Oh, Grow Up Already

By Carl S. ~

For eons, members of primitive, therefore superstitious societies, behaved like little children on a playground. Children can be cruel when they feel they're being treated unfairly. Their retaliation will express itself in the nastiest words. They might taunt each other with threats of "I hope your mom leaves you forever," or, “May you itch all over till you scratch your skin raw." “I hope your dog gets killed by another dog and you get blamed for it." They try to outdo one another in their inventions of nasty vengeances, which they might share with their siblings and parents with complete abandon.

If you want to find ancient curses, go to the psalms. You'll be surprised at how many of them are pleas for revenge and punishment on those who are making life difficult for the pray-er, (apologists call those curses "imprecations”). And a lot of them reveal that the righteous ones are envious, jealous, and angry, because of the obvious good fortune of the un-righteous. And boy are they angry, because things are supposed to be just the opposite. So much for the O.T.

Enter the N.T., where the new and improved childish curses, taunts, and threats morphed to include a hell. Then, to the primitive-brained childish threats were added: "You're going to go where you'll burn forever! They'll torture you and you won't ever get to rest!" Or, "You won't get away with anything ever again, and you'll never, ever, get out." Oh sure, there's that "forgive your enemies, do good to those who do you harm" up front, even "forgive your enemies as you will want to be forgiven" facade. Reality: "I hope that bastard gets everything he’s got coming to him," and "Maybe he's getting away with it now, but he'll rot in hell." For, you see, many people can't free themselves from mindless, ancient, childish, knee-jerk retaliation reactions. Many aren't content with waiting for their "vengeance of hell." They want revenge for real and perceived damage to their egos and beliefs, now. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all based on revenge. (The "Holy Land" is another term for the never-ending tradition of revenge, counter-revenge, among religious-based cultures.)

Since believers consider themselves caring, even loving, while also believing in "hell" and "the power of prayer," shouldn't they be praying constantly to their god to eliminate that "place of eternal torture” forever? And any real redeemer who claimed to love humans would give his life to eliminate any place matching that description. And what's the point of a "hell" anyhow? Does it prove anything? Couldn’t anyone come up with a better "solution?" After all, believing that anyone who doesn't agree with believers must absolutely be eternally tormented is insanely perverse.


If you want to find ancient curses, go to the psalms. You'll be surprised at how many of them are pleas for revenge and punishment on those who are making life difficult for the pray-erWho is supposedly destined for that fabricated place? Why, humans of course. If there is anything this creator-god of hell doesn't approve of, it's humans, for every religion tells us this. They just can't be good enough for him. Why is this so? It's because of our natures. We have ears to hear, and eyes to see, bodies to touch with, tongues to taste, all senses to know with. We have minds that can analyze reality and reject what doesn't make sense. The created condemning god is just like all the other gods and offers no evidence of existing. He too is invisible, tasteless, untouchable, inaudible, and unlistening. According to his spokesmen, all things good and evil are permissible to him, same as with all other gods. In spite of the fact that every time we tried to shine the flashlight of doubts into the darkness of faith, God's people did everything to extinguish it, and still we found our way out into the light. This means we have “failed" to accept them and "him" by only being human.

For those who have been taught that atheism is nihilism, we have a message for you: the creation of hell is the Absolute Nihilism, which you believe was created by your creation, the "loving" savior. Oh please, evolve away from the primitive, childish, wishful thinking you still cling to that cherishes such vicious nonsense. And for their mental well-being, stop teaching it to your children.

Why I Came Out

TheNandoLife ~

A few months ago I posted my coming-out video on YouTube and Facebook as both an Atheist and Gay. It was a very polarizing day for me. It was very stressful, to the point that I thought I would throw up my own bloody intestines from the strain and the uncertainty of what would follow. But it was also very freeing. They could accept me, or they could not, but the choice would no longer be in my hands. I am now who I am, and that ain’t changing.


I was a state leader for the Foursquare Church in the State of Baja California, Mexico. Later a student, then staff and missionary of Azusa Pacific University, the second largest Christian university in the country. I traveled the world and mobilized thousands of people in Christian ministry. I then became head of youth and young adult programs for the California-Hawaii region of the United Methodist Church.Until finally the questions and the doubts broke through, and set me free. Away from religious indoctrination and brainwashing, an area of my life which had been pushed back for years was allowed to come forward and grab my attention. I am gay.

It took my some time to process my identity until I was finally ready to come out to the rest of my religious community.

And the responses came forward… And I noticed three groups:

One, the silent ones. I heard from the grapevine of the“ripple effect” it had around the water cooler—understandable. The shock. The disapproval. Prayer requests. Better to not say anything than publicly recognize what some may see as judging, but privately discussed: He is living in sin, he stumbled, he is going to hell.

Two, the supporters. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. I did not expect such array of acceptance and encouragement. Publicly and privately people told me they loved me, and many even ignored the religious aspect, and focused solely on caring for my humanity. I thank you. Some even came out to me about their atheism, sexuality, or questioning. I’m glad I gave you a space to explore and express who you are.

Three, the patronizing. Several times I started typing, red in the face, a response proportional to the disbelief I had by reading some messages on my timeline and in my inbox. People that felt they owned my life, or people that thought they understood it through the lens of their particular religious view. Was it pain? Was it tragedy? People apologizing for not being in my life during a time of crisis, but giving no space, perhaps to protect their own internal balance, to the possibility that there is some truth to my question of “Even though you can’t see it, it is still there. What?!” But I took a deep breath, with everything in me pulled back, and later thought, “You used to be there, not that long ago.”

A book with my journey was just released on November 30th--. In it, I share in detail of how my journey to the cross and back really took place. But there is something I can make clear, now, for those willing to listen.

And here is the punchline: I did not become a Humanist, an atheist, because I am gay, nor because of some great tragedy (such tragedies, in their time,actually inspired me to hold on longer to the “loving god”idea—because I needed one). I stopped being a believer in a deity, and the structure built around it, because the evidence in nature and humanity filtered out the possibility of an invisible being behind natural phenomenons, and psychological and biological processes.

I came to realize that under the influence of religion, we all tend to do a couple of things that seem to undermine intellectual evolution. One, the ever-so-easy answer that “God did it” stops intellectual and scientific questioning, hence preventing critical thinking and actually finding answers. I realized that the term “God,” throughout history, is the concept we used to explain anything we couldn’t understand with our limited knowledge, and that religion was the system created to teach morality based on our cultural expectations. Second, I feel it betrays the sacrifice in the process of discovery and progress that our ancestors have done by moving away from the cave and heading onto the path to the stars. People using reasons such as“well, for me…,” or “as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody,” or “if you can’t prove it, there is a possibility,” allow themselves to exist in a reality where it’s OK if people believe that 2+2=5, because as long as “it doesn’t hurt anybody, then who cares?” But intellectual shortcomings and moral boundaries do have consequences. Crack open a history book, google it, wikipedia it. War, gay-bashing, torture, humiliation, segregation,belittling, because “our God” thinks you should, or shouldn’t, do X.Furthermore, where would we be if we were waiting for a god to cure an illness, predict natural phenomenons, solve territorial disputes, or take us to the moon?I read the bible several times from cover to cover, preached it to thousands, and went to Christian college so I could know what I was talking about. And I know both sides of every argument, and then some. But what I came to understand were two things:


It took my some time to process my identity until I was finally ready to come out to the rest of my religious community.

And the responses came forward… One, there are good things and bad things in the bible. If people love God and the bible, they will focus on the good things to say it is true and good. If people don’t like the God idea and the bible, they will focus on the bad parts of the bible to say it is false and evil. But the truth is that both the good parts and the bad parts are in the bible, it has both the good and the evil, regardless of us wanting to focus on a particular part.

Two, and most importantly, it is IRRELEVANT whether the bible has good parts or bad parts.Why? Because the bible was written in a time when people were living in caves, thought the world was flat, and didn’t have an understanding of biology, psychology, astronomy, geology,meteorology, chemistry or physics. They didn’t know what caused an eclipse, a tsunami, an earthquake, an eruption, a meteor shower. They didn’t know that the sun, which is actually a star, doesn’t rise nor set. And when they couldn’t understand what happened in nature, in the sky, in our bodies or minds, they did, what any of us would do—they formed a hypothesis that would try to answer the great unknown in a very confusing world: “there must be a higher power.” What else could explain why the sun went dark, the mountains pitting out fire, water rising above them? “A god, something bigger than us, must have done this.”

Then the next natural question, “If a higher power did this, why would he have done it?”

And just like a father scolds a child for being bad, it made sense that such god was punishing them for something bad they had done. And they started hypothesizing. Because we made a golden calf, because we haven’t sacrificed enough virgins, because you didn’t give us the land we wanted, because a man had sex with another man, because you didn’t free the Hebrews. And each civilization in the world, trying to understand nature,created a god of their own, and attributed certain morality to that god that correlated to their interpretation of righteous behavior.
And as humanity, we continue that trend. If a particular culture, be it local or nation wide, is against gay marriage, their god hates fags. If a particular culture, be it local or nation wide, is against premarital sex, their god hates the fornicators. And so on and so forth. But intellectual growth and scientific fact should be independent from personal preference. Things should be true or false, simply because they are, not because we desire them to be. We can be good and we can be bad, independently from religion—so religion is NOT needed for good or bad behavior. We can be loving and we can be hateful, independently from faith in a deity—so faith in a deity is NOT needed for attitude towards others.

I am very thankful for the support of some. But to those who took the time to apologize for their shortcomings in making God more real in my life, I had to ask, have you really never wondered that if we have to act like God in someone else’s life, it means he is not there to begin with? Stop fearing that if you, or someone you love, questions faith or the existence of a god, will turn into the Antichrist and burn in the lake of fire. Question simply because you can. Stop asking the atheists to come up with the answers to the universe simply because you stopped at “God did it.” A search for evidence is not sinful. And stop believing that love, or hate for that matter, is correlated to faith in a god. It is not. We choose to love or choose to hate, simply because we are human.

And this human chooses to love, but he also chooses to think, both of them freely. And free I am.

Too Grown for Santa or Other X-Mas Characters

By Steve Dustcircle ~

My wife and I don't have kids, but the topic eventually comes up in a hypothetical sense: Would we tell our children about Santa Claus?

We both are in agreement: No.

The big man himself brings up the rear at the 2009 Santa Claus Parade, Toronto. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I come from a household that pretended there was a Santa Claus when I was a small child. When my parents had “the talk” with me, I don't remember. But I do remember when one of my uncles played Santa and came down the stairs with a large sack of toys. I vaguely remember getting military toys. However, what is clear in my memory was one of my cousins saying, “That's Uncle Jeff!”

I never forgot. I don't remember the trauma I might have felt, but I assume there was confusion, hurt, disappointment and possibly anger. There had to have been, because of the clarity of the memory of that event (Memories form when you repeatedly chew on an occurrence).

Aside of this unveiling, we also had a lot of baby Jesus belief, with the house intermingled with Santa decorations and Christian nativities. One was supposedly true, while the other is not.

For a while, I was told both were true characters. One brought peace, the other brings gifts. And then you reach a certain age where you're told that one story is actually not true—a harmless prank, a white lie. But you're told that you're not being tricked or kidded about the other story—an equally impossible tale. Coincidentally, both are weaved from older legends and tales.

But is this healthy?

Harmless jokes can come from a good place: playfulness, humor, gentle teasing, or motivation. But can this affect how we view other things our parents tell us? Can this cause problems with how we treat authority? Can this affect how we treat other fairy tales and imaginary characters?

I'm no expert, and I don't know the statistics (if there have been studies), but if my wife and I had a child, I would not tell her or him that there is a real life Santa Claus. I would not tell them that there is a real life Tooth Fairy. I would not tell them that there is a real life Easter Bunny, baby Jesus, or arrow-shooting Cupid.

I do not believe in these things, and I see no point in deceiving my child about these holiday persons. It'd be my child, and my choice. The way I see it: if it were something that could affect my loved one's trust levels and my relationship with her or him, I would avoid what could damage or hinder a good future with my child.

But ALL kids believe in Santa! could be a retort.

That's fine if you want to tell your kids about the impossible and the improbable. I'm sure you have good reasons, and that you're in general good parents. But personally, my heart won't let me lie or deceive a loved one without good reason.

http://www.stevedustcircle.us/

Christianity's Own War on Christmas

By Valerie Tarico ~

Guess who has been calling Christmas a pagan holiday for the last 500 years? Christians.
If it feels like the “War on Christmas” is getting really old, it is. Over ten years have passed since Bill O’Reilly first opened December with a segment called, “Christmas Under Siege”—ten long years in which his cadences and refrains and echoing chorus have become as familiar to most Americans as Handel’s Messiah. More familiar, in fact.

Not that O’Reilly invented the idea. During the 1920’s, Henry Ford’s newspaper published a series of anti-Semitic articles titled, “The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem.” Among the complaints:

“Last Christmas most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated Someone's Birth. . . . People sometimes ask why 3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans. In the same way that ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.”

In 1959, the far right John Birch Society warned Americans of a plot to replace Christian symbolism with United Nations symbols on Christmas ornaments. In 1966 Christian minister Gerald Smith roused Christian outrage by proclaiming that the abbreviation Xmas had been created by “world Jewry”—even though the symbol X (chi) has been used as an abbreviation for Christ since ancient times.

Complaints about unsavory outsiders “taking the Christ out of Christmas” or forcing beleaguered believers to say “Happy Holidays!” are transparently privileged and xenophobic. They put Christian persecution complex on stark display. But here is the real irony: For almost 500 years, the folks trying to get rid of Christmas—trying to put distance between Christian worship and mid-winter solstice festivities—were Christians themselves.

Early Christians Probably Didn’t Celebrate the Birth of Jesus

Early worship of Jesus focused not on the nativity story but the crucifixion and resurrection. In fact, the Virgin Birth narrative is now considered a late addition to the gospels, one that fused ancient Sumerian mythic tropes, Hebrew tropes and cult of virginity, and the Greco-Roman belief that an extraordinary man must have an extraordinary birth. In the third century, the Church Patriarch Origin wrote a list of Christian holy days that did not include Christmas, suggesting that the holiday hadn’t yet emerged during his time.

What did exist was a wide variety of winter solstice celebrations associated with pagan religions across the Northern Hemisphere. People whose precarious existence depended on the agricultural cycle celebrated the return of light with song and dance, feasting and festive elements that are a part of our midwinter celebrations to this day: yule logs, mulled wine, decorated trees, gift giving, and more. Long before Christianity existed, Latin peoples celebrated Saturnalia and marked December 25 as the birthday of the unconquered sun.

Christianity Absorbs Other Religions

Christianity spread in part by embracing a practice called “syncretism,” in which local traditions and religions were simply absorbed and reinterpreted within the Christian tradition. In 606 A.D., Pope Gregory wrote to Abbot Mellitus in Britain and outlined this approach:

“The temples of the idols among the people should on no account be destroyed. The idols themselves are to be destroyed, but the temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them, and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God.”

Pagan temples became churches, indigenous gods became saints, and pagan festival days got repurposed as Christian holy days. The earliest existing documentation of December 25 as Christmas derives from the fourth century and is tied closely with the merger between Christianity and imperial Rome. Over time, Christmas came to rival Easter in the Catholic tradition, and the cult of Mary as the most perfect of all perfect virgins rose to rival the Trinity.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the strongest and most vociferous backlash against Christmas came from Protestant reformers who rejected all things Roman Catholic (except, ironically, the Bible itself, which they substituted for the very hierarchy that had compiled it.)

Calvin and Followers Reject “Pagan” “Papal” Christmas Holiday

Protestant Reformer John Calvin saw himself as debriding the Body of Christ, excising layers of rotten flesh so as to revive the wholesome form that God himself had created. Trusting only the sacrosanct Bible and his own righteous conviction as divine authority, he scraped all the way back to the fourth century, discarding indulgences, ritual, iconography, ecclesiastical hierarchy and Catholic holidays as man-made rot.

Calvin laid out a concept that later theologians called the regulative principle of worship, meaning that the only valid forms of worship are those laid out in the Bible. Christmas doesn’t meet this bar. In 1550, under his influence, authorities in Geneva issued an edict banning “all festivals, with the exception of Sundays, which God had ordained. " Not surprisingly, some people were less than thrilled, and even Calvin himself seems to have worried that the edict went too far, too soon. But he never compromised on the principle.

Scottish Presbyterians Follow Suit

As the Reformation spread to the British Isles, the Presbyterian church took up the case against Catholic holidays. Reformer John Knox echoed Calvin’s dour condemnation of holidays, mentioning Christmas by name and calling down punishment on “obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations.” Another Scottish minister, David Calderwood reiterated Knox’s scathing indictment of Christmas:

“If it had been the will of God that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated with several solemnities, the Holy Ghost would have made known to us the day of his nativity, circumcision, presentation in the temple, baptism, transfiguration, and the like.” . . . . "This opinion of Christ's nativity on the 25th day of December was bred at Rome."

England Bans Christmas Festivities

In England the increasingly powerful Puritan movement challenged the liturgical calendar of the Anglican Church, again claiming that holidays were anti-biblical, papal, and superstitious. In 1647, the British Parliament outlawed Christmas and other holiday festivals.

“Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ, Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no long
er observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the contrary in anywise not withstanding.”

America’s Pilgrims Reject Christmas

American children are taught that the Pilgrims traveled from England in the Mayflower seeking religious freedom, but the freedom to celebrate Christmas was apparently outside the range of acceptable practice for the Plymouth Rock colony. In 1621, new arrivals had to be brought into line:

On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor called them out to work as was used. But the most part of this new company excused themselves and said that it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, they found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar, and some at stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them and took away their implements and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play and others work. If they made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, let them keep their houses; but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets. Since which time nothing hath been attempted that way, at least openly.

Two generations later, Puritan leader Increase Mather condemned Christmas again as a pagan tradition:

“The early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”

Catholics Push Back

Catholics have long resented Protestant allegations that Christmas was, from the beginning, a repurposed pagan solstice festival. To this day some insist that the tradition dates back much farther than the fourth century and even that the December 25^th date is based on actual historical knowledge. Contemporary Catholic apologist Marian Horvat makes the laughable claim that we can know from the biblical record the date of the annunciation and therefore the date of Christ’s birth. Horvat concludes with a tour de force of rabbit-hole reasoning:

“We can be certain that the first Catholic apologists and Fathers of the Church, who lived very close to the time of the Apostles, were fully aware of the dates associated with the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They had all the calendar sources at hand and they would not allow any untruth to be introduced in the Catholic liturgy. The date of Christ’s birth was transmitted by them as being December 25, a Sunday.”

American Protestants Hold the Line

For generations, a range of Protestants found claims like these unconvincing. In the mid-19^th Century, Princeton Professor of Theology Samuel Miller echoed the persistent Presbyterian position that "the observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. Adding to the appointment of God is superstition. "

In 1871, famed Baptist evangelist Charles H. Spurgeon used his time in the pulpit on December 24 to exhort his flock against observing Christmas:

“We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority.”

In a sermon titled “Christmas, Easter, Lent, And The Cross (Pagan/Roman Catholic/Antichrist Holy Days [Holidays] In The Church, Family, And Society)” preacher Morton Smith states that the Southern Presbyterian church resisted adding Christmas and Easter to their official calendar until the 1940’s and 1950’s. Thanks in large part to Protestant misgivings, Christmas didn’t become an official American holiday until 1870.

Today’s Christian War on Christmas

Today most Christians have forgotten this history, but a conservative remnant still sees the celebration of Christmas as a concession to worldly influences. Retired Presbyterian minister G.I.Williamson complains that stores are open on Sunday but closed on Christmas. “There is no command to have a special day called Christmas. . . . If my church history books are correct there was only one day that was celebrated faithfully in the early Church. It was the Lord’s Day. And people used to greet one another by saying “Jesus is risen.”

Freelance fundamentalist Christopher J.E. Johnson of Creation Liberty Evangelism echoes the old complaint that Christmas is fundamentally pagan: “God hates paganism and he hates idols and he hates the concept of false Gods, and that’s what Christmas actually represents.” He preaches that “one of the big problems in Christianity today is the DENIAL of the pagan origins of their traditions, or in other words, they lie to themselves (and to others) in order to keep from knowing the truth, and thereby preventing themselves from receiving conviction from the Holy Spirit that would force them to give up their fleshly lusts. To understand the abomination of Christmas being brought into the Church of Jesus Christ, we need to understand its origin.”

Beyond the Forced Choice

As a former Evangelical, I too believe there is value in understanding the ancient origins of the Christmas story and related traditions. I too find some aspects of Christmas abominable, though my reasons are very different. Seen through 21^st Century eyes, the Bible’s virgin insemination, like other stories of gods impregnating mortal women, is “more than a little rapey.” Its adulation of virginity harms young women by soiling female sexuality. The obsessive (though conflicting) genealogies that accompany the story convey that a person’s bloodline matters more than his or her character. And the idea of a baby born to be a human sacrifice is about as morally repugnant as any concept humankind has concocted. If Christmas were merely, exclusively Christian, I would find little to recommend it.

Fortunately, for almost 500 years, Christian critics of Christmas have offered an alternative view, one that is rather beautiful, even though they themselves regard it darkly. It is the view that our mid-winter celebration reflects, more than anything, the Pagan and universal yearning to embrace hope in the dead of winter, our impulse to celebrate with abandon the return of light and the promise that spring—and new life—will come again.

Most certainly that is true of my own favorite Christmas traditions, which draw from a wide range of cultures and—yes—superstitions. Fortunately, we humans are incorrigible scavengers and endlessly innovative, taking whatever bits of culture and tradition we have inherited and weaving them together into a fabric of our own making.

Fundamentalists on all sides may argue that we must either embrace or reject Christian teachings and traditions as a package. For them, bound by the constraints of their worldview, that may be true. Happily, the rest of us are free to glean through the Bible and Christian history—including Christmas lore—discarding what is ugly or useless and claiming whatever is timeless and wise. And come mid-winter, we are free to assemble whatever rituals and traditions create a sense of wonder and delight and bring us closer to people we love.

---

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. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com. For almost 500 years, the folks trying to get rid of Christmas—trying to put distance between Christian worship and mid-winter solstice festivities—were Christians themselves.

Dutch CRC

By Amalia ~

I have never written about this publicly before, but 20 years of hindsight makes it easier.

I am 40 years old and left the church when I left my parents home at 17. Looking back I feel angry that I was never asked if that is what I actually believed. I felt so much pressure to just believe and do what was expected of me that in the end I ended up resenting and absolutely despising everything related to the church.

My parents are nice, they are loving until you speak about religion, At this point they become passive aggressive bullies. They don't see it at all, and the sad thing is that they probably never will as their beliefs seem to justify their self righteousness They have all the answers and everyone else is just drowning. God is on their side only.

In my twenties I went through a period where I thought I could build a life that I could be happy to live or I could bow my head and be a good dutch Christian lady to save ties with my family. I chose me, looking back I don't know how i had that strength but I am so glad I did. This time of my life was filled with loneliness, bitter anger, disappointment and confusion. I still have relationships with my family but they are not as good as they could be.

If people want this religion...well fine but I disagree with it all. What I most strongly disagree with is this aggressive undertone in the CRC church to convert everyone and if that doesn't work then just bully them. I also hate this "let's save ourselves because God has saved us first"

Grrrrr, my blood boils just writing this.

Residue: (What I Gladly Keep from Religion)

By Steve Dustcircle ~

While the most frustrating thing about being an ATHEIST is unlearning a lot of fallacies and myths, there are a few good reasons to have come out of a religious upbringing.

I understand where Christians are coming from in conversation.

I already know their religion throughout.

I know the problems with other religions, as my stance against them are the same: the errors.

Integrity and honesty. I don't go out of my way to be deceitful or manipulative.

Generous and kindness. I still try to give of myself without worrying about resource or greed.

I understand that friends are more important than blood. Family are stuck with you, but friends are usually chosen based on agreements and likenesses.

Concerned with people and the planet: stewardship.

Acceptance of others. weird-acting people, deformed people, strange beliefs, crabby people, etc.

Commitment to my spouse, promises, and loved ones.

Investing in what I believe in: books, organizations, younger generation, events, products, etc.

Music, art, writing (hobbies).

Gospel of Thomas

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

I believe the most important test we can perform to verify the existence of any candidate god is to ask whether that god makes sense. Yes, this is a theme I have written on several times before over the years, but it’s important enough to bear repeating.

English: Image of the Last Page of the Coptic Manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas. The title "peuaggelion pkata Thomas" is at the end. Courtesy of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Graduate University. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For example, does a god who gets in a fit of anger and drowns everyone on earth except for one family make sense? Or, does an all-knowing, all-powerful and good god that allows 6 million people to be shot, gassed, or starved to death during the Holocaust make sense? Any clear-eyed assessment of these actions will find them immoral.

Of course, the apologists will bend logic into ridiculous shapes to try to justify these actions, but their defenses only make sense to the thoroughly indoctrinated.

Similarly, that god’s defenders will tell us that we shouldn’t expect to understand god’s actions with our puny brains. However, our puny brains are all we have to work with, and experience has shown that those who don’t use their brains are in the habit of making very big mistakes. And besides, while we may not be capable of great understanding, surely a real god can – and should - make himself understood by us. How else can we possibly eliminate the phonies?

Thousands of god candidates have vied for the worship of man down through history and prehistory, and no more than one of them (or very few) could be a real god. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chances of any particular god being a real god are miniscule, and quite possibly zero.

So, how do we judge Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Ganesh, Osiris, Marduk, Yahweh, and all the others? We should insist that their descriptions and their messages make sense. Often, since the supernatural is involved, the God’s message is given in cryptic form to appear like deep, esoteric wisdom that only the enlightened can properly interpret. I argue that man’s tendency to swallow high-sounding nonsense has led him astray over and over, and for this reason any real god would make his message crystal clear, and that message would contain unambiguous evidence of his existence. Any real god would know that in order to stand out from the crowd he must avoid looking anything like the gods that charlatan prophets have promoted over and over in thousands of cultures.

Recently, I came across the Gospel of Thomas, a non-canonical (not in the Bible) gospel discovered in Egypt in 1945 in a cache of numerous ancient Christian documents. Various scholars have dated the Gospel of Thomas anywhere from 40CE to 140CE. According to the experts, the author is unknown but probably not Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas differs from the canonical Gospels in that it does not tell stories, but is merely a collection of Jesus’ sayings and parables numbering 114.

The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (saying 113), and lacks apocalyptic (end of the world) themes. Because of this, Bart Ehrman argues the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic sometime in the early 2nd century.

The reason I bring this up is that the Gospel of Thomas is a perfect example of the cryptic form I spoke of earlier. It is just dripping with deepities. Deepity is a word first used publicly by philosopher Daniel Dennett. A deepity is a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another.

I think the Gospel of Thomas is an excellent example of the seeming profundity that a real god would avoid. As I have said, the only kind of message that would stand out from all the thousands of false claims of false gods would be a clear message easily understood by the average human and containing clear evidence supporting its claims that could be easily verified. I believe it can be reasonably argued that, at this time, no known message of any god contains these markers of a genuine god.

To give a flavor of the Gospel of Thomas, I have created three categories of sayings; Familiar, Way Out, and Bonkers. Of course there is considerable overlap among these categories and my assignments are pretty arbitrary.

FAMILIAR

These are sayings that show up in the canonical Gospels, though usually in slightly different form. The following are examples of familiar sayings.

16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."

48. Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

26. Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

WAY OUT

These sayings are weird in one way or another, their meanings often cryptic.

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

So, everlasting life is not a matter of just believing or good works, it’s also solving these puzzles?

10. Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."

53. His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?"

He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

Now what is a “true circumcision in spirit,” do you suppose?

84. Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"

Is this esoteric or just meaningless?

BONKERS

Some sayings are just downright bonkers, although the indoctrinated will likely claim they are deep puzzles which can only be solved by the enlightened as they’re intended to be secret wisdom.

11. Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

Who knew there was more than one heaven? And how many do you suppose there are?

12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

And all this time I thought god created earth because he was lonely. But, if it’s all about James, then why is he such a minor figure in the Bible?

Why would a real god want us to just guess which deity is the real one, given that at least 90 billion of us down through the ages have worshipped false gods14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Now that sounds really hard to do. Do you suppose it takes a lot of practice?

30. Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."

37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

105. Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

[Some experts think this last saying, below, was probably added to the original collection at a later date. Doesn’t it sound like something that misogynist-in-chief Paul would come up with?]

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Now that is offensive on so many levels that to label it merely “bonkers” is probably being too kind.

So, does the Gospel of Thomas represent profound esoteric secrets of Christianity, or is it merely the ramblings of one or more confused or dishonest preachers? In the end, I don’t think it matters since it lacks the most basic markers we should expect from the message of a true deity; clarity and evidence. Why would a real god want us to just guess which deity is the real one, given that at least 90 billion of us down through the ages have worshipped false gods. It’s just way, way too easy to end up worshiping a false god, and surely a real god would know this and take steps to help us avoid it.

Christians tell us that god is everywhere, but then why is he so damned hard to find? They also tell us that god only reveals himself to those who seek him. However, I’ve seen over and over how people have “seeked” so hard they have convinced themselves they have found. But what have they found? It’s obvious that we humans have sought and “found” thousands of false gods down through the ages. So why seek? If a god truly wants me to believe, he surely can accomplish that with no help from me. That “leap of faith” that Christians regard so highly is really nothing but a guess made in the face of insufficient evidence.

Ultimately, a god and his message should make sense, and there is so much religious bullshit out there that no message purporting to come from a deity should be accepted as authentic if it lacks those basic markers of clarity and evidence.

Dilemmas

By Carl S ~

CNN Headline News features a program named "Forensic Files." These are actual cases involving the forensic solving of crimes. Sometimes the evidence seems to offer conflicting interpretations and outcomes. One of them involved a case where a woman was found dead of a shotgun wound in her living room. The action took place while her husband said he was asleep in the bedroom, from where, he said, he heard a sound like a branch cracking, waking him momentarily. The forensic investigator concluded she was shot from behind, and spun around from the impact, falling backwards on the floor. Other evidence supported this conclusion. The husband was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 25 to 35 years. But wait! This was only 12 minutes into a half-hour program. What appeared to be an open and shut case turned out to be more complex.

Different lawyers, working pro bono, decided to re-investigate the case. In their minds, some things didn’t add up to conclude murder; in fact, suicide could possibly be the answer. The body was dug up and autopsied by a "real" expert in forensic autopsies, using the latest sophisticated equipment. Another investigator showed that the blood splatter pattern on a wall indicated that the gunshot could only have come from in front of the victim, etc. Eventually there were enough evidential reasons to conclude the woman had actually killed herself. This came out when it was revealed that she had already made several attempts to commit suicide. The new evidence was presented at a new trial, and the jury acquitted on grounds of that new evidence and of reasonable doubt.

When a life is at stake, shouldn't the most thorough investigations be made to conclude, without a reasonable doubt, that the accused is innocent or guilty? Should hearsay or rumors be admitted as evidence? Should anyone's word be taken at face value, unquestioned and unchallenged? What about an eternal life?

People think that believing what they are told is true will save them from negative consequences awaiting them after they die. Should they care whether this belief is credible? After all, the stakes are high, and you'd need all the evidence that you can get to make sure you have made the right choice without a reasonable doubt. Is taking the words of others, "evidence?" Doesn't the jury member have a duty, a most serious obligation, to hear all the evidence for and against in order to make the most serious of decisions? Obviously, believers are neither interested nor invested in finding out whether what they claim as true actually is. They're day tripping, taking the easy way out, and aren't all that interested in knowing, but only in what they want to be true.

Should such believers who have the attitude that faith is sufficient, and is its own evidence, be allowed in juries? Aren't jury members selected with the criteria, "We don't care what you believe. Put that aside or you're not eligible?" How would juries be selected if the criteria for individual members required the following: "I know in my heart he's guilty," or "l don't need evidence to confuse me," or "Millions believe he's guilty; that's enough to convince me?" Would you want a jury composed of believers to decide your fate? (Oh wait. Isn't this a description of the Inquisition judges?)

What if such faith determines the way guilt, innocence, and the consequences are arrived at: by hearsay, taking the words of dubious "experts" who contradict one another on faith, a.k.a. prejudice, and to hell with reasonable doubt? Who needs evidence? (Faith is, after all, the rejection of reasonable doubts.)

There's a dilemma. If not believing condemns a person to eternal torture, it's important to investigate all sides, hear all the evidence pro and con, in order to find if that belief is true. But if it isn't important enough to do so, why insist that it be believed? And since a believer's claim to fame rests on insistent claiming to know what no one knows, what's the point? Why should anyone respect this? It's also a dilemma that the faith one is born into happens to be the one true faith which must be accepted to avoid eternal punishment, while those living outside it or without any faith don't have that need, do they?

Now, suppose some of those believing salespeople show up at your doorstep or somehow are in your living room, sick room in the hospital, or greeting you at the funeral home as you mourn for a loved one you’ve lost, and they try to sell you their beliefs on the grounds that an eternal after-death of eternal bliss or torture depends on buying them?

You might inform them that surely, after thousands of years of "testimonies" regarding the "veracity" of each and every faith and sect thereof, such "evidence" would be overwhelmingly compelling. Why isn’t it? You might ask them: 1. Does this eternal life actually exist? Where's the evidence?" 2. "Are your so-called "witnesses" credible, and how do you know this? Where's the evidence?" 3. "Does your ‘judge’ (who supposedly imposes the sentences he arrives at) even exist? Where's the evidence?"

Tell the religion salespeople: "I have an idea. Why don't all you guys get together and decide who's right based on "evidence" you come up with? Say! Obviously, two thousand and more years haven't been long enough to do it! I'll wait. Then get back to me. Meanwhile, I'm headed out for a hot fudge sundae. It's delicious. The evidence is in every spoonful."

The writing on the wall

By Ben Love ~

A few days ago, I went in to my local Barnes and Noble bookstore, a place where I’ve spent many a happy day whiling the hours away engrossed in one book or another. But they had moved everything around since the last time I’d been there, and none of the new changes made sense to me. So I went to the help desk in the middle of the store and asked where I might find books on atheism. I heard some snickering to my left, and I turned to see two middle-aged women watching me with disapproving looks of horror on their faces. One whispered something to the other, and both then walked away with an air of superiority. Obviously, they’d heard my inquiry and clearly thought that it was Satan Incarnate standing there and not just an obscure writer named Ben Love.

This experience is in direct contrast with one that happened to me about a month ago. My wife and I were having a discussion at Denny’s one night about one of my articles that had recently been published. It was, of course, an atheistic article, and our dialogue at the table was therefore quite atheistic in nature. A man sitting two tables down and slightly to the right of me clearly overheard part of our conversation, and he smiled at me. I smiled back in perplexion and he gave me a “thumbs-up” gesture, then pulled back the front of his jacket to reveal a tee shirt underneath sporting the words, “There is NO God, Get Over It.”

Such opposing reactions. And what do these reactions tell us, I wonder?

As it concerns religion or the lack thereof, sometimes I’m confused by the prevailing winds that seem to be blowing in my country. America appears to be a nation that is undergoing extreme inner change, and in many ways, we won’t be able to fully understand this change until the dust settles. Indeed, only in retrospect, several decades from now, will we be able to look upon the tumultuous events of today with any clarity and objectivity. However, I admit that as one who is alive during this time of change, what I see often confuses me. There seem to be conflicting reports, and the casual viewer doesn’t always know which reports to believe. For instance, I recently read an article, teeming with credible statistics, that showed atheism to be a surging movement within the United States, that more and more churches were closing their doors, and that religion in general was becoming obsolete in the minds of most Americans younger than 50. But then, not even a week later, I read another article stating that recent polls suggest Christianity is thriving in this country like never before, that more and more young people are turning to the Church for their existential answers, and that three out of four Americans would go on record as believing in some kind of personal God.

The truth is, however, that I need not be confused. All statistics are relative, because they depend upon fluid factors, such as who is polled, where those polled live (because geography matters), what their background is, what their age is, and so on. Thus, unless your poll is large enough to account for all the age groups, regions, and any other pertinent demographic, you might not be getting the whole story.

And yet, one has to wonder just what the prevailing climate in this country is. Are we, as a nation, moving more toward an atheistic, agnostic, unreligious climate, or are we being blown back toward our roots and the religion that helped spawn this country? Or…are we hanging steady, moving toward neither one nor the other?

When I drive down the street in my hometown, a see churches on nearly every corner. (Whether or not those churches are empty or filled on Sunday morning, I cannot say.) And while I know that not everyone in my hometown is a churchgoer, I cannot recall, even once, a group of atheist protestors parading around the grounds of these churches, carrying signs and handing out pamphlets. Similarly, when I drive down those same streets, I see virtually no indications of an atheist establishment anywhere, or a meeting place for anti-religious advocates, or even a humanist kiosk where literature on the topic can be obtained. Thus, we might conclude that atheism is the minority and therefore the weaker constituency, since Christianity’s material presence in the world is much more visible. Most of us probably cannot remember the last time we passed a blatantly atheistic institution on the street.

But…if we did…would we see Christian protestors there? Suppose at the corner of Main and Pine there is an atheist meeting house called Unbelievers United. Would we see Christians picketing this establishment with signs and megaphones and angry fists? You know we would. Or, to take it in a slightly different direction, suppose we wanted to have an annual atheist’s day at the ballpark. I know for a fact that my home baseball team (the St. Louis Cardinals) has a Christian day at the ballpark once per season. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never heard a word of atheists protesting such an event. But if we were to have an atheist’s version of the same event and the very same ballpark, do you think Christians would keep quiet? The answer is no. They would not keep quiet.

Hasten the day!And thus, we must observe that regardless of which group is gaining ground in this country, we still have an extremely unbalanced, unjust society which purports to be interested in conquering inequality but which, under the surface, is still hopelessly mired in discrimination.

Concerning this topic, a friend recently confided to me that he believes Christianity will never go away. He, like me, wants it to go away, but he doesn’t believe it ever will. I thought about that for a good long time before I concluded that I myself am significantly convinced Christianity actually is on its way out. Why do I think that? Well, the answer is that I can read the writing on the wall…

Whether or not he wants to admit it, the believing Christian is losing the ground beneath his feet, one tile at a time. Perhaps it doesn’t feel that way to him, from where he is standing. But take an objective look as an outsider and tell me what you see. One by one, the mysteries of the Cosmos, which the Christian uses to retain some measure of his God’s enigmatic wonder, are being taken away as science continues to shed new light on our world. The day is coming when the Christian can no longer hide behind his Creationist views, because evolution is being confirmed over and over with each new breakthrough in the biological and geological communities. The small Universe of the Creationist is being revealed for what it truly is: a fathomless breath of expansiveness that must, by virtue of the properties of starlight, be billions of years older than the Bible would suggest. The historical record is continuing to demonstrate that bonafide, documented miracles have never taken place in any way whatsoever. Our understanding of social evolution is accounting for our knowledge of “good” versus “evil,” and we no longer need to attribute these ideals to a deity. Likewise, our understanding of psychology and genetics is shedding new light on what used to be considered “deviant lifestyle behaviors”; and while we once thought these “sinful” behaviors to be violations of God, we now know that a person can no more account for these choices than he can for the color of his own eyes. Moreover, superstition, supernaturalism, and faith are gradually being replaced with reason, rationalism, and logic. Where once belief reigned supreme, knowledge is taking over. And the net negative effect of religion in the current age, to say nothing of its effect in the historical record, is becoming clearer and clearer to the impartial observer. The point is this: the Christian has so few legs left to stand on, and even those are beginning to crumble.

And it must be noted that when the Christian hunkers down and clings determinedly to his faith, he does so against the current, not with it. He must continually find new ways to stand against the overwhelming direction the tide is moving. My suspicion is that he knows this, deep down. But what is he to do? If he loses his religion, he loses his identity. One cannot blame him for the white knuckling that he does.

Therefore, whenever I wonder about the disparity in this country between the believer and the nonbeliever; when I see the discrimination that exists under the surface and under the deceptive façade of equality; when I experience judgement and condemnation from those who think I am evil for being an atheist, I smile inwardly because I know that my side is winning. A century from now, or perhaps two, belief in God will be just as ridiculous as a belief in Bigfoot is now. That day is coming. The writing on the wall says so.

Hasten the day!

My Uneventful Departure

By Jason C. ~

My departure from Christianity wasn't as painful as it'd been for many former Christians on here. My first phases of breaking away were the result of me trying to read the bible from start to finish. Being the soft person I am, I was easily frightened by the Bible. Actually, I'd always had this lurking fear of the damnation it claimed if I did wrong. This was my first realization of how wrong the bible is on many levels. Eventually, it all piled and I broke away, just severed the tie right there. I never did have a strong connection with God or Jesus to begin with, though I'm quite glad I never did.

I didn't actually dig deep into my Atheism until later on though. It happened bit by bit, realizing how prayers went unanswered, miracles seemed to occur to the not as needy, the backwards love standards, and just the general illegitimacy of the bible. A sort of stepping stone for me was The Vegan Atheist, primarily through his Stupid Christian Comments series on YouTube. It was through the featured comments that I realized how ignorant Christianity can be, and it lead to this slightly burning passion I have with the religion today. It's since spread to similar religions, though I do respect Buddhism those like it.

Somewhere down the line I found Ex-Christian. I learned how hard Christianity has affected peoples' lives for the worst. Reading about manipulative churches, abused narrators, and the harsh community that may still surround them, I began questioning how Christianity still has such a grasp on humanity. You'd think the believers would at least follow the bible's laws, or maybe actually read it from start to finish? Then again, even the churches don't tell the whole story.

Being in a Christian household, I haven't told my family of my religious views. I also avoid getting involved with Atheism pages on Facebook as they use that regularly. I'm really unsure how they'll react, but I prefer being safe than sorry. I honestly dislike keeping this under wraps along with other things. Fortunately, it turns out I have quite a few friends who have also left Christianity. Many of us remain silent too I bet, Christians can be rabid to nonbelievers. Sadly since graduation, I haven't been in touch with many as we've went our separate ways.

BREAKING FREE: A LONG TIME COMING (PART THREE)

By Jennifer ~

Living the Christian life is highly stressful and mentally unhealthy, to say the least, because Christianity like all other religions is based on fear. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” is the very first thing one learns as a child. “Better not lie, or God is going to punish you – with hell fire!” The longer I lived in this state of fear, the more my mental health suffered. Anxiety began to rule my life. Sixty years of abuse was enough. Quitting church attendance was the beginning of my salvation.


It came in the form of Dr. Lissa Rankin’s, The Fear Cure. This book helped me unfetter myself from my fear-inducing religious upbringing and memories of past dangers I had experienced. I could tell my poor fucked-up amygdala (the part of the brain that detects fear and prepares the body for fight or flight,) “It’s okay, Christianity has been a bad dream. There’s no need to fear anymore.” The Fear Cure has also helped me dispel limiting beliefs arising from childhood, and generational fears foisted on me. Lissa Rankin has reconnected me to my wonderful, love-worthy, creative self.

I mentioned The Truman Show in my previous blog. I can so relate to the final scene in the movie where Truman sails his boat to the horizon and discovers the sky is fake. He ascends the stairs to the door above, takes a bow and sets himself free from the movie set, the only reality he had ever known.

Another key figure that has aided me in my healing journey, is Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn. I discovered him on You Tube, and this encounter has been the beginning of my true awakening. I like the fact that Dr. Kabat- Zinn’s teaching on Mindfulness is based on solid scientific research. Kabat-Zinn is the creator of The Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

I’ve purchased a number Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness Meditation audio books, and putting his method and teaching into practice has greatly reduced my anxiety levels. With what I’ve been through, it’s small wonder I've been so incredibly out of touch with my own mind.

I’m immensely excited and grateful to be living in an era where such giant strides have been made in medical science, particularly in the realm of neuroscience. I am fascinated by studies about the brain, its plasticity and its ability to adapt to positive input. It’s great to have my brain back!

Engaging in the here and now is a much simpler and less stressful way to live, rather than living a life of pretense and fear in La-la land. I am reconnected to nature and comfortable with finding my place in the vastness of the universe without being afraid of it, or its perceived maker.

Moment by moment, the universe unfurls before me in vast bodies of knowledge across all academic disciplines. To this end, it’s ludicrous to limit myself to only 66 books of disjointed, barbaric, Iron-age literature. The “evidence of things not seen” has no place in modernity. Let’s hope the paradigm shift from religious superstition to science and reason happens swiftly, for the sake of our survival.

At 78

By Carl S ~

This author reached the age of 78 recently. I didn't like 77. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 78 rpm was the speed of phono records when I first heard music. ( It wasn't until many years later that my ‘first love’ became "stereo" reproduction.)

I feel funny knowing that the people I admire the most have not lived as long as me. Ravel, Carl Sagan, Bach, Bartok, Pasteur, Beethoven and Shostakovich, come to mind. At the age of 75, I asked myself what I would do for the next 25 years of my life, but by then the course had already been decided for me. I had taken the leap from writing letters to the editor into another direction. These I have been sharing with you.

In the beginning, I found FFRF listed in the back of "The God Delusion." After joining that organization, I started receiving Freethought Today, their newspaper. In one issue was a letter from Galen Rose in Maine. What do you know; he was in the local telephone book! Thus began a friendship and continuing contributions to this site.

I remember as a child going to the movies for ten cents, and watching a newsreel of a completely leveled Japanese city. For years I thought it was of one of those destroyed by atomic bombs. Later, I found out about the carpet bombings that were ongoing before the A-bombs. The effects stayed with me. Now it is unimaginable, as my friend pointed out, that we would engage in warfare with either Japan or Germany. As my old army buddy, who was stationed with me in Germany in 1960, reported to me after going there in 2014, "It's hard to believe we ever went to war with those people."

I remember watching, in the 1950's, on a black and white TV, footage from space captured by a rocket with a camera attached - proof that the earth is indeed round. My father and I watched Sputnik go by overhead, from our front lawn. I watched news of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, who remarked, "I didn't see God up there."

These are the most interesting of times. You and I can travel at 60 mph while listening to Baroque music. Talk about time travel! I can pass by a local church built in 1775, wherein for decades believers believed that their illnesses were the result of "sin" and not viruses or unsanitary conditions. The people who lived in Baroque and other periods could never have envisioned our times. And the future holds promise of getting even better, healthier, less ignorant and fearful, as amassing information about reality increases.

I remember an old sign hanging up in a garage, "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better." I’ve been a believer and I'm a non-believer. Non-believer is much better. I had been celibate for years. It never agreed with me. Now I'm not. Guess which is better. Perhaps I've always been "different;" being bounced from parochial schools to public schools, and even being a one-time victim of a pedophile could make you feel that way. It seems I've always seen things unobvious to the average person. No apologies. Having an actual choice between the two, I think "different" is better, and maybe not just for me. "Different" people make the difference. (For instance, both WizenedSage and I agree: It is only those on the outside of religion who can free those held captive within.)

When I first began to think about those next 25 years, some things stood out. Keep writing, for one. It’s only recently that another choice I made revealed itself: to help save the world through a "women and children first" policy. Women and girls need education everywhere and at all times. They need empowerment, choices, and freedom from male/religious domination. I want to see all women now wearing imposed veils and burkas throwing them off and revealing the hair they are naturally proud to have. I want them to eventually feel very comfortable after doing so. Freeing women changes the world. (I have a report from one of the women’s charities I contribute to: in some African villages, when the women in them became educated and thereby contributors to their families, the rate of domestic violence decreased by 85%.) Everywhere women are freed up there is social progress for the betterment of all. This is a proven fact. And religious tradition is the greatest enemy of their liberation. It must be fought against. And as for children, my readers know how opposed I always will be to childhood indoctrination that keeps them from being curious, questioning, and accepting of their naturally endowed goodness. These are my missions. There is plenty to be done.

Someone suggested that atheists should write their own obituaries. This sounds gruesome to me. But on the other hand, it would keep the survivors from writing crap about a non-believer, implying, among other things, the person "really" believed, etc. So, here's an idea for my obit: Carl S. was an atheist-humanist. Atheist by birth, humanist by choice. Carl is with you no more. "He" has gone to that state before he was born, pre-womb, and becoming once again the elements born of stellar explosions. Don't say that you really knew him, because all that you really knew was the surface, not the person; it’s what 99% of the population accepts. Since this is so, he would like you to know you couldn't possibly “know" your "God" or "Jesus" either. What most people know of him or you yourself is usually hearsay anyhow. Neither will what remains of Carl be in any condition to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or otherwise "experience" another life. (Lawd knows how this would be interpreted by my wife’s churchgoers. They'll probably still be singing their after-life song of, "I'm gonna find out.") Like another Carl S. (Sagan), "he wanted not to believe, but to know." Go and do likewise.

I'm headed over to the DVD player to look at the seafloor life no other generation knew existed. And I'm taking along a good strong cup of coffee, which I'm really, really, going to enjoy. May there be more power to women and ever more possibilities for the children. May there be less and less of religious power. May it not end with a bang, but with a whimper. Meanwhile...

I am still...

By whitehot ~

Sometimes when we drop the label 'Christian', some Christians assume we have dropped our character, too. This is a message for them.

In case you were wondering...

I am still peaceful

I am still cautious

I am still grateful

I am still content

I am still optimistic

I am still welcoming

I am still fragile

I am still apologetic

I am still merciful

I am still just

I am still rational

I am still open

I am still seeking

I am still soulful

I am still sensitive

I am still compassionate

I am still humble

I am still reverent

I am still respectful

I am still sober

I am still serious

I am still virtuous

I am still kind

I am still broken

I am still healed

I am still philanthropic

I am still helpful

I am still capable

I am still sensible

I am still gentle

I am still patient

I am still honest

I am still smiling

I am still joyful

I am still hopeful

I am still listening

I am still honourable

I am still valuable

I am still clean

I am still thoughtful

I am still smart

I am still confident

I am still strong

I am still willing

I am still thriving

Because

I am still alive

I am still me

I am still worthy.

My God’s Better than Your god!

By Ex-Pastor Dan ~

So, it’s happened again. In Paris, a group of religious fanatics tried to prove that their God is better than your god, or any other god for that matter. Not only better, but in their warped minds; bigger, stronger, more holy – indeed unique and exclusive! Exclusive of all other deities, because alas, only Allah exists - and Muhammad is His prophet. Therefore, permitting… nay! commanding His sold-out, mindless, martyr-bound zealots to proclaim their “gospel of peace” [sic] to the heathen masses of unsuspecting Parisian partiers. This message was delivered with literal explosive force, granting these Muslim evangelists instant passage to the waiting bosoms of 40 virgin maidens. Their ticket to paradise, bought and paid for (like another very familiar religion) with BLOOD!

All day I have had an old TV advertisement jingle running through my head:

“My dog’s better than your dog, my dog’s better than yours. My dog’s better cause he gets Kennel RationTM, my dog’s better than yours. My dog’s Bigger than your dog, my dog’s Bigger than yours……etc., etc.”

In my mind the word dog kept switching to “god” and the words “he gets Kennel RationTM” kept transposing to “he wrote the Revelation.”

I know, it’s kind of corny, but that’s the way my mind works, and isn’t that really the attitude behind the phrase that is always screamed right before a fundamentalist, Muslim suicide bomber detonates? “ALLAH AKBAR!” which translates: “Allah is the Greatest!” Allah is better than your god. Allah is Bigger than your god. Indeed, Allah is the only true God. How do they know this, because it is revealed in their Holy book. A revelation that they are willing to joyfully die for!
This is scary stuff! I know it sure scares the shit out of me! Martyrdom…YIKES! As “sold out” as I was as a young Christian, I always carried guilt and a little bit of shame because I knew I could never die for my faith. Oh, we would talk about it and even tell Jesus that we were willing, but I knew in my heart of hearts - that was a lie. To get to that point in your dedication, to anything, you must shun reality and walk over into the land of the mentally deluded and slightly (if not totally) insane. And what could be so persuasive as to coerce someone to be willing to give up their very life for a cause; or, worse yet, to take someone else’s life because of a cause? What indeed?

As Blaise Pascal so insightfully puts it:

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Ah Yes! Religious conviction – My God’s Bigger than Your god. My religion’s better than yours. My God’s better cause He wrote the Revelation – My God’s better than yours!

How did the world get to this place? Why, in the 21st Century, are we still fighting to the death over misguided philosophies about whose god is better? Why has reality and fact-based science been replaced with make-believe delusions and faith, leaving billions in a state of willful ignorance and self-induced insanity?

WHY, WHY, WHY???

Well, it’s not God’s fault!

Why, in the 21st Century, are we still fighting to the death over misguided philosophies about whose god is better?God, even if he/she/it did exist, would certainly not be picking sides and pitting some of Its creation against other created beings. No! Man has created God in his own image and imbued Him with human traits. That’s why the Bible talks about a God who has emotions; a God who indeed does pick sides and commands His subjects to carry out heinous acts against each other. This God of the Revelation is one sick mutha fucka! And the religions that have spawned from these man-authored “holy books” are totally fucked as well! Amen! Yes, as Christopher Hitchens so insightfully proclaimed – RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING! What a sad, sad statement….sad but true.

Notice, Hitch didn’t say, “God Poisons Everything.” He said RELIGION poisons everything. It’s man’s interpretation of God, and man’s ever present need to feel like he has joined the right club; picked the favorite team; pledged membership to the most prestigious fraternity; found true salvation through the “ONLY SON OF GOD” – that is what has created this curse upon the human race; this curse called Religion. Religion is manmade! God, on the other hand, if He/She/It does exist, is Godmade.
I would be OK with a Godmade god. It’s the manmade gods that get the world into trouble. Manmade gods demand humans to pick sides and fight to the death. Manmade gods demand BLOOD! Blood, blood and more blood - the more blood the better! As the book of Hebrews says: “And without the spilling of Blood, there is NO Forgiveness.” Amen & Hallelujah! Oh how I used to love to quote that scripture!

Holy shit! If there were a God that created the universe, a universe that eventually generated human beings, would He/She/ It really be; jealous, petty, angry, malicious, capricious, impetuous, murderous and angry? I think not! If God had a son and sent him to earth with a heavenly message, would it be

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” ~Jesus Christ~.

Or, would he send a black man to an L.A. ghetto in 1992 with a more inspiring message of peace and goodwill:

“Can’t we all just get along?” ~Rodney King~

Although I appreciate Rodney’s heartfelt plea a lot more than Jesus’ warmongering commission, I’m pretty sure that neither was sent from God.

So what is it that I’m trying to say? Is there any lesson we can learn from these heinous acts that continue to take place around the world? Or do we just get more jaded in our responses; more surfeit in our attitudes, lost in a sea of bitterness and anger?

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I am very sure where we will NOT find the answer, and that is in Religion - unless you consider Humanism a religion. A true humanism that needs no gods and requires no holy book; no revelations other than the ones that spring forth from other human minds when they are inspired by human kindness, courage, empathy and love - traits we are born with and emotions that require no revelations from a vindictive and jealous God - a human “morality” that has evolved naturally in the human race and needs no teacher.

Can we get there from here? I don’t think that I will see it in my lifetime, but if mankind is to survive, we humans had better get it figured out pretty soon, because the weapons that the armies of God now possess are beyond swords and spears. There will be no beating of atomic bombs into plowshares or ricin gas into pruning hooks! As long as religion continues to preach a God of favoritism and wonton jealousy, mankind will continue to take up arms and commit unspeakable acts upon each other just to appease their blood-famished warlord.

I leave you with the provocative words of Steven Weinberg:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes RELIGION!”

I bid you peace and a sound mind.

XPD