Atheism Offers Nothing

Due to recent conversations, I've been challenged to provide an answer to the religious-based question: "What could atheism ever provide?"

I can only answer this question for myself, because there are no tenants to atheism.  It’s not a structured worldview, a philosophy, or a religion itself.  It has no creed or set of values.  It is simply a rejection of theism.  That said, what has atheism provided me with?

An afterlife?

Nope.  Not for me, anyways.  Like I said, the only thing that it takes to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods (just like all it takes to be bald is to lack hair).  After that, anything goes.  Some people who don’t believe in the existence of a god still hold to the idea of an afterlife, either through reincarnation like Buddhists, or by some other supernatural means.  But atheism doesn’t offer that to me.

A sense of security?

Nope.  I’m secure in the idea of reality; I no longer fear death or other natural processes.  I don't become wracked with moral turmoil when a loved one experiences a life-threatening illness.  Religion offers a false sense of security…the idea that God is watching over you and will protect you from harm, and has a grand plan for your life.  It can be scary – but humbling – to understand that there’s no ultimate creator being that has the whole world in its hands.  Like Julia Sweeney said, it’s terrifying to realize that the earth is just spinning around the sun all on its own…you wanna run outside and catch it.  I do, however, feel secure in reality.  It’s comforting to know that all is “as it should be” more or less, and that you’re not some chess piece or plaything.  There's no script for you to follow, with consequences good or bad for failing to follow it.  It’s nice to know that death and suffering isn’t caused by the will of any all-powerful consciousness.  I think I would find it more frightening to think that a God neglectfully lets bad things happen to good people.  It can be scary to lose that false sense of security, but it makes you stronger when you open your eyes to reality.

Absolute morals?

Nope.  That’s another thing that religion offers, not atheism.  Without a god to give us morals, we come to them on our own.  We realize that as social creatures, humans must be cooperative and beneficial to survive.  We also have brains that evolved the power of empathy.  Therefore, any society that contains members who act against the general welfare won’t or even can’t function properly.  It's obviously more complicated than a few sentences, but the end result is simple: we don’t need a God to be good – we just need each other. 

A sense of community?

Nope.  At least, not in a formal, structured sense.  Atheism isn’t a religion, but as a collective group (grouped only by our lack of theism), atheists can create communities on their own.  There are several online communities and several physical organizations that promote atheism and give the nonbeliever that sense of community that is often lost when they reject their faith.  We can still be social and have meetings or events together, and share in the fellowship of like-minded people, but this is something any individual can achieve for any reason they desire; it's not granted by atheism.

Ultimate answers?
Nope.  There are no answers given simply by rejecting the demonstrably false ones of others.  Too often I'm asked what boils down to, "if not God, then what?".  And a great deal of the time, the answer to that question is, "I don't know".  Whatever the answers to life's ultimate questions, it's probably not a supernatural father-figure that cares about what cloths you wear.

Removing the Cancer

Atheism isn't meant to "provide" anything.  I often liken it to asking: after you remove a cancer, what do you replace it with?  While religion was a disease I carried for many years, when I left it behind, I suddenly realized that my pre-packaged beliefs all had to be re-examined and re-evaluated.  Here’s what learning to think for myself made room for:

Reality
Since becoming a nonbeliever of any gods, I've been able to see the world for what it truly is.  All aspects of nature and natural processes shine brighter than if they were just “made” by some powerful creature.  I have more of a respect for the universe and my place in it than I ever had thinking it was all made for me or my kind.  I no longer hold to a false sense of security or a false sense of knowledge.  What I observe and experience is no longer colored by a religious worldview.  When I see a mountain, I think about the natural processes and all the time it took that led to its formation, about where it's been and where it will go...I don't think about Matthew 17:20.  I see reality as it really is.

Respect for Life
I no longer think that I will survive my own death.  I do not believe in an afterlife, and therefore every second I spend alive becomes infinitely more valuable and precious.  I can't afford to waist time on silly ideas such as prayer or religious rituals.  I have a greater respect for all life in general.  I am no longer afraid of death.  I cherish every breath I have to spend with those I care about and to learn about the universe around me.  I have to make amends to those I hurt now -- I don't get a second chance.  I have to say what I need to say to people, and spend time with those I need to, now.

Hunger for Knowledge
It's funny how thinking you have the answer is vastly less fulfilling than actually honestly searching for the truth.  When the hollow-feeling “knowledge” was gone, I began to fill the void with real knowledge.  I started craving an understanding of how the world works (if God isn't holding the world up, what is?), and I started to actually understand science.  Religion sought to provide me with an answer to everything, and I didn’t even have to understand the answer to accept it.  I sought knowledge backwards: first accept something as “truth”, then go and find evidence to support that conjecture.  After truly understanding what knowledge is and how it's obtained, I began to crave the answers of the universe.

Higher Standards of Love
I once thought that I was loved by people in my congregation out of the goodness of their hearts, but after denouncing my faith, I find that some people only "love" someone if they think God tells them to.  Obviously, God doesn't want his disciples to listen to the "lies" we apostates spew, and therefore we are not to be trusted or cared for any longer.  And I was guilty of the same thing.  I claimed "love" for my fellow believers simply because they believed like I did, and didn't conflict with my ideas.  It was more of an in-group, tribal thing than actual love.  Many religious people claim a feeling of absolute love from God, but it turns out that it's more a projection of what they hope to have -- a sense of being looked after and cared about.  Since leaving the faith, I've felt a love greater than any God could grant.

True Peace and Happiness
Being a believer carried a lot of baggage with it.  I was expected to be oppressed by nonbelievers and stalked daily by the Devil.  I was expected to always struggle to live "in the world, but not of it".  I had to ask God for anything and thank him for everything.  I had to rationalize any event to either be a work of God or a plan from Satan.  My life was full of tests, tribulations, and leaps of unquestioned faith.  I had to pray for others, as their lives (and after-lives) were my responsibility.  I had to feel guilty for being human, guilty for thought-crimes, and always subject my worthless self to a Supreme Judge and beg for pity at the throne of my Master.

After throwing off the shackles of faith, I realized that none of that was true.  Feelings of guilt and torturous thoughts were burned away by the light of reason.  I learned to let life in -- to experience it fully and completely, the good and the bad.  And I am happy.  No longer do I lay down my faculties of reason in the place of blind obedience to anything.  After you are brainwashed and mentally abused by a mindset as vicious as religion, you realize after it all just how bad it really was.  I’m sure we can all relate to being young, then getting older, looking back and realizing just how dumb you were.  It’s similar with religion…I can’t believe I believed some of things I used to.  I know now that I should have known better, and I’m happy that now, at least, I do.  I’m truly happy.

Atheism didn't provide me with anything, but it opened the ways that were blocked by the dogma of theism.  A lack of belief cannot provide you with positive beliefs -- you can't get from "I don't believe in any gods" to anything else without adding some new facet.

Each atheist must decide on their own about everything.  We're not handed a prepackaged set of beliefs, morals, arguments, or tenants.  In short, atheism offers nothing, but it opens the world up to you.  We each must make up our minds about life, the universe, and everything.


-STA

For God So Loved The World

...He Stood By And Watched
The recent crisis unfolding in the island nation of Japan is frightening and heartbreaking to witness.  In this age of hand-held computers and instant communication, we are able to see first-hand the destruction our planet is capable of.  We can use our phones, netbooks, game consoles, and other devices to offer monetary aid and coordinate relief efforts.

Yet, there are many who use this technology to do something that is a lot less helpful.  Twitter tweets, YouTube videos, and Facebook comments have exploded with droves of prayers.  The religious-minded in all countries have looked at this tragedy and in lieu of lending money or a helping hand to clean up, have instead turned to -- in their mind -- a deity who has all of this under control.

As an atheist, I get laughed at when I ask the simple, "Where's your God now?" questions to theists.  They don't seem to appreciate the logic and instead take it as an emotional attack.  But I'm serious...where was God when the Tōhoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami slammed Japan, killing 20,000 and washing away entire villages?  You'd think that for a being of unequaled love, keeping that way of reaching the shore would be a no-brainer.  If you could have stopped it, would you?  I know I would, and yet an All-Loving being is supposed to be overseeing -- or at worst, planning out -- this kind of destruction. 

And yet, religious people everywhere seem to perform backbreaking mental gymnastics to rationalize to themselves that the All-Powerful creator of the universe has His/Her/Their reasons for not intervening.  Free will and mysterious ways are high up on the list, for not only things like earthquakes, but also rape victims, or those afflicted with childhood leukemia.  For an All-Loving God, he seems to be on the sidelines a lot.


...He Commanded Hatred
Since I'm in the bible-belt of America, I'll address what I hear most about this "God" thing everyone seems so keen on sharing.  More importantly, I'm to aqueous to His love for me and my fellow man, and "trust only in Him".  But love and trust are earned, and so far God's track record does not show a loving being.  (It actually shows a world operating without such a deity, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

The testament to this God's supposed love is found in the Holy Bible.  A book where, even a cursory read should show atrocities that would anger a rational person.  Genocide, mass murder, and other forms of hatred are not only committed by God, but are commanded by him.  If God loved the world so much, why did he drown nearly every living thing in it?
 
...He Created Atrocities
But many of the religious will holler, "That's not my God!".  Indeed, many theists don't profess the bible has any bearing on the nature of their deity -- even if they do call themselves "Christian" or "Jewish".  But even if your god is a Magic Hamburger in outer space, you probably subscribe to the idea of a deity who created the world.  This deity created rainbows, gravity, puppies, and the laughter of babies.  But this deity would then also have had to create birth defects, cancer, and scores of viruses that can kill us in ways that would give you nightmares.  Perspective again seems to be lost on the theist.

...He Never Existed At All
So instead of falling victim to a fallacy or wearing yourself out trying to jump through the hoops it takes to make a 100% Good God do evil things, instead comfort yourself with the thought that there was never any divine plan for it in the first place.  You'll see that the universe wasn't made for us, but we have what it takes (so far) to be in it.  You won't have to try to come to grips with why God won't heal your dying mother of cancer, something that is truly comforting.  It's nice to know that no one's intending for bad things to happen, or that someone is deserving somehow for the ill that befalls them.

We're in this boat together, and it's up to us -- not any gods or magical creatures -- to do what's right, to help, and to provide.  Please, give $5 to help the people of Japan, or find other ways to help.  We don't need God, we need you.

Happy 3/16

-STA

The Future Looks Bright

Greetings friends!  Due to enumerable setbacks, including family emergencies, computer trouble, house-hunting, and the preparations for a new addition to the family, I've been unable to contribute anything of value as of late.  But do not fear...family members' members are mending, computers have been upgraded, and houses have been located, and after a few more days I will be able to post more, make more videos, and continue to educate and discuss all things atheist-related.  Thanks for your patience and understanding, and don't forget to read the back-catalog to keep yourself sated on STA.

And here's a fantastic video to ease your sorrow:

-STA

It's The Cheesiest!

Do you watch Glee? I do...religiously. (What I did there, did you see it?) While I would consider myself a Gleek, I realize that the show doesn't appeal to everyone.  The cheesiness over-the-top caricatures are too much for a lot of you.  So if I'm going to talk to you about Glee, I'll need to be sensitive to those who are not fans.

But why am I talking about Glee?

Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV.  The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous.  Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode.  And those messages weren't all that bad.

NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post.  Try this one instead.  Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while.  Be happy!


I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus".  Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus.  After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness.  When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.

Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack.  Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God.  It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).

Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.

1. The satirical situation of Finn finding Jesus on a sandwich is hilarious and a great way to show that the writers of the show find that sort of idea ripe for parody.
2. Oh boy, they're portraying an atheist on prime-time TV!  Too bad that usually leads to gross misrepresentation.
3. The believers on the show are already coming at this situation the wrong way, in my opinion.  But they're believers, that's what they do.

Since the show constantly makes stereotypical characterizations, I'm so far okay with the way the religious and non-religious characters have been depicted.  Not all believers behave in this fashion, and neither do nonbelievers. Yes, I said "nonbelievers"...plural.  Cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester is an atheist too!

Holy shit!  Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?!  WOW.

Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet.  Let's see how they handle themselves first.

We atheists don't believe for different reasons.  While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past.  Sue seems to be the latter kind.  Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition.  Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy.  She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God.  Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God.  Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever.  Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees.  She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.

So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time.  No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?"  Makes me wanna scream.

But back to the recap.  So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose.  Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs.  Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves.  Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.

Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment.  Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school.  This is not the case.  While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice.  It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs.  (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows.  A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school.  I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)

Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion".  Here are some other examples:

• The show attempts to show different views of religious theology.  Puck and Rachel are both Jewish, Mercades and Quinn are Christians, Kurt hires a Sikh acupuncturist, and he also makes a reference to the FSM. Oh, and Kurt's version of Russell's teapot not only had me in stitches but also applauding the writers, some of whom surely either are atheists or have had intelligent conversations with one.
• Yes, Kurt hires an acupuncturist!  I was pissed off at first, but I've come to see it like this: he's still just a kid!  He's in high school for crying out loud, and he's not (yet) a full-fledged rationalist.  And you should all know by now that being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic or critical thinker.
• There are some great quips in the dialogue:
• After simply stating his nonbelief, Kurt is barraged with questions like "Why don't you believe?  You can't prove there's no God!" and "We shouldn't be talking like this...it isn't right!", Kurt politely says to his friends, "You all can believe whatever you want to, but I can't believe something I don't. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't want your prayers."  It's also funny to see that the simple act of one person saying "I don't believe" causes an entire room full of people to start claiming they're being oppressed or silenced.
• When guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury sits down with Sue Sylvester to ask her why she's trying to take away the other children's means of comforting Kurt in one of the shows best scenes, Sue responds with, "Asking someone to believe in a fantasy, however comforting, isn't a moral thing to do.  It's cruel."  Emma retorts with, "Don't you think that's a little bit arrogant?" and Sue hits back: "It's as arrogant as telling someone how to believe in God and if they don't accept it -- no matter how openhearted or honest their decent -- that they're going to Hell.  That doesn't sound very Christian, does it?"  (I'd have to disagree here and say yes, it's perfectly Christian, as Christ is supposed to have delivered the doctrine of eternal hellfire for infidels himself.)  The riveting scene ends with Emma saying, "If that's what you believe, fine, but please keep it to yourself" and Sue replying with, "So long as you do the same."  High-five Sue!
• Finn's eventual confession to Emma that Grilled Cheezus has granted him wishes is met with healthy skepticism and a round-about explanation of coincidences and self-fulfilling prophesy.  If only she could apply that ALL of her beliefs...oh well.  Finn finally "loses his religion", probably becoming/returning to colloquial agnosticism, and eats what's left of Grilled Cheezus.
• Kurt finally gives in to Mercades's pleas and goes to her church with her.  This scene is important on several fronts, mainly for the episode's surprising conclusion.

As Kurt's father lays comatose, several members of the glee club ignore Kurt's wishes to keep their religion to themselves and show up at the hospital to sing gospel songs and pray.  As Mercades says, "We're each from different denominations and religions, so we figured one of us is bound to be right!"  And we're the arrogant ones?! Kurt is of course outraged and asks his friends to leave.

So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst.  [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs.  But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up.  He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness.  If only he'd just give prayer a chance!  [sarcasm off]

Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church.  From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own.  But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred."  She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words.  Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.

At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying.  He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day.  Any minute now, he's gonna start praying.  But he doesn't.

I told you the conclusion was surprising.

If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner.  The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion.  You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred".  That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode.  Kurt does believe in something sacred: love.  The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died.  Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad.  But I believe in you; I believe in us."

I couldn't have been more happy in that moment.  And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole.  Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed.  Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument.  Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture.  I feel the same.  When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love.  It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us.  And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers.  If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.

A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful.  No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic).  Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!).  I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists.  I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble.  And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.

Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):


I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
   you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
   that's faith enough for me


-STA

We Know What We Don't Believe

A new survey given by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has shown something I have found to be pretty much the norm: atheists know more about religious than believers do.  Yeah, we know about the claims of religions -- that's why we're atheists!

Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics.  While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure".  If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct.  But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide.  The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths.  These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".

We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch.  We are generally well-educated and highly analytical.  As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

And we do.  We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good.  We want to know how the world works.  We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically.  Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told.  The just accept it as truth and repeat it.  In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"

Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong.  This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune. 

So if you are a believer, ask yourself why.  Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts.  Do you know who Joseph Smith is?  What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses?  In what century was Mohammad born?  You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.

Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.

-STA

Day In The Life: The Long Goodbye

A Great Loss
These past couple of weeks have borne many emotions for me, many of which I still find myself trying to deal with.  I have recently shared in the suffering of a great loss for my family.  While the passing of a loved one is never an easy thing to abide, the surviving family members can often make matters worse simply by attempting to console one another.

My stepfather's mother finally succumbed to cancer last week.  Having exhausted all medical options, she was sent home to await the inevitability we all knew would come soon.  It was both a comfort and a curse, for while the family knew that her time was short, it was good for her to be in her own home surrounded by her loved ones.  We each had the opportunity to say our final goodbyes in those last days, and this too was comforting.  It was also the hardest thing I've ever had to experience.  Nothing can compare to the heartache of leaving the room of a cognizant person whom you (and they) know you'll never see again.

MASSively Unnecessary
Yet most (I dare say all, save my wife and I) think that we will indeed see Grandmother again.  She belonged to a catholic church for the last 40 years of her life, an obvious venue for her funeral.  The large church was complete with the trappings of the catholic faith: the holy water, candles, lavish alter under a huge statue of Jesus nailed to the cross and solemnly looking skyward.  The three priests wore their adorned coats and were catered to by alter girls while they performed their sorcery and chanted their rituals.  All of this I held in silent contempt for the respect of my family and their loss.

On that day, I didn't abhor these religious people for their belonging to a group of respected pedophiles, nor for their tedious adherence to strict, formal worshiping practices, nor for their ignorance .  On that day, I detested them for their complete disregard of the loss this family had suffered.  If you've never been to a catholic funeral, here's what to expect: a few amazingly beautiful and sad songs, several readings of scripture, each followed by a collective "Thanks be to God" from a seemingly entranced congregation of sheep.  Then the priests will perform a long ritual whereby they take turns putting this ingredient into that chalice, kneeling, saying magic words and gesturing like a Vegas performer until finally they transform a cracker into flesh and then eat it.  Once you realize how sick that sounds, you'll understand the discomfort of someone like me watching all this play out.  Then the congregation may come up and partake in this cannibalistic practice -- that is, those who've had the proper training.  Apparently, if one were to engage in any of these sacraments without the said training, one's head may just catch fire (or some equally frightful thing).  Afterward comes more chanting and praying, until finally the casket is brought up and is blessed with smoke in a fashion similar to what a jungle shaman might employ.

In all of this, you're lucky if you get five minutes worth of mentioning the deceased and what their life meant.  I will say that what the Monsignor said about Grandmother was apropos and brought tears to my eyes.  But this brief mention was overshadowed by the rites and practices of making sure you bow this way and say these exact words and do this and that to make sure YOU get into heaven and don't piss God off, that it might as well not have even been considered a funeral at all.

Of course, the reason for all this hullabaloo was, as I said earlier, was because they believe this is not the end for Grandmother, and that she either is in Paradise, was going to be there as soon as we put her in the ground, or would return on the "Last Day" (I don't think they ever decided which one it was; or like the Trinity, it was all at the same time).  I suppose that if you thought this way, then all this would be better than simply sitting around telling stories and remembering the life of selfless, kind, caring woman -- a woman who put others before herself so much that the day before she died she used the last of her strength to fill out birthday cards to friends and family up to the end of the year.  That kind of selflessness wells me up even now.  The faithful cannot claim that this is due to her catholic beliefs, for this is just the kind of person she was.  More mention of that would have been nice, instead of awkwardly sitting through a Eucharistic liturgy.

Once the procession was moved to the cemetery, there was another short ceremony where the priest of the church related a story whose moral summed up Grandmother's life, and I suppose the idea of it was apt.  After this, the priest went on to "ask God to bless the place of her burial", but I had had enough.  Me and several others went to the cemetery's family center for food and conditioned air while the rest of the throng went to watch the matriarch of the family be placed in the ground.

That Grim Specter
Throughout each of these religious ceremonies, we were asked by the priests to "comfort each other through words of faith" -- translation: "lie to each other and fill the heads of the mournful with wishful tales".  The priest also used the very familiar technique of letting the faithless know that we have no hope and that our lives are worthless without Jesus Christ.

I'm not about to launch into that triad (I'm sure you can find out what I think on the matter somewhere on here, and if not, email me).  I'll just close by reiterating the point I made earlier.  To those of us who cherish life for the special thing it is, filling the last occasion in a person's life with droning prayers and mindless rituals misses the point of the exercise entirely.

And this ties in with the second point I made regarding doing more harm by attempting to heal with religion.  It's a helpless and lonely feeling to realize that what people in this situation do to try to cope with death only makes things worse.  The fact that they can't deal with death or finality is draped across their tear-shined cheeks and soak the words they use.  These kind of situations ultimately end in self-reflection for many people in which they search their own hearts for meaning and confront the realization of their own future demise.  None of this is helped by religion.  It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but telling someone they'll see their loved one again and that they suffered and died because of some grand plan is the least comforting thing you can do.  It should be obvious that the best course of action is to look it in the face and try to understand it, not shut your eyes and ears and think of your happy place.

When I die I don't want anything remotely compared to the farce of a memorial I was present at.  Come, pray if you want (there will be no formal group-led prayers), eat crackers and proclaim they're someone's flesh, do whatever religious exercise you feel you need to -- but do them on your own time.  I simply want a small ceremony in which I am remembered.  Perhaps some writings of my could be shared, along with tales of past deeds and memories from those who wish to share.  After all, that's what it should be about, and that's the only way I'll "live on"...through the memory of those I touch.

As for Grandmother, while she held many beliefs that are at odds with my own, she certainly touched my life, and I am thankful to have known such a thoughtful, kind, loving person.  She will be missed.

-STA

Hollywood Atheism

Happy New Year!  We've said goodbye to one of the worst decades in living memory and we look hopefully forward to what awaits us in the years to come.  But hey, the holiday celebrations are over and you're ready for some more deep insight from a small-town atheist, aren't you?  :oP  Well, I plan on getting out more, writing more, producing more videos, and engaging in more debates this year.  As always, your comments, emails, and criticisms and support are what drives these projects, so keep 'em coming.

Now, as I am the inquisitive type, I thought I'd start this year off with a question: why are atheists portrayed so badly in movies and television?  It's a subject that I've written on before, but I just want to revisit it because I think it's important.

Ain't No Such Thing, And That's Final!
The TVTropes.org wiki has several pages discussing the literary devices and deceptions used by writers to portray the skeptical and the nonreligious.  Most often, atheists are depicted as self-loathing, bitter, lawless radicals who stick to their materialistic ideals even though the Sci-Fi monster is eating them alive.  And this is what irks me.  Some of these writers (and viewers) seem to think that if a skeptical person is shown direct evidence, they will still remain skeptical.  As if that's the way questioning things really works!

I've stated numerous times in my articles and videos that if someone can provide the sufficient evidence to prove a god exists, I'd be an idiot not to believe.  And yet screenwriters continue to create fantasy worlds where vampires, aliens, demons, and psychic monsters abound and yet they portray the nonbeliever as a overzealous doubter who just won't accept the "reality" of what's going on.  For some it may be a way to take jabs at skeptics in the real world, but in doing so they're just missing the point of skepticism altogether.

God-Shaped Hole
Not only are they portrayed as being unwilling to believe in anything, even if it's biting them on the ass, atheists are also shown in movies and TV shows to be unkind, bigoted, immoral, lonely, and cranky.  Let's make one thing clear if it isn't already: being an atheist does not nor cannot "lead to" any of these.  Atheism isn't a positive thing in itself; it's simply a response to an assertion.  You can't get from "I don't believe in a god" to "I hate myself" or "I want to rape, kill, and steal from others".  That being said, you can find an atheist with just about any disposition there is.  It's akin to finding a bald person with just about any disposition there is.  But have you ever seen a happy atheist in a TV show or a movie?  While a lot of atheist characters offer incredibly deep and satisfying stories, I've yet to find a nonbeliever who isn't suicidal or a drug-user or or an overly-opinionated crone.  Maybe that's how the rest of the world sees us.  We complain too much.  We seek to hurt others' feelings.  We lead unfulfilled lives.  The funny thing is that for a lot of us, these accusations couldn't be further from the truth.  Being loosed from the shackles of superstition gives us freedom, and consequently, happiness previously unfathomed.

While this is a topic for another day, I should also clarify something else:  although atheism and skepticism complement each other, they are not synonymous.  I've used them nearly interchangeably above, but not all atheists are skeptical, and not all skeptics are atheists.  The distinction is important and we will discuss it in detail in the future.

Elementary, My Dear Theist
Over the holiday break, I was taken happily by surprise by the feature film Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr.  His character flaws make him both though-provoking and enjoyable to watch, and Holmes gives audiences a rational, evidence-seeking skeptic faced with seemingly overwhelming evidence of the supernatural and the existence of magic.  So as not to spoil it for you, I've hidden the next few sentences.  If you've already seen the movie, or don't care about spoilers (it's not a hugely significant one anyway), then highlight the next paragraph with your mouse.

{

In the movie, Holmes is faced with an opponent who appears to be a resurrected, black magic-practicing sorcerer.  Using deduction and physical evidence, Holmes eventually learns that all the supposed tricks are nothing more than just that; tricks.  Rational explanations win out over superstition and faith.  Holmes even leaves open the possibility of a supernatural explanation, examines first-hand the incantations used by the antagonist (though this is probably done more for getting into the head of the opposition rather than actually testing if the magic really works).  Watson admits that he's seen things in his lifetime that he cannot explain, and says to Holmes, "a supernatural explanation to this case is theoretically possible."  The lead character replies in my favorite piece of dialog from this film, "Agreed -- but, it's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data.  Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."  To date, this is the best representation of a skeptical mindset I've seen in a feature film.  I had a awful feeling that since the movie started out so well, it would devolve into "Haha skeptic, you were WRONG! You think you know everything, don't you?  Well, suffer my supernatural wrath!" as they inevitable seem to do.  But surprisingly it worked out in favor of the rational.

}

Why can't more writers figure this stuff out? Data, data, data!


-STA

Day In The Life: Accused

I just have to share this because I'm jazzed about it.

Many of my regular readers will know that while I'm very outspoken about my atheism on the web, I'm still a mostly-in-the-closet atheist when it comes to my immediate family members.  (I know, I'm working on it; these things take time.)  Said family members were have their Thanksgiving celebration yesterday, myself included.  I love our Thanksgiving.  I mean, sure, I still like going to the houses of parents' and grandparents' of extended family for the holidays, but nothing can beat the spread, quality, and atmosphere of having Thanksgiving at home (and Mom's food is always better).  They're not an overtly religious bunch.  None go to church regularly and holidays have always been about family and food and togetherness, never about Jesus or other religious hogwash.  So there I was, sitting at the dinner table in the house that I grew up in, stuffing my face with...well, stuffing, when one of my grandmother's many brothers walked into the kitchen with his southern boisterous ululations.

"You god-damned atheist!" he roared.

I froze, heart thumping.

"With yer bumper sticker saying 'The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions'!  I'm gonna go get Brother Jack and we're going to send you straight to hell!"

I nearly choked on the turkey -- with laughter.  "Well, send him over!" I quipped.  My mother chuckled.

You'd probably have to know the man to appreciate it all.  He's known for that type of language, but I was surprised to hear it and being in the form a joke softened it a little.  But the fact was there...I was called an ATHEIST in front of my whole family!  Holy shit!  I'm sure because of me not objecting to the term and congenially welcoming the attack was in a way a coming out of sorts.  At least I'm sure it will aid in the real event, should it arise in the future.  It was great.  In one instant I essentially made the topic accessible.  Call me an atheist, I don't mind.

I assume that my family suspects at least something's up.  I mean, they realize I stopped going to church.  And I have that bumper sticker and an EvolveFish on my truck.  And I made the priest who came into my hospital room when I had my cholecystectomy leave immediately.  And I sent my mom a reply linking to this blog when she forwarded me a stupid email.  And some of my kinfolks and related-in-law already know for sure, through either direct conversation or finding me on the internet (no telling who they talk to).  So I think at least some of my core family members might get the picture, although they're not aware of all the details.


My great uncle was joking, of course.  He meant no ill toward me, though I'm not entirely sure he'd be so cordial if I had stood up and said, "yeah, I'm a soulless, faithless, godless atheist...so what?!"  And I was all ready to defend my position.  This is it, I thought.  Oh well, perhaps for the better; it may have ruined the festivities.  But at least my uncle can joke about it.  He was raised in a tough Catholic school way back in the days where they would beat your hands with rulers for not obeying their strict requirements.  He hates nuns now.

Anyway, I'm still all goosebumpy over it even though it literally was one sentence and nothing more from anybody.  I never thought I'd be (semi)outed by one of own family.  Being called an atheist, just out in public like that, was exilerating.

I hope it happens again.


-STA

Wedding Hells

I recently attended a wedding reception and there was one thing that bothered me (enough to sit down and rant about it today).  And no, it wasn't the "blessing" that was given before people ate the buffet.  A song was sung to the newly-weds; a narrative offering advice on how to stay together.  A line in the song suggested, in effect, when times get tough to turn to God and he'll fix it.

Bad Chord
I'm finding several issues I personally have with the otherwise great original song.  First off, like so many other theistic pronouncements, it assumes that a) the speaker's God and the audience's God are the same, and b) that the audience even has a God.  It's akin to singing a poignant song about real-life things such as love and marriage, then including a line about finding leprechauns grading gold at the end of rainbows.  It kills the mood of the song and makes you look small-minded.

Keep-Away
The biggest beef I have with it is the idea itself.  Let's look at it from both the viewpoint of the believer and the atheist.  First, the former.  Using the idea of the Christian God, one may easily see how seeking His guidance is obviously the route to take.  He is all-knowing, after all.  According to their theology, God has a plan for everyone.  Thus, when a couple's marriage is on the rocks, a quick voice-mail up to the clouds and all should be well.  But how many Christian marriages fail, even with the fervent prayers of not only the betrothed but often times their families and friends as well?  If the answer is as easy as asking God what to do, and getting the sense that the answer is "be kind to and TALK with each other", then why do over half of all theistic unions fail?

Assuming God does exist with all the superpowers generally attributed to him, it goes without saying that such a being is, for lack of better terminology at the moment, a giant prick.  In fact, those reading this right now, be they theist or atheist, are probably more moral and ethical than the Christian deity.  For how many of you would, if you knew the answer to healing the hurting hearts of two people, would refuse to administer your aid until asked?  Would you wait to poor out your miraculous blessings upon the hungry until all of them sought your help?  Would you withhold a cure that would strike leukemia from a dying girl until not just the girl asked for it, but her family, the whole ward floor, the entire hospital, town -- or continent -- agreed you could?

It Takes Two -- Me and You
Since I am one of the millions who do not subscribe to such egotistical bullshit, I will say that the obvious course of action is not to turn to some imaginary friend to fix your martial issues, but instead turn to each other, the flesh-and-blood human being with whom you committed your life to.  Seek the problem at its source.  Talk with each other.  Listen to each other.  Find out what the hell is going on and do not cower from it.  If you need to involve beings from outside of yourselves, turn to your family, your friends.  I'm sure there's at least one person every married couple can talk to (we all had at least one witness, right?).  Find the bug.  Hunt it down like a heat-seeking missile.  The point is that the answer is within you; it's not going to come from some mysterious force outside of you.  Both of you -- whether you knew it or not -- took the necessary steps to fall in love.  It's going to take both of you again to stay that way.

And if he's reading this, let the songwriter know that this is in no way an attack on him directly.  He's one of the best and most upstanding guys I know, and a wonderful friend.  The contention is merely with the message and wording of his outstanding and touching song -- a small disputation, yet one I think worthy of mention.


-STA

God is THE Answer

I occasionally need a quick laugh and while traveling, nothing is easier than flipping on a Christian radio talk show. This particular one had me listening in for a few minutes, intrigued by the conversation between the host and a caller. The topic was the seemingly-out-of-place book of Ecclesiastes, a rather hard book for Christians to read without adding and changing the wording to make its message of "life is meaningless" mean something different (even though the book itself explicitly warns not to add to the book). The show's caller asked something regarding the mysterious ways of God. The host's response made me choke on my Skittles: "God doesn't give us answers, He gives us theology."

Not On Your Own Understanding
In the effort to once again tie atheism with nihilism, the Christian radio host continued to spout of claims that a life without God is a meaningless, hopeless life. These claims were of course not supported by anything other than the same words spoken with different inflection. But we've heard that song over and over and have proven it false. The thing that truly bothered me was how crass and willfully ignorant that statement was.

Now I've known first-hand how religion works and I talk with religious people on an almost daily basis, yet every time I hear this stuff I want to rip my hair out. They say things like "don't question, just accept" and claim it is the smartest thing you could ever do. They tout incredulity and gullibility as their highest virtue.

The radio preacher's words reminded me why I make videos and posts and why I talk to people about religion. The harm it causes to not only the believers and their family, but to the rest of the world, now and future generations. Not being able to think critically about ANYTHING is a greater risk to public safety than worrying about seat-belt laws. Those with this mentality of "we don't need answers, we just need God" scare the Jeebus out of me.


-STA

How to Argue Like a Theist

So what am I doing making a post with such a title? Over the years of arguing with them, I've learned to anticipate the arguments that theists will use in a discussion. It's like you can write a script for nearly every single debate (at least the ones with theists who haven't really debated before, or haven't given much thought as to why they think what they do). We nonbelievers have learned all the theists' tricks simply because these arguments are all that they have. They just keep using them again and again, no matter how many times they've been proven wrong.

• Attack #1: Shift the burden of proof ("Can you prove God doesn't exist?")
• Attack #2: What did God do to make you so angry?
• Attack #3: Can you prove love?
• Attack #4: Pascal's Wager
• Attack #5: Watchmaker and other painter/painting Ray Comfort BS pseudo-arguments
• Attack #6: Since science doesn't know how we got here, it must be God.
• Attack #7: Offer personal experiences (you can't say I'm wrong now...I just *feel* it!)
• Attack #8: Then what do you believe in? (purpose in life, morality, etc.)
• Attack #n: see Ways to Annoy an Atheist
  

The first step (depending on how threatened the theist feels) is to attempt to rid themselves of the burden of proof. They may also falsely confuse passion with anger and try to use emotional arguments, claiming that the atheist must have been "hurt" by religion in the past. When these attempts fail, the next step is to argue from design. As the nonbeliever will typically use current scientific understanding to combat these weak attacks, the believer's next attempt is to attack science itself, claiming that scientific methods are invalid or flawed and will commonly use the "well, it's just a theory!". Once shown that science works, they resort to the only thing the atheist can't take away from them: personal experience. By the end of the discussion (if both parties ever reach such a point), the theist will throw out an argument from morality and begin considering what would be required to "believe IN" if one doesn't believe in God.

This is in no way a complete list, nor is it a script that occurs at each encounter. As I said earlier, it's the most common arguments that I find believers using to try to justify their unjustifiable beliefs. Yet the nonbeliever usually finds that every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Faith (read: ignorance) can prevail.

Tracie Harris (who writes the Atheist Eve web comic) provides a similar list of theistic tactics, though in a different order:



-STA

The Road Ahead

Well, there's another year down. I hope you all enjoyed yourselves as we said goodbye to 2008 and looked forward to -- hopefully -- a brighter and better year. We made some great progress but we still have a hell of long way to go. I got a lot of time off to spend with friends and family. I played music with my friends and hung out with my brother-in-law (who's soon leaving for overseas military endeavors). And I got to visit with all of my bigoted, racist, bible-thumping, homophobic Southern kinfolks...

It just wouldn't be Christmas without them!

As I look back at my January '08 post, I'm forced to think about the resolution I had made for myself and whether or not I have fulfilled it. It was simply to "be more open about my stance on religion", and I think I did succeed for the most part; I joined a number of online communities and had numerous discussions with religious people. A few other people in my personal life have become aware of my disdain for religion and superstition, and I'll continue to slowly announce myself when and where it is called for.

Last year was a great time for me. It seemed atheism was riding a big wave with the release of several books and lots of mentions on television news channels (though most were degrading). Seeing rational thinking force its way onto brain-dead TV gave a good feeling. I continued to read and learn more about the way people think and some reason for why they believe what they do. Like I said, I created accounts on several social networking sites including Gather.com and Atheist Nexus, as well as started making video blogs on YouTube. As for this blog, I didn't keep up a steady stream of posts; spreading myself between work/family/medical needs was a tad trying. I'll attempt a better effort this year, but I'd like your help. My past resolution is still going for this year as well, but I'd like to know what my readers want from me. Do you like the running series (Atheism 101, Fallacy Friday, Day in the Life, Movie Review, Unholy Word)? Want more small snippets or do you prefer longer articles? What are you getting out my work? Let me hear from you, and together we can change the world.

But right now I'm gonna go change a light bulb.


-STA

The Failings of Pascal's Wager: Atheist's Wager

So far now I've show how Pascal's Wager uses fundamentally flawed logic and ignorant deductions to coerce you into accepting a religion and/or deity. But now let's turn that around.

The Atheist's Wager is a variant of Pascal's Wager in which you divide the gods who reward faith from the gods who reward works. Upon doing this, we find that it is better to not believe and do good works, for maximum benefit.

An All-Loving Pyromaniac
If you discount the possibility of a God who sends good people to hell for bad reasons, we are left with a completely different payoff table. Now, regardless of your belief about a benevolent God, the results still favor a "good life". Pascal's Wager relies on the judgments of an evil God who sends good people to hell for not believing in him/her/them/it. But there's an infinite number of such possible gods, and picking the right one out of infinity is the long-shot of all long-shots. Even if a faith-rewarding God existed, believing in an incorrect faith-rewarding God might anger such a deity more than not believing in any gods with good reasons (ie, evidence).

And for me, it all comes down to evidence. I don't believe in something without a good reason to do so, and telling me that I'll be tortured forever isn't going to work. It's important to understand how humanity knows the things it does, and how we go about uncovering the truth about all things (and I'll give you a hint in case you don't know: it do not involve uncredited stories of wandering desert tribesmen from the Bronze Age).

Epic Fail
Pascal's Wager fails on every single level. It's logically flawed and ignorantly applied, but it's so common (to any religion) and it is even used by otherwise intelligent individuals. You just have to take a moment to look at it to see its glaring holes.


-STA

A Hypocritical Atheist?

I was recently asked the absurd question: isn't it hypocritical to enjoy supernatural things if you're an atheist? Of course not! People can like anything, regardless of their position on religious ideas. It's even possible to enjoy religious ideas! Believing in them and liking them aren't the same thing.

Walk Like an Egyptian
Here's a list of things I enjoy, despite my attitudes toward theism:

• I cover the song "Last Kiss"
• I love Collective Soul
• the Sistine Chapel is breathtaking, even in photographs
• Christian radio programs make me laugh
  
• I dabble in close-up magic
  
• I play Magic: The Gathering
• I say "oh my god", "oh god", "god damn it", and sometimes even "bless you"
• Signs scared the shit out of me
  
• some of my favorite people are theists
  
• I read fantasy stories (including the Bible)
  
• I regularly watch TV series like The X-Files, Reaper, and Supernatural
• Amazing Grace, if done well, can move me to tears

I do all kinds of things that might seem hypocritical -- I practice science...WTF am I doing playing "Magic"?! It's only hypocritical if I believe that "magic" is real. Religious art, music, and customs can be appreciated at face value without the need for their belief. I don't have to think the Devil is real to enjoy a bad-ass rendering of him. We can sing "Santa Claus is coming to town" without actually believing it!

But I Got PERSONAL Experience

Nine times out of ten -- after all their arguments are laid bear, torn apart, and scattered on the ground, soaking in the tears of the theist who produced them -- a believer will resort to one of two (or perhaps both) arguments left to defend his beliefs: "I just have faith!" which we've covered here before; or "I have personal experience".

Very Superstitious
The uselessness of that argument should be clear to see because anyone can say anything about anything. We can't just take someone for their word. And calm down; I'm NOT saying you're lying. I think you really believe what you're saying. The issue is that people can be fooled.

It's no surprise that a lot of magicians are atheists. Guys like Penn and Teller or Jamie Ian Swiss or Steve Shaw understand how easy it is to fool our senses; to make people think that experienced something that can't happen. Magicians have intimate knowledge about the tricks and nuances of human perception, and the better ones know how exactly to work them.

So why is it that whenever you see a magic trick and you exclaim "Wow...how did you do that?", you are never satisfied with the answer "It's magic"? Don't won't you accept that as an answer? Probably because you know that magic isn't real...you understand that there must be some explanation for it. Saying "it's just magic" is equivalent to saying "invisible card-changing pixies did it", or "supernatural forces altered your perception of reality", or "God did it".


It's Always Personal If You're A Person
Not only can you not always trust your senses -- especially if your brain is experiencing some kind of trauma -- but other people can't always trust your judgment either. Again, it's not always that you're actively lying. Maybe you saw/heard/felt something you didn't. Maybe your mind was/is in a state that interpreted the actual event unfaithfully. Or maybe you really experienced something.

There's no doubt that experiences can have profound effects on a person's life. Many people have religious experience, and it changes their life. But this doesn't have to mean that the experience was real. Read that sentence again.

It is very possible to have experiences that are not real. Think about this scenario: Sally Sue spends the night in a house that she's told is haunted by evil spirits. She believes in ghosts, but she doesn't know exactly what they are or how they got there, etc. Her personality drives her to seek out strange things like haunted houses, but she's never actually seen a ghost before. She hopes she will tonight. As Sally is creeping around the dark upstairs hallways with her partner (come on, no one in their right mind would stay alone in an old abandoned house!) they exchange stories of the murders, suicides, and tortures that went on in this old house, all the while "building the suspense".

Ever been in a situation like that before? Where you psyche yourself up? Ever notice how fragile and easy-to-spook a mind can get when its in that hairpin-trigger state? Anyway, back to the scenario...

Sally Sue's mind is busy conjuring up images and sounds of these horrible stories, when a sudden "pop" breaks the darkness. Sally and her ghost-hunting partner freeze and look each other in the eyes. Suddenly, Sally feels something brush her arm, and she screams and starts to run. Another loud popping, cracking sound rings out, but Sally is running full-tilt toward the stairs. Other sounds echo from seemingly all around her as she turns back just in time to see her friend disappear through the floor. An instant before she rounds the corner, she swears she sees a face or a figure in the dust through her tears.

Years later, Sally still remembers the night her friend died. They said the rotten floorboard gave way and she fell through, embedding herself on a large piece of wood. Perhaps she could have survived if someone had been there to help her. Sally's life was changed.


Ya Know, I've Learn Something Today...
Look, I don't want to make this some kind of moral lesson, but I do want to convey the way in which our perceptions alter reality FOR US. Let's take an honest look at the story.

Here we have a girl who's hoping to see ghosts. She believes they're real, and wants to have an encounter. So, her emotionally-charged is fueled by ghost-stories (anyone ever had this experience as a kid around a campfire?) and by her friend. We scare easily, but even more-so when we're with someone. We scare each other in a back-and-forth, domino-effect kind of way. When they heard something, they looked at each other -- something common to all humans and a lot of animals. It's how we gauge what's going on when we're clueless about something. We watch each other for signs of how we should act. Should we run? Do you know what it was? Are you afraid? Should I be?

By this time, Sally's nerves are bristling. One touch -- could be an insect, a spider's web, or even just the air moving mites around on her skin -- was enough to start a chain reaction of scare-me-scare-you. Her brain was telling her what she wanted it to; what she had conditioned it to. But what about that face in the dust? Was it the figure of an evil ghost killing her friend? Or was it the way the light played off the dusty hallways and refracted against her tears? Or is it something her mind filled in later, after the fact?

I hope none of you are actually thinking to yourself, "maybe it was a ghost...you don't know". I do know. I made it up. If you're really trying to reason it out to be an actual "ghost attack" you might be too far gone in the realm of fantasy to ever hope to understand the lesson here. That lesson is this: Sally's life was changed. Her experience actually had a real, life-altering effect on her. But her experience wasn't real (not just because the story is fake). She lost a friend and suffered serious emotional trama.

So the next time you claim "You can't say God isn't real because I've had an experience that changed my life!" or something along those lines, think about Sally and think about how I can't take your word about experiences I didn't have. You try telling Sally it wasn't a ghost!


-STA

But How Do You Know?

Day after day, I talk with people who think they understand specific concepts based on the natural way in which the language surrounding those concepts is used. The biggest example of this is the laymen use of "theory". Being one who accepts evolution, I'm often confronted by evangelicals who claim that evolution is "just a theory". Their use of this phrase demonstrates their lack of understanding in what makes a "theory" (and their general misunderstanding of science on the whole).

I think that the majority of problems people have regarding religion, matters of faith, and scientific understanding is a matter of language. It is in the realm of colloquial, idiomatic speech that the confused person is trapped. Some people just don’t know how we know things.


How Do You Know?
There are ways we humans have of understanding fact from fiction. We realize that we can create practically anything in our imaginations, and we know that our senses can be fooled. So we need a way to distinguish reality from pretend. We have these reliable methods (we know they're reliable because we can show them to be so).

Logical reasoning is the primary foundation upon which we build our understanding of reality. We can prove the rules of logic are true, and we therefore make them rules.

Science makes use of logical reasoning, in conjunction with:

• independent verification, to avoid group-think
• repeated testing, for consistency
• falsification, to demonstrate that a hypothesis is reliable and is not producing an incidental result
• and, most importantly, peer review, because we are all fallible. Your work is reviewed by other experts to make sure that your test methodologies are correct, that you properly falsified your hypothesis, and that your tests and results are replicable.

Using these steps, a hypothesis, or guess about something, graduates to the highest level of attainability in science: a theory. When something is called a theory in scientific terms, it means that the idea has been gone through the rigors of the scientific method and shows to be reliable and useful, accurate predictions can be made using the theory. The theories of gravity, sexual reproduction, psychology, music, microbiology, and gene manipulation are among several proven scientific theories.
The problem is that the average person uses the word "theory" to mean a guess or a hunch. While I fail at times, (or I'm forced by language, i.e. "conspiracy theory",) I've resolved to use the term "theory" in scientific terms only, and when I mean "guess", I'll say "guess", or "hypothesis". But the average person will use the term loosely, and those who don’t understand the difference in terminology will get confused when they hear something like “the theory of evolution”.


What Do You Know?
Another general mistake is in the use of the term, "agnostic". When I ask someone whether they believe in god or not, some will say "I'm agnostic". Those who understand the term will realize that the answer given doesn't fit the question; it answers something else entirely. I've demonstrated the differences several times, so I won't go into it further.

The main focus here is that many people get tripped up in what it means to know something, and knowledge--or lack thereof--informs belief. The two aren't the same, but they are tied together.

So, what does it mean to know something? Or, more to the point, how can you truly be an Agnostic?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "knowledge". I’ve show above how we can know reality. If it can be demonstrated that, for example, a thing exists or occurs, and that this can be demonstrated to an incredibly high degree of predictability, then we can comfortably say we “know” it.

When it comes to believing in that thing, you still have options even if the thing can be known or not. Theism and Atheism address what you believe, Gnosticism and Agnosticism address what you know, or claim to know. If you want to define knowledge as "absolute certainty", then I’m an Agnostic Atheist; I don’t know that a god does not exist to an absolute certainty.

I don’t like "absolute certainty"; I think it’s a red herring. We can’t know anything to an absolute certainty. But if you want to define knowledge in practical terms--the way we use it in everyday language where we talk about something to some degree of certainty--if it’s okay to say "I know there’s no such thing as leprechauns", if that qualifies as "knowledge", then an I’m a Gnostic Atheist. In the same sense that I know there’s no leprechauns, I know there’s no god.


Belief vs. Knowledge, Redux
So why all this talk over belief? I mean, isn't what someone believes their own business?

Yes it is. I don't care what anyone believes, though I'd rather they base their beliefs on demonstrable reality. As I said above, knowledge informs belief. But your actions are affected by your beliefs, and that’s what matters. You can belief whatever you want until you start to infringe on others' beliefs/health/etc. That’s the point where your beliefs won’t be tolerated.

I think it’s beneficial to a society if its beliefs and subsequent actions have a basis in what can be shown to be true, and I hope that Earth’s population reaches this level ASAP.



-STA

Satan is a Team-Killer

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, but I've been a bit under the weather. The Devil is trying to shut down my efforts.


Trials and Tribulations
I had a thought today that I thought I'd share. As some of my readers know, I was once a Christian. I believed all of it: talking snakes, divine tongues, flying zombie kings; all of it. I believed that our congregation could heal broken bones and cast out demons. I thought that I was chosen to do great work as part of God's divine plan.

But sometimes, I got sick. At times, I did poorly work in school, or lost money, or had car trouble, or just had "bad days". I was a "Good Christian", of course, but not perfect. Still, I knew I had God's angles to protect me, and the Holy Spirit to help me find my car keys if only I'd ask.

Funny thing is, now that I don't believe in God, angles, devils, unicorns, talking donkeys, or flying zombie kings, these "bad" things still happen to me. I've noticed that I still have the same trials and tribulations that I did as a believer. I see no increase or decrease in anything. Well, except one thing...


Rhyme and Reason
I'm much happier now. I'm not worried that some scary creature is out to get me whenever I spill my milkshake all over my lap. I understand now that there is no magic man in the sky who's controlling everything and who might decide to "test" me or strike me dead. It's easier to cope with life, I think, when you finally understand that things happen, not for a reason, but just because. At the start of this post, I joked that the Devil is out to get me. This is something that ex-Christians will identify with, because when you're a theist, you tell other believers that because you're doing God's work, Satan is trying to usurp you.


Satan must be trying to kill me, even though I'm on his team (according to Christians)!

::cough, cough::



-STA

Jesus Thinks I'm Hot

I saw a tee-shirt last week that said something like “Jesus Thinks I’m a Hottie”. The teenage girl it was wrapped around seemed like your typical, average Southern middle-class Jesus-freak teen. But what drew my attention was not the girl, of course, but the style of the message.

It seems that some Christians have found that young girls are attracted to the “boy-band” image, and they have managed to tailor their picture of Jesus to this model. He’s the kind of guy the chicks dig, and the kind of hunk that likes the ladies. He’s compassionate, understanding, and his eyes are soooooo dreamy!

Personal Jesus
Practically any person can have their own, personal Jesus. Conservatives have the holier-than-thou, take-no-shit, obey-or-burn Jesus; the hippies have the shaggy, peace-and-love Jesus; and now the teens and ‘tweens have the boy-band Jesus.

Of course this all misses the point entirely: that no matter what the style, it doesn’t *make* Jesus real.

There is no record of this “Jesus” outside of the New Testament – which seems pretty strange considering all of the things he supposedly did. Walking on water, healing sick, talking to thousands of people (without a microphone, mind you), and raising the dead people of Jerusalem, who then roamed around for a while. And none of this was recorded by anyone?! With all the enemies he supposedly had, none of them kept any sort of record of him either. The Romans had lots of enemies whom they wrote about and kept watch over, but no mention of this “King of the Jews” who vexed them so?

Man or Myth?
There are no ye-witnesses to any Jesus, even in the bible. The authors who wrote the Gospels set pen at least 40 years after his alleged death. Even Paul of Tarsus, the man to whom we can credit Christianity, never met Jesus.

There were historians at the supposed time of Jesus, and none of them mention him either. There is a mention in a document by Flavius Josephus, but it is a known forgery (some Christian followers went in long after he had written, and stuck in some drivel about everyone worshiping Jesus). There are only a few other first-century historians (Tacitus, Thallus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger), but they don’t say anything about “Jesus”, but instead mention “the Christ”, and there were several people running around in that time calling them selves “the Christ”. These historians’ writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament. At the very most, they provide evidence of Christians living in first-century Rome.

Perhaps Jesus really did exist; perhaps he is an amalgamation of many different idealistic individuals and stories, passed down by word-of-mouth for generations, growing as legends do. Either way, believers today envision what the want when they conjure up images of their god.

My Kind of Christ
And selling a specially-suited form of a fairy tale to a child doesn’t somehow make it real. It might make it real for the child, but so does the tale of Santa Claus—who, by the way, also takes on many different forms depending on who’s doing the telling. Sometimes he’s a short, fat elf; sometimes he’s a normal sized, daddy-ish old man. Some see him as very old; others think he’s your average middle-aged Caucasian. And that’s just in America! Go overseas to any other country that has a Santa myth, and you’ll get a very different Claus.

So, if you’re sad and lonely, we have a kind, comforting Jesus to be there for you. If you like to party big, there’s a Christ to fit right in (and he’ll even keep the wine flowing!).

Be honest with yourself: when you think of Jesus, are you not imagining what *you* want him to be? I guess you’d have to, since there’s no proof of him even existing at all.

-STA