Why Doesn’t the Bible Prove God Exists?

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

If you think about it, there’s a very strange thing going on in the Bible. The whole thing is about this god and his human creations and their tense, ever-changing relationship. There is chapter after chapter about how god did this, and did that, and wants humans to do this and not that, and how he punishes humans in this way or that, for doing this or that thing which he “abhors.”

There is so much written in the Bible – as it’s a very long book – about this god and his make-up, his thoughts, his commands, his angers and jealousies, his actions and regrets, that people generally just accept the basic story of this god’s existence and history.

But, there’s one very important thing that’s missing from this long, long story about god, and that’s the demonstration or other proof that this god actually exists. Shouldn’t that proof have been right up front in the book, even before Genesis? Genesis tells us where the world came from; it came from god. But Genesis doesn’t tell us where god came from. It’s like there’s a chapter missing from the Bible - the very first chapter.

The Bible authors, it seems, merely assumed the existence of this god and built the whole long story of the Bible from there. It’s almost a bait and switch tactic. The reader learns so much about this god through nearly 1,200 chapters that it seldom occurs to him that nowhere does the Bible demonstrate or in any way prove this god really exists in our world.

That leaves us with the $64,000 question. Why didn’t the authors of the Bible prove the existence of this god? Of course, you all know the answer . . . they couldn’t. No one has ever been able to present a solid, irrefutable case for the existence of this god, though it’s been tried millions of times over thousands of years.

But here’s the scary thing, a truly chilling fact. They didn’t have to prove it. And, in a way, they were clever to not even attempt that proof. It’s as if they knew that if they wrote enough about this god and his interactions with his creation, people would believe it anyway, without that proof.

We have to wonder though, if the Bible is revealed truth from god, as claimed, then why was there no revelation of a way for the Bible’s authors to demonstrate or otherwise prove the existence of god? With that, we would all be far more inclined to believe the rest of the Bible, and reject religions not based on it.

So, the next time someone tells you about this amazing god of the Bible, ask him how the Bible proves there is a god, and ask for chapter and verse of that proof. I’m betting you get nothing but a blank stare.

Has the Christian Doctrine of Hell Become an Awkward Liability?

By Valerie Tarico ~

Three years ago, my sister, who had long struggled with mental illness, hit her limit and jumped off a freeway bridge. She lived.

She was rushed to the county trauma center, and by the time I arrived from Seattle she was hooked up to an array of life support technologies and monitors. Brain trauma made it hard to know how much she understood of her situation or our conversations, and to know whether she would survive.

One night, while she was in this state, I said to her, “Katha, I don’t know if you can hear me, but we all want for you whatever you want for yourself. If you want to fight this thing and try again, we want that. If you are sick of fighting and ready to be done, that’s ok too.” While I spoke to her, a nurse was doing record keeping at a computer terminal near the foot of her bed. Some time later when I got up to leave, he approached me and said, “You know, if your sister dies right now she will go to hell.”

I was too flabbergasted to respond—incredulous that he would say this to me in a public taxpayer-funded hospital; even more incredulous that he would say it where she could hear, if she could hear. I thanked him for his concern and left.

The Lake of Fire, Everlasting Punishment, Perdition, Gehenna, the Inferno, the Abyss, Outer Darkness Where There Shall be Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth . . . . Hell has many names and conjures many images—all of them aimed at triggering a sense of horror. Some of these names and descriptions arguably can be found in the Bible—the Christian New Testament at least—and threats of eternal torture used to be a fine way for Christian ministers and missionaries to win converts or keep “the faithful” faithful.

Famed Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards (“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) waxed eloquent on the topic, elaborating why simple annihilation was insufficient punishment to satisfy the demands of divine justice. Two hundred years later, Billy Graham drove tent revivals across America by pounding pulpits about the threat. Anglican author C.S. Lewis, beloved of modern Evangelicals, said, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next” (Mere Christianity).

I think of heaven and hell as donkey motivators—carrots and sticks. What is the most glamorous eternity an Iron Age peasant could dream of? Streets of gold, gem encrusted walls, white robes, no work, and eternal youth. How about the most horrific? Monsters, darkness and agony, burning and thirst that never end. Give me a drink, the rich man in hell begs Father Abraham in the book of Luke, just a drop on the end of a finger. But Abraham instead reminds him that he already had his turn at the good things in life.

For two millennia, the threat of hell has been one of Christianity’s core assets. It provided the recruiting tool known as Pascal’s Wager, defined thus by the Oxford dictionary: The argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. Better safe than sorry.

I once knew an elderly lawyer who had been a nontheist for decades though raised in Christian fundamentalism. As death approached, he confided that although he knew hell couldn’t be real, he couldn’t stop thinking about it and wondering and worrying . . . What if I’m wrong?

I understand the fear; as a child in an evangelical family I asked Jesus into my heart several times, just to be sure. Hell is a scary place. For many people the threat of eternal damnation, instilled in childhood, is so powerful that they simply shut out any questions that might undermine their assurance of salvation.

Because the specter of hell is so frightening and has worked so well for two millennia, some Christian leaders are responding to the modern growth of skepticism by doubling down on the threat, working to make it more visual and visceral. A traveling theatrical production called “Heaven’s Gates and Hell’s Flames” makes its way from megachurch to megachurch illustrating the anguish of the damned. The website Catholic Answers analyses Church doctrine and assures believers that hell exists and is already populated with sinners. Come Halloween, we can expect another round of Evangelical “hell houses” aimed at wooing fright-loving, fun-loving teens and then convincing them the danger is real.

Pascal’s wager routinely makes the rounds of the internet as an argument for faith, often coupled with C.S. Lewis’s forced-choice “trilemma”: Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or Lord—Which one are you going to pick? (Note that both the wager and the trilemma are readily dismissed. Lewis omitted, for example, the fourth possibility that the Jesus of the Bible was mostly legend, while Pascal fails to note that committing to the Christian god may condemn you to another god’s hell. Eternal ice, anyone? There are, after all, lots of versions of eternal torture to choose from.)

But increasingly, the specter of a divine torture chamber may be something that turns people away from religion rather than driving them into the fold. Facebook memes compare the Christian god to an abuser who says I love you so much that I’ll hurt you if you don’t love me back. Vyckie Garrison, founder of No Longer Quivering, uses the “Power and Control Wheel of Abuse” to illustrate her former relationship with Jesus. New Calvinist fire-brands like "women-are-penis-homes" mega-pastor Mark Driscoll may wax eloquent about universal depravity and eternal torture; but more broadly, Christians are becoming reluctant to say that anyone who doesn’t share their faith is going to be tortured forever—even if that is what they think.

“You know, if your sister dies right now she will go to hell.”When actor Robin Williams committed suicide in August after a long running battle with cyclical depression, Trent Horn, who writes for Catholic Answers, tweeted, “The rules for talking about Robin Williams: Don't say where he is now, don’t promote your own cause/message, do pray for him and his family.” I sarcastically translated his tweet as, Don’t say what you think. Don’t say what you think. If you absolutely must talk about it, talk to yourself. Because the bottom line is this: for centuries the Catholic Church identified suicide as a mortal sin and denied Catholic funeral and burial to those who ended their own lives.

In actual practice these days, once a suicide has occurred Catholic priests often scramble to avoid blaming (and so condemning) the victim. They point to mitigating circumstances like depression and suffering, which may diminish the free and conscious choice of the person in question and so his or her eternal culpability.

But even today, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops—acting as god’s authorities here on Earth, so they believe—have pitted themselves against death-with-dignity laws that allow for rational suicide of terminal patients. They argue instead that dying men and women whose suffering can’t be relieved should be taught to embrace a Christian belief in redemptive suffering. (See Number 5 of the Ethical and Religious Directives that govern Catholic healthcare.)

That brings us back to the topic of hell, because the whole point of the Christian hell is that suffering there is not redemptive. It is, somehow, simultaneously unendurable and endured eternally, and fair--created and administered by a deity who knew in advance that most humans would end up there and yet who created us anyway because loves us so much.

This is where the moral house of cards collapses, and the value of hell as a recruiting device may as well. It is increasingly difficult to convince educated people that they and their friends and children deserve infinite suffering for finite failings—or that a god who acts like an Iron Age tyrant (or domestic abuser) is the model of perfect love. A group called Child Evangelism Fellowship aroused intense opposition in Portland last summer in part because outsiders to biblical Christianity were appalled that insiders would try to convert small children by threatening them with torture.

And so, increasingly the time-honored Christian doctrine of hell is being put into a dark closet where the folks most likely to shine a flashlight on it are anti-theists like me who would rather see it exposed to the bright light of reason and compassion or universalist Christians who question whether it was ever biblical to begin with.

The appeal of hell as a part of the faith package appears to be in decline, even among Evangelicals. According to a 2011 survey, while 92% of Americans claimed some sort of belief in God, only 75% believed in hell. A 2013 Harris poll put belief in the devil and hell at 58 percent. As one theology professor, Mike Wittmer, put it: “In a pluralistic, post-modern world, students are having a more difficult time with (the idea of) people going to hell forever because they didn't believe the right thing.”

The decline in hell-belief may be due to the same factors that seem to be causing the decline in Bible belief more broadly—globalization and the internet. It gets harder to imagine oneself blissfully indifferent to the eternal torture of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists when those people have names and faces and are (Facebook) friends.

Even so, for many Christians the notion that sinners will suffer for eternity offers some lingering satisfaction. This is possible only because most people who believe in hell also believe, at least on the surface, that they are part of an exclusive club that isn’t going there. When Pentecostal Bishop Carlton Pearson transitioned from preaching hellfire and brimstone to preaching what he called, “the gospel of inclusion,” most of his congregation wasn’t ready to follow him. He lost church, friends, and livelihood.

Ultimately, Pearson moved with his wife and family to Chicago, where he launched a “radically inclusive spiritual community.” Retired Anglican bishop, John Shelby Spong, author of Why Christianity Must Change or Die praised Pearson’s transformation: “The God Bishop Pearson is serving is a God of love, not judgment; a God of universalism, not sectarianism; a God of expansion, not control.” Spong called Pearson’s Gospel of Inclusion “intriguing, provocative and hopeful, a surprising twist in our ancient faith story.”

Radical inclusion means that Pearson opens the door even to even humanists and atheists, not as potential converts but as potential spiritual kin. Without a hell to send them to, what else is one to do?

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Subscribe to her articles at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Related:

Heaven, Hell and Sam Harris

Baptists Bank on Fire and Brimstone

Becoming Free

By James Smith http://slrman.wordpress.com ~

Blame it on my parents. They always told me to "think for yourself”. I doubt they ever considered what would happen if I really did that.

Now, I suspect what they meant was, "Think what we tell you but do it in your own words." Too late. When I was 13, I began to question everything and soon the total absurdity of religion became apparent.

Because I have been “encouraged” (forced) to read the bible several times, it was easy for me to see the contradictions in the book, what christians professed to believe, and how they really lived.

When I refused to go with them to their church, they said they would "Make me go."

I asked them, “How are you going to make me? How will forcing me to attend church change my mind?” Already, their attitude was starting to harden me against everything else about religion they would tell me.

Their next idea was to have their minister talk to me. I told them it was a waste of everyone's time. They persisted and had him come to the house to “Talk some sense into me.” (as if that ever works for anyone) After about 15 minutes of him quoting the bible to me and me pointing out that he was either wrong in his quotes or showing him how it said something else in another place, he became very angry and told me I was going to hell. I suspect it was because I knew the bible better than he did and was, at age 13, able to prove how ridiculous his arguments were.

I told him, “If there is a Hell I'll see you there. Save me a nice place, OK?" He said I was an impertinent, disrespectful child. By then, I was angry myself and for the first time, I told a christian that he was a hypocrite, a liar, and a fool. My parents insisted that I apologize. I refused and left the room to a lot of yelling and threats.

When I refused to go with them to their church, they said they would "Make me go." For the next four years, I heard about this at least once a week. So the night I graduated high school, I left my parent's home and didn't see them again for well over a year. By then, with the credits I had accumulated in high school and summer school, I had completed a couple of years of college. Fortunately, I was able to pay for this myself. I was entering the army and wanted to try to make peace with them, but had to listen to the same old recriminations and arguments again.

The next time I saw them was two years later when I was getting married. After several years of an on-again, off-again relationship they finally agreed to just not discuss it any more. I'd like to say that worked, but subtle hints slowly became outright condemnation. Then I took a job transfer from Ohio to Arizona, so family meetings were rare enough to become occasions for something other than contention.

I do have to say that I appreciate the other things they did for me, like encouraging my education and equipping me with the work ethic and attitudes I needed to survive and thrive at that early age. In those areas, they were excellent parents and I am grateful for those things.

What did I learn? Even your family can turn against you if you refuse to share in their illusions. There are times, if you are to become your own person, you must stand firm in what you know to be true.

The Alleged Faith of Atheists

By Carolyn Hyppolite ~

If you have ever been in argument with a theist, you have experienced two frustrating moments. I know what you’re thinking—just two?

Well, at least. Here you are doing your atheist thing, pointing out the self-contradictory nature of the Christian God, arguing that no fossil in the record has ever been discovered in the wrong strata, demonstrating that the resurrection accounts in The Bible are conflicting, etc. You’re feeling pretty good about yourself. You are certain that you have nailed it and now any moment your interlocutor will admit the error of his ways.

But that’s not what happened. Your faith in reason was not able to move this mountain. Instead, the theist asserts that she has faith. She believes in these things. God has spoken to her heart, QED.

Suddenly you find yourself separated by a seemingly unbridgeable chasm. There is no reasoning with “I have faith.” What do you do when someone admits that she chooses to believe regardless of the evidence?

Sometimes, your conversation takes an even more disappointing turn. The theists looks at you, dead in the eye and informs you that you have faith too—you believe there’s no God, you believe in Darwin, you believe the experts who write history books, etc.

What a sad state of affairs, the theist has not only placed himself on an island on non-reason but banished you to a separate and equally inaccessible island. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and there’s apparently nothing to be done to bridge this gap—nothing we can appeal to bring us to a common understanding.

Perhaps, she suggests, you can pray and God will reveal himself and speak to your heart the way he has spoken to her. Beyond that human reasoning and dialogue is of no value. All there is faith. Worst yet, in this sea of confusion, this cloud of unknowns and unknowables, he might add, “belief in God comforts me and I choose it.”

This move is strange to me for two reasons. First, Christians are supposed to believe in truth. They follow a man who allegedly said, “I am the way, the truth and the light.” Their fiery preachers opine about how they don’t care if this is offensive to Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. The truth is the truth. Embrace it or face the fires of Hell.

Yet, how quickly this is jettisoned when they are confronted with a fact that seems to contradict their worldview but which they are unwilling to take the time to investigate. You suggest they read Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True? And instead they say, I have my faith.

The theists looks at you, dead in the eye and informs you that you have faith too—you believe there’s no God, you believe in Darwin, you believe the experts who write history books, etc.
The other strange part is how this argument undermines itself, and in fact disparages the very thing that the theist holds up as the supreme of all virtue. At best, it is a claim to equality before an atheist who seems to have gotten too big for his breaches. It is essentially saying, “You think you’re better than me. You think your beliefs are based on facts. Listen, you and I are no different. We both just choose to believe what we prefer. It’s just that I prefer Jesus and you prefer to sin.

In fact, much of the ways that this case is made insults the religious proponents who make them. You have probably heard statements, like “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” or “I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.”

However, isn’t having faith a laudable attribute and thus, wouldn’t having more of it be a virtue? I can’t imagine myself uttering the statement, “I just don’t have enough skepticism to be a Christian.” Or “I am just not enough of an empiricist to be a Christian.” Since I consider these virtues, it would never occur to me to use it in a pejorative fashion. It would be like saying someone is too beautiful, too intelligent, or too industrious.

All that insult really says is that I may believe in the improbable and/or the unsubstantiated to a certain degree, but you Mrs. Atheist excel at believing without evidence or when a proposition defies the bounds of reason. You believe in natural selection? Well, great is your faith!

This only makes me wonder if the theist subconsciously thinks that there is something inadequate about her world view.

My Truth, the ONLY Truth

By undercover agnostic ~

Here is a more creative rendering of my extimony-how, as a believer, I pretended to "know" what I couldn't really know; but then, how doubt came along to challenge and dismantle my deeply held beliefs.

I once claimed I “knew” the way


To paradise and how to pray


“Our Father in Heaven, hallowed by thy name”



I “knew” the narrow road of pain


That guaranteed eternal gain


Like mansions and riches if I didn’t complain



I “knew” just how the world began


A flash of light with a voice command


And what God did to fashion man



I claimed to “know” the truth from lies,


And sentenced millions to their demise


Eternal torment for being blind



My truth, the only truth


My way, the only way,


My faith, the only faith


And everyone else was wrong



I once claimed I “knew” God’s thoughts


About what is and what is not


“Thus sayeth the Lord,” I was dutifully taught.



I “knew” the beginning and the end


while philosophers could only pretend


To understand or comprehend



The deepest unveiled mysteries


Were solved by my theology


How lucky, truth was revealed to me.



I “knew” the things that can’t be known


Like gates of hell and heaven’s throne-


Life beyond this earthly home



My truth, the only truth


My way, the only way,


My faith, the only faith


And everyone else was wrong



My holy book said I “Must” believe


No room for doubt lest I be deceived


Enticed by the adversary’s schemes



So I dug in my heels and covered my ears


Closing my mind suppressing my fears


And held on to my truth, as sacred and dear



My truth, the only truth


My way, the only way,


My faith, the only faith


And everyone else was wrong



But then the doubts came creeping in


Like noise behind walls, paper thin


I tried to repent of such egregious sin



But the doubts kept coming, assaulting my truth


Invading like a military coup


Demanding evidence, asking for proof



Alas my “knowing” lay bare and ashamed


For it had no support to make its proud claims


And all that was left was its hollow remains



My truth, the only truth


My way, the only way,


My faith, the only faith


Could it be I was wrong?



The greatest minds of humanity


Have contemplated life’s mysteries


Yet with no consensus of certainty



So how could I insist to “know”


What even scholars couldn’t show?


I had to let my assumptions go



My mind is unleashed, now free to explore


Investigate, study, discover, implore,


Unshackled unchained, an open door



To say “I don’t know” is to say I am free


To embrace the beauty of mystery


And follow the evidence wherever it leads



My truth not the only truth


My way not the only way


My faith not the only faith


All this time I was wrong

Was Jesus Smelly?

By Anne R Keye ~

We’ve heard it all before. Atheists and Christians yap yapping with the same old arguments back and forth. Well, enough I say! There is something much much more serious to contend with here that we must all confront and this concerns me deeply. So serious was it that I pleaded with a silent god on a nightly basis to deliver me the answer to this most important of all questions.

Was jesus smelly?

I lived in dread as an 8 year old child that I would have to kiss his feet in heaven. I had nightmares about his odd feet and the dripping sweat and a horrible cheese smell. What was a child to do?

Well, I went to the padre and poured my little heart out. He reassured me that in heaven there was a bath and that jesus would have had a bath with god and that I shouldn’t worry about such silly musings.

But it got worse. I thought what would jesus be wearing below? I mean under his white dress [ robe?] which surely would be ripe with dirt from the winds of the desert. This bothered me. If he didn’t have under garments then was it all wiggling about on a daily basis and would it be wiggling about in heaven with god. This led to the most difficult phase for me. What about the problem of waste? Did they have a form of papyrus roll back then and if so it must have been very expensive and you couldn’t carry it around in the desert could you. Who had the money to buy such a luxury item or did jesus produce 5000 rolls from 2 fish? This was a disturbing epiphany and it shocked and worried me. How did jesus wipe? Perhaps they employed some sort of healing wiping leaf from a specialist fig tree back then. Surely this must have been important for them as they were travelling about a lot. How would a messiah stay clean and pure?

Was jesus really smelly? At this point the padre refused to discuss this situation anymore because it produced smoke from his nostrils and fire from his ears. He also started using strange words that my mother had informed me were rather rude and crude. And he kept salivating at the mouth and his face would turn bright red like a traffic light.

But, I really needed to know.

So this brings me back to my point and a very crucial one I feel. Was jesus really smelly? Did he possess greasy long hair, and remember they didn’t produce head and shoulders back then you know. And what about that beard. How much of the last supper could have been caught up in there? Remember, the heat and the winds of the dry desert and the followers living conditions would not make their lives hygienic at all!

This was terrifying because I don’t think I would want that alabaster jar anywhere near my hands. What would jesus say? Would he take it personally?

I have nothing against jesus either as a fictional character or as man made nonsense and fairytales. But I wonder how many of those that consider themselves christians would have this man in their house? A smelly, cheesy,greasy non underpants wearing sweating man to love?

A sad end to a religion lost. Why couldn’t the padre and those in the church give me an answer? Why, I ask you. Why wasn’t this ever expressed. Many left the fold over this and I dare say many still are.

I wish you all the best jesus because your supporters have really let you down on this one.

Thank you for reading. Love to you all.

http://absenceofsilences.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/was-jesus-smelly/

It didn't work

By Penc ~

It's not easy realizing you have been living under a delusion. But I have to realize it because it's the truth.

It's not fair to tell your kid that if they don't agree with your religion you will burn forever in untold unimaginable torment and that you dare not expect any definite proof.

It's not fair to tell your kid you can always depend on some guy named Jesus even though there is as much proof for his existence as there is for Santa clause.

It's not fair to blame all your kids problems on imaginary devils that don't exist and even allow him to live in fear of such things.

It is not fair to put such terrible Old Testament stories like the flood on a kids conscience.

It's truly unfair on top of all this to require that kid to marry only within the faith that contains all of the above fear and superstition.

But I'm not that kid anymore. I've still got some religious feelings, but I now understand how stupid they are in light of the facts and it's a daily struggle to ignore those feelings and push them away.

It was scary at first. My first attempt to leave was met with an exorcism ... on my second attempt I panicked because I wasn't used to the idea of prayer not being real. I got sucked back into the delusion for a while, because of some friend I met at a church.

But certain things began to bother me again.

I still couldn't get over how wrongly I had been treated on my first attempt. The fear my family created was partly responsible for getting me really sick. I had largely moved on from that. But in recent times I've had to push away feelings created by a friend I met at church. I would never have met him if I hadn't panicked about the prayer thing but fate was going to be what it would be.

But as time went on I became uncomfortable with the feelings this friend had created. It just wasn't rational to believe in devils. It's not rational to believe in a personal God. And why doesn't God heal amputees or people with stage 4 cancer or people with serious deformities?

Why doesn't God rescue houses in the middle of an f5 tornado? Why does God allow hunger in Africa? Why doesn't God talk back to me or visit me or just give me a hug now and then? Why is it that the worse a problem is the less likely it is that God will step in and heal? The answer is simple but the faithful choose to ignore it out of wishful thinking.

The answer is that God is not personal. He created a simulation and let it run by itself ... that is the most reasonable explanation.

If Christianity did not have this delusion of a personal God and afterlife it wouldn't have so many followers. I hope better for the future of my journey. I hope I will be able to replace the delusion with something real. I hope that I won't have to scare any future kids I have with stories of hell, the flood and the existence of devils. I hope that those who see the light of reason will keep going, that they will choose their friends wisely and that they will stay focused and determined so that they will not have to scare their kids with hell and the devil and a murderous Old Testament God. I hope they won't I have to lie to their kids about an imaginary friend. I hope they will be able to tolerate all good people and not just Christians. I hope for a brighter future where superstition is greatly diminished.

It's been hard ... But I'm still going. You keep going. Help me fight superstition and fear.

Morality is Not Dependent Upon a God or Christian Worldview

By psychman33 http://therageofreason.blogspot.com/ ~

Religious people like to argue that human morality is dependent upon the Christian worldview to make sense. They use this argument as a support for the necessity of their God. They like to argue that without God as a basis, there is no objective morality. I tend to agree that there is no objective morality. Instead, I refer to a shared subjective morality. Our humanness is what determines and leads to this shared subjectivity. I've found that the following explanation, based upon scientific knowledge from biology, sociology, neurology and psychology, usually works to refute the Christian claim, and to establish a coherent moral picture, without having to appeal to any deity or religion.

A humanist model of morality owes nothing necessarily to Christianity. When you observe other animals in nature, you find that animals which evolved to be dependent upon other animals for mutual survival, i.e. social animals, also evolved to allow for a predisposition to remain a more or less cohesive whole. This is generally expressed as a fuller spectrum (positive as well as negative) of emotionality. Depending upon the relative cognitive sophistication of a given species, we can see a more complex set of proto-morals developed. The most intelligent and self-aware organisms besides humans really illustrate this very well- dolphins and other primates, especially. The organisms that developed to be solitary, usually lone territorial predators, do not normally exhibit these predispositions. Compare our two most common pets, cats and dogs. Dogs are evolutionarily social animals. Cats are not. Both have been domesticated. Both are loved by their owners. But study after study shows that dogs demonstrate an emotional connection that cats don't, that they are not wired to have.

The surest way to overcome a prejudiced hatred of a race, gender, or any difference, is to have the hater work and live with the hated. This engenders a sense of identification with one another, and thus the extension of empathy. This shows that the basis of morality is shared emotionality, aka empathy. As a species becomes more cognitively sophisticated and self-aware, the more developed and rich the ability to express and presumably to experience empathy. Nietzsche observed that the etymology of words referring to morality are quite telling of their development. For example, the word kind refers both to a group bearing some unifying similarity, as well as to treat others benignly. This reflects the strongly evidenced fact that empathy is only extended toward those with whom we identify, to the extent with which we identify with them. The surest way to overcome a prejudiced hatred of a race, gender, or any difference, is to have the hater work and live with the hated. This engenders a sense of identification with one another, and thus the extension of empathy.

The mental disorder antisocial personality disorder (formerly referred to as psychopathy and sociopathy) is characterized by the lack or blunting of positive emotions, both self-directed and other-directed (empathy). This illness generally is associated with trauma and/or negligence in early childhood, often before age two. A child raised in a fairly normal setting and manner will develop a healthy sense of empathy. It's the normal and usual path of human development.

Another part of this is social mores implicitly introduced and enforced by the person's social milieu. This is also the result of the social animal path of evolution. It allows us all to get along.

In addition to these, we have created pragmatic rules (laws) as a society which cover other behaviors that would threaten our ability to exist in larger groups.

The first part (empathy) is generally universal along humanity. The second two parts are more heterogeneous, depending upon culture, geographic location, and environment. All of these are dependent upon and emerge from our evolutionary path of development. This is the source of our subjectively shared sense of and practice of morality. From this basis, this universally shared subjectivity, arises the less widely shared variations. An objective morality is not needed and is not supported by the evidence. Our sameness and our difference come from our humanness. This is the basis of humanism. Religions need not apply.

Damn, I compromised my integrity

By BlackFreethought ~ http://blackmaleatheist.blogspot.com/

Back in 2012, I began to realize the difficulties of swimming against the current. Although in this case, the current represented christianity. For most of my life, I identified as a believer in jesus christ and all of my social, professional, and familial relationships had connections through the church. To walk away from that significant network took courage, but down this new road of freedom, I found myself looking back.

As I stated in another post, I experienced great difficulty in the dating scene as a non-believing atheist. During the fall of 2012, I started to come up with reasons why I should go back to church. In the African-American community, the church has social, political, economic, as well as spiritual significance. I felt like I was missing a part of my cultural heritage, not to mention that the odds of finding a non-believing African-American woman in Metro Detroit were slim to none.

Maybe I could go back to church, for the cultural connectivity that it could provide and reject the spiritual parts. I also felt like I would be more marketable to the ladies, if I could proudly say that I belonged to a church. I thought this through and decided to give it a chance. This gave me access to date some of the best and brightest Black women in Metro Detroit. Access that an educated Black Atheist Man would never have.

In the African-American community, the church has social, political, economic, as well as spiritual significance. I felt like I was missing a part of my cultural heritage, not to mention that the odds of finding a non-believing African-American woman...Having grown up in church and been a worship leader for many years, I went back into my metaphorical christian closet and pulled out my jesus gear.(note:just because I no longer believe doesn't mean I forgot everything I knew about church and christianity) Although my dating prospects increased substantially from late 2012 through early 2014, I felt my integrity being compromised and I did nothing about it. I was glad to be accepted again because rejection sucks.

I started to fall back into my former christian ways, I began to read the bible again and even started back tithing. I knew that I could not return to my former fundamentalist christian ways, but I thought I could follow a more liberal view of christianity. I began to read books from Bishop John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Bishop Carlton Pearson, and other liberal theologians. The irony is most of the women who I dated during this time were hardcore fundamentalist christians, so things still didn't really mesh. I would keep my views about sin, the devil, and hell to myself. Even though I went back, I still didn't believe in sin, satan, and eternal torment.

During the insanely brutal winter of 2014, I began to ask myself, "Is this really worth it to you? What have you gained by going back?"

I felt like I had lost touch with the freethinker that I had become back in 2010. Something needed to happen to shake me up. Thank goodness for the combination of a bad sermon and a grand display of christian ignorance about the scripture at church. These actions along with re-reading entries from this blog, reminded me why christianity is BS.

I wasted 18 months of my life and compromised my integrity dabbling again with christianity. I allowed the loneliness and difficulty of the path of freedom to muck with my emotions. However I am glad that I went back to church and christianity again. Now I realize that I have truly outgrown that infantile belief system and I am ready to truly see the world as it is.

Recently,I have met others on the path of freedom, ergo my journey doesn't feel like it felt before. It feels much, much better. I have made friends and have support in the free thought community. In addition, I have the resolve to live my life to the fullest. I have added outdoor running to my exercise routine, and that clears my head each morning before leaving for work.

I am committed to see this freethinking path through to the end of my life and educate folks along the way. Plus, I will expand my dating pool beyond where it is now,focus more on open-mindedness, common interests, and good old-fashioned chemistry.

PS: I gain strength from reading the heartfelt essays that get posted on this page.

Why Did Jesus’ Disciples Abandon Him in His Last Hours?

By Wizened Sage (Galen Rose) ~

There is much in the New Testament to cause one to question whether the Jesus story(s) of the Gospels ever really happened. For example, in several places in the Gospels Jesus is quoted as saying this or that, but he was alone at the time according to the text. So, how could anyone know he said those things? There are also all those conflicts in the resurrection story, like how many women went to Jesus’ tomb that Sunday, and how many men were in the tomb when the women arrived? The Gospels disagree on these and numerous other details.

One of my own favorite sticky questions is why did all of Jesus’ disciples abandon him the night before his crucifixion? As far as I can see, this makes no sense at all in view of what they should have known about Jesus by that time.

Consider that, according to the Gospels, these guys had followed Jesus around for 3 years. They had seen him perform dozens, perhaps hundreds of miracles; healing the sick and crippled with a touch, walking on water, changing water to wine, feeding thousands with a few fishes and loaves of bread, bringing the dead back to life, etc. Pretty amazing stuff, huh? That would have been more than enough to convince me that this guy was god, the son of god, or both.

But that’s not all! Three of the apostles witnessed Jesus “transfiguration” on a mountain top. On the mountain, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light. Then the prophets Moses and Elijah appear next to him and he speaks with them. Jesus is then called "Son" by a voice in the sky.

And that’s still not all! According to Matthew 10:1, when Jesus

“had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.”

So, now the apostles also had miraculous powers. And, Acts 8:5-8 tells us that they actually used these special powers:

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.”

Why did all of Jesus’ disciples abandon him the night before his crucifixion?Yet, after all this, on the night before his crucifixion, all of Jesus disciples abandoned him, denying they knew him and staying away. Contrast this with the Jim Jones of Guyana story where, according to numerous eyewitnesses, many of his followers willingly drank the Kool-Aid. They obviously believed Jones was a legitimate prophet who was in god’s inner circle. Yet, Jones never showed them any miracles, was never transfigured, and never passed on any special powers to his followers. How much more evidence did the apostles have of Jesus importance to the cosmos? Yet they still abandoned him.

Is this believable to anyone who has ever given it any real thought? To further confound things, it is claimed that the apostles were staunch supporters and proselytizers for Jesus after his resurrection, some claiming the apostles all died violent deaths rather than recanting their belief in Jesus. Some turnaround, huh?

So, why would the Gospel authors tell the Jesus story in this way? I suspect that Jesus’ abandonment by the apostles was merely a literary device to increase the readers’ sympathy for Jesus. This left Jesus truly alone in his darkest hour, deserted by even his closest friends. Yet, Jesus keeps faith with god. He becomes an even greater hero through this device; even more deserving of our admiration and worship.

So, what’s my point? Well, my point is that this is one more reason to doubt the Jesus story as told by the Gospels. Given what they knew of Jesus, and their own powers given them by Jesus, there was every reason for them to stand by him in his darkest hour; more reason, by far, than Jim Jones followers had to stand by him. I think the Gospel writers seized on this literary device without thinking it through. By using this device they increased our sympathy for Jesus, yes, but they simultaneously cast a very deep shadow of doubt on the whole story – for those of us who actually bother to think about what the Bible says.

God Doesn't Even Answer Prayers to Himself from Himself

By Carolyn Hyppolite ~

Every January, the Catholic Church dedicates a week to praying for Christian unity. For eight years—even after I had left Catholicism—I joined them in that prayer. As a believer in Christ, I knew how instrumental Christian discord is in sowing doubts in the minds of outside observers. For if Christians cannot bring themselves to agree on what mandates of God are, is it not at least an indication that they are not guided by the same omnipotent deity but rather by their own interior preferences and prejudices?

Christians are often defensive about this charge, quickly discounting their deep differences, and insisting that they are in agreement about the key issue—Jesus Christ.

However, it is not just pesky atheists who think that Christian division poses a threat to the faithful’s credibility. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus knew that the faithful’s disunity raises doubts:

“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world (John 17:20-24).

There are two noteworthy issues in this prayer of Jesus. First that he realizes that the lack of unity signals to the world that there are reasons to not believe and secondly that a prayer by none other than Jesus remains unfulfilled 20 centuries after they were allegedly spoken.

Notice Jesus is said to be pleading not for current believers but for future, potential believers. It is their salvation that is at stake by the fact that Christians cannot agree. It’s hard enough to believe the claims of one person that he is in communication with a divine, invisible being and that through that communication, he—and it is usually a “he”—has knowledge about how you should conduct your life and that you should give him money. But if another one should interject with a competing perspective on that same deity, we can be assured that at least one of them is mistaken, and moreover, we now have good reason to suspect that both of them are either deceived and/or deceiving.

However, the fact that most nagged me about this prayer in my last year as a Christian is the fact that Jesus prayed it. And I am not referring to the mind-bending notion that an omnipotent being needs to address a prayer to his father, who is simultaneously himself. That bit of nonsense I had rationalized by calling it “mystery”—that dark hole of non-answers where all demonstrably false theistic assertions seek shelter from reason.

I am talking about just the plain fact that Jesus, who presumably excels in faith and virtue, made an important and reasonable request to his father, who allegedly gives good gifts and answers the righteous and yet, here we are 2000 years after the fact and Christians are divided into ever more numerous factions with views spanning the political and theological spectrum.

You cannot know by the fact that someone uses the label “Christian,” whether she believes in a literal Hell where there is physical torment, a spiritual Hell where one is separated from God and lives in “darkness,” or no Hell at all. All are however united by an eagerness to point out that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is an authentic one and that it is the other guy who has got it wrong.

You cannot know by the fact that someone uses the label “Christian,” whether she believes in a literal Hell where there is physical torment, a spiritual Hell where one is separated from God and lives in “darkness,” or no Hell at all. All are however united by an eagerness to point out that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is an authentic one and that it is the other guy who has got it wrong.Yes, yes, I understand a delay in the fulfilment of God’s action does not mean God has not answered. How do I know that God is not going to bring about Christian unity in his time? God’s timing—that other dark hole.

Here’s the problem, Christians. God’s delay poses an eternal threat to millions, if not billions of well-meaning souls who would have otherwise accepted Jesus and gone to Heaven. If even just one person does not believe and goes to Hell all because God has delayed in clarifying the myriad theological disagreements among Christians then God’s delay is responsible for the perishing of that soul. And is not one soul worth God getting off his throne and making himself clear?

Yes, yes, I understand that he made the issues perfectly clear the first time he revealed them just the way your particular denomination now interprets it. I understand if all would just follow your pope, your pastor’s view of the plain meaning of Scripture, your sacred tradition, there would be no problem, but would it be such a divine inconvenience for him to send another memo?

Yes, yes, I understand that all atheists really know that God exists and are resisting the knowledge of God because they want to sin, but what might there not be five, just five atheists in the whole history of the planet, who have been dissuaded from faith because there are so many competing views of God? And did we not learn from Abraham that the God should be mindful of just five?

And we know that there must be a few. We know that Christian disunity causes people to not believe for the Bible tells us so. Jesus said so.

After about eight years of praying for Christian unity, it one day occurred to me that if God has not yet answered this very important and reasonable prayer of Jesus, what use was there in adding my own voice? In fact, what basis was there for me to imagine that God would answer any prayer at all?

Today, with the benefit of some distance, I can better imagine the social setting of this strange story arose. I can imagine the early Church breaking up into factions, and I can imagine onlookers pointing out that their factions demonstrates the falsehood of their proclamations. The Scripture writer cannot deny this fact and wants to compel believers to shape up so that their community is not disparaged. What better way to encourage good behavior than to place the words in the mouth of Jesus. Jesus, right before he was crucified, prayed that we be united; surely, we can do it for him.

What the evangelist did not seem to anticipate is that this was easier said than done. He probably also did not anticipate that Jesus would delay his second coming for two millennia allowing ample time for Christians to discover numerous areas of disagreement.

Yet, what should give us even more reason to be skeptical than the fact of Christian disunity is the indisputable fact that God has not answered the prayer of his only begotten son. God does not answer prayer; not even the ones he makes to himself from himself.

The Revelations of Janet Asimov

By Carl S ~

Once in a great while, someone comes up with answers that exponentially expand the way we see reality; Einstein and relativity, Hubble and galaxies. Charles Darwin’s discovery of evolution comes to mind. The world as revealed by him is now seen with the new eyes of a child. (Look! He's proved to be right, again!) With new insights by Janet Asimov, even Creation is not The Creation. They also, like evolution, reveal reality as it is rather than as religion would have it be. Naturally religious organizations with their powers over minds will be threatened. Save her article and scrap your scriptures.

In the Humanist magazine of July/August 2014, is the article by Janet Asimov (psychiatrist and widow of Isaac Asimov), with the title "Creativity, Then and Forever." As I read the article, my enthusiasm boiled over. It's just too good not to share. And as one with a child's wonder who is as well an avid atheist with an agenda to free believers from their various prisons, the temptation was too strong to resist sharing. And a believer happened to be in the room with me. So I jumped at the opportunity to read it aloud.

The author begins by telling of her search for a dictionary meaning of the word "create, " and found, "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes...to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention."

Asimov strongly disagreed with this narrow interpretation. She asks, among other questions,

"Why do religious fundamentalists insist that their god created everything once and for all? I suppose it makes them feel safe, in a universe teeming with uncertainty...I don't see how creativity can exist without the ability to accept, anticipate, and use the everlasting uncertainty of Change..., I want to step on the toes of whoever put that definition in my dictionary, and especially on the toes of religious fundamentalists who foam at the mouth when Charles Darwin is mentioned."

Whoa! At that point, the believer said, "I've heard enough," and shut her mind's door. Whenever this happens, I know something about the believer as well as about myself: shutting the door means that there is a problem one doesn't want to face. And often it's a serious problem. In this case, the believer almost missed out on the revealing next part. This I introduced gently. Asimov: "I think that creativity is a natural aspect of the universe, and not put there by a creator." She offers examples. She explains that evolution in itself IS creativity, working within the uncertainty of changes, ever manipulating and adapting. (Doesn't curiosity itself create the impulses to create- often just for the fun of it? It sure does.)

Religion opposes the reality of uncertainty. Religion demands security, even if it is falseAt this point, I must say that I see the universe as self-created; unplanned and spontaneous. Period. Prove otherwise. Not only that, but, creativity, like evolution, is how the universe really works.

Well then. Outside of the non-necessity of a Creator to create everything, why should believers be threatened emotionally and "spiritually?" I'll guess it's because creation exists not only in spite of a creator, but in uncertainty, and its results from acts of creating are not predetermined. Believers are scared shitless about uncertainty to the extent that they create gods and other "supernatural" forces to control what might happen and to protect against what is inevitable. Their God "the creator" is dogmatically asserted to have "purposes" for his creations, where creativity is interpreted only as creating something for a purpose. Observations of the natural world reveal otherwise. These observations, like evolutionary ones, run contrary to religious beliefs. (Note: If you want to piss off fundamentalists, simply tell the truth.) Believers want a secure castle in the universe, an all-dependable father-figure they can turn to. Growing up is hard to do. In the words of Janet Asimov, "I suppose it makes them feel safe." Nature couldn't care less about safety.

Obviously, humans aren't really resigned to accepting things as they are. We manipulate reality to our own benefit. We, as well as the rest of nature, create results beneficial to ourselves. We use uncertainty and welcome it as the means to finding answers, solutions, accumulating knowledge, asking more questions, in finding more to be curious about.

Religion opposes the reality of uncertainty. Religion demands security, even if it is false; even if its answers are purely psychological manipulation, and even if its gods are products of the creative imagination. And, while religions deal with uncertainty by proclaiming, for example, "God is in control," their actions tell us that they all deal with the uncertainty of human nature by creating controls over the thoughts and actions of humans.( Sometimes by using the sword to control them.) What about those who want to believe in the supernatural? Don't trust religions with interpreting their "purposes." Religious "certainties" are a double-edged sword. They bring their own self-created anxieties, fears of offending those supernatural forces. They bring uncertainties about whether the misfortunes of one's loved ones or friends are the results of those offenses. (For example: there is the uncertainty of not knowing if someone you love is in eternal torment because he did not believe.)

Unspoken fears were beneath the surface as I read Janet Asimov's words. These explain why my believer was so upset. This person, being human, craves certainty. We all understand this. Her embracing of the certainty she has been taught to believe in has become second nature to her. With the "trigger" words such as God or soul or heaven, or in control of, or grace, she has been programmed to act and react to the reality about her. Unthinkingly and fearfully, she clings to this rock. She has been taught not to doubt and to trust instead the authority of the certain who know not that religion is the business of maintaining denial of the uncertainty and indifference of the universe.

Why bother fearing uncertainty? If the Wright brothers didn't deal with the uncertain outcomes of their experiments, would airplanes exist? Would any progress happen without failures along the way? Why, the uncertainty of outcome does not deter the male birds from ornate displays, dances, nest-building, and ridiculous behaviors to court the female, any more than it does to the male of any species. One doesn't have a guarantee for certain that the soul-mate one knows and loves so well who promises to "forsake all others" will not have affairs and/or end the relationship of eternal love. Tomorrow, you and I may not be alive. (We speak of lingering deaths, but all deaths are instantaneous.) As much as we strive to make the future certain, there are no guarantees. And that can be comforting, because it can turn out better than we anticipated. Doubt and be free.

FIRST DO NO HARM!

By Anonymous ~

First do no harm. First. Do. NO. Harm. The most important part of the Hippocratic Oath. Yet harm is exactly what the doctor in question did to my very dear friend.

First, some disclaimers. I will not be mentioning names, and second, as much as I would love to, I will not mention the "doctor's" name. Reason being, legal action has yet to be taken (but will be soon) and my friend's surviving partner made me promise not to mention the doctor's name...not yet, anyway. Now, the incident...

Hippocrates is considered the
 father of Western medicine.
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My late friend passed away a few weeks ago. He was an amazing person and I was devastated to find out. A little background, he was from Armenia. I first met him here in the States, in Alabama, while he was here for school. When we was in the room, your eyes immediately went straight to him. Aside from being a very beautiful man, he was such an incredibly smart and sweet person. Having said that, he was anything but a pushover. He did NOT suffer fools. He was completely unafraid to let someone know when they were completely full of crap, and in the most witty way possible, as well. I also met and became friends with the guy who was, at the time, just his friend, but later on became the love of his life. These two men were such a great pair and great friends to me.

Eventually, my friend had to go back to Armenia to be with his family after his father died. He stayed there for a while, and eventually got a job working with refugees from war torn and third world countries. His job took him from Armenia, to Paris, to Italy, and eventually, finally right back to the States. I kept in touch with him, and when he came back, he had entered a relationship with my other friend, the guy I mentioned earlier. The three of us would meet up whenever our busy schedules would permit, and it was always a wonderful time.

However, he was rather ill when he came back. Having traveled to so many places so often, he had caught pneumonia. He was getting much better, though, by the time we met up again after about a year of having not seen each other. His partner had kept me up to date on his condition while he was back, and when he was well enough to go out, the three of us were right back to how we would hang out when he was here the first time. But then, he got meningitis...

That was a long process of him getting better very slowly, but surely. And right when he got mostly better from that, he caught pneumonia again. After a long struggle, that was what finally did it, and my dear friend died. The only solace I have from this is that one, he isn't suffering anymore. And two, his partner was right by his side, holding his hand.

But it wasn't until his memorial service that I found out the details surrounding his death. Back when he was sick with meningitis (and I may be getting details slightly off, since it's been awhile since I heard this, so if I find anything else out, I will correct the information,) the doctor he had was...well, not deserving of the title "doctor." From what I was told, this doctor was very bigoted, as well as arrogant. When doing the regular doctor/patient questions and answers, he asked my friend if he had a wife or girlfriend. My friend very nonchalantly told him, "No, I'm gay. This man with me is my partner." And the doctor said to him, "Oh, I'm so sorry for you."

???? First red flag, right? The doctor is from Nigeria and is of the very fundamentalist variety of Christian. (If I'm not mistaken, I think he is Pentecostal.) He has apparently written a Christian-themed book, as well as hosts a local religious tv show on our local news station on Sunday mornings. He also makes rather insane comments online (on Twitter, I think, if I remember correctly) about End Times, and "Today could be the day Jesus comes back" kinda crap. And during his "care" of my friend, he only did the bare minimum of care, if even that. He was exceedingly arrogant, as well as flippant. He ignored my other friend completely (my Armenian friend's partner) and wouldn't even look at him. When my Armenian friend got sick with pneumonia, he was still getting over with meningitis. Apparently, the doctor came in and--rather bitingly--said "Well, you got pneumonia." In a "serves you right" tone of voice, form what I hear tell.

He wouldn't treat him, because supposedly the medications for meningitis and pneumonia don't mix well. While that may be, there is still treatment available. After many weeks of laying in the hospital, my friend and his partner had had enough.

Meanwhile, it's very important to mention what was going in the rest of the hospital at the time. All the nurses in the hospital LOVED my friend. Nurses from other floors would visit him all the time just to chat. His personality was charming and friendly right up until he got his worst. Over time, the nurses and staff in the rest of the hospital learned of what was going on. In fact, my surviving friend said that when they first went there to meet the doctor, the nurse asked which doctor they had. When they mentioned his name, she said "Oh...him." (This doctor's reputation preceded him. He was very arrogant to all.)

When my friend finally had enough and told the doctor that he wanted someone else to treat him, this doctor decided to play the Guilt and Intimidation Card. "Haven't I cared for you? Haven't I come to see you every day?" (yeah, for like, 2 minutes.) "If you don't want me for your doctor anymore, I should tell you that you'll have problems getting anyone else. No one will take you." This doctor basically implied that because my friend was a gay immigrant, no one would care enough to treat him. (much like how this doctor just brushed him off, thinking that no one would care about a gay immigrant or how sick he was.) I don't know if his talk was working in it's intimidation tactics or not, but it didn't matter, because a nurse came in and put a stop to it. See, this doctor would always shoo everyone out of the room in order to talk to my friend. He TRIED to shoo my surviving friend out as well, but my surviving friend adamently refused to leave. Well, one of the nurses happened to be standing outside the door, listening. (Who honestly cares if she was breaking a policy, because she did what was morally right, since she knew--along with most of the hospital--the situation.) She suddenly barged in and said to my late friend "Honey....Do you want a different doctor? Because I WILL get you one." Bless this nurse, whoever she is.

Well, when uber-fundie doctor was finally shooed away, a new doctor came in to examine my friend. (and this is the part of the story I was told that really got to me) She looked at him, and started crying. He was in SUCH bad shape. It was too late to do very much at all. Still, this new doctor, whoever she is, did exactly what a REAL doctor is SUPPOSED to do. She did everything she could to try and help him. And for a while, it seemed like it may have been starting to work. But unfortunately, just when my friend had been responding well to the treatment, he very quickly took a turn for the worse. His lungs failed, his blood pressure dropped. He was rushed back into the hospital, where he died. His loving partner held his hand as he finally went, and at the very least there was a sense of goodbye for my surviving friend. My late friend was only in his very early 30s. Full of life, full of love for life and for people. A sharp and quick wit. A wonderful cosmopolitan soul who had seen the world and helped many in it, and brought love and friendship and light into the lives of so many people. And of course, an impeccable sense of fashion. (He'd appreciate me mentioning that, I know, haha. I love you, man.)

But as tragic as his early passing was....that's not the most tragic thing of all. It wasn't enough to be sad at his death, but now I'm MAD. I am honestly pissed off because his death was completely preventable. That "doctor" completely shredded his Hippocratic Oath, and all because he wouldn't get over his prejudices. When you are a doctor, your personal beliefs must be put aside. You do not see gender, race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation. You see only a patient. A patient who needs you to do everything you can for them, and in a loving manner. This doctor allowed his religious sense of self-righteousness to harm, and yes, kill my dear friend. My surviving friend was the first one to say it. "That doctor killed him." He killed him with neglect and malpractice.

Now, from what I hear, this doctor labeled my friend's death as "anemia." .......bullshit.

Well, after all this, things are slowly turning, hopefully. My late friend's family in Armenia was asking for his medical records, since they sensed something wasn't quite right. My surviving friend couldn't get them without a notarized permission from the family, so my late friend's brother gave my surviving friend permission. Medical records were obtained, and now he's on his way to Armenia with my late friend's ashes, for the real funeral. When he gets back to the States (about a week or so from now) he will pursue legal action. And luckily, he has a hospital full of nurses to vouch for him. Who knows how many other patients that "doctor" has mistreated in the same way? Only time will tell. At the least, let's all hope justice will be served. And this will serve as a reminder to all that whether you are a doctor or not, no matter what your personal religious beliefs or lack thereof...FIRST DO NO HARM!

Finding Love after your faith is gone Pt.2

By BlackFreethought ~

This is part 2 of an essay I submitted back in 2012.

Once I walked away from the faith that I once loved with all of my might, I quickly discovered that the world no longer made sense in the way that it once did. The universe seemed to turn on its head. It felt like learning how to ride a bike again for the first time. The old rules that I lived by no longer applied to my current state of affairs. This feeling of awe mixed with slight trepidation made for an interesting learning process in every area of my life.

Having a strong, virtuous, Christian woman used to take precedence when I looked for a potential love interest. Even after my deconversion, I still tried to date strong Christian woman...As a Christian I knew exactly what kind of woman I wanted to have a romantic relationship with: A Proverbs 31 woman. In modern Christianity, this chapter epitomizes what kind of woman every Christian man would want to have.However now that I am no longer a Christian, I was left with a quandary of sorts: What kind of woman would I want to have a relationship with now? I felt a bit disoriented, but in a good way because I was breaking free from more diabolical Christian programming.

Having a strong, virtuous, Christian woman used to take precedence when I looked for a potential love interest. Even after my deconversion, I still tried to date strong Christian woman, but my atheist label would send them heading for the proverbial hills. I continued to try and date Christian women because I naively believed that I would be judged on the content of my character and not the basis of my non-belief.

According to a 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion& Public Life, 83 percent of African-Americans identify as Christian. Ergo, I figured that it would be easier to find an open-minded Black Christian woman. My experiences speak to the contrary, and I was most definitely judged by the basis of my non belief. Part of the reason that I tried to date these women was because I was looking for validation and acceptance due to the fact that the larger society has major issues with the non-belief community. I desired to see the agape love in action, but alas, so-called agape love doesn't apply to a christian-non christian romantic relationship. After getting dissed, time and time again, I decided to take a stand.

I have finally given up on dating Christians. I also no longer feel for validation with regards to my secular humanist view of the world. Folks will accept me for who I amand folks will reject me for who I am.My focus remains on living in the present moment. If someone significant comes during that moment, wonderful! Most importantly, I accept and love myself. Indeed, loving yourself is the greatest love of all.

From Eternity to Here: My Christian Extimony

By vadarama ~

I’m 29 and have been in recovery from evangelical fundamentalism for a few years now. I’m still trying to assemble an identity and a life apart from God.

I was born in Philadelphia and grew up in a ministry family. My father served at churches and non-profits in different regions of the US with wife and two children in tow. We followed God’s lead, no matter how indecipherable the directions. Dad was the official recipient of the Holy Spirit’s messages, and Mom was dutiful but strong-headed. Uncertainty, pressure and tension followed us wherever we went. My little brother and I cycled between imaginative play and overt hostility, riding atmospheric waves of marital discord. Common features among our childhood homes were egg-shell floors and thin walls.

God was the real head of our household. Authoritarian and perfectionist, he was never pleased. Heavenly Father’s nature kept my Earth Dad feeling just shy of the mark in every endeavor. Dad wore the frustration and self-loathing on his sleeve, often reminding us: we humans are weak and worthless on our own; “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” (Isaiah 54:6)

Jesus was our counterbalancing comfort. I applied the warm salve as needed- an antidote to intrusive images of hell and demon-possessed Disney cartoons. Jesus alone could save me from an eternity of torture, for the price of one heart, one soul and my eternal consciousness. Never having bonded with my own heart or intuition, I considered it a small sacrifice. What’s the rest of my life on Earth compared to forever in paradise?

Throughout my teens, I sought to better understand and defend the doctrine by studying apologetics. As a naturally rational, literal person, I always fought cognitive dissonance when it came to biblical claims and miracle healings. But my rare moments of peace and reassurance all came from the Holy Spirit. God, in his three persons, anchored my intellectual, psychological and emotional experience. And I couldn’t imagine life without the Truth, now believing there was an air-tight argument for every Christian claim.

To reject God was dangerous self-delusion. But the fact that most people in the world were so deluded felt tragic. Does the bulk of each generation end up in hell? What did our God do to earn His monopoly on universal Truth? Why was this wasteful setup okay with Him? Of course, these were silly, petty questions coming from me. Who was I to question the Way Things Are? I knew better. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)

I sometimes debated with nonbelievers during my years at Vassar College, even as I enjoyed a new freedom to explore the taboo (philosophy, evolutionary theory, cheap vodka in plastic cups). Though I loosened up just enough to fit in, I remained decidedly chaste and avoided drunken flings in favor of the same innocent crushes I’d had since kindergarten. I was the sexually non-threatening good girl- not too uptight to party, but willing to stand strong in her faith when challenged.

My college friends’ carefree living and casual dismissal of fundamentalist beliefs had planted additional seeds of pesky doubt, so I opted for an evangelical graduate school (Regent U. in Virginia Beach) in an effort to get closer to my spiritual kin and re-cement my relationship with Christ. Immediately irked by some of my new schoolmates’ lack of intellectual curiosity, I gravitated toward the misfits who wrestled with doctrine and started debates in class. I was most at-ease with my small group of male friends; we’d stay up until morning talking, watching thought-provoking R-rated movies, and fishing for live lobsters from the tank at our favorite dive bar.

In the years since my de-conversion, I’ve struggled to build self-worth...By the end of my Master’s program, one thing was clear: No one really had it all figured out. I started to entertain the thought that we were all just human, in the same boat, trying to navigate our way through life without clear intel. The people I’d expected to reassure me didn’t live as if they had the Ultimate Answer to Everything. I flirted with new terms- Christian anarchism, sola scriptura, liberation theology. Maybe my faith could be made more grounded, personal and practical. I applied for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. They shipped me out to Los Angeles to work full-time at a non-profit, in exchange for room and board at a South Central home shared with four peers.

There was no better place than California to encourage the free-spirit contrarian in me. The vaguely Catholic JVC program and its functionally agnostic members had me more disillusioned than ever. That idealized, workable brand of Christianity now seemed elusive and pointless. During my first year in LA, I started to understand the concept of pluralism, and I met my first serious boyfriend- a former Christian with boundless curiosity and creativity. Self-directed and oddly at peace with the troubling conditions of mortal existence, he patiently prompted me to ask myself the tough questions whenever I began to evangelize.

Soon, I was allowing myself to consider the possibility of thinking more critically about my worldview. Before I knew it, I was at a point of no return; one foot was firmly out of the fold. I removed the other after a short-lived re-dedication to church and small-group bible study. The moment of epiphany occurred during a routine devotional in my room one afternoon. What if the Holy Spirit is in my head? The intrusive thought interrupted my silent prayer. Why must I continue to stoke this fire each day? If this is the unavoidable Truth, why do I spend so much time convincing myself? Before I could squelch the urge, I pried my laptop open to search the internet: “bible contradictions.” I wanted to see if the inerrant Word of God could be legitimately de-legitimized, and I wasn’t going to restrict myself to the apologists this time. I was a nonbeliever almost overnight.

Some aspects of religion were easy to let go of. The fantastical, impossible claims and ignorant laws became laughable even as they began to make perfect sense in light of their context of human authorship and archaic social structures. But in the years since my de-conversion, I’ve struggled to build self-worth and a strong agenda of my own without the help of an all-powerful personal Savior. No longer does an infinite God pause to make me feel like the center of the universe for a minute or two. No more warm, fuzzy Holy Ghost visitations or words of discernment. No more miracles or speaking in tongues.

Now, thrilling epiphanies and occasional moments of meditative peace and transcendence promise spiritual wellness apart from religion. I still struggle to trust myself and my own experience without having to fit everything into a box. It feels unfair to accept this peace without also accepting the unfortunate conditions of judgment after death. It feels weird to claim my life as my own. I realize the need to self-parent, to give myself permission to make mistakes without repenting.

I’m just entering a new phase of faith-based living, where I put trust in what I know to be real- natural cause and effect, the transformative power of hope and love, the efficacy of strong desire and hard work when it comes to pursuing goals. Residual shame and fear often keep me from being truly vulnerable with myself and others, but I now seek community with those who understand the unique predicament of a former child of God. I hope my story will encourage someone else to share theirs.

http://www.vadarama.com/