How I answered a Stump an Atheist Question

You can find this at Stump an Atheist.com. The following is how I answered, ""So what do you believe happens when you die if there is no God? You don't believe in any afterlife AT ALL?! If so…doesn't that bother you?"

 

I hate to make it sound like the atheist was stumped, but I feel the uncontrollable urge to comment and re-direct. The question was, "Doesn't the idea of no afterlife bother you at all?" It once did. Very much.

Back when I was a believer, I contemplated the afterlife all the time. What heaven would be like, who I would meet, where I would go, etc. I even contemplated hell, and the torture the people there deserved. Since I was Catholic, I also considered limbo and purgatory. As apostasy became inevitable, the afterlife became an obsession.

It bothered me that my path was paved in reason, guided by logic, and led to hell. It bothered me that I still WANTED to believe, but if I wanted evidence, I could not. It bothered me that I could not unlearn or undiscover what it meant to unleash logic and reason onto my religious faith. It bothered me that the only advice I got from clergy and teachers and friends was to pray.

It bothered me that I can easily see how our flawed human system of justice has multiple layers of punishment, and an all-just, all-loving god has but one. It bothered me that even Star Wars knew that only Sith think in black and white and the Jedi understood the world is grey. It bothered me that the people around me didn't seem to be bothered at all.

Now I focus my attention on living. I fear not death or what it brings. My life is what is important, not my death. How I live is more important that how I die. I guess for most atheists, we just don't consider the afterlife to be worth worrying about anymore. We're too busy living to be bothered with it.

What Happens to the Former Believer’s Salvation Story?

If you're a believer, and you don't have a salvation story, you need to get one. Fast. Every believer has the story of that unexplainable thing that happened to them that has convinced them god exists and he cares about what we do and think. So many atheists today are former believers. What happened to the salvation story?

I suppose it would be best for me to tell you my old salvation story. When I was young, 8 or 9, I would tell my family that after an exceptionally grueling session of prayer, I could FEEL grace pouring over me. I still remember the sensation. Like water, only there was no water, running down my back. Cool, refreshing, and pure. I remember I loved that feeling I got, and regularly experienced it after a grueling prayer session. Later, in the pre-teen years, I would tell people that after a particularly intense session of prayer, I could feel god speak to me in feelings, emotions and images. I would read the bible for hours and report intense feelings and at the same time a strange and powerful calmness. In my teen years I remember thinking I could almost hear the voice of god.

I rarely shared my salvation story. It didn't seem to be something anyone else could understand. The feelings and sensations were mine. What would I gain by sharing them?

So what happened?

I realized I had fooled myself. I recognized that this was not evidence at all. I came to understand what evidence is and what it is not. I found that I ought to be able to find evidence OUTSIDE myself for a being so great it made the universe. I turned logic and reason loose upon the superstitions I held. I didn't think they would fall apart. I honestly thought they would come through unscathed. How else could religion have survived all these years if it was not true? I had so much to learn.

The former believer has re-evaluated the salvation story. I had to come to a place where I knew what an appeal to emotion is, what an argument from ignorance is. That is not to say this story holds no merit for me today. It serves as a reminder that I was once fooled by the same mechanisms that fool the believers today. Once I held the position that if there is no better argument, I am justified in holding any position until proven wrong. There was a time I thought the first-cause argument was solid.

Perhaps it is good for the former believer to remember his former salvation story. It may give him a place to start the conversation with a believer.

Pining for Piety

Pining for Piety




Back when I was a believer, I was sure of so many things. I, or god, had everything under control. There was no need to worry about global warming. God would not allow the earth to run out of resources. Fallen people and dark angels were the cause of all bad things, and god still had everything in his plan. I was safe, and jesus would make sure I stayed that way. Then, I lost my faith, and things changed.



One thing is certain: I can’t go back to fooling myself into believing in god. Even if I wanted to do so, I could not. Not without evidence, and that is unlikely. I may not have arrived in my old faith by way of reason, but that was indeed the road I took to atheism. To leave this position, I’d have to be able to reason my way out. Evidence would have to be a central part of such a journey.



I was talking about this with my wife, who has shared my apostasy with me. She’s been a part of the end of my journey. She asked if I ever missed the old days of knowing for certain. I reminded her that I was certainly wrong, and she agreed, but also said that there was a time when I thought I was genuinely right. And that was comforting. Wasn’t there a part of me that wanted to put the bubble back together?



I had to say no. I care too much about believing things that are true and not believing things that are false. I want my beliefs to be able to withstand scrutiny. I need to be able to show the supporting evidence for what I say is true and what I say is false. I may no longer be able to claim piety, but I can now claim intellectual honesty. That is way better to me.

Bumper Sticker Faith

Bumper Sticker Faith




It’s the winter holiday season, and with it comes trees, lights, wreaths, and holly.

We even get billboards and marquees that answer each other’s controversial statements. The American Atheists have a billboard that says, “You know it’s a myth. This season celebrate REASON!” And some religious folk have countered it. And I’m sure that there’s another campaign here or there that will be having similar competitions.



Not that I’m against these campaigns. I think it’s great that we as atheists are getting the word out that it is okay to be an atheist, especially at this time of year. I think it’s great that the billboards are causing controversy. They ought to do so. I hope they make people think.



The other day at work I was talking with a couple of ladies who turned out to be evolution-deniers. I was taken off guard. These are intelligent people and the last people I would have suspected to have such bat-shit crazy ideas. I tried to explain evolution to them, but I kept getting swept away at the sheer craziness of their ideas. I was dumbfounded when one suggested that Adam and Eve had been dinosaurs. I’ve never heard that before. I could only say with utter bewilderment, “Do you think Adam and Eve were dinosaurs?!” She seemed to think that if they were, that would not contradict Genesis at all, but the idea that all living things share common ancestry would. Actually, I never got to say “common ancestry” to these ladies. Their nonsense left me speechless more than once. If you happen to know me in real life, you know the idiocy has to be at dinosaur level to stump me.



Looking back, I should have known better. One of these ladies has tried to get me to believe that homeopathy was good medicine. She was aghast when I said acupuncture was bullshit. And I think the whole “Adam and Eve were dinosaurs” conversation began with me calling PETA the “People for Extortion and Terrorist Activity”. In other words, I already knew these ladies were into “woo”, but didn’t realize the woo was part of a much deeper pool of crazy guano.



In any event, I tried to explain what evolution was and why creation was nothing more than a fairy tale. I could not. As I tried to give the explanation, they would shut down and tell me they didn’t understand. If I couldn’t condense my answer to less than five words, it was too complicated. I said that was disingenuous, and they couldn’t understand the word. I told them they were not being intellectually honest, and they didn’t care. She told me it was easier to believe Adam and Eve were dinosaurs than to believe evolution happens. I doubt they understand what evolution is, but I asked why she felt it was easier. It fit on a bumper sticker.



It was true; intellectual honesty was not her concern. Nor was winning a debate. Her objective was to keep from having to learn something. Her objective was to be able to keep her head up her ass and try not to look foolish in the process. She hid behind the bumper sticker and ran, because it was quickly evident that once the dumb-stun wore off, I was going to be able to dissect and destroy her position. I only wish I could have shaken the stun off more quickly.



I want to end with the fact these ladies are not idiots. I mean, they may be IDiots, but they are not stupid people. They are quite intelligent and because of this, they illustrate very well how smart people have been trained to do mental gymnastics to keep religious beliefs separate from the rest of their lives. I just worry when it seems to leak in the form of woo.

Sorry, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. There is no god, either.

Sorry, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. There is no god, either.




I got into a discussion the other day with a couple of evolution deniers at work. I’m not exactly in the closet; I have one of my Secular Student Alliance group’s flyers posted on my desk. The conversation began with how I think PETA is bull, and ran into evolution somehow. So eventually, the santa vs. god argument came up.



Now, the argument was that Santa is based on a real person, St. Nicholas. But did the actual St. Nick live at the North Pole? Did he fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer? Did he have a workshop filled with magical little people? Was he even a fat, bearded old dude? Nope. None of these describe the actual person. But they do describe the legend of Santa Clause, who is certainly a myth.



So why try to make Santa real? The person was trying to make a connection to what was real and the beliefs she held. She wanted to make the connection between Christmas and Christ, but there simply is none, well, at least not one in reality. Perhaps a legend links the two, but there is not a shred of real evidence linking these together.



Now, I realize it’s about that time of year when those “persecuted Christians” get all uppity about non-believers like me pissing on Christmas. Well, I don’t piss on Christmas, just on the Christ part. I think peace on earth and goodwill towards men is a fine idea. Generosity and charity are just dandy. But what pisses me off is when religious clergy distribute toys to children so they can cop a feel. What angers me is when a nativity scene makes an appearance in front of a courthouse or other public institution, especially when other groups are forbidden to do the same. My son is six. He understands that santa, line the easter bunny and the tooth fairy, are all imaginary games we play with children. Like the money we use in Monopoly isn’t real, neither are these characters. But they are still fun. Mostly, I tell my son that I bought the presents because I want the credit. I paid for them; I want the thanks. He gets it. This year, I’ve got They Might Be Giants “Here comes science” album on CD and DVD for him and his cousin. I still can’t believe I missed that album.

THOU shall not kill; that's GOD's job!!

THOU shall not kill, that’s GOD’s job!


A re-post.  I think this blog is my favorite.  Comment and let me know what you think.

I’ve never been a fan of the Ten Commandments. I really loved George Carlin’s take on them, reducing them to two. But I still have a problem with this one…



I’ve mentioned before that I listen to the Christian radio. The preacher dude is going through the commandments right now, and today he talked about this one. At the beginning of the sermon, he admits that god DOES allow some killing. He said he was going to explain that, but he never really did. Maybe it’s in tomorrow’s sermon.



What kind of killing does God “authorize”? There are just and holy wars, punishments for disobeying god, and of course, god loves it when criminals are executed by the GOVERNMENT.



God does not authorize euthanasia or abortion. Those are “unauthorized”.



It seems to me that god authorizes an awful lot of vengeful killing, but does not authorize mercy killing. War is so vengeful. Especially if we’re talking about Biblical wars. Whoo! That was some vengeful fighting! The death penalty is still vengeance, even if it has a civil front to it. Someone does something, and you or the government wants to kill that person for it. That sounds like vengeance to me.



I can’t think of too many people who have asked a doctor to assist them in committing suicide that were in great health. This is usually a decision made to reduce or prevent prolonged suffering. So too can abortion be a merciful act. What do you think happens to the child born to parents who didn’t want the child? And then there’s rape and incest and medical emergencies… My point is abortion can be merciful.



Why is this? Why does god so easily allow hate and vengeance and stifle mercy? Well, I kinda got the answer.



See, the emphasis in the commandment is not on the “not kill” part, it’s on the “THOU” part. God wants to do the killing. God wants to have his dudes have all the power and you are not to even try to do the same. This commandment is not to promote life; it is to protect and reinforce the authority of the religion of the land. This commandment is designed to leave the average person powerless to rebel against the established regime.



I’d go so far as to say that ALL the commandments are intended to protect and reinforce the authority of religion, but I think this commandment stands apart from the others. We often regard this commandment as a coinciding with secular morality, and I think that is wrong. It only does so on the surface, but in conjunction with the other commandments, (yes, I’m using the context argument here) this commandment is especially devious.



There is a reason why this commandment falls in the order of commandments that is does. First, we establish the authority of god with the first few commandments. Then, we transfer that authority to the church and elders with, “Honor your Father and Mother”. Next comes this commandment, which removes the people’s authority altogether. While the atheist may call the follower of religion a sheep, the creators of the religion were insidiously brilliant. You cannot begin rebellion. You cannot force change. You will obey, or WE WILL KILL YOU, and GOD FORBIDS you retaliate.



I’m glad I live in a country that had guaranteed its citizens the right to bear arms. This right is designed to keep the power in the hands of the people, not the priests. We have the power; we have the authority, not god. God isn’t here; we are.

Therefore, Delusion Exists AKA We Call This Delusion God

Therefore, Delusion exists. AKA and We Call This Delusion god.




Most every argument I hear for the existence of god ends with, “therefore, god exists.” Such as, there must be a first cause; therefore, god exists. Or, logic requires a mind; therefore, god exists. The phrase could be, “and we call this first cause god.”



Let’s say for instance that I accept whatever argument you use. For simplicity, I’ll just use the first-cause argument, but I think this could be applied to the majority of the arguments most commonly used to “prove” the existence of god.



Say I accept your argument. Say I concede all your points, premises and conclusions up to the point where you say, “therefore, god exists” or “and we call this thing god”. How do you then jump from a first cause to a specific god? I mean, why don’t we ever use the first cause argument to argue for the existence of a giant world turtle, or the titans? How do we them move from a creator to a specific creator? This was the point behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If we accept a creator, how does one distinguish one creator from another? Do you really think a giant world turtle is as plausible as a flying spaghetti monster or aliens or the world was made from the ejaculate of titans? See, I do find them all equally plausible and that is why I dismiss them all.



Why call it god? If it is a first cause, and that is all it is, why not call it Original Cause? Why use the word god at all? Sometimes I hear people say that they think nature is god, or god is nature. Why call nature god? We have a word for nature; it’s “nature”. There is a perfectly good for “energy” or the “universe” or “everything”. Why attach the extra baggage of the word “god”? Just say you believe in nature. Guess what? I think nature exists, too!!



The problem is that these arguments assume a specific definition of god, and that no other definition exists. Add a definition of god, and the argument falls apart. The believer forgets that there have been countless gods and goddesses and deities of all sorts that have been worshiped and feared by humans in history. Why should your god be considered any more likely to exist than any other god?



Now of course, I think the first cause argument fails miserably. What caused god? I think the ontological argument is nothing more than a word game. But even if I found them convincing, they still fail.

False Devils

False Devils




I listen to a lot of atheist podcasts. If you’re an atheist, and you have a podcast, you should let me know because I’ll probably subscribe. The podcast that inspired this blog wasn’t particularly atheist, however. The subject was an interview with an evangelical preacher who was looking for more civility when Christians encounter opposing views. In center-stage was the christian’s view that homosexuals should NOT be allowed to marry.



The evangelical made a statement I found interesting. He said, “False gods are dangerous, but so are false devils.” He meant that to mean that no good comes when believers consider non-believers to be devils. But that got me thinking about the “false devils” that are in Christianity, and why they are dangerous.



False Devil #1: Abortion

Look, I know the Pro-Life arguments. I went to Pro-Life rallies, chanted the chants and sand the hymns. I know that side. In high school, you would not find a more Pro-Life dude than me. I was wrong.



Abortion is a false devil. Freedom, liberty and civil rights are held by the living; no one else. Life begins at birth, and ends at death. If you find this arbitrary, that’s too bad. Life IS arbitrary. Deal with it. When we deny women the right to chose, we slay freedom and liberty with the sword of religious fervor, and do so in the name of a false god to defeat a false devil.



False Devil #2: Same-Sex Marriage

I’ve heard more moderate believers argue that civil unions should be separate but equal to marriage, but the word marriage should be reserved for religious institutions. What bullshit!! As if this “separate but equal” thing was a new idea. Like it was a good idea. Please.



Calling same-sex marriage a devil casts a spotlight on the real evil of denying people equal rights.



False Devil #3: Evolution

Look, it is time we all understand that evolution is a proven theory. People who deny evolution are simply willfully ignorant of what science is and what it does. This macro- vs. micro-evolution smoke screen that believers throw up demonstrates this. To acknowledge what they call micro-evolution and deny what they call macro-evolution is like saying there is no way millions of pixels could ever form a picture. While it is certainly true we lack all the pixels in the picture, we have enough to be able to see an image, and god is not there. Creationism is not science, and when it attempts to be, that is a real danger.



The false devils in belief give the believer a target to attack. Religion mobilizes against these perceived evils and in the process destroys the liberty, freedom and advancement of the human race. This is why atheists offer resistance. We understand what a false god and a false devil look like, and dismiss both easily.

Religion as OCD

Religion as OCD




Recently, my wife has become obsessed with watching documentaries and reality TV shows about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or OCD. Okay, maybe she’s not really obsessed. She says she can stop anytime she wants.



I’ve seen a few episodes. One thing that struck me is the similarity I see when I discuss religion with believers. So often, I get the same responses from believers. You know the ones I mean. The first-cause argument, ontological argument, cosmological argument and my personal favorite, pascal’s wager. I get these ALL the time, and sometimes, I even get them multiple times from the same believer. I’ll refute one; they go to the next. That one is refuted, and they go to another. If they run out, they start over! If this isn’t a conditioned response, I don’t know what one is. And it is completely possible I don’t.



But what I find intriguing is that so many believers think these arguments are convincing. Have you ever asked a believer which of the multitude of arguments they toss out with verbatim accuracy convinced them that god is real? I guarantee NONE of these arguments convinced the believer. You don’t REASON your way into religion. You are coerced through fear, emotional appeal, indoctrination, and plain old-fashioned brainwashing.



I digress. My point here is that so often, I feel believers hear a religious statement, and then have a conditioned response. They MUST believe the statement is true whether they agree or not. If they do not, they repeat the statement over and over until they accept it as true.



There seems to be some partitioning going on here. A believer hears a god-claim, and perhaps without even realizing it, places it in a no-questioning zone in their brain. Like, this over here we can question, but this thing requires faith, and therefore cannot be examined in the same way.



Atheism is merely applying to religious claims the same critical thinking that most people are able to apply to everything else.

Drink some of this, Believer! Be one of US!

Drink some of this, believer! Be one of US!




The recent PEW survey and my re-posting of my Finding My Religion blog got me thinking about the cocktail of faiths I had before giving up religion. There is a quote from someone more famous than I that claims everyone is an atheist in regards to some god or deity; atheists simply reject one more. The statement goes on to claim if one understands why they do not believe in Zeus or Odin, they will better understand why the atheist also rejects the existence of their god. I think this is true, to a degree, and that is the subject of this blog.



I’m starting a student group of non-believers at the college I currently attend. We held our first un-official meeting about a week ago. There, it was obvious that of all the members, my journey to apostasy was the most turbulent, and my indoctrination was the fiercest. The most turbulence came from looking at other religions and trying to get my ethics to fit in the religion’s box.



Perhaps because I was so indoctrinated, I had to look to other religions in order to break free. Whatever the case, I certainly did. In doing so, lots of commonalities arose. Every religion I looked at wanted me to employ faith. I had to simply accept some tenant of the religion without any evidence to support the claim. It really struck me that the parts of the religion I tended to discard were those that had no supporting evidence. The only redeeming quality in any of them was a moral code and a philosophy of good will. I already had that. I was looking for a reliable, reasonable belief system.



Since all the faith-based portions of the religions were easily discarded, I figured I’d just make some up myself. Thus me-ism began. It would seem I’d make a horrible religion-starter. I kept trying to re-make my faith so that it would match what I observed in reality. The more I did so, the less faith made any sense. But the morality seemed to remain constant. So the question became, how do I make sense of morality without god?



When I got to Satanism, I found this easier. Satanism stressed the individual more than any other faith I had found. I suppose I should explain that by this time, I had become convinced that god was imaginary, and Satanism was not devil-worship. At least, not for me. I call it faith, however, because Satanism had a large “magical” component. There was “black magic”, for example. There were rituals and spells, many similar to those I had picked up in Wicca. In other words, there forces out there one cannot possibly understand. It took me a long time to see the bullshit here.



But morality was simple in Satanism. Do what feels good. I enjoy doing the right thing, so here, in Satanism, I forged the idea that morality MUST be organic. I had to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate my moral code to be sure I was as moral as I could be. I hold this philosophy today.



Since the PEW report, it does seem the atheist knows more about other faiths than the faithful. I know when I began my investigation into other faiths, I did so only because I had heard a teacher of mine tell his story of doing the same, and returning to Catholicism. That was the path I thought I wanted to take, and he said it was possible. The atheist needs to at least hear the claim so the claim can be rejected. It’s hard to do that when you are conditioned to cover your ears whenever a claim from another religion is recited.



Perhaps the elixir of atheism is a bit of each of the world’s religions mixed altogether. Perhaps this bitter drink is enough to induce faith-vomiting. Perhaps this is why every atheist I know supports a world-religion class in schools. If we followed NBC’s star, would the slogan have read, “The More You Know….The More Likely You Are To Apostatize” ?



Or perhaps the elixir is nothing more than education. There is no better way to dissolve delusion, than with education. So, drink, believer. Be one of us. God isn’t here; we are.