.

The reason why intelligent design didn’t hold up in court is largely because it is a series of (largely unfounded) challenges to evolution… challenging evolution is not proving creationism. Scientists by and in large understand this.

Merry Christmas!

There. I said it. No “Happy Holiday.” No “Wish you a Joyful Christmas.” No, “Enjoy HanChrisZaa.”

I grew up in a Baptist church. I’m so old, I remember celebrating Halloween in which we dressed up as ghosts, pirates and cowboys (pointedly no devils or witches, of course) and actually went to the church for a Halloween Party. Gasp!

Over time, as a Christian, I chuckled how we got caught up in the “evilness” of Halloween. How we should study its pagan origin, and learn that it started with Satan worshippers drinking the blood of Saints. How we were promoting Satan’s Kingdom by daring to put on a sheet and ask for a Hershey’s (c).

Halloween parties disappeared and “Harvest Parties” appeared. Dressing up faded with games and trampolines and gadgets coming into play. Gone were the scary movies, such as “Friday the 13th.” No, we watched “Left Behind” instead.

I thought, how funny it was as a Christian, that we were doing the same things, only with a “Christian” tint. Satan had so much power, that we had to concede the day to him, and hope our alternatives would draw in the few remaining hold-outs against this pernicious growing menace.

Now, I see the same thing happening with Christmas. Only in the reverse. Is the secular community becoming outraged at a greeter in a retail store daring to have the audacity to say “Merry Christmas.” Really? Are there people out there, crushing into Macy’s (c) in order to save $5 on some sweater who are aghast to hear “Merry Christmas”? Do they take their business to another store, in order that their ears will not be assaulted with a particular set of syllables?

Yes, I am fully aware that Christmas has a pagan origin. Yes, I understand that Christians have chosen that holiday to celebrate the birth of Christ. Ironically, the Birth of Jesus having far out-paced any celebration for the more important claim of Resurrection of Jesus. I understand the morphing and molding of the pagan with the holy. Christmas trees in churches. Gift-giving and stockings of more import than the Nativity scenes.

How many times have we heard the cry, “Put ‘Christ’ back in Christmas”? Because, Christians, too, understand the lessening acknowledgment of Jesus’ involvement, on the way to the movie theatre to watch “Santa Clause 4.”

Look at the Christmas specials we watch on T.V. in December. “Rudolph.” “Frosty.” “The Grinch.” “A Wonderful Life.” “A Christmas Carol.” About the closest Christian theme left is Linus’ speech in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”

We now live in a world that intermingles Wise Men and Elves with little thought for the incongruity. Much of me…nuts…ALL of me says, “Deal with it.” Enjoy it! Christmas has become a holiday that has a little Jesus, a little Santa, a little family, a little friends, a little gifts, a lot of food, and a time in which people that cannot crack a smile for 11 months of the year actually place dollars in Red Buckets.

For Christians—say “Merry Christmas.” For others, say “Happy ______” whatever floats your boat. Does it really make a significance as to which phrase pops out?

Now—I am probably going to get into real trouble with this one. I know I am a secular humanist. I understand the implications and value of separation of Church and State. I get that I should be outraged at a Nativity Scene outside a City Hall.

I’m not.

It doesn’t bother me in the least.

Perhaps some atheist will appear and take me to task—changing my mind as to the depth and breadth of the violation a manger and a plastic baby have when sitting in front of a governmental building.

There are people that find a Nativity Scene as much a part of Christmas as twinkling lights, and sleighs. When we complain about it appearing on the courthouse steps, do we really think this causes people to pause and say, “Yeah, I could see how offensive a Crèche would be”? Or is it far more likely that they become enflamed—defending what to them is an important part of this holiday.

Has there been a single person who has their life changed by a Nativity Set? Seriously?

Thanks to the current rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court, many Governments are being advised that they can have religious displays, as long as they are parts of a larger, broader, display that is not solely for religious purposes. In addition to the Menorahs, there are Nativity Scenes, Christmas Trees, Snowpeople, Grinches and Santa Clauses being included.

Somehow, I find that more appropriate, anyway. Since Christmas has become far more and far less than a religious holiday. More people take their kids to see Santa than to the Christmas Cantata anymore.

So this is one atheist that still shouts out “Merry Christmas!” Hey, we got Halloween, it is only fair for them to have a part of another holiday.

I am not a Free-Thinker

Sorta.

I find titles amusing. I know women that insist invitations are address to “Dr. & Mrs. So-and-so” because they are so proud to have married a Doctor. Technically, as a lawyer, I can add “Esquire” after my name. Doesn’t that sound ridiculously pretentious? Admit it—you would laugh if you saw someone do that!

And at times we join a group with a label. When people first started fighting abortions, they were “anti-abortionists.” But they did not like that “anti-.” It sounded so…I don’t know…negative. They became “Pro-Life.” Isn’t that better?

Now, the Pro-abortionists can’t exactly change their name to “anti-life,” can they? They have to be something “Pro” too! Thus entering “Pro-Choice.”

We are not “anti-war” but “pro-peace.” We are not “anti-government” but “Pro-reform.” Everybody against something is titled as being for something.

I am an atheist. Apparently that is an unpleasant word which contrives images of pitch forked ceremonies and evil plots to take over the world! (or at least introduce the insidious fiction of “evilution” while conspiring to eliminate creationism by the use of fossils and evidence, and research.)

We have had a President of the United States actually question whether a person with the title of “atheist” is qualified to be a citizen!

So atheists create other titles that are supposed to be more politically correct. Friendlier. Nicer. I love the term “Bright.” Not! Have we ever thought what that implies to the theist?

“Hi, I am a Bright, because I do not believe there is a god.
“Well, I believe there is a God. That must make me a Dim. Or a Dumb. Or a Not-so-Bright.

I seriously cannot imagine a single theist getting warm fuzzy feelings over being juxtaposed to a “Bright” as compared to an “atheist.”

We try “non-believer.” Or “skeptic.” And one term that comes out is “free-thinker.”

“Free-thinker.”

A word made up of two words, “free” and “think.” Both very popular words.

Everyone likes “Free:”

“Live Free or Die.”
“Be Free.
“Buy one, get one Free.”

What a nice, pleasant word. And “think” is just as grand;

“After further thought…”
“Think before you speak.”
“I didn’t think this through.”

Who wouldn’t want to be a “Free-thinker”?

Again, though, what of those persons who dare to question a free-thinker? Clearly they must either be restricted, or not thinking or (gasp!) both! Because once a person is a free-thinker, anyone who dares question their position has obviously not got their stuff together.

Oh, I get what “free-thinking” is all about. Once we were restricted to a certain way of considering the world, and now we think differently. But are we any “freer”? Are we not just as restricted as before?

On one level, I could possibly be convinced there is a god of some sort. Perhaps I can claim a sense of more free thinking in that regard. On another, I could not ever be convinced the God proposed by Fundamentalist Christianity exists. In that regard I have become more restricted.

Look, here is the reality. We ALL think. Yes, it can seem at times we see some really REALLY stupid things, but for the most part people have even thought the stupid things through. It just didn’t turn out the way they planned.

We all have thoughts that are free. We all have thoughts that are restricted. There are things we accept, and things we reject. Those items may change over time, but in this moment, on this day—we are neither truly free, nor truly restricted.

Am I a free-thinker? Yep—but so are you.

I know people don’t always like titles. I know some titles have negative connotations. But all a title creates is a way for us to communicate more efficiently. If I say I am an “atheist,”—as horrible a title people may think that is—no further explanation is necessary. The other person is not left wondering how they ended up being dim, or a restricted non-thinker.

No Regrets

Zoe, at “A complicated Salvation” wrote this and initially I was going to leave a comment. But I feared it would get extensive.

(Side question: Does one leave a long comment, or is that rude? Is it better to write it out, clogging up one’s own blog, or should one remotely stay with the topic and just comment? I go back and forth. Today I fall on blog.)

Are there regrets for not leaving sooner?

The story goes of a famous lawyer who was arguing a case before the Supreme Court. A person observed, “You must be quite prepared. You tried the case and you argued the case before the appellate court. You surely know it better than your opponent.”

To which the lawyer replied, “Sir, after I tried the case, I completely forgot everything about it. Before I could argue the appeal, I had to re-learn the entire thing. Now, I will have to learn it all over again. It is as if I never heard of the case before.”

That is amazingly true. We completely forget our own cases.

There have been times, where I have to pick up a case again, after a few years, either for an appeal, or a new trial, or some other reason and become familiar with it all over. (I am in the process of doing so now; the experience is fresh in my mind.)

We forget. We forget the names of the people. We forget the dates. At times I will read my own questioning and think, “Where the devil was I headed with that?” Or I will see pages and pages of testimony and 100’s of documents all necessary to prove what I thought was an important point, and turned out to be trivial at best.

We asked for documents we didn’t need. We questioned people that did not provide any useful information. We asked questions that were a complete waste of time.

Yet, at that moment, I did not know it. Rabbit trails HAVE led to valuable information. Documents requested CAN become key. Or can eventually mold in my storage—unneeded, unused, and forgotten.

With amazing 20-20 hindsight, I can review a file and clearly see that I did not need to perform this action, or did not need to pursue that matter. If I could do it all over again, would I do the same actions? Of course not. Do I regret doing them? Equally not. I worked with the material and thoughts I had at the moment.

A common question lawyers are asked, after we lose, is, “If you had to do it all over again, would you have done anything differently?”

“Of COURSE I would have done something differently. I lost, you ignorant dolt. I could have worn a clown outfit and not do any worse!” (Most times we would have picked a differently jury!)

If I had to live my life over, would I have done anything differently? Obviously! We all would say that. Do we have regrets? Absolutely. Even when realizing that we worked with the information we had, a part of our humanity cannot help but feel that we should have known better. Should have done better. Should have listened, looked and learned more.

Perhaps, even now I am doing things that in 10 months will look back with 20-20 hindsight and think I should have done something differently. Even have regret.

Because we cannot help but impute our current knowledge on our past situation. “Shoulda seen it coming.” How often do we think that?

I was raised in an evangelical, conservative family. Even as I type that, a small part of me is thinking, “Yeah, but isn’t that an excuse? Didn’t you really know better?”

We do, as Zoe points out admirably, believe and say things that in retrospect are incredible. Unthinkable. Yet at the time it seemed so natural. We pitied our fellow humans who were going to be eternally tortured, without even a passing thought as to the grave injustice of such a thing. We defended a God that could kill babies and take virgin females because…well…because that was how we were raised.

Our parents said it. Our friends said it. And, because we were told that even God said it. Look, it is right here in our book of “God’s Quotations.” Women in leadership roles? Fine if you are a government deciding the fate of millions, or running a mutli-billion dollar corporation—but sorry! God’s book says no women. You ladies go and run the nursery. Every May or so we will read Proverbs 31 and place you on a pedestal. Just high enough so the pastor can look up your skirt. (Joke! Just kidding!)

We hated homosexuals, bombed clinics, voted on one issue, and avoided science as if it was the plague. We nodded when people preached that AIDS was sent to kill the sexually deviant, when told that blood of the heathen would go six feet deep for 100 miles, when informed that some people were just not chosen to go to heaven and that was too bad.

We truly thought that “X-Mas” was a form of persecution, equivalent to the rack. “Happy Holidays”? Might as well shove bamboo sticks under our nails.

We all have situations in which we look back and think, “What was I thinking?” Perhaps a bad girlfriend/boyfriend. Or a bad friendship. Or, for many deconverts, a life in a religion that is a barbaric boiling pot of prejudice and fear.

I certainly have regrets. I certainly wish I would have gotten out sooner. Would I have done anything differently? Sure—knowing what I know now. Would I have then? Obviously not—because I didn’t.

All I can do is go back and attempt to correct all the wrongs I performed, and hope for forgiveness. If nothing else, because of my ignorance.

I wish Haggard was a Hypocrite

Yes, the current stir in all of blogsphere is Ted Haggard—conservative pastor who, as it turns out, was having a homosexual affair on the side. The irony, and hence the outrage and labeling of “Hypocrite” is that he was extremely outspoken against gay marriage. Against homosexuality, yet practicing it himself.

We think of a hypocrite as someone who says one thing, but lives another. But is that what Ted Haggard was doing?

Walk with me on this. We all have moral codes. Whether a fundamentalist, a Mormon, an agnostic or an atheist. And we all recognize that we will, at some point, breach that moral code. At that moment—are we a hypocrite? We said one thing and lived another.

Or, is there a larger picture that we recognize such a breach will happen, and we take whatever steps we can to resolve the problem. That part of what we say is that we will eventually break our own moral code and yet even in doing so not be a hypocrite because we are living what we say. We are human.

Ted Haggard thought homosexuality was a sin. He preached against it. He campaigned against it. He proclaimed it through every medium available to him. And when he engaged in it, he thought it was a sin, then, too. He recognized he was breaking his own moral code. He purposely did it secretly; he then tried to cover it up. He treated it as if it was a breach of his own moral code.

To Ted Haggard, a homosexual affair was just one of many sins that he will commit in his life. Part of being human. In his mind, he is not so much of a hypocrite as a man who sinned, and knew he was sinning.

And, he will continue to rail against homosexuality. He will say that what he did was wrong—sadly not as much as the adultery as much as the homosexuality. He will continue to say that other homosexuals, just like him, are wrong and sinful, and should be denied rights.

See, a hypocrite would be Haggard coming forward and saying, “You know what? I am a homosexual. All this time I have been saying to not do it, yet I believe it is acceptable to be gay. I am gay. I should not have said what I did, because what I said was wrong.”

No, Ted Haggard thinks what he said was still right. He still thinks homosexuality is a sin. He just thinks he got caught doing something he has always said, and will continue to always say is wrong.

At some point he will crawl out of this disaster and write a book. And in that book, (which will be dedicated to his loving wife who is going through the hell of a heterosexual married to a homosexual) he will recount how wrong homosexuality is. And how he overcame this horrid sin. And thousands of heterosexual Christians will buy this book and say, “See? See? Even the homosexual Ted Haggard knew it was a sin, and he became straight.”

Admittedly, some of me wants to join the bandwagon and call out “Hypocrite.” But the more I reflect on it, the less I see him as such. And the more I wish he was.

Rather than a homosexual basher who had a homosexual affair, I wish his hypocrisy would be a homosexual that bashed other homosexuals. But I don’t think that is where he will land…

War is Hell

I am at a war. Inexplicably, I did not know it, and only recently made this discovery. No, I am not talking about the tragedy in Iraq, nor some other foreign war.

Nope, me. Personally. I was informed by a believer that solely due to the fact that I am an unbeliever, he is “at war” with me. Wow. I had no idea it was that serious!

Have you ever thought about what it means to make a formal declaration of war? It is a statement that means for a period of time we can suspend normalcy. Normally we attempt to talk rationally as human beings and work out our differences. In a time of war, diplomatic relations are severed.

Normally we only involve those directly related to the situation. In a time of war, “collateral damage” is expected. Normally we do not take a gun, a cannon, a rocket launcher, and do our level best to render another human being into the smallest possible bits of flesh. In war it is called “a battle.” Normally we do not hold people for ransom. In war, we exchange prisoners-of-war.

In the legal field, we discuss the propagandistic value of calling it a “War on Drugs.” If we can convince America that this is no simple crime, this is no ordinary felony, but that we are actually at WAR then the suspension of what is normally expected can be justified.

If you are printing millions of counterfeit bills in your house, it is not reason enough to seize the home. But if you grow one marijuana plant in your bedroom--the house, the barn, and the real estate can be taken by the government. Why the disparity? Because we are at war!

It is amazing the amount of dollars obtained by police departments through drug forfeitures. I am aware of one department that had so much, it did not know what all to buy with it so they bought grenade launchers. Yikes! (“Stop or I’ll shoot” took on a whole new meaning!)

In my state, if you are caught smoking pot, your driver’s license is suspended for 6 months. Not if you are caught smoking while driving—if you are caught anywhere at all. Driving need not be involved. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing whatsoever. But because we are at war, we can use any means necessary to stop the pernicious drug problem.

Our prisons are overflowing, our system is clogged, and our probation departments overwhelmed. When you are at war, you take as many of the enemy as you can. You don’t stop and think about the consequences, you don’t consider your position. No, you fight, fight, fight until you win.

We certainly see it with our current “War” on terrorism. Normally we would fight to protect our civil rights. To NOT have phone taps without valid warrants. But since we are at WAR, what we expect in normal life must be suspended. Normally we would cringe to hear America has secret camps, or has engaged in torture, or refuses to provide hearings for accused persons. But once we discover we are “At War” we understand that such things are a necessary evil.

Of course once we are no longer at war, we expect things to go back to normal. Right?

The problem of the Drug War, or the War on Terror, is that there is no end. There is no point in which an enemy capitulates, and the rifles are put down. There is not time at which we can return to normal.

It is with those thoughts that I am confronted with the fact that another person is “at war” with me, simply because of how I believe.

It was intriguing that this claim came about because we were discussing when it is appropriate to deceive another. And the person justified the use of deceit against a non-believer because we are “at war.” What was even more fascinating was how many simply shrugged and accepted that statement as an appropriate response! What we would normally never accept, if cloaked in terms of “war” we justify!

“What are you doing to that man! You should stop!”
”Why? We are at war.”
“Oh. Sorry. Didn’t know. You go right ahead, then.”

Have we gone so far insane that we are now using “war” as an excuse to suspend normal interaction and vindicate whatever action we desire?

Before one considers me an alarmist—consider the actions of the Russians on the German front, at the end of WWII. Because of the long, terrible ravages of war, when pushing the Germans back, the Russians would enter a village, rape the females, and kill the mayors. We look back on this with disgust, and think, “How horrible!” but why was it occurring in the first place? Why wasn’t anyone stepping up and saying to their fellow soldiers, “This is wrong.”? Simple. Because it was a time of war, and war is a terrible thing. Shocking things happen in war.

It is a time when normalcy is suspended.

We only need to read the tales of the Tanakh to see the Canaanites were labeled as “non-believers,” the people were informed they were “at war” and genocides happened. The same people that inform me they are “at war” with me, believe God literally tells people to kill others solely for what they believe.

What was more surprising was that after I was informed I was “at war,” no one stepped up and said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Going a little far there, don’t you think?” Instead they sat around, sagely nodding their heads and rubbing their chins, stating, “At war, eh? I see. I see.”

I am not interested in a war. I will debate, argue, discuss, interact, and even fight. But when I start to see a person justifying an action we would never accept as normal under the guise of “a war” and others nodding in agreement, a great part of me wonders—what is next? There is no enemy to surrender here. There will always be unbelievers. How far will a person go, rationalizing their actions under that three letter word?

Wanna Fight?

I have been off, in my wanderings, looking into different possibilities about God. Mostly talking about God creating Time. What a spiritual realm consists of. And how to resolve the Problem of suffering. It is rather long, and fairly boring. I wouldn’t bother reading it if you are at all sleepy:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

When we start a lawsuit, we have a period of “Discovery” which is exactly what it sounds like—I discover what witness, documents and testimony the other side will bring, and they equally discover the same about my position. There is no more “Trial by Surprise” anymore. (Although it really only reduces surprise, not eliminate it by any stretch.)

Before I debate, I like to “discover” what their position is. Not so much to avoid strawpeople, (my new PC term) but to actually communicate with a person as to what their particular belief is. Just saying you are a “Christian” is not very limiting. That means a whole variety of things from Catholic to Liberal to Charismatic to Mormon to Calvinist. And anything else, besides.

Admittedly, it is frustrating when the “Constant Fight” light is on, and the other person wants to pick apart every single possible item conceivable. “You are arguing against the Presuppositionalist position of the Missouri Synod of 1952, and I am of the Presuppositionalist position of the Indiana Conference of 1942. Second division.”

Give us a break, will ya? This may come as a surprise, but I have not memorized every position, every nuance, every offshoot branch of each and every God that has come out of the Tanakh!

And even then, it is better than the:

“Nope, that is not what I believe.”
“Nope, don’t believe that either.”
”Not my belief.”
“Nor is that.”

Do me a favor—tell me what you DO believe! Please. The constant guessing game begins to feel exactly like a New York Three Care Monte.

“Nope, wrong card.”
“Nope, wrong card.”
“Nope, wrong card.”

I am sure it is part of my presentation (and maybe even my reputation) but people get their hackles up when all I want to do is make sure I know what the heck they are talking about.

So much of the internet debate on theism has become “Who can win?” and less of “How do we believe differently?” And parties on every side of every issue are equally to blame.

Stuck on You

Ever feel stuck?

I have a confession to make that very few know about me. (Ahh, the anonymity of the ‘net.) I have a condition known as Brown’s Syndrome. Essentially, certain small muscles around my left eye swell, vastly reducing the range my eye can move. Of course my right eye continues to move just fine, resulting in double vision when I look in certain directions. (Up.)

It is intermittent. Which means it can come on in the middle of the night and either disappear by morning or be with me for a week. It can last five months, a day, or not affect me for a year.

It is a good reminder of what it means to be “stuck.”

(Humorous side note. You know you have a fun condition when the titles of your doctors get longer and longer. I went from an optimist to an ophthalmologist to a neuro-ophthalmologist. Nothing like having the head of the eye department of a local hospital network ask if you could come back tomorrow so he can have his students examine you as well, as they are never likely to see such a pronounced example of your situation. Greeaaattt!)

All of us are stuck at times. Stuck by our employment. Stuck by our location. Stuck by our church, our family, our marriage, our children, our medical conditions. Stuck by life.

In my practice two scenarios come vividly to mind.

There are times I deal with juveniles or teenagers that commit crimes. I am placed in the position of informing their parents that these young men will be serving prison time for many years. Or be in juvenile detention for years. I watch these parents’ lives crushed.

They would do anything to take the place of their sons. They worked hard to provide and love their sons, yet in a moment—in an instant of a bad decision--their lives are changed. They are stuck.

The second circumstance is domestic violence. I see these women, abused by their husbands, yet refusing to leave them out of a fear of financial or emotional deprivation. In the constant paradox of hate/love of a man who beats them, yet later hugs them. They too, are stuck.

Face it—it stinks to be stuck.

When I get Brown’s Syndrome, eventually there comes a moment, a time where, with a visible “Pop” my eye begins to move freely. Oh, what a relief! To see again without double vision. To look up, down, right and left and not worry about that annoying view; not worry, “Will it stay this way? Is this it?”

All of us that are stuck are looking for that “Pop.” That moment where we feel free. The breeze on our face, the sun in our eyes, and the bright anticipation of the future, rather than the dread of tomorrow.

The internet has changed all of our lives. We can now talk to someone in Singapore or Paris with just a few clicks on the keyboard. Looking for a domestic abuse group? Google will bring up hundreds. We can now talk to others who are completely dissimilar to us, or exactly like us. We can find people that have the same problems, the same stuckness we have. I imagine I can find others with Brown’s Syndrome if I looked.

It is here that—for a second—we can unstick ourselves.

We can assume silly monikers like “DagoodS” or “Flaming Hot Rod” or “Bunch o’ Fun” or whatever we want. We can argue, we can laugh, we can love, we can get into grudges, even! Isn’t it amazing to watch people that become personally involved with “Cranky Pete” and actually spend more time focused on exacting revenge on an unknown user from Arizona, rather than their own lives!

It is here that we can release those anxieties and communicate and find a respite from the everyday stickiness.

I have another confession to make—I have never met, in person, a deconvert. Oh, I have met atheists. Not ones that want to talk about God, of course, since it would be as silly (to them) as talking about Santa Claus not being real. John W. Loftus was recently in a debate, and had it been closer to my locale, I hoped to attend and meet him. Literally, just to meet another deconvert.

While I hope to meet one in real life some day (sounds like we should be in a zoo, doesn’t it? *chuckle*) at the moment it is enough to have a chance to interact on-line.

To all of us that feel “stuck” at the moment, I hope we appreciate the fact we have others that we can communicate with through this medium. I have many people going through my mind that I wish I could hop in my car and drive to their house to have a coffee with them. I can’t. So, for right now, the ‘net will have to do.

I know we all feel stuck in some way. I hope we realize, like my pesky Brown’s Syndrome, that it is intermittent. That someday, it will “pop” and we will no longer be stuck.

I didn't mean it.

Often we are confronted by people who are aghast at the notion of no after-life. No God. “How can you have any meaning to your life?” they wail.

To be honest, I do not recall the idea of “meaning” as even crossing my mind during my deconversion. (Lo, these two years hence.) At that time I was struggling with even the notion there was no Christian God, or if there was a God what it looked like, and if I picked the wrong one what the consequences would be.

Probably the closest I ever came to being concerned about losing my “meaning” in life, is my fear of getting the wrong “meaning.” What if I picked wrong and it turned out that the “meaning” in my life was to give some God glory by eternally roasting? Yikes!

But I never remember a moment of saying, “Gee, if I head down this path I will lose some ultimate meaning.”

As humans, we are so focused on our lives. I am at that stage where I am worried about daughter’s dating, future college expenses, house repairs, retirement, children activities, and whether I will retain enough hair to give it a chance to go gray before falling out.

My friends with their theistic belief, with their “ultimate meaning” have the same concerns and focus as I do. They are just as worried about their kids. About their jobs. About their marriages.

See, even with some “ultimate meaning” we have to live in the here and now. We have to replace the old tires on our vehicle, visit the doctor when we are sick, and treat our spouse to an occasional special dinner. We live.

It has been my experience that most people are not devoting much time, if any, to the concern of some ultimate meaning, or grand purpose in their life. Only in internet debates, or perhaps the rare occasion by being confronted with an individual that is unconvinced of any after-life, does the thought even seriously cross most people’s minds. At best, it is a “someday something will happen” passing reflection.

While there have been suggestions that atheists should kill themselves, I think (I hope) most theists understand that just because we are unconvinced anything happens post-mortem, does not mean we cannot enjoy life now, and therefore we are squeezing every bit of meaning out of it as possible.

However, I have noticed a change within me. I have gained a sense of urgency that I did not have before. Unwittingly, I had “settled.” I had relaxed into a position that someday, somehow, I will have time to resolve any outstanding issues. When all of eternity stretched before me—was it really that important I attempt to heal every relationship possible? Here on earth, there were only so many hours in a day, but someday, in heaven, we could spend hours and hours sorting out our difficulties, and spend the next billion years or so, laughing away.

Further, I had someone watching out over me. If I screwed it up, God could step in and fix the problem. Without my even knowing it. If I inadvertently stepped on someone’s toes, God could come up behind and give the person a pat on the back—making it all go away.

I lost both of those concepts. I no longer have the luxury of time. No longer can “someday” be the day in which I repair a friendship, heal a wound, or hug a friend. No longer do I have the Great Unraveler to restore the harms I clumsily inflict. Nope. That all falls on me. To do now.

Too many prayers have gone unanswered. Too many times Christians believe they have received a “no” from God, and are waiting on God’s timing. Too many people are relying on too much time, and some other personage to do what they should be doing.

Look, if you believe in some Ultimate Meaning, some Grand Purpose in Life, because of a God, or an after life—great! But at the moment, you are living here. Now. And there are plenty of issues, plenty of problems, plenty of joys and plenty of moments of meanings that can be relished, experienced and reveled in.

What would the world look like, if rather than resting on some Ultimate Eventuality, we all set that aside, and considered living?