By Iris ~

Here I am, 35 years old, in the swirling midst of a crisis of faith. I discovered this site several weeks ago, and it has definitely bolstered my confidence and security in my independence and freedom of thought.

However, I cannot shake the sadness and fear of losing my family. Let me explain...I was raised in a very conservative church in the Southern Bible Belt, and as soon as I reached the "age of reason," I felt a nagging in my heart that I did not agree with the fearful, shaming, guilt-ridden teachings of the church I had attended since birth, three times a week. My parents are wonderful, loving people who raised me strictly, but with much affection and love, and my dear brother (one of my best friends) is now a minister in this same religion. I feel, at once, both proud and lonely to be the one dissenter in the family.

I moved to California several years ago and it was a wonderful, freeing experience to not attend church. I can honestly say I have never been so happy in my life. I met many amazing people of all faiths and backgrounds, and California is truly my second home now. I returned to my home state a year ago, I missed my family and friends here terribly. However, once I came back, my mother began to pressure me to go to church. I went a few times, but I felt like I had taken a huge step backwards from the freedom I had felt. I have since stopped going to church completely, but the indoctrination is still present. I feel heartbroken that my family worries so much for my soul, and I must admit that I have that little voice of fear in my mind that asks, "What if they are right? What if I will be separated from my family for eternity?" I cannot imagine anything worse, and I wish I knew a way to get rid of that feeling, because I know that it is a lie...I am a good person simply because I love my fellow man, and I belong with my family in this life regardless of my different beliefs.

So here I am today, on my journey to true freedom, standing strong, resisting pressure, but still a bit fearful. It saddens me that so many of us still feel this pain that indoctrination causes. Will we ever be truly free? How can we turn off the voice?

By Carl S. ~

Before we start, an actual statement by a student in a political history class:

“If God rules Heaven, then a monarchy ends up being the highest kind of government."

Pierre is a six year old boy who resides in Liseux, France. He is home schooled by his mother, a former teacher. This is one of his most important history lessons, so "pay attention."

Pierre’s mother said, “Once upon a time, there was a great nation composed of many states, and yes, a bit like the European Union, with different cultures and philosophies. A boy could go from the northern areas to the southern and find himself unwelcome in places because he saw things differently. War was fought over some states’ demands that their king be recognized in his giving the o.k. to slavery. The other states said that they also honored the king, but that he wouldn't o.k. such a thing. The king was silent and did not intervene, so they had to fight a war.”

Pierre asked, "But mom, you said that a duel between two people was a stupid way to settle an argument, so how come states decided that it was good between thousands of people?"

“Well Pierre, I'll have to think about it. Let's continue. Anyhow, right from the start, the citizens had a problem: they all honored the same invisible monarch. Remember how I told you about the last emperor of China inside his palace compound? No one could see him outside, so they didn't know if he was alive or not, but he was alive because those who spoke for him said so. And everyone agreed, or almost everyone. And, in some states, certain rights were taken for granted over time, and in others, soundly rejected or condemned. But basically, they agreed that the people would abide by governing themselves, behaving, and allowing others to do the same. And if they didn't, rules were set up to punish them that most people thought were fair. If they didn't, there was always the possibility that they could be changed. That is how it used to be.

“But there were always people in all those states who thought that the king they all honored should be the one to rule everyone, and that this would be the best kind of government, so throughout history, everywhere you know, they tried to get the king's rules to dominate. You see, by agreement, the king was all-wise, all-merciful, and infallible.”

"What's 'infallible?"

“That word means that someone can't make mistakes or make failures.“

"Oh mom, that's silly. Everybody makes mistakes. You know that.”

“I do know that, dear, but you just couldn't tell them that. They would push you out of the room or the town if you said that about their king.

“Well, this state of affairs really went on for ages. And, to be truthful, their traditions said that the king already had rules for government in place, that everyone already knew the rules, that the king was the wisest and most fair, so, what’s the problem? The problem was always that it was never settled in the first place whether or not the king actually laid down the rules for his monarchy, or that his spokesmen had just made them up. That is one reason they got together, agreed to stop the arguments about the 'whether or not,' and just make mutually-agreed rules themselves that were fair to all. In the meantime, the king said nothing, so it was taken by many that his silence was consent. This is what is called an "assumption," something I warned you about before.

“The supreme-monarchists didn’t give up. By and by, they infiltrated themselves into every level of government, until they had the power to change things favorable to the monarchy. They said it was a moral "imperative right" to do so. The king did not dispute this, nor make an appearance to refute this; perhaps he was secretly chuckling or rejoicing. Some say he was happy to see his reign triumph, but they were the ones who had fought for it. So, the monarchists triumphed. And now it's time for lunch.“

After Pierre's lunch break.

“Remember I told you about the supreme-monarchists? I was just thinking about some of the peculiar things they believed. Remember the Natural History Museum in Paris we went to? It used to be a church. You've heard about churches. Well, some of those kinds of people in our own country, used to go to that Church, the Church of St. Phallus. Every year, on the saint's special day, his member, kept in a reliquary, was sprinkled with "holy” water, and became rigid.

"Mom...that's silly!"

“Pierre, that's the way they are. They take the silliest things very seriously, and get very angry and disturbed when you tell them so. I guess it's always been that way, and it's too bad that those people in power there are so gullible as to believe things like that.

“Well, with the invisible monarch firmly in place, all that could be done was to enforce his rules, and all of a sudden, the "infallible" showed signs of being very fallible indeed. There was no recourse but to obey the king or suffer dire consequences. The absolute benevolence of an all-wise ruler became hard to accept, the interpretation of his unspoken edicts was left to the interpreters of those edicts, and oftentimes, they disagreed among themselves, even after consulting and pleading with the king. It came to pass that "United" meant "being of one mind with the king", as revealed by his designated, not by the governed united.

“It became a crime to be different, the "different" became subject to criminal law and denial of rights. And, although all were formerly to be equal in rights, the interpreters were to be exalted to exceptional rights overall. Opponents were silenced, or suddenly disappeared. Only the teachings of the all-wise and caring ruler were allowed to be taught in schools. "Moral" became "the will of the King." The king was silent. Perhaps he rejoiced that finally his kingdom was bearing fruition. At least that's what his spokesmen said.

"Mom, is 'fruition' like 'fruity?’"

"Know something, Pierre? You may have something there about the way they handled their own minds. But let me finish. Do you remember what the man said about "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? And, I might add, that like you said, no one's "infallible," even a so-called absolute invisible ruler. Maybe especially that one. So now a formerly great country with lots of promise for the good of everyone, is stuck with the very monarchical tyranny it renounced at its very birth, and all because it couldn't renounce a king of kings to begin with. You see what that led to.”

"Mom?"

“Yes, Pierre?”

"Maybe they need a revolution again."

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

I have written on this issue before, but I think it is a very intriguing argument which gets too little attention, so I want to lay it out again with a slightly different emphasis. Now, for the Christian reader, I’m well aware that I’m not actually proving anything here; this argument is merely intended to punch one more small hole in the “logic” of Christianity.

“In religion, a prophet, from the Greek word προφήτης (profétés) meaning 'advocate,' is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity” (from Wikipedia).

The first thing to understand is that gods, by necessity, never actually show themselves to all the people of a tribe, or nation, or the world. It seems gods always choose the prophet system, where just one or a very few people receive the revelation and then spread the word to others. For example, according to the Jews, there were several prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and a few others. It was only to them that god revealed himself. He left it to them to get the word to the rest of the people.

As far as anyone knows, all other gods of prehistoric and historic times have likewise depended on the prophet system to reveal themselves and their commands, including the gods of the ancient cave dwellers, the Aztecs, Inca, American Indians, Norse, Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and many other cultures. After all, if any of those “gods” actually showed themselves, then people would soon figure out that they weren’t real gods. Invisibility is invaluable to false gods; they can’t survive without it.

According to Christian teaching, Jesus Christ is the principal prophet of the invisible Bible-god, who chose Christ to receive his revelation and then spread the message of his existence and his desires. Paul also claimed to have received revelations and may even have been more influential in developing Christian dogma.

Now, consider all those gods of the cultures listed above – the Aztecs, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. I think anyone reading this will agree that they were all false gods, as were the thousands of other gods which have been recognized throughout history (exempting, for the moment, the god of the Christians).

Consider as well that millions of people sincerely believed in those false gods. The prophets of those gods did their jobs effectively, convincing many of the existence of their particular god and his desires. Clearly, it is not all that difficult to convince people that one is a prophet, that he has received a genuine revelation, and that he speaks for “the one true god.” This has obviously happened thousands of times throughout history. And, as Jim Jones pointed out on this site recently, “. . . a lot of people believe in Scientology, which proves that no idea is so stupid it has no followers.”

Now think about this. The fact that thousands of prophets have claimed to receive thousands of revelations from thousands of gods absolutely proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the prophet system has been a complete failure throughout human history. Please, let that sink in. History has shown, unequivocally, that we humans are simply unable to tell a real prophet from a phony one. The proof is in the pudding; if we could tell the difference, we would not have followed thousands of false prophets and false gods.

The fact that thousands of prophets have claimed to receive thousands of revelations from thousands of gods absolutely proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the prophet system has been a complete failure throughout human history.So, when I say that the prophet system doesn’t work, I mean that it doesn’t work because it produces far too many false positives. If a medical test for diabetes was positive for 95% of the population, then it would be useless, since it produced too many false positives. (Only about 8% of the US population actually has diabetes).

Now, if the Christian god really wanted to reveal his existence and his desires to us humans, would he have chosen this same flawed prophet system to do it? Would he have chosen the same system that has proposed the existence of thousands of false gods, and then succeeded in convincing billions of people that those gods were real?

Wouldn’t a real god know enough about human psychology to know that the prophet system does not work, that we humans are hopeless at discerning real gods from phonies – and that we have made the same mistake over and over and over in believing false prophets about false gods? Since the prophet system has failed thousands of times to identify the real god (if there is one), why on earth should I – or anyone else - believe that it is working this time, for the Christians?

And wouldn’t a real god, the supreme intelligence of the universe, be able to find a better way to reveal himself and his desires – a way that stood out, a way that provided testable proof, a way that actually worked? Christ the prophet supposedly got his revelation two thousand years ago and began to spread the word. And now, after all this time, less than a third of the world’s population are Christians, and it appears that Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism may all be growing faster. Clearly, the prophet system has not worked well for Christianity either. Shouldn’t a real god, a being of supreme intelligence and the creator of humans, have been able to foresee this?

This is one more reason why I do not believe in Bible-god. I do not believe that a real god would choose the prophet system to reveal his existence, a system which has failed over and over. Even a relatively stupid god should have been able to foresee that his chosen prophet would have to compete with thousands of other alleged prophets to convince us humans – who, it must be said, are infinitely gullible when it comes to religion, as history has proven through its thousands of false religions. I am convinced that Jesus, if he existed at all, was deluded or dishonest, and that he was no more a representative of a real god than the thousands of other “prophets” who made similar claims.

You see, the prophet system depends on an exclusive revelation, and the obvious weakness of a revelation is that it can’t be tested. It is hearsay “evidence.” You have to take someone’s word for it, that it actually happened, and humans have jumped to the opportunity to do so – to many false revelations – over and over for thousands of years. The revelation approach to “knowledge” of a god has failed far too many times to be taken seriously by intelligent men and women, and no sane, intelligent god would expect you to fall for that same old trick again.

I mean, really, wouldn’t a real god use a method that actually worked to get the word out – a method we could test, to avoid getting duped again - if for no other reason than to prove that he has a bit more imagination than all those thousands of phony gods people have worshiped?

By Brian Nelson ~

Currently I am a college senior about to graduate this summer and go to graduate school for business/accounting in the fall and my story is somewhat uncharacteristic of what other fellow college students experience.

I grew up with a christian mother and rebellious father who inspired my nominal faith. This all changed when I came to Tampa. As opposed to the "my faith was nominal until it fell apart in college", my "Christian" faith exploded when I came to Tampa. I devoted myself to the faith, from street proselytizing to leading bible studies and going on 12 week mission trips.

Thankfully when I committed myself to the faith, I joined an overtly Pentecostal tongue, speaking, rolling on the floor church. This motivated me to read the bible because I thought the pastor was not teaching what Christians should be taught. Throughout my devotion I came to have doctrinal issues with the church because of my new found knowledge and left for a church that I thought fell more in line with what Christians should believe.

As I was committed to not being deceived in the same way I was by the Pentecostal church, I was motivated to invest my time in reading and intellectual criticism. As the ardent Christian I was, I was keenly interested in the practical aspects and moral issues because I wanted to do what was right. Through much conversation and literature I came to realize how arbitrary and socially constructed the promoted Christian morality is. At which point I decided to continue with the faith as I endeavored to redefine my personal Christian morality.

This effect was compounded by my intellectual criticism of certain ecumenical doctrines. I embraced theistic evolution and a liberal interpretation of Genesis to satisfy some of my scientific concerns like the global re-population of biological species through Noah's ark. More confounding was what I call "the doctrine of exception", an arbitrary Calvinist exception in response for babies and mentally disabled that are destined for Hell. As I continued my journey I realized many of the previous positions I held were now untenable and that theologically and practically my faith was somewhat compromised and running on steam.

I embraced many liberal ideas in response to the peripheral difficulties I had in order to hold onto my faith. My faith was now holding onto the last intellectual straw and resting entirely on believing what Jesus said, someone that I saw to be somewhat believable who exemplified certain commendable characteristics.The litmus test for me was "can I believe this well meaning Jesus?", and if so I can hold onto my faith and forget the mess, because I'll pick up the pieces as I go.

It all fell apart when I realized that these peripheral problems are what define who Jesus is for Christians because the entire Christian faith was founded on this reciprocal authoritative nature beginning in his claimed deity authorizing the apostles and the authenticating of old testament texts, thus resulting in canonical texts and so on. So I was alright with throwing away literally interpreting texts like genesis and revelations, but when I finally concluded that the entire Christian ministry is founded on this process of authenticating in which Jesus un-apologetically approves of marginalizing women and claims his authority though the writings of polygamist, I could no longer hold onto what was so dear to me.

As all my friends are Christians I am looking forward to making a new group of friends, ones that are as open minded and critical of their own positions as I was of my faith. I'm still in the process of disseminating the news in an intelligent manner as I have recently deconverted.

Thanks for reading!!

By Peacefully Hiding ~

It's easy to be a brash teen and rebel against everything, particularly deep abstract ideas, because as a teen we don't really understand everything so well. Again, abstract ideas are an easy target. Christianity is one of those ideas. It's easy to dismiss because it's actually very complex. It's woven into so much of our culture we often don't realize it. 3/4 time in music: a dedication to the trinity. Derivations of Gothic architecture: derivations of tributes, again, to the trinity. Many institutions and conventions are modeled on what we've inherited. When you really look around you you see God and Christianity is represented quite extensively, and this is sensible as Christianity has been the dominant religion of Western thought for hundreds of years. But to a teen Christianity is probably no more than an edict by their parents: go to church, dress nice, keep negative thoughts to yourself, CONTROL YOURSELF!

When we are teenagers trying to find ourselves it's easy to rebel against these restrictions and believe we are what we say we are. But then life has a way of turning the tables. Perhaps we get married and our spouse believes differently. Perhaps we join a church and see it really isn't full of nitpickers and blindly devoted followers. Perhaps we see church members doing good things within their community. Perhaps we see desperate people find help through the church they otherwise couldn't. All these things have and continue to happen all the time and are compelling reasons for a once rebellious teen to shift his opinion of the church and bible. Really, how hard is it to go along with a bunch of very nice people?

A better way to put it is a test of non-faith. If every religious person did things you approved of, even thought were very good for society, would you accept them and their religion? Would you adopt their religion if there were no scandals, no bad history and easy to accept? What if you were a guy and the only hot women were Christian? Or a woman and all the respectable men in town were Christian? We are human after all.

Such was my past and I imagine many adults have gone through the same thing. But what pulled my mind away from 'the faith'? Simply, the Bible.

My logic is thus. First it is the 'inspired' word of God. Inspired meaning some men wrote it feeling 'inspired'. That's problem number one. We see a very male perspective throughout the whole thing and, more specifically, a male Jewish early history perspective. When I read it I feel like I'm peeking into the wishes, dreams, hopes and fears of one single, narrow mindset. A mindset that has since evolved, as most modern Jewish men can't seriously believe every word to be divine or even reasonable by any stretch.

The fact that women had no hand in its creation is part of this problem. I'm a male and even I can recognize that this intentional exclusion of female authorship is bound to give a skewed perspective of anything, much less an 'inspired' perspective. The treatment of women throughout the book is less than inspiring, even though the book occasionally counter-balances this, it never gives them more than second class treatment while blaming them for many social problems.

Biblical authorship, is the first aspect of Christianity that distances me. The second is content. From the very beginning logic, reason and truth are completely discarded. Let us accept that the world was created in a day along with the idea that a day in God time is simply different than human time. A disturbing thought, but a place to start measuring how valuable the bible is. This God sets up a place where his own creations are bound to fail and, if he knows all, then he knows this. HE KNOWS HE'S GOING TO THROW HIS MOST BELOVED CREATIONS OUT OF PARADISE AND INTO THE HARSH WILDERNESS!!!! And this is 'love'?

I'm not a Christian. I do actually believe there is a God but I just don't think our bible or much of mankind's thoughts can adequately describe or define what God might be.Think about it, let's imagine you owned a dog food factory that placed all the dog food in your backyard garden. Then let's say you got two dogs (male and female) and set them in that garden, told them not to eat the dog food and left them on their own for awhile. WHAT would you expect to happen? Would you be surprised if they ate the dog food? Would you then grab them by the collar and kick them out to the curb forever? Sound kind of harsh?

And this is the relationship between God and man throughout the book. God knows his creation will not behave the way he wishes and goes so far as to destroy it but never quite does.

And then you get absurd tales like Noah's Ark thrown in between for good measure. Two animals of EVERY species? On one boat? No problems with the animals eating one another, plenty of food for all, no problem with natural ecosystems and... PLEASE!!!!

But say you skip the many illogical stories in the bible and take them as fables, fair enough. Then you still have other edicts in the old testament that are painfully absurd. No getting anywhere near a woman having her period and no eating pork. Complete prehistory mindset that just gets overlooked, which is to say modern priests and preachers can admit that these pieces of the bible have no basis for support in modern healthcare but can't admit that perhaps other parts of the bible are equally inapplicable. THAT pushes me away.

Eventually, the idea of 'God' having a relationship with man is set aside and the old Testament ends. We never see him talking to people or performing odd changes in physics the way he does in the Old Testament again. And I wonder, is that because people have the tools to actually record such wonders and investigate their truthfulness?

But we move to the new Testament. A Savior is born. And perhaps this man, Jesus, really was. But was he all that the bible says he was?

My problem with the idea of a biblical Jesus is his followers. According to the bible they see him perform miracle after miracle. He's turning water to wine, feeding hoards with a single loaf of bread, walking on water, bringing life to the dead, yet they CONTINUALLY doubt the man. THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. If I saw a guy literally walk on water I would probably think he could do all kinds of other things and I sure as heck wouldn't have any questions about whatever he was saying. SERIOUSLY! Think about it. We're modern people, we've seen a lot of seemingly magical things. Planes fly, flat panels speak and sing. These people had only known farming and Roman ideas at best. They see a guy walk on water and then they're like, 'do you REALLY think you can bring this guy back to life?' Heck, even the locals saw many of his 'miracles' and they give in to Roman authority. How can this be? Is it perhaps the 'miracles' were made up after a figure died?

And what about Jesus being resurrected and meeting back up with the disciples. They've spent the last few years of their lives with this guy, gave up everything to follow him, watched him tried and put to death but seeing him up close, they just have no idea WHO he is. Really? Seriously?

OK, OK. Let's say we accept all of that. Let's just say we accept that Jesus was really the Son of God. Though I don't see why we need a son, holy ghost and god that all fill the same function, how one can kill oneself and still be god, etc. but that's just more mind bending stuff you have to do if you try to fit it all together. But let's say you ignore quite a bit of the bible and accept Jesus at his word. You accept him into your heart and you're saved from a firey hell his father made for you. Again, we go back to the idea that God's creation doesn't behave the way he wanted (even though he was responsible for creating it) and so he must punish it in a painful burning hell forever because of this. But proclaiming a faith in Jesus and being baptized should get you out of that pickle. Well, depends on who you ask. Baptists say, 'yes', Catholics say 'yes, if you admit your sins to another guy who REALLY believes this stuff', Amish say, 'nope, you have to earn it every day' Does ANYONE know the truth? It doesn't seem so. Seems like a bunch of 'interpretation' of an 'inspired' word. Whose interpretation is correct? What about Jesus' words. Seems you can take them at face value, right?

Well, so it would seem until we get to 'Revelations'. In that one there's going to be a judgement and a lot of people are going to hell. Doesn't matter if they were raised as Buddhists (like most of the world actually is), they're going straight to the fiery pit with Hitler. That is, unless Hitler happened to pronounce his faith in Jesus before he committed suicide, then Hitler will be waving happily and comfortably above from heaven while others burn painfully forever.

And as if that isn't bad enough what else can anyone say about Revelations with a straight face? The absurd imagery, the bizarre numerology, the insanity, all of it is a big, unnecessary show of force and mindlessness. Why would God need to put on such a show? Who is it for? The condemned? Isn't going to a painful hell enough? And if it really is such a grotesque ending to life as we know it wouldn't it be better to keep it a surprise rather than tell mankind from the get go? Revelations is enough to send me away from the concept of Christianity.

But then there are other issues. Let's take Heaven for instance. The descriptions of it, again, point to prehistoric Jewish male minds. Streets of gold: Why? Maybe I prefer brick. Maybe seeing tacky gold streets are hell to me. Why streets at all? Maybe I like grassy fields. And what about my body. Do I get the one I had when I died, when I was young, or the one I always wanted? And what about the singing praises. I really don't like to sing all the time. It hurts my voice. Maybe I want to do other things, like jet ski. Can I jet ski while everyone sings? Will time be divided up so I can rotate the schedule? Can't I just do that here on Earth? And what about those serial killers that 'repented'. I don't want to be anywhere near them when I get to heaven. Seriously, God may have forgiven them but that doesn't mean I have. They hurt so many people in such terrible ways. Must I be forced to see them? I never want to. If I ever wanted there to be a hell that's what I'd want it for but even that just doesn't make me feel good. Can't they just be erased from all existence? And can someone who doesn't believe in the big show but asks for that forgiveness ever really fit in heaven?

No one really knows because there's nothing to know. Heaven is all in our heads.

Once you can honestly accept the bible is a well-intended but poorly constructed concept of morals you may leave it, as I did, but there's one thought that you have to get over otherwise you're doomed. I think this is what really scares people the most. That thought is, 'what happens if I ditch the bible? Will I be a morally responsible person?'

In fact, I sometimes think some people think that any denial of the bible's authority is a license to misbehave. 'If the bible is bunk I can do what I want!' And this scares them. It should, as we are all capable of terrible things. All of us. We may not act on them, ever, but they are there. The bible may define this as 'original sin', I believe it is simply our biological origins set against our environments. If we're in an environment where all our needs are satisfied then it's easy to be morally 'well-behaved'. When our needs are not met we may disregard our moral 'compass' to meet them. Perhaps in the future we will recognize that morals are a human idea that are a bit removed from natural reality for biological organisms. But can we be 'good' without the bible?

Absolutely. It is a choice. It does require a responsible attitude and awareness of our choices. Perhaps we who live without the bible's guidance feel even more responsible for our actions because we have no one to blame when we know our choices before us. We can't pin our mistakes on Jesus or God. And maybe, if there is a real God, that was the whole point of Genesis. That we find our way in this harsh world and take responsibility for ourselves. Maybe we have a greater responsibility to behave than just because 'God said so!'

And I extend this to our treatment of Christians, Jews, Muslims and the rest of humanity. I believe most people WANT to do good things. I've seen evidence of it at many churches I've visited and been a part of. Also, I've found that many at church are just as confused as a normal person might expect and don't fully buy into everything espoused by the pastor. Would we honestly expect everyone to agree completely on one thing ever? And when they do they may even define certain aspects of their faith differently than one another so that one person's 'repent' means something very different than the next. Which is to say, I don't push my beliefs on anyone and if anyone wants to push theirs on me I simply listen with respect. Respect is what civilized people SHOULD offer one another.

And so, I'm not a Christian. I do actually believe there is a God but I just don't think our bible or much of mankind's thoughts can adequately describe or define what God might be. I have done good and bad but I always try to do my best. I hope that anyone who makes the steps I have find comfort in taking responsibility for their own moral behavior and find all the pleasure of heaven around them.

By Tania ~

“When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” Jacob Riis

Two images come to mind when I think about my current stance on all things about this God I can no longer believe in.

One is an image of a man hammering away at a stone – I think of Jacob Riis's Stonecutter's Credo. I think of a stonecutter hammering away at that stone, waiting and waiting for it to crack, for something to happen, for all blows that seemingly do nothing at all to finally be enough to crack the stone. What we don't know is that in just one more blow with that stonecutting tool, the stone will give way. Maybe that's what our search is like – seemingly, nothing is happening. All is met with silence, the questions don't go away, there is a painful standstill. If or when anything will ever change – this we don't know.

The other image that comes to my mind is of a branch growing out of the face of a cliff. William James has made this analogy in his book “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (I have not read the book, just an excerpt from it). A man has fallen off of a cliff and clings onto a branch on his way down. He sweats and worries, desperately holding on as he waits for rescue. Finally, he can't hold on anymore and so... he lets go. To his surprise, the drop isn't so far – just a few centimeters. He'd been so concerned, all for nothing! It really isn't so bad!

These images come to mind when I think about where I am now. In one way, the Stonecutter Credo rings so true – maybe, maybe, one more day of searching, maybe one more book to read, maybe one more conversation or one more prayer, and I'll make it through to God, the way it used to be. Maybe there IS a God. Mostly, though, I feel like that man who is clinging on to the tree, about to fall and realize the truth – there is no God, and all the things I grew up believing so wholeheartedly, those songs I could sing along with with such emotion, and those prayers that seemed so powerful...it's no longer like that for me. And it's not so bad after all. Yes, things are very different now. But the world is not so bad. I still feel hopeful. I don't really understand the meaning of life and suffering and all those big questions, but even with God, I still would not understand all of that. Maybe the only answer we can give is, “I don't know.” I think that may be enough.

By Paul So ~

I didn’t believe in an afterlife even as a devout Christian because I was raised in an Adventist church that taught that there is no immediate afterlife, only a unconscious sleep after death but in the end of time there is a resurrection when we do become conscious again with new glorified bodies. I was told that the bible never explicitly said that there is an immortal soul that wholly pertains to our personal identity that survives after death. This does not mean that my former religious belief promotes materialism; on the contrary it believes that we are spiritual beings who simply go to “sleep” after we die. Our spirituality derives not only from our soul but simply being connected to God.

I eventually ceaseed to be a Christian and an Adventist altogether since I became less convinced that God existed. But the idea of afterlife didn’t really bother me very much because I wasn’t raised in a religious tradition that believes in it. However, my upbringing is not the only reason why I do not believe in the immortal soul and the afterlife. I personally think that while the bible didn’t explicitly talk about immortal souls, it did believe in a vague kind of vitalism in which life came into existence through the “breath of God”. This is something that I do reject, while many Adventist would probably believe. I think life is essentially a complex emergent pattern constituted by complex carbon molecules. Precisely because of this, I do not believe in a resurrection that Adventists understand: If our personal identity is dependent on complex patterns of our physical bodies (i.e. genes), then any fundamental changes in that body is also a fundamental change in my personal identity. If that’s the case then when my body is resurrected in its new “glorified” form by God then I become a very different person. If that’s the case then the paradoxical question arises: Is it really me that is being resurrected or is the resurrection simply a new kind of “me” that really isn’t me? Some can retort that God can retain some original parts of me to make sure that the glorified body retains who I am, but then this goes to the question as to what part of “me” is really “me”. They can argue that memories could be considered one of them, but that makes no sense: what’s the difference between the new resurrected version of me having the old memories of the “old me” vs. a memory displaced from an original body to an entirely different body? Well, the correct answer is that both scenarios are strongly analogical together because like the entirely new body that has the memory displaced from the original body, the resurrected body has a memory from an original body. So, no, I do not think my former Adventist belief has much effect on my intellectual outlook on afterlife anyways since I reject both the popular Christian notion of afterlife and the Adventist notion.

The main reason why I do not believe in an afterlife and the immortality of the soul is because I encountered a philosophical position called Substance Dualism argued by Rene Descartes; not only had I encountered it but I also learned why it was such an abysmal failure. Its abysmal failure is probably one of the most important reasons why I do not accept the idea of the immortal soul and the afterlife. I will try to explain Substance Dualism as well as its “abysmal failure” in order to elucidate why I do not accept immortality of the soul and afterlife from a philosophical perspective. I will also try to challenge the idea of afterlife from another philosophical perspective of personal identity. I will finally try to deal with the emotional, practical, and philosophical implications of rejecting the afterlife.

Substance Dualism is the philosophical position that there are two independent realities or substances called body and soul. The proponent of this position is Rene Descartes who famously said “I think, therefore I am”. There is a philosophical meaning behind the statement “I think, therefore I am” which is not only Descartes attempt to find a foundational axiom but also his suggestion that the soul (which thinks) can exist independently of the body. To understand this a little better, Descartes used the method of radical doubt which gets rid of all beliefs that are easily subjected to doubt if they derive mostly from sensory experience than reason. With this in mind, it makes sense for Descartes to doubt whether his own body exist because he derives this knowledge from his sensory experience (i.e. looking at mirror, feeling the body, etc). However he can never doubt that his own mind exists because when he thinks about the mind the thinking is done by the mind. He used this as an argument that the mind is therefore somehow independent of the body.

From there he believes that both the mind and the body are fundamentally different in every sense of the word. The mind is that which believes, doubt, feels, desires, knows, anticipates, plans, experiences etc; it is immaterial, in other words it is not a physical thing. It has its own unique qualities and properties that the body does not have. Therefore it is its own substance. The body on the other hand has extension, in other words spatial and temporal qualities. The body has height, length, and width that constitute a three-dimensional body. It is also subjected to the laws or forces of Nature such as gravity, electromagnetism, laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc. The body has properties that the mind does not have; therefore the body is its own substance independent of the mind.

So far Descartes argument looks good, right? Well, at first but eventually along the way many philosophers including Descartes’ pupils (one of who was Countess Elizabeth of Bohemia) begin to find problems with Descartes’ dualism. For one thing, how the hell do the mind and the body interact with each other if they are so fundamentally different from each other? It may seem like an easy answer: They just do. But that doesn’t explain how they do so, and there is something about Descartes argument that suggests that the body and the mind cannot interact with each other.

For one thing, if the mind is an immaterial being that lacks physicality, which also includes spatial properties, then how does it occupy “inside” the body? If it lacks its own length, width, height, and other spatial properties then how can it occupy inside the body literally? For something to be inside of something it has to have a size relatively and sufficiently small in contrast to that which it fits in; there also has to be a sufficient measurable space within a container for something to fit in. But if the mind lacks properties of height, length, and width and other three-dimensional characteristics then it can neither be small or big because it lacks the quantitative measurability to be quantitatively compared to something else.

“To study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die."Secondly, how does the mind move the body? We know that the body moves because of the electrical signal sent by the motor cortex of the brain, but how does the mind fit into this? The body is subjected to the laws of motion since it has kinetic energy (which is physical by the way) that transferred to make it move. Things also move by being in physical contact with each other to transfer that kinetic energy. But that’s the thing, movement as we usually understand it requires close physical contact. But if we are talking about the mind the mind cannot be in close physical contact with the body because the mind is non-physical! It’s not just that the mind cannot do this, but rather Descartes hasn’t given an explanation for how this works. Descartes’ pupil Countess Elizabeth of Bohemia ask how the mind could move the body if movement is mostly explained through close physical contact; but the mind cannot do this since it is not physical. Descartes couldn’t find a good answer to the question, so Countess simply said she preferred materialist understanding of the mind since at least it doesn’t face the same problems as that of Descartes’ theory of the mind.

This also includes another problem: the body is physical in so far as it has spatial and temporal qualities (it is old, it is big, etc.) but if the mind is not physical then how can the mind cause the body to move if causation itself is a spatial-temporal phenomenon? (Or that’s what most philosophers and physicists would assume). Descartes didn’t have a good answer to this: his only answer is that the mind is located in the pineal gland but that didn’t really answer the question at all. Nobody asked where the mind is located, but they did implicitly ask how is it possible for the mind to have a spatial location if it is non-spatial.

This brings us to the last question that philosophers may not have asked: Why the hell do we need an afterlife? An afterlife occurs after death (which is why it’s called an afterlife, since it is literally after life) of the body; when the body dies the mind ceases to occupy the body and becomes disembodied. But here’s the problem: how does the mind (or soul) become embodied? How does it occupy the body? From what we just learn from the criticisms against Descartes, it seems like the mind doesn’t need (or cannot) embody or occupy the body in the first place! If that’s the case, then there is no afterlife. Also, why can’t our mind leave the body as much as it pleases to? Why can’t the mind simply will itself to leave the body? What restrictions or impose limits are there that suggests the mind has to be in the body as long as the body is alive? Why does the mind occupy this specific kind of body but not another? The criticisms against Descartes’ Substance Dualism do not explain any of these. Because the mind is its own substance with unique properties, hence exists independently of the body, it sounds strange that the mind has to be occupied in this specific arbitrary body.

Also, another interesting question: how does the light that is transmitted to the retina cause a mental state of visual experience? How does the electrical impulse that is transmitted through my nervous system to the C-Fibers in my brain turn into a mental state of the experience of pain? How any physical event becomes or leads to a mental state? So how do the conditions of the physical body cause mental states in the mind? Not only does there seem to be a problem of the mind causing the body to move, but also the body causing the mind to have experiences of itself and the external world; it seems impossible to explain how the mind knows the external physical world if the external physical world cannot cause the mind to have mental experiences. This is a problem because, again, Descartes causal explanation between the body and the mind would contradict his views that they are two independent spheres of reality constituted by different qualities.

Ever since these criticisms emerged, Descartes’ Substance Dualism is no longer popular in philosophical circles. Most philosophers simply do not believe in this primarily because Descartes failed to explain some of these fundamental questions against his theory of the mind. Yet to this day many people still believe in the afterlife. They still believe that after the body dies a personal identity of the person still persists to exist without the body. But there are some strange paradoxes about this belief that is usually applied on an everyday life.

We determine who our biological parents are by our genes because their half of their respective chromosomes during the state of reproduction intertwined together to form a new chromosome. This new chromosome acquires traits from both the father and the mother to make up an independent entity that will become a person. So what makes the child a biological child is that it has chromosomes that derives from its biological parents. But if we suppose that the child has a soul, a personal identity that persists to exist after the body dies, then let’s think about this scenario: The child dies when he/she was trying to cross the street without looking on the side for approaching cars. When the child’s body arrives at the ER it is already too late to save the child.

After the child’s death the child’s soul is disembodied from the body. It exists independently from the body. But if this is the case, then the child is no longer has a biological parent hence it is no longer a biological child. On the other hand, even if the child’s soul survives after death, the parents can no longer say that the soul of their child is their biological child. How is this possible? Well, if the body dies then eventually so does the genes and chromosomes that occupy the body; and the child’s soul do not have any genes and chromosomes! If the soul is not physical, and genes/chromosomes are physical, then it follows that the soul has no genes/chromosomes. If it has no genes and chromosomes, then it follows that it has no fundamental biological that underpins the biological relation between the child and the parents. So technically, the disembodied soul does not have a biological parent and it is no longer a biological child of someone.

Well, let’s take the basic reasoning of this argument and apply it to a different scenario. Let’s conjure up the scenario of freaky Friday when the souls of both the mother and the daughter exchange bodies involuntarily. The mother occupies the body of the teenage daughter and the teenage daughter occupies the body of the mother. If a soul occupies a living body, it follows that it occupies a body with certain traits such as genes/chromosomes. If the daughter occupies the body of the mother, then it occupies a body with genes/chromosomes of the mother. If the daughter occupies a body with genes/chromosomes of the mother then in some sense she is a biological mother of the body that her mother occupies. The mother conversely is the biological daughter of the body her daughter occupies. The daughter becomes a biological mother and the mother becomes a biological daughter.

Strange, isn’t it? Well I know that on the psychological level you would still think of the disembodied soul of the child and the teenage daughter to remain as child and teenage daughter since their emotional connection and memories of the other persons (i.e. parents) remain intact. That’s generally true, but on a technical level the paradox still remains. This does not refute the existence of souls, but it does make an inference to the absurd conclusion that many of us would find counter-intuitive. In a sense it weakens the belief in the soul and afterlife.
I personally think that we believe in an afterlife because we have the essentialist tendency to think of others as having a personal identity that cannot be reduced to mere biological levels. We think that person has an essence that makes the person who she/he is, and we normally do not think of their body as being part of that essence. I personally believe that our personal identity is a very complex emergent property that emerged from a combination of our genes and environmental influences. Without the genes and environmental influences, our personal identity would probably not exist. This does not upset me the way it would upset the religious because it only shows me that my personal identity is not an isolated entity but rather something that is inevitably a part of Nature.

Many religious believers would like to think that the belief in the soul and afterlife (along with God) is the basis of spirituality. On the contrary I believe that a belief in a personal identity that is wholly dependent on the environmental influences and genes can also be a basis for spirituality since it is a testimony that we are intrinsically part of Nature (by Nature, I mean universe). We cannot exist separately from Nature but rather we exist as a part of that which explains who we are. To think of ourselves as separate entities, then, is an illusion. To understand ourselves as related to everything in the universe, on the other hand, is reality. To believe in the existence of some immortal soul implicitly suggests that we are separate from Nature; it also introduces a false dichotomy of Self/Nature. Our true self is more or less like a causal thread connected billions of threads of the Cosmic Web.

This all sounds great, but this also means that when I die there is no afterlife; I do not survive after death. This sound horrible to many who desire to believe in an afterlife since it comforts them that they will survive after death including their love ones. How can we not believe in an afterlife if the consequences or implications of not believing in it could be psychologically and existentially unbearable? Well, when people ask these kinds of questions I always remember Epicurus’ argument. Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who argued that it is ultimately irrational to be afraid of death. He has at least two arguments to make this case.

First, Epicurus asserts that “If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not”. He reasons that if death is the cessation of consciousness then it is cessation of both pleasure and pain. If that’s the case then no harm or benefit can be done to me when I am dead. So why should I fear death if in death there is no harm done to me? Epicurus is not saying that we should kill ourselves, because remember according to Epicurus that in death there is no pleasure so we have no reasons to kill ourselves. What Epicurus is suggesting is that we tend to fear things that are painful to us. But death cannot be painful because death is a cessation of consciousness that make pain possible to begin with. So we should not be afraid of death.

This is probably least convincing for many of you, but considers the second argument called the “symmetrical argument”. Epicurus probably considered a counterargument that says “It is not just that we are afraid of death because if it painful, but rather we are afraid of not existing”. He responded by arguing that if it is the case that non-existence is something we find to be bad then we should consider our non-existence before birth to be bad as well; we simply do not exist before birth and after life, our lifespan is simply a narrow thread between non-existences of before and after. We did not exist for probably more than 13 billion years until now but after we die, let’s say, the age of 80 then we cease to exist for billions of years. So shouldn’t we find both sides of non-existences to be frightening? If we are so afraid of not existing then we can’t we have a before-life as much as afterlife?

Whether or not Epicurus’ argument convinces you, he does make a point that there is something unusual about being afraid of death if we think about it more carefully. I don’t think that Epicurus is saying that we should not be afraid of death, but rather there is something unusual about the reasons we give for being afraid of death. However I do not think that we can stop being afraid of death because we most likely will due to our innate tendency to be afraid of it in order to increase our survival rate.

However I want to point out the obvious that we are afraid of death because we desire to survive. While the desire to survive is reasonable in many cases, ultimately it becomes unreasonable since we cannot live forever. While technology expands our lifespan (and it could do much more in the future), as individuals we do not have absolute control in how much we live. We can certainly place as much effort as we can to expand our lifespan but there is a point where there is a limit that we probably cannot transcend. At this point we have to learn to accept that our existence is impermanent and temporary since there is nothing else we can do.

I do believe that ultimately understanding what we can control and what we cannot control, and coming to accept what we cannot control, would probably establish an attitude that could help us cope with our mortality. To end this essay with a quote, I believe it is Cicero, a stoic philosopher, who once said “To study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die."

By “Bored Again” ~

My specialty is irreverent essays, two of which I’ve sent to this site (“The Lord’s Prayer Laid Bare” and “Entrée to Eternity”). But I’ve always enjoyed your exit testimonies and thought it time to pull mine together. I consider myself a “3-re” guy, having journeyed from religion to relationship to reality. I don’t expect to go through a 4th “re” (i.e. reincarnation), but if that happens, I’ll get back to you. By the way, my referring to my life as a “trinity” of phases is purely coincidental and not meant to suggest that I am “triune” in any sense of that illogical word.

I use the pseudonym “Bored Again” because it applies to me on several levels. The obvious one is the homonymic reference to “born again” which I once proudly proclaimed myself to be. Also, the adjective “bored” has applied to me at times, but does not do justice to my mental state at the end of the first 2 stages of my life (try “exasperated”). Finally, as a verb, “bored” describes what I did (i.e. drilled down – I hate that phrase, but it applies here) to get to the core of each phase of my life.

My testimony is very “danbakeresque” in that my search for meaning and truth involved deep involvement in both religion and in a close personal “relationship” with an imaginary being.

Re-ligion

I was born and raised a faithful and true Roman Catholic (a title apparently bestowed upon me in utero), and the oldest of 8 children (it took my parents a while to figure out that Vatican-approved family planning methods are not infallible). We went to Mass and Communion every week (plus, every day during Lent and on all 8 “holy days of obligation”). There was confession (which I hear has been upgraded to the “Sacrament of Reconciliation” so it won’t sound like a CSI episode) every 2 weeks, novenas, first-Friday rituals, daily family rosary, stations of the cross, fasting, meatless Fridays, and of course, the mandatory tribal amulets: I wore a St. Christopher medal, a “miraculous medal” of Mary, and a sticky plastic scapular at all times. I went to Catholic schools (where I was once hit with a ruler by a hooded, and misnamed, Sister of “Mercy”) and a Catholic college (where I learned a valuable lesson: Jesuits like to watch young men shower). I was a Catholic’s Catholic, and in it up to (and apparently over) my eyeballs. In fact, when I was twelve, I actually volunteered to serve as an altar boy, but I have to admit my real motivation was to draw the attention of a certain blonde female in my church. There I was, wearing a bright red, dress-like cassock, prostrate at the feet of a registered sex offender who was wearing a dunce cap and a silk bedspread, all the while beating my chest and mumbling unintelligible prayers in Latin. Can’t imagine why the blonde didn’t find that attractive.

In seventh grade, I became convinced I was being called by god to be a priest. I had been elected by my peers to be president of the Civics Club and two nuns told me that this was a sure sign from God that I was being called to the priesthood. At the time I didn’t question how my vast junior high school civics expertise qualified me for a life of celibacy. But, I bought into it, and if it weren’t for transportation problems to the seminary, I’d be a man-in-black today.

But it was not the fanny pats by the parish priests when I was an altar boy, or the Jesuit “fathers” at college watching me pee, that caused me to become a Roamin’ Catholic. It was the emptiness, the silence from god. I felt like I was playing hide-and-seek with the Invisible Man, and gave up trying to find him. As a kid, I was obsessed with stories of miracles performed by the Catholic saints, and wanted some of that Lourdes and Fatima action for myself. But no matter how hard I prayed, I got nothing. I wasn’t asking god to part the Red Sea; just something simple, like making my little brother disappear, or healing a pimple before the prom. God simply would not cooperate and give me just one little miracle, one little sign that he cared or even existed.

I also had noticed that the church I read about in the New Testament bore little resemblance to today’s church, and nobody could tell me why. I questioned all the traditions, the Mary-ology, the liturgy, the silly rituals, the vestments, and no one, not even my parents, had answers for me. I studied Church history and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was a man-made farce, based on legend and tradition, and I no longer wanted to waste my time on it. I expressed that feeling to a public high school teacher (and closet evangelical Christian) and he told me that the key to meaning and truth is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus began the second leg of my journey.

Re-lationship

At first, the whole idea of a “personal relationship with Christ” did not compute with me. It sounded like some sort of religious oxymoron. As a Catholic, I was raised on the idea that we are “here” and god is “there.” He is a king on a throne in the sky, we are rats in the gutter, and ne’er the twain shall meet, until you die. And even then your chances are only 50/50. I was taught that the Bible, his inspired word, is so sacred and mysterious, only a priest can read and understand it. But now I was learning that I could read the holy scriptures all by myself, that Jesus wants to be my personal buddy, and that I could be a child of god and refer to God the Father as “Daddy.” Wow, religion up close and personal! Sounded good. Sounded like what I had been missing, so I jumped in with both knees: got saved, born again, baptized in the Spirit, baptized in the local river, read the Bible from cover to cover, married a Christian girl, joined a fundamental, evangelical, Bible-believing, pre-millenial, post-dispensational church, and prided myself that I had solved all the mysteries of the universe.

Over time, I became a teacher, choir member, Deacon, Elder, Sunday School Superintendent, and Christian School Board Chairman. I even preached a few Sunday morning sermons. My first job out of college was teaching English at a Christian day school. Once again, I was in it up to my eyeballs. Fortunately for me, however, the eyeballs still worked, and eventually saved me from this disastrous phase of my life. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the feeling of a direct connection with the Almighty, and I liked the values of the Christian community, I was never really sold on the Bible as the “inerrant, infallible word of god.” The more I read, studied, and meditated on the “Word” the more I realized that my “faith” in the Bible was aptly described by Mark Twain: I was saying I believed in something I “know ain’t true.” I desperately WANTED it to be god’s word, but all logical evidence pointed otherwise. I mean, I’m worried about issues like war, and cancer, and starving children, but reading a “divine” revelation that tells me how to cure a skin boil using fig cakes soaked in wine! I also knew the whole inerrant/infallible thing could be blown away with just one contradiction, and I was finding hundreds. But every time I asked a fellow Christian about an obvious contradiction, I was given a convoluted, illogical interpretation that could supposedly explain away the problem. I finally realized that the defenders of the faith had determined that biblical inerrancy was absolute rock solid truth that nothing could shake, not logic, not science, not common sense. After all, they would say, it says in 2Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is inspired, so it must be true! Their circular illogic was driving me crazy! I finally decided that I could still be a “Christian” without buying into the whole infallibility thing.

I saw no harm in letting others live out their self-delusion about the scriptures, there was plenty else I enjoyed at Church, as long as I kept quiet. What finally pushed me out of the womb of Christianity (I was born again, again) and into the real world was a debate our church sponsored between an atheist and a local Christian apologist. The atheist ate the apologist alive and made a very strong impression on me. As a Catholic, and later even as a Protestant, I was a big fan of Thomas Aquinas and liked his “proofs” for the existence of god, especially the one noting the need for an uncaused, or first cause. The atheist surgically dismantled that argument (via the “infinite regression” scenario) and every other one the apologist tried. He used crystal clear logic, with heavy doses of common sense, and I was sold. Listening to him, I had to admit to myself that I was at least an agnostic if not an atheist. Even though I wished with all my heart that there was a loving god, a holy book filled with his revelations, and a happy afterlife, I knew that I could not “decide” or “will” to believe in these things; I either did or did not believe, based on the evidence presented to me. And the evidence added up to my “relationship” with Jesus being a classic case of self-delusion. Time to face reality.

Re-ality

Most Christians I know, including my own family, are scared to death to read anything that might put down or contradict their precious faith. Their excuses include: “If something is not written by a known Christian author, it is written by Satan”, or “It would be a mortal sin to read that,” or “Reading it would mean that I support something that is against my faith.” My view has always been that if what I believe is true, it will stand on its own merits. Thus, why should I be afraid to read anything? So read I did, and thanks to the Internet, found a ready supply of authors that experienced reality the same way I did: rationally. I couldn’t get enough of Ingersoll, Harris, Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett, Barker, etc, etc.. These guys were putting into words exactly what I thought and believed deep down inside. Their view of the world was so much more “real” than anything I had found in my experiences with religion and divine relationship. No superstition, no fantasy, no wishful thinking, or wild leaps of faith; just a realistic and reasonable view of the universe.

I can honestly say that after I determined that Christianity was a sham, I never had the separation anxiety/trauma that many on this site have experienced. In each phase of my life I have become immersed in a world view that, over a long period of time, I proceeded to explore and eventually dismantle, piece by piece, based on what I observed and understood. Both as a Catholic and as a “born again” evangelical Protestant, I was deeply involved, but always ready to question anything that didn’t make sense. I never really felt I was a committed, fully sold-out believer. I think, because of that, I was spared any great feeling of loss when I moved on.

I hate branding, but if I had to call myself something today, I guess it would be a “CPA” (Catholic Protestant Agnostic), reflecting my past and present. I like the Dawkins approach; I won’t feel like I can be deemed an “atheist” until someone can prove to me unequivocally that a “god” being cannot possibly exist. “Agnostic” seems to me like a more honest term for what I am. My current understanding of god goes like this: there doesn’t have to be one, and I doubt there is, but I can’t say I know that there can’t be one. In my view, we are like ants living inside a computer, and naively confident we have the wherewithal to figure out how it works.

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

Christians widely portray their god as an all-powerful, all-wise, transcendent and perfect, spiritual being. I contend that modern theologians have reconfigured god from the Bible authors’ original crude conceptions of god as a rather fallible, uber-human with superpowers.

By “uber-human,” I mean a being that is basically human in terms of psychology and emotions, yet possessed of greater intelligence and power. This is how modern humans have usually imagined comic book superheroes. That is, they are generally built on a basic human physical and psychological plan, but with accessory super powers, like Superman and Spiderman.

Surely, the Bible authors thought god and man were very much alike, as attested by Genesis 9:6, “. . . for in the image of God made he man.” For evidence I offer the inclusion of anger in the Biblical conception of god, and the fact that Bible-god occasionally changes his mind about things. Obviously, a “perfect” spirit being does not get angry, nor does he change his mind (or whatever passes for “mind” in a spirit).

Anger has been aptly described as a reaction to a perceived threat to ourselves, our loved ones, our property, our self-image, or some part of our identity. If a being is perfect and all-powerful, then how or why would it feel threatened by anything? This only makes sense if that being was somehow unsure of itself; that is, was less than perfect.

Indeed, there are many Biblical passages which attest to this unsureness, this anger. In Job 38, god upbraids Job for questioning god’s foul treatment of him. This harangue goes on for 71 verses about what business has Job got judging god? He asks, was Job there when he laid the foundations of the earth? “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” “Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?” God goes on like this for dozens of examples. I mean, god is seriously pissed off and there is no mistaking it.

The scene with Job is not exceptional; the Bible is full of episodes describing an angry god. In fact, one of the most frequently used words in the Bible is “wrath,” and it is almost always used in connection with god. According to one online dictionary, wrath means, “strong vengeful anger or indignation.”

Anger is a very human emotion, and the Bible’s primitive authors gave their god a very full measure of it. Jesus was quite clear about how we humans should respond to that angry god when he said, "fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)

But, Bible-god is not just human-like in his anger, he is also human-like in his propensity to change his mind from time to time. Now a perfect spirit being, it would seem, would get things right the first time, and would not be changing its mind. But that would not be an accurate description of Bible-god.

In Exodus 32, the Israelites create a golden calf and god gets angry: “. . . Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them . . .” But Moses pleads with god, reminding him of his promises to the people, and warning him of how the Egyptians will interpret his actions, and god relents – changes his mind: “And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. “ Isn’t it apparent in this story that god was unsure of himself; that Moses showed superior reason in convincing god what he should do?

A similar story is found in Genesis 6: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

Here, god repents creating man and beast. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “repent” in this context means: (2a) to feel regret or contrition, or (2b) to change one’s mind. So, according to the Bible, god decides he made a mistake in creating humans and changes his mind about keeping them around (except for Noah and family).

Does this sound like a “perfect” being, an all-wise, creative spirit entity? Or does it sound like an angry man with super powers? Does this sound like an omniscient being who knows the future, as modern theologians describe god?

I have searched several Christian apologetics sites to learn how modern Christians explain how god can know the future, on the one hand, yet change his mind, on the other. In researching this subject, and thinking about it, it appears to me that the “explanations” all fall into one of three broad types:

1. The naïve, or special-pleading explanation (God can do anything).
2. The Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.
3. The Bible was just made up by many primitive authors and never checked for consistency.

If we were to go with (1), we would be throwing out the rules of logic which have led us out of the caves and into modern societies of relative abundance. After all, god cannot construct a four-sided triangle, nor can he simultaneously “be” and “not be.”

“Explanation” (2) includes too many apologetic “escapes” to even summarize here, but they generally involve disputes concerning translation and convoluted pretzel-logic. For any of them to make sense, we would have to redefine many of the common words we all have been using all of our lives.

Which brings us to my own favorite, number (3). That the authors of the Bible were superstitious primitives should really be beyond dispute. These men included a whole host of imaginary characters in their texts including witches, wizards, sorcerers, demons, ghosts, giants, spirits, angels, dragons and unicorns. These were men who believed disease was caused by demons (Matt. 8:14-16); men who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

And, clearly, the Bible was never checked for internal consistency. When it comes to the “Good Book,” as ye seek, so shall ye find is a truism. It is not all that difficult to find a passage which defends virtually any claim you wish to put forth. If you need a passage to show that god is loving and compassionate, it’s in the Bible. If you want to show god is hateful and cold, that’s in there, too. If you need to show god is patient, it’s there. If you want to show he is quick to anger and punish, that’s there, too. Isn’t it interesting that Bible-god is so much like us?

The Bible was written by dozens of different authors over hundreds of years, so it’s not surprising that their conceptions of god varied and were sometimes even contradictory. When the Bible canon was established by vote, long after the various texts were written, no one bothered to ensure consistency among its parts, and this is how we can be certain that no god oversaw its authorship. It was quite obviously written by many independent and very imaginative men.

Now, modern theologians tell us that god is an extraordinarily esoteric entity; perhaps, “. . . a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence,” (Karen Armstrong), or, not a being at all, but the ground of all being (David Hart). But such explanations are no more than wishful thinking; they do not correlate at all with the descriptions of the Bible’s authors. “Symbols” don’t get angry or change their minds, nor does “pure being.” These apologists are fighting a rear-guard action here; they know that the god described in the Bible bears no resemblance to their descriptions, but they still want to believe and have you believe.

Those primitive authors who wrote the Bible were quite transparent in their depictions of god. Theirs was a crude god of very human characteristics, like anger and indecision; an uber-human, a primitive’s conception of a comic book superhero. If you’re looking for a perfect, transcendent spirit, you won’t find it in the Bible. For that, you’ll have to consult the modern apologists. And this tells me that we shouldn’t take the god of those ancients any more seriously than we take Marvel Comics superheroes - and the same goes for the gods of those more modern myth makers.

By Matthew ~

When I was young I was very inquisitive. I gravitated towards music, astronomy, and math. I always wanted to know how things worked, and I would spend hours taking apart toy trains, playing with Legos, and wondering how in the world a car worked. I wanted to be a mechanic or an astronaut. The world was ablaze with beauty and structure and I had to know how it all worked.

I was also enthralled with the idea of heaven. My first memories are learning about Jesus coming back to take us back to heaven to live with him forever. I was told I would be able to fly and play with wild animals in heaven. Sometimes I would go outside and watch for Jesus, trying to spot the cloud that was carrying him back to this earth to save us.

As I grew up and began to "understand" the whole process of salvation, I learned that one had to be saved in order to go to heaven. I realize now that I approached salvation with the same curiosity I approached astronomy and mechanics: I had to know how it all worked. I wanted to know at what point I was saved or unsaved, how the holy spirit filled me up, and how to avoid slipping into sin. Pretty deep stuff for a ten year old, really. The whole fascination was about heaven. Heaven would be a glorious place, and I was going to be there.

At some point I decided I needed to "know" that I was saved. I needed a marker of sorts, a true/false test that I could point to in order to know I was getting to heaven. It was my inquisitive side, I think, that longed for evidence, just like a scientist. At this point it became less about heaven, though, and started to be more about hell. I could imagine hell just as vivid as I could imagine heaven, and it wasn't pretty. I don't think I need to elaborate on how awful hell could be. The worst part for me wasn't the flames, it was the idea that I would be separated from my friends and family forever.

I wanted to know at what point I was saved or unsaved, how the holy spirit filled me up, and how to avoid slipping into sin.I eventually did come up with a test. With the help of a charismatic preacher, I decided I could know I was saved if I was happy. Not just happy, but joyful, ecstatic, peaceful, all the time. ALL THE TIME. And the more I grew in Christ, the more happy I would be.

It didn't take long for me to sense some negative emotions. I decided I must have gotten unsaved during the day. I would try to pray them away at night, but the uncertainty would lead to angst, which would lead to fear, and then I'd be unsaved again. It didn't take long for me to spiral into a full panic attack. The first few times my mother heard them and could re-assure me. After that I figured out how to keep them quiet.

For two years, from ages 11 to 13 I suffered panic attacks at night thinking that I wasn't saved. I would roll about, toss and turn, and claw at my chest. At 13 I decided to stop trying and just be unsaved. My high school years didn't have the panic attacks but I learned to be very ashamed of who I was. I also knew that Jesus could return at any moment and leave me to burn.

I tried to get saved in college. Sometimes I would devote an entire weekend to getting saved, spending time in nature to finally figure it out. The panic attacks continued. Eventually I did manage to convince myself that I was saved. I used the same test as a child. I had to be happy. But this time I focused less on being happy and more on avoiding negative emotions, which I interpreted as Satan and demons. By keeping out those bad feelings I was keeping out Satan. It was a real psychological feat, but my twenties were characterized with avoiding and repressing all negative emotions. Sometimes it took a lot of work, like switching careers, moving back home, or avoiding all risks. I moved across the US 3 times, gave up job opportunities and careers, avoiding anything that might make me feel unsettled. And all the while I thought God was leading me and that I was getting closer to him.

Finally at age 28 I stopped believing in God. It was like a bomb went off in my brain. Every repressed emotion came rushing in like a tidal wave, and I didn't know how to take it. I've spent the last two years even as an unbeliever trying to avoid those emotions as well. I just keep trying to get saved. The panic attacks came back with a vengeance. My first therapist suggested I find a church. My second told me atheism was arrogant. I keep looking for mental health care that is appropriate for what I now consider to be abuse, but am still looking. I went for 17 years avoiding and repressing emotions. Learning to live with them is not easy.

Imagine a child growing up without believing in heaven or hell? Imagine not having make sure you're saved all the time? This is the world I am trying to give my son. While I am not a perfect parent, I am hoping to help my son experience the joy, peace, and yes, even the pain and grief of this present world. I want him to have a fully human experience. There is so much richness and beauty (and yes, danger) in the world around us, we don't need to come up with a glorious or tortuous afterlife to inspire or scare us. There's enough joy and pain in this present world.

I guess in a weird way I finally feel like I am saved. Not from hell, but from Christianity. And although I still suffer, and am still struggling to interpret my emotions, I am growing as a human, learning to experience the beauty of everything around me, and I no longer fear a literal hell. If there is one thing I would tell a Christian it would be this: There is no such thing as being "unsaved." You are full and complete in your humanity. Learn from your mistakes and live for today. This life is the best we've got, and you don't need the promise of an afterlife to experience meaning or joy.

By Meranda ~

I have visited this site a few times over the past several months, and have been intrigued, comforted and understood as I read the various posts. My only beef is that I wish I could talk face to face with this community! I have been wishing that I could flesh some of my thoughts out in a physical encounter not just a cyber one (lol). However, I do have my husband who is truly my best friend that is joining me on this journey and that is a tremendous comfort!

My story will sound very familiar I'm sure. I was raised by a single mother with a mental illness, and raising children exasperated it, so I was made a ward of the state at 12 and lived in 7 different foster homes from the time I was 12 to 19. I only include that bit of my past to set the table for my absolute desire for a Father, unconditional love, purpose, someone who sticks closer than a brother, someone who would never leave or forsake me, etc. I fell head over heels in love with Jesus, and even now with all my skepticism I find myself hoping that I could just stop thinking so damned much and fall back in love!

My 1st crises of faith so to speak was 3 years ago after the death of my mother. The christian fundamental idea of hell was realized to me in a way it never had before. Sending people to hell for ever and ever, pain, torment...really. And isn't is so common for Christian believers to say we deserve it? Really?! So to follow that logic, a god who created us with a propensity to mess up, make mistakes, sin or whatever you want to call it is going to sentence the majority of his creation to everlasting torment...I came to realize how sadistic that sounded. Last summer I was at a christian woman's bible retreat with some very dear friends and I was sharing with them my dilemma about god's character, and one girl asked me that if indeed hell is real, and most are sent there could I worship him? My answer was "no way". I am still so new to this way of thinking, and trying to sort out what I believe and think, as opposed to a religious dogma that I have ascribed to the past 17 years. My husband, myself, and my 4 children still go to church every Sunday. I have a 14 year old that loves his youth group. We just don't see that it is time to tell our children or extended family all of our thoughts right now.

This is a very lonely time for us. A year ago, we were struggling with hell and were reading books such as "The fir that Consumes" by Edward Fudge which is basically supporting annihilation to now we are reading books by Dan Barker who is a former preacher turned atheist! Lol Oh, boy! We have a a few discussions with christian friends, and unfortunately they are too afraid to talk about our questions...they are worried they will be deceived by Satan if they entertain some of the thoughts and questions we have...sound familiar? We have some other more liberal christian friends who are involved in house churches, but they too are just pissed at the institutional machine of churches and want a more organic fellowship and not questioning his existence, character, inerrancy and infallibility of the bible etc.

I appreciate this website, and all the contributors who bare themselves so well, allowing others to glean from them. Thank you for "listening" to me ;)

By Tes28 ~

Long-time skeptic here and recently out of the doubting closet. It hit me Easter Day as I was searching "proof of God" that I wasn't going to find it, or believe it, for that matter.

I've been a Christian for roughly five years, my husband and I becoming born-again believers after marrying in July 2007. We were baptized in the river July 2008 and over-enthusiasts of the worst kind. We weren't in everybody's face, but we were "in the know".

Fast forward to 2009, when we excitedly decided to start a family. But each month passed with no positive line, and my heart ached with rejection by the season. Oh, did this girl pray. Then, in 2010, we got that plus sign! It was God's answer to our prayers! Unfortunately, shortly after it ended in a miscarriage and I was left in a pit so dark I turned zombie-like.

God was just not there during this time. I began to wonder, was he ever? I could handle the infertility, the miscarriage, if I just knew somehow I wasn't alone. It was a slow process for me, while attending church and Bible studies and mentoring the community youth group, in realizing I was more than just a doubting Thomas, but a straight up nonbeliever. I had so many questions and too few answers that I could authentically believe.

Telling my husband the other day was hard. He has cried three times in the almost nine years I have known him, and last night was one of them. If anyone has demonstrated an authentic Christian attitude, it's him. I am scared of what will happen with us.

Because the thing is, I don't consider myself a Christian anymore. I was a depressed one, and I was lonely. I am not an atheist, either. I am done labeling myself. I don't want to be the bitter woman who hates religion and men, but still a loving, kind 28 year-old woman just trying to figure life out.

Oh, and no babies as of yet. My first real check up is Thursday morning. But strangely, I am ok with whatever occurs. It's not my fault if it doesn't happen, and I guess others can think me not "saved by childbirth".

I am signing this as a kind, compassionate, loving woman who might still pray now and then, but doesn't expect you to.

By Paul So ~

Sometimes (or many times) believers will often see a tension between faith and reason which goes way back since the inception of Christianity by Constantine (or much earlier). Usually you have those who are of extreme fideism (fideism is a theological stance that faith is either superior to reason or reason should not be applied in matters of faith) to those who are more rationalist. The Medieval theologians and the philosophers of the enlightenment relied very much on reason, while giving faith its place, in discussing about theological matters from the existence of God to the coherence of scripture. Philosophers such as Rene Descartes and Leibniz were devout believers of Christianity, but they were often criticized by their Christian contemporary because the contemporaries were suspicious of them for practicing their philosophy independently from theology and Aristotelian philosophy. During the late medieval ages, Martin Luther criticizes reason as a “a whore” and a “bride of the devil”.

So there certainly was a historical reason why the tension between faith and reason continues to persists. But as usual, most believers in the wide spectrum of things would lean more towards faith than reason, and very few of them (i.e. intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, and sophisticated theologians) would try to reconcile both of them to remain in the middle. Most believers are fideists who believe that religious beliefs are mostly a matter of faith rather than also a matter of reason. Many of the believers are even willing enough to completely denounce reason as having no value in life. In this sense, many believers are anti-intellectual since they see the role of reason in their life as either devalued or trivial.

There is one important clarification to consider: Fideist may not have to be extreme anti-intellectuals as some are but rather they strongly believe that certain beliefs should not require reason. It is possible for someone to be very fideistic about his or her religious faith but still be an engineer who uses intellectual abilities to learn how to build bridges. Such a person would make sure that the model is accurate, effective, and safe by re-examining them but at the same time the person would not apply such critical thinking on religious beliefs since he or she consciously believes that those beliefs are exempted from rational examination.

While many believers believe that their beliefs are exempted from reason I will make the argument that this cannot be the case: such exemption will have absurd implication that would actually be detrimental to their faith. I will argue that you need reason in order to have religious beliefs. That’s right, you heard me right: I said you need reason in order to have any religious beliefs, otherwise they become incoherent. Before you jump in, just hear me out. I will make an argument that no religious beliefs (and any belief for that matter) are possible without reason. After I make this argument, I will consider objections to my argument and reply to those objections the best I can.

For the sake of the argument let’s grant the premise to the religious believers that “Reason has no place in the matter of faith”. What this means is that religious belief is exempted from reason on the grounds that we should just believe in them. What I want to point out is that exempting religious beliefs from reason makes believing in them impossible. This point would be made more clearer when I point out the consequences of granting the believers the premise that “Reason has no place in the matters of faith”.

When believers say that beliefs are exempted from reason since it should only be believed in, they tend to think that reason is loosely equivalent to finding evidence or justification. What they fail to realize is that while finding justification for the beliefs is certainly one of the normative functions of reason it is not the only thing that defines reason. One thing that tend to forget is formal Logic. When people use the term “Logic” they usually associate with “something that is reasonable” or “something that is true”, but there is another meaning to Logic that people tend to forget. In philosophy, Logic is the study of argumentation that consists of statements or propositions that form an inferential argument of premises and conclusions, which includes both deductive and inductive argumentation. Like any rigorous discipline, Logic has their rule that makes sense to almost everyone of us; these rules are about how propositions work. What I am trying to say here is that Logic in this sense also constitutes Reason in the most fundamental manner. Without it everything else we do with Reason is almost impossible.

Without reason it is impossible to believe in anything in the usual manner; you cannot have any beliefs whatsoever. There are some basic principles of Logic that I want to go through: Laws of Non-Contradiction, Laws of Excluded Middle, and Descriptive Propositions are either true or false (this last one isn’t a “law” of logic, but it is ubiquitous in logic). Laws of Non-Contradictions are a law that says that two opposite propositions cannot both be true. The proposition “A exists” and “A does not exist” cannot both be true at the same time. For example, to say “weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq” and “a weapon of mass destruction does not exist in Iraq” are both true is a contradiction. While the law of non-contradiction talks about how two opposite statements cannot both be true, the law of excluded middle says that a single proposition cannot be both true and false. A proposition is either true or false, but not both. To say “John Moore exists” is both true and false is a contradiction. The difference between non-contradiction and excluded middle is that the former talks about two propositions that contradict each other, while the latter talks about one proposition that cannot be both true and false, but has to be either true or false. Finally, that descriptive propositions can be true or false is another very important feature of Logic. Logic assumes that not only are all propositions are either true or false, but there is such thing as “true” and “false”. It assumes a basic vocabulary of “true” and “false” that is ubiquitous in every proposition. Without these vocabularies neither the laws of excluded middle nor non-contradiction would make any sense.

So far I have explained these principles of Logic that is very important in our basic reasoning. These principles of Logic are a crucial part of Reason. With this crucial information in mind let’s examine the premise that we just grant to the believers “Reason has no place in the matters of faith”. If we accept this premise then we also have to accept that the principles of Logic have no place in the matters of faith. But what would this imply? Let’s go through each of the principles I reiterated to see what this would imply:

First, remember that law of non-contradiction says that two opposite propositions cannot both be true, otherwise they contradict each other. Well, if the laws of non-contradiction have no place in the matter of faith then what stops believers from saying “God exists” and “God does not exist” are both true? If the laws of non-contradiction, which says two contrary propositions cannot both be true, has no place in faith then it follows that in the matters of faith it is possible to affirm two contrary propositions are both true. But this is ridiculous even to the believers.

Second, the law of excluded middle says that a single proposition cannot be both true and false. Well, if that also does not have place in the matters of faith then it follows that the proposition “God exists” can both be true and false. There is nothing that logically prevents this from happening if logic has no place in the matters of faith. Another proposition “Jesus died for our sins” could also be both true and false, which is considered blasphemous to believers. Not only is it blasphemous but also incoherent.

Third, the fact that there is the vocabulary of “true” and “false” are very important and basic properties that you need to attach to propositions to determine whether you believe in it or not. If you say that “God exist” is a true proposition, it follows that you believe in it. If you say “God exist” is a false proposition, it follows that you do not believe in it. How you use these basic vocabularies of logic determines what you do believe or do not believe. But if the vocabulary of reason has no place in the matter of faith then it follows that you do not either believe or no believe in anything. The proposition “God exists” is just a proposition that is neither true nor false, it’s just a rhetorical statement without any truth-value. You cannot say that you believe in the proposition “God exists” without using the vocabulary of reason “True”.

The point I’m trying to make in drawing out this implication is that you need reason, to some extent, in order to coherently and possibly believe in anything at all. Without reason it is impossible to believe in anything in the usual manner; you cannot have any beliefs whatsoever. It would impossible to sustain a coherent worldview or perspective about the world. You don’t just believe in things, but when you do believe in things you are unconsciously using the principles of logic which derive from Reason itself. You use the basic resources from Reason to make believing possible. If there are believers who sincerely think that “Reason is a whore” or “Bride of the Devil” (Which Martin Luther said) or “Reason just isn’t relevant in the matters of faith” or “do not leaning in your own understanding”, then they should think again: If Reason is bad then the principles of logic that derive from reason are bad, but if they are bad then anything you believe in must be bad as well. If you should not lean to your own understanding (which I assume is synonymous with reason) in the most basic sense, then believing is impossible. It is precisely because you do lean to your understanding in the most basic level that believing is possible! The irony here is that faith is not opposite to reason; rather faith is subordinate to reason in order for it to be possible at all because it is impossible, without the principles of logic, to believe in anything!

What faith essentially boils down to is this: “I secretly use the principles of logic that derive from reason to make believing possible, but I publicly exclude reason from religious matters” That’s a serious hypocrisy and double standard there. However faith can also boil down to this “I depend on reason at minimum to make believing possible but I do not justify what I believe”. Faith in that sense is essentially slothful reason; it is reason at its laziest. An optimal use of reason is using logic as well as finding evidence or making arguments. But if you just limit yourself to just the principles of logic then you can believe in anything but that won’t make any of them true.

Now there are some objections that I have considered and I want to respond to them. But I will first go over these possibly fatal objections. The first objection is that in reality we have faith in reason to make it possible rather than having reason in order to have faith. The second objection is the Presuppositionalist view that everything, including the principle of logic, assumes the existence of God or require the existence of God for these things to be sensible.

The first objection which says that we need to have faith in reason to make it possible rather than to have reason to make faith possible argues that we cannot justify reason. We cannot prove that reason is reliable because we do not have any proof to show it so. Instead of proving reason we take it for granted just by believing in it. We simply have faith in our reason. This objection is the skeptical objection to reason.

The second objection is the Presuppositionalist view that everything from Logic to Mathematics assumes the existence of God to make them understandable. Without the existence of God none of these things that we study in our schools would make sense. If that be the case then the principles of Logic ultimately derives from God to make any belief possible.

However here is my response to both objections respectively: The first objection misunderstands the burden of proof. The burden of proof applies when there is a statement that is initially unjustified and counterfactual. To say that “Reason is unreliable” is a counterfactual claim and an unjustified claim as opposed to “Reason is fallible but reasonably reliable”. So the burden of proof applies to the skeptics of reason. But if this objection is not strong enough let’s say that I grant them the proposition that “Reason is unreliable” or “We cannot justify Reason”. But how the hell did I grant them the proposition if Reason is unreliable? How can the skeptics of reason use propositions, the very things that depend on the principles of Logic? If the Skeptics did show that the proposition “Reason is unreliable” is true, they are using the principles of logic to defeat reason, but this is absurd! How can the principles of logic make the proposition “Reason is unreliable” a true proposition? If “Reason is unreliable” is a true proposition then the principles of Logic cannot reliably make it possible for that proposition to be a true proposition (after all, reason is unreliable). But it the principles of Logic cannot reliably make it possible for the proposition “reason is unreliable” to be a true proposition, then it follows that we would not be certain of the truth-value of the proposition “reason is unreliable”. It is a self-defeating proposition. If I did prove that “reason is unreliable” to be true I am also proving that reason is reliable! Otherwise how did I prove that proposition is reason is not reliable? Furthermore, If I really have to have faith in reason wouldn’t that be self-defeating? Faith is essentially a logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance, but one of the things about Reason is it avoids logical fallacies. Why should we use a logical fallacy to believe in that which avoids logical fallacies? Wouldn’t appeal to ignorance violate Reason? To say that “We should have faith in reason” sounds like saying “We should resort to the logical fallacy of ignorance to believe in something that tells us that logical fallacy is a bad reason to believe in anything”, that sounds incoherent. So it is not possible to have faith in reason.

The second objection has its own problems that I would like to point out. First, which God does Logic assume? Judea-Christian God Yahweh? Allah? Brahma? Mithra? Zeus? Or the deistic God? Which one of them really? What reason do we have to choose one of them? Wouldn’t it be arbitrary? Also, it isn’t clear whether logic needs to assume the existence of God in order for it to be possible. If it did then the proposition “God does not exist” could not possibly be generated by Logic. If God himself cease to exist, we would still be able to use Logic to evaluate the statement “God does not exist” to be a true statement or “God does exist” to be a false statement. Logic is necessarily independent of the existence of God. Same with mathematics: if God did not exist, it would make sense to say “There is zero God”.

The conclusion I want to make from all of this is that reason is very important in our daily lives. It is indispensable in any worldviews, ideology, and belief system. Its basic principles of logic are so universal that without it believing wouldn’t even be possible. Sure, Reason would not always make us happy but that’s because that’s not Reason’s primary function. It’s like blaming the school janitor for not tutoring you. Reason’s Job is not to make us happy but to give basic guidelines or rules that make believing possible, as well as justifying them. However, in a very strange and indirect way Reason can make us happy and unhappy: If believing in something makes you happy then you should be grateful to Reason since it made that believing possible. If believing in something makes you miserable, then that’s just one of the accidental consequences of depending on Reason. Of course, there is more to Reason than meets the eye such as making long term plans, creating strategies, abstract analysis, regulating emotions, focusing, and making decisions. These things (as well as emotions) make us very much human; it’s what separates us (at least in degrees) from the rest of the animals (Aristotle did say that humans are rational animals).

I’m not saying Reason will solve everything or it would make our reality into a utopia; These are common accusations that religious conservatives might make on secular progressives who value the progress of science. But we do need reason to be able to believe, to examine our beliefs, and to justify our beliefs the best way possible.

By Stephen ~

Some people collect stamps; I critique Christian blogs for fun. So it was that I came across this little gem from the ever-delightful “Resurgence” site (yes, the stomping ground of that delightful man, Mark Driscoll), entitled “All Truth Belongs to God” [http://theresurgence.com/2012/04/11/all-truth-belongs-to-god]. Oh, I thought, this is going to be good.

The very second sentence in the blurb was the most astonishing nonsense I’d heard in months: “Nothing that is true ever contradicts God’s revealed word in the Bible.” If that isn’t Orwellian doublethink, then what is? The author (Matt) might as well just come out and say, “Whatever the Bible says is true... even if it isn’t”. It reminds of a statement I recently read from the Pope (quoted in http://bigthink.com/ideas/the-radicalism-of-obedience?page=2) in which he spoke of the “radicalism of obedience” (what in the metaphorical-god’s name is that?) It concerns me more than a little that Christians can reach a point where even uttering a blatant contradiction in terms is no longer a problem.

The absurdity continues:

"In our age, science and faith have become pitted against each other, like polar opposite magnets, as if there were no overlap, as if we must choose one or the other. The Scriptures don’t present truth that way though. God owns all of it and is so high above our brightest minds that they seem brain damaged in comparison."

Oh wow, what a relief. The Bible says truth is never going to be an issue. First we have a slightly dubious metaphor (polar opposite magnets... wouldn’t those attract each other?) and then a triumphant declaration that “God owns all of it”. (Hint: triumphant declarations are basically all you’ll find in this article.)

Now I understand that “Matt” really wishes that science and faith didn’t contradict one another. Having been an earnest intellectually-leaning Christian myself, I used to share his wish. But wishing something doesn’t make it so. This article neatly represents the attitude of so many Christians when it comes to this problem, which is why I find it so fascinating: it is a study in denial, diversion and wilful self-delusion, which are apparently essential features to being a thinking Christian these days.

Before I begin to tear apart the non-argument contained in this article, it is interesting to me that such an article needs to be written in the first place. The hidden assumption is that there are self-evident “truths” out there which contradict “God’s Word”. Matt doesn’t even need to mention examples to his readers (try: heliocentrism, evolution by natural selection, historical criticism of the Bible, humanistic morality - to mention just a few) because by now it is probably so obvious to all but the most sheltered Christian that their faith just doesn’t match up to what is obviously true about the world any more. What interesting times we live in. Christianity has lost its hegemony on what is considered true, and every thinking Christian seems to know it! So, do they do the honest and noble thing, admit they were mistaken, and give up the outdated beliefs? Not on your life! And here the fun begins...

So how does our True Believer Intellectual solve this problem? Step one: simply declare that there is no problem. This is the gist of the first part of the article. For example:

"So we should never freak out about people who claim to have discovered truth. If it’s true truth, God owns it and has already accounted for it..."

(Notice how he sneaks in the word “claim”. He just doesn’t want to face it, does he?)

“God owns it and has already accounted for it”. Translation: “You scientists think you know everything, but God knew it all along! Nya nya nya nya nya!” This is the kind of attitude that allows the Pope to declare, about 400 years too late, that Galileo was right after all, without feeling the need to answer the implications this has for belief in inerrancy of the Scriptures and the Church. Or modern evangelicals who claim that the Bible never condoned slavery, ever - tell that to their Bible-believing forebears who fought to the death for the exact opposite point of view!

What a revealing little turn of phrase: “If it’s true truth...” The obvious implication is that there is such a thing as “false truth”. Excuse me? So Matt desperately wants there to be just one kind of truth, but he can’t avoid the fact that some of it self-evidently does contradict what he believes, so he creates a delightful distinction: there is “true truth” (i.e. whatever Christians can believe) and “false truth” (i.e. what seems to be true, but doesn’t fit with Christianity). These few words undermine his entire premise. But he bashes on regardless...

"...While nothing that is true ever contradicts God’s revealed word in the Bible, discovered truth sometimes contradicts the words of Christians."

Wow, there are some interesting word games going on there. We have yet another bifurcation of the supposedly unitary “truth”: “revealed truth” and “discovered truth”. And, in another corner, we have “the words of Christians”. This is a beautiful system for filtering out any potentially threatening facts. Notice how, in his formulation, he does not put “discovered truth” (presumably, evidence-based reasoning) up against “God’s revealed word”. He doesn’t even allow them to get in the same boxing ring. No, if evidence/science wants to pick a fight, it must go batter the Badass Bible’s poor sibling, the weakling “word of Christians”. Matt and BibleGod can stand by and watch science beat the living crap out of Christian “interpretation” or “opinion”, then walk away arm in arm saying, “You see, those mere human understandings didn’t stand a chance against truth - which of course you had all along, Big Guy”.

"The truth is that the truth is ours—all truth is our truth because we are of Christ and Christ is of the sovereign God."

In other words: “All your truth are belong to us!” In case you hadn’t noticed, Matt believes that what God says is true because if God says it’s true, then it’s true, OK? And if you don’t like it then you can just go jump. In a lake. Of fire. Forever.

What follows from this point (see “God is over the macro and the micro” and “God spans it all”) is a breathtaking piece of worship-as-diversion, a common feature of the modern charismatic psychological project. Enough of all that pesky worrying about facts that might contradict the Bible, let’s just pretend God does exist and blow your mind with how Totally Awesome He Surely Is...

I agree that if there really was an omniscient God, he would have to be one seriously impressively complex and enormous Dude of all Dudes. He would, as Matt says, have to know “every atom and every molecule”, “their positions, their locations, their functions” and so on. But that is precisely what makes the whole thing so unbelievable. Richard Dawkins’ “Ultimate 747” metaphor comes to mind: to explain the creation and existence of an exceedingly complex Universe by proposing an even more complex all-seeing “creator” behind it all is to replace one stupendous mystery with an even greater one. If complex things can “only” be created by an intelligent agent (hint: this is not true), then it logically follows that God, who is even more complex than the Universe he is said to have created, needs to have been himself created by an even greater intelligence. And so on, ad absurdum.

And Matt’s homily to the giant megabrain God running the Matrix simulation in which we live (and move, and have our being?) can’t help but raise some achingly obvious problems, e.g.:

"From the velocity of every butterfly’s flapping wings at every second to the exact amount of magma to the microgram flowing out of every volcano above and under sea level, he spans it all simultaneously and precisely."

(“Magma”. Say it slowly, like Doctor Evil.)

So, Goddy-Boy here knows about the movement of every microgram of magma beneath the sea? Gosh, you mean the kind of movement that causes earthquakes and tsunamis? Those things that kill thousands upon thousands of people? AND HE DOES NOTHING TO STOP THIS? Really, Matt, if there is a great Architect of this Matrix running the whole damn thing, I don’t see much evidence that he’s doing it for our benefit. He might just as well be a malicious Evil God (thanks, Richard Carrier) running the whole thing for some sadistic pleasure.

And then Matt ends the whole thing with a quote from the ever-delightful Book of Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” Job 38:4

That’s it, God. You just tell ‘em how puny and stupid they are. “Do you know everything, human? No? So shut up and stop asking so many awkward questions! Yes, I could use my little Bible to tell you about germs in the Bronze Ages already and save you a few thousand years of misery, but that would be making it too easy, now wouldn’t it? And when you do discover this for yourselves, don’t get all arrogant on me - I knew that stuff all along! All truth is mine, remember?”

Ah yes, the faith of Job. The guy who by all rights should have become an atheist but just wouldn’t let go. The guy who could stand tall with the motto, “God gives and He takes away”. Let’s make a virtue of not understanding. Then terrorise all who dare to understand even a little. When all else fails, when all the evidence suggests that the Bible is a hopeless guide for truthful living, and that Christianity is a load of nonsense, just take the transcendental Magical Mystery Tour of “Gee, I don’t understand why the world looks nothing like the Bible says it should, but God must know and I’m just too scared to see it any other way”.

By Tim McGraw ~

Growing up I was an only child of a single mother in a radical pentecostal church, there were a few men who tried to be a “father figure” in my life. I always wanted to find my biological father, my mother told me, “you have fathers and you know they love you.” The first thing that is wrong with that is fathers plural. There was never just one, they were all there to “help” from time to time. But they really only cared if they thought “my soul might be in danger.” In other words, they were only there for negative. They only cared about correcting me and preaching to me. They, for the most part, did not want to show actual fatherly love in the sense that a young boy would have craved. As I got older, I was deemed a misfit. At 14 I was a danger to the community; they told me was unable to have contact with any of my peers for fear that I would “poison them.” They did not care about ME, they only cared about their dogma. They only cared whether or not I would comply with their lifestyle. Beyond that, they couldn’t care less. They just assume see me rot in prison, because that would justify to them that they were right and they could use me as an example. My poor mother is been so brainwashed by them, she feels she cannot make a decision without their approval. She always put them in front of me, believing always they had her and my best interest at heart. She believes that they are a direct line from god, and what they feel is best has got to be god’s will. They just used her for her tremendous musical skill, and I was just an afterthought to entice her services. They told me if I wanted to leave me and my mother would have to move to Dennison. They would put me in public school until I was 18. Then my mother would move back and I would be on my own. This scared me to death. Luckily my grandparents offered to let me move in with them. That is how I escaped.

When I got out I was mentally behind and completely unprepared. So it has taken me the last ten years to discover who I am and what I think. I am still of course continuing to search. I would say I am desperate for understanding, but I am not angry at life. I know it might sometimes come off as angry when I complain and rail about things that I annoy me or that I disagree with. The reason I do that is because I am an activist and an anti-theist. I like to challenge the status quo; I do not just accept that things just are the way they are. I employ logic and reason, and search for evidence to find out what makes sense to me. I started using Facebook as a tool to express my opinions. I soon found out that a lot of people do not want to exorcise their brain and actually try understand what I am questioning and why. I know this is an example of how religion poisons everything, Christians, and even more so for Muslims, do not like people to question their doctrine. Homestead would be a prime example of this. Therefore people who are still under the mindset of “do not question anything, just accept it for what it is” hate when people like me dare to question or make light of their dogma no matter how crazy it might seem.

I recently spoke to a reporter who is investigating allegations of abuse in the cult. My mother found out of course and decided to end our relationship. The passage my mother quoted me supporting her decision to discontinue our relationship is completely justified by the bible. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:26 There are scriptures that contradict that very passage. This is a prime example of “cherry picking,” picking a scripture that fits what is needed, but ignores other scriptures that say the exact opposite. I am sure a skilled theist can make up some justification to that scripture. “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” 1 John 3:15 not only is that scripture completely wrong, but it contradicts the criteria of being a follower of Jesus. Saying that someone is a murderer because they might dislike, or even hate a person does not make them in the slightest bit a murderer. That is like the scripture that says, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt. 5:28 It is impossible to control the thoughts of a person. How can you commit adultery “in your heart?” And it is only adultery if one of the people is married. These are scriptures similar to the commandment “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods” which is the basis for our capitalistic economy, our society is run on the fact that people covet. What people think cannot be regulated. Besides, if nobody ever looked at anyone with lust, nobody would ever hook up or get married. Lust as they call it, is just a natural function of our brain called attraction. If we were not attracted to anyone sexually, how would we have propagated our species?

Several theists told me to read "A Case for Christ." I read it. Although it did not change my mind, I found it interesting. It actually bolsters my view. I would point out that Lee was not an atheist, he was a skeptical non-believer. He only interviewed ONE non-Christian expert. That expert was only to say that, in his medical opinion, Jesus could not have survived what experienced on the cross. That is an easy conclusion to come to. The rest of the experts are just saying why they believe the gospels to be the gospel. They might in their expert opinion think that Jesus was not delusional, and that he was in fact a god etc. I can concede that me might have existed, more likely he is just a representation of people like him, prophets who thought they were Messiah. However there is nothing, no evidence to support that he was anything but just an influential guy who had a lot of fans. The whole basis of Christianity is based in the concept that everyone is born in “sin.” Before Jesus, people were atoned for by blood sacrifice. Then Jesus came and died as the final atonement for all, but then he was resurrected and that proved that he was god as well as human, a demigod is what the Greeks called such beings. I reject the basis for this belief. We are not born into “sin,” thus we do not need atonement. Blood sacrifice is primitive, archaic and brutish. It only shows that primitive people did grasp what cause nature to work, they thought by taking life, it would in turn make the gods happy and give back life in a sense. Remember, the ancient central and South American natives performed human sacrifice to appease the gods. In their minds it made the sun to come up and the rain to fall. We find that abhorrent today, but yet the concept that a demigod sacrificed himself in order to “save” humanity is perfectly acceptable?

I have been reading "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything." It is an amazing book. If you want a glimpse into my general philosophy on the subject of religion I would recommend reading it. I don’t think that it is fair to say the reason I am skeptical, and reject religion is because of my negative experience at Homestead. The arguments for religion stand and fall on their own merit. When I was younger, about 13 or so, I remember asking the question (after learning about the ancient Greek gods) “What makes those gods different from our god or Allah? What makes Christians correct? What sect of Christianity is correct? Is everyone who was unfortunate enough to be born on the wrong continent with the wrong religion going to hell because they have not heard ‘the good news?’” I would say my skepticism started young. My activism however is because of Homestead, I see what religious mind control does to people and therefore I do anything in my power to undo and prevent it from happening. I am not just an anti-theist either; I am an activist for equal rights and freedom from tyranny for everyone as well as the separation of church and state. My biological father is a gay, transgendered woman. Before I even met her or knew anything about her, I had gay friends, dated trans-women and discovered that I am bisexual. Equal rights for everyone, especially for the LGBT community is very important to me. I am fanatical about equal rights for marriage, I myself do not ever plan to marry but to say two consenting adults who want to make that kind of commitment is wrong, to me is appalling. The government needs to live and let live. It should only make laws in order to prevent harm to other humans. Otherwise leave us well enough alone to think, believe and love whomever we like.

By Incongruous Circumspection ~

After openly moving out of Christianity and becoming an agnostic, concluding that the Bible is nothing more than a fascinating mess of paper and ink, I have been asked the following question again and again:

"Why do you bother talking about God or the Bible when you don't even believe in it?"

Actually, it usually doesn't come in the form of a nice question but rather an angry command to quiet my voice. Of course, I won't pretend that what I write has much of an influence outside of the few who read it, but you would think, by the potency of the words coming at me, I was akin to the Anti-Christ.

I'm not going to lengthily address the question of why people might do this because the answer to that is quite simple. When someone is wholly devoted to something that completely defines their life, or more importantly, defines their life after death, anything that questions the logic of the crumbling pillars that props that something up needs to be beaten back and silenced. I love the debate and find that the fight keeps me alive and well.

But, do I write about religion, the Bible, and God because I like to enrage believers? Do I do it because poking people in the eye gives me pleasure? Am I a narcissist that tries to belittle everyone who does not see life my way? At points in my life, sometimes daily, the answers to all the questions above is a resounding "yes"! But that is not my underlying reason for why I address the subject.

Let's turn the question around.

Why does a Christian, who thinks that all people who are not Christians, are going to hell anyway, not want someone questioning, reasoning, and logically working through the questions that might lead them back into the fold?! After all, those good Christian folks who are doing all the yelling would be the first to tell me that my non-god is going to send me to hell. And they do a fine job of it. But why do they bother talking to me about my non-belief when they are not non-believers? Makes sense, right?

Ignoring the hell concept, other Christians despise people like me because my voice is out there leading other Christians astray. Really?! If that is going to be your argument, I can think of two very fundamental reasons why you should not attack me with that argument.

First, if I, a mere mortal, am splashing my uneducated words onto an electronic page, and God, an omnipotent, omniscient being, does not have the power to render my words meaningless to those that he desires to be with him in heaven, I think that says more about your god than the power of my words. Words do hold power, but only inasmuch as they form a coherent thought. If my thoughts are coherent (logical) and the Christian's thoughts are as well, what is the problem with pitting them against each other and having the debate?

Secondly, being that I simply ask people to think logically about what they are believing, using logic, anecdotes, reason, Scripture, common sense, and other sources for my material, trying to silence me plays a hand that I would think no Christian, in these modern times, would want to be associated with - that in order to become and stay a Christian, one has to suspend all reason.

If I conclude that the Bible is silly, argue why it is not. But if I am concluding that the Bible is indeed silly, don't argue with me by throwing verses my way about how all god haters will go to hell. I know the Bible. I was forced to read it from cover to cover, scores of times while growing up, not to mention, the Holy Bible, in all forms, is available for free online, twenty-four hours a day.

Let's have a conversation, not a slinging of mud. We both have the ability to type. I use two fingers to do it. Let's do it well.

By Hatuey ~

After reading atheistnurse’s piece on Noah’s Ark I decided to revisit the story myself to get a better understanding of it the way she did. Once I began reading, I noticed something in those passages that stood out from all the rest. I also noticed that the particular subject that those verses dealt with were not covered in atheistnurse’s piece. So with a curious mind, a healthy dose of skepticism, and a boatload of information that I gathered from the internet and a few books I decided to show you all the fruits of my research, but if any of you find fault with something do let me know. I would like to use this against any Christian that thinks that the Bible is infallible and I wouldn’t like to be on the losing side of that argument due to having done improper or shady research. Now then, let us have a little biology lesson.

The verses that I was referring to can be found in Genesis 6: 19-20 and they clearly state Biblegod’s intention:

“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” (NIV)

Obviously anyone can see that Biblegod wanted to tell Noah that he wants to preserve the members of the animal kingdom and wanted them to repopulate the planet once the flood waters receded. Now, excluding the ramifications of any genetic disease that might appear or the possibility of incest due to every unclean animal being given the task to propagate the species with only two individuals (Adam and Eve anyone?), we see here that Biblegod at least knows how reproduction works since it was he who the Bible credits with inventing it. One male and one female is all you need in order to have offspring…or is it?

Before I continue with this little endeavor, it is necessary for me to explain the concept of parthenogenesis. To put it simply, parthenogenesis (literally meaning “virgin birth” in Greek) is a form of reproduction in which the growth and development of an embryo or seed requires no need of fertilization by a male. Many invertebrates have this form of asexual reproduction as part of their life cycle but few vertebrates do. A leading exemplar of a vertebrate that is parthenogenic is the Komodo Dragon. It is at this point that a Christian might say “Ah but wait a minute! The female Komodo Dragon only goes through parthenogenesis when there are no viable males to which it can mate with. It still does not refute the necessity of having both a male and a female to propagate the species as the Bible clearly states. You lose!” Though it is true that female Komodo Dragons become parthenogenic only when there are no males to be found, I have to clarify that I only used that particular animal in order to begin my assessment of the subject. And may I say that I’m far from finished.

It is with great pleasure that I now introduce you all with the animal that has helped me with my refutation of those verses. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Lepidodactylus lugubris. Commonly known as the Mourning Gecko, this little lizard (just like its much larger reptilian cousin) is also parthenogenic. Though there is a huge difference between the two and it’s a big one. You see, when you’re a Mourning Gecko you’re always having a night out with the girls. Boys are never allowed to join in for the fun because there are simply no boys in the first place. Every single specimen from this species is female and they manage quite fine without ever having a man around the house (sorry guys).

Surely you all must know by now where I’m going with this. But if not, I invite you to reread that verse that I presented earlier. The verse clearly states one male and one female for every unclean animal. No exceptions. A few verses later on in the story shows us that the number of every kind of clean animal is said to be seven, though it's still implied that there must be at least one representative of each sex. Yet all of those verses fail to mention any hint of any lizard with a population that only consists of females. There is no “…male and female (except for those parthenogenic lizards which get two females and no males) to keep them alive with you”.

How can Biblegod, being all knowing, overlook such a simple thing? His word is (according to some denominations) supposed to be infallible. He created those lizards and their form of reproduction. Shouldn’t it say so in that holy book? It seems that the more one reads those verses the more it appears to be quite simply that the Bible is a collection of books written by fallible men who only had a limited understanding of biology and that they didn’t bother to lift the legs of every animal that they encountered in order to confirm its sex.

The way I see it is that, unless there is some sort of lacuna in the book of Genesis, any Christian claiming that the Bible has any exemplary facts when it comes to biology doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Should it be a case of a lacuna, then the Bible is an incomplete work. How many Christians would dare say that? Not many I bet.

The existence of this little Gecko has created a hole in the historicity of the book of Genesis and though the name of this animal has the word mourning in it, I can tell you that I’m not the one who will feel any sorrow from this lizard. I have even made a joke about it. Since it is a Gecko, I thought of something around the likes of the GEICO commercial: 15 minutes of reading these verses could save you 15% or more on brainwashing insurance. That should help people who are recovering from leaving Christianity. Maybe we should make this Gecko a spokesperson for our cause.

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~


This article is intended as a little head-to-head talk with Christians concerning their “deal” with the faith. As you surely understand, your acceptance of the Christian creed is essentially a deal to abide by and support the Bible as the founding document of Christianity.

When people get involved with movements or religions it usually means they have bought into the belief system and objectives of the movement or religion (unless they have been coerced). Of course, as a practical and moral imperative they should periodically reconsider their involvement. As new information becomes available, or a person’s outlook or goals change, he should consider whether there is a deal-breaker involved; that is, a piece of information that causes the person involved to decide that he can no longer support and promote the beliefs and objectives of the movement or religion.

I will illustrate all this with reference to Nazi Germany, but I am not implying that Nazism and the Christian religion have anything of substance in common. The focal point here is the individual and his choices regarding the movement in question.

Imagine yourself in 1930s Germany during the rise of Hitler and Nazism. This was a time of shame for the German people. They had lost WWI and been reduced to widespread poverty by the destruction of war and demands for excessive reparations by the victors. Then, along comes the Fuhrer, promising to restore the pride and prosperity of your country. Indeed, he succeeds in large measure, reducing unemployment while rebuilding the nation’s military. There is great pomp and ceremony, with parades, rousing speeches, modern aircraft fly-overs, etc. There is hope for the future, and it is practically tangible (see “The Will to Power,” a brilliant and fascinating propaganda film of the period to get a feel for this).

You become invested - a believer in the power and promise of a great new Germany under Hitler. Nazism makes sense to you, since it appears to be working, to be producing much to be proud of.

Then comes the anti-Jew rhetoric that the Jews are trying to rule the world and they are somehow responsible for Germany’s loss in WWI. You are doubtful of these claims, so you ask, Is this a deal-breaker? Then you see the Jews, Gypsies, and opposition politicians being rounded up and transported to who knows where, and there are rumors that they are being imprisoned or killed. And you have to ask again, Is this a deal-breaker? Should I continue to support and promote the Nazi movement, which is now pretty certain to be involved in reprehensibly immoral behavior? Then the Nazis invade a neighboring country on a very suspicious pretext, then another country, and another . . . Isn’t there a deal-breaker here somewhere?

You see, one should reconsider constantly his involvement in any movement or religion, as more information becomes available. Ethically, and practically, it makes sense to be looking for the deal-breaker. Of course, one hopes he never finds it, but can he in good conscience just turn a blind eye to the evidence as it unfolds before him? Who would that benefit? Think of the millions who supported the Nazi movement as it practiced genocide and involved the whole world in a horribly destructive war. When should the average German citizen have recognized the deal-breaker? Should he have just dutifully marched behind the Fuhrer as he systematically destroyed country after country?

Now, I can’t say when the average German should have recognized the deal-breaker, the Nazi action that should have caused him to remove his support, and perhaps even begin working against the regime. I can only say that any German with his eyes open, who gave some thought to what was going on around him, at some point should have recognized a deal-breaker. Perhaps when the Nazi government began destroying Jewish businesses and curtailing the rights of German Jewish citizens? He might not have been able to do anything constructive against the regime, especially if he was in uniform, but in his own mind he should have come to disagreement with the Nazis and removed his support to the best of his (likely limited) ability.

Now, with that lesson behind us, let’s take a look at the Bible. It was written two to three thousand years ago, by mostly anonymous authors. Many people claim those authors were inspired by a god as to exactly what to write. I think we may be able to test this claim from the evidence of the Bible itself, provided we are open to looking for possible deal-breakers – and those who are not open haven’t learned a thing from the brief history lesson above. If you choose to be that foolish, and willfully blind, then you might as well stop reading right here.

The Bible is a primitive work dreamed up by superstitious men, and probably no other book of the Bible more clearly attests to this fact.Often, a deal-breaker is found in the fine print, the part of a contract folks often don’t read. As a Christian, you essentially have agreed to support, abide by, and promote the Bible since it is the founding document of your religion. You are in a sense identified with and by your Bible. You are told to reflect the values of that Bible as one fully invested in its wisdom and Truth. But have you actually read the fine print on this deal, and thought seriously about it? Have you gone beyond the parts of the Bible your priest or pastor is always talking about? Have you read the parts he never talks about, the parts he ignores?

Well, what’s in those parts, you might ask. Okay, let’s take a look at just a few of those lesser known parts - the Bible’s fine print, so to speak. Here’s an interesting passage (Leviticus 20:13):

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

This is an obvious reference to homosexuality. It states very simply and clearly that homosexuals should be executed. What is even less known is that this book of Leviticus begins, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying. . .” You see, according to the Bible, the execution of homosexuals is a direct command from god.

Now, do you still think the Bible was really “inspired” by god? Would a “loving” god actually command such a thing? Doesn’t this sound a whole lot more like the raving of a primitive man with an unevolved morality? Could this be a deal-breaker for you? Should you be supporting a book which commands the execution of homosexuals? Do you really want to be identified with such a book?

So, maybe this is just some kind of misunderstanding? Well let’s look a little further. Here’s another piece of the fine print (Deuteronomy 21:18-21):

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them . . . all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. . . “

Here we have the command that disobedient sons should be executed. Would you deal with a son that way? Do you see this as a moral action? Is this the kind of moral value you should support and reflect? Again, doesn’t this sound like the ravings of a man with a very crude, primitive morality? This command shows that its author had little understanding of human psychology. In modern times we have learned that part of growing up, of preparing for independence, is a bit of disobedience in teenagers. Why do you suppose our laws forbid the execution of sons who are disobedient? Could it be because we know that such an act would be reprehensible, unconscionable? Could this be a deal-breaker for you? Shouldn’t it be? Hasn’t the Bible ceded the moral high ground with this passage? Does it reflect your beliefs, your morals? Can you really continue to support such dangerous nonsense?

But, you say, this stuff is from the Old Testament and Jesus changed all that? Well, let’s take a look at the New Testament and see just who this Jesus fellow was, and what we can learn of his character. I’ll make a bold statement here and say that I know that you are more moral than Jesus Christ. How can I claim that? In John 15:6, Jesus says:

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Did you know that this passage was used for centuries to justify burning at the stake those people, like me, who didn’t believe Jesus was the son of god? Now, I don’t disbelieve in Jesus’ divinity just to be different or rebellious. That would be pretty stupid, wouldn’t it? No, I disbelieve because the evidence of Jesus’ divinity consists entirely of some claims made in an ancient book written by superstitious, primitive men, and I find that evidence unconvincing.

So, what do you think, do I deserve to burn in hell because I’m not convinced of Jesus’ divinity; that is, because - to my mind - those Biblical authors made a weak case? After all, there are only their written words to go by; they never provided any hard evidence. So, who should be blamed – them for not making a better case, or me for not believing their weak case? I said before that I know that you are more moral than Jesus Christ, and here is my proof. According to Jesus, a heretic like me should be consigned to the fires of hell, and that passage from John is quite clear on this. But you? I am absolutely certain that you are a better person than that, a more moral person. There is no way that you, a modern human with a presumably normal conscience, would consent to causing me great (perhaps infinite) suffering just because no one has convinced me that Jesus was a god. I know that you wouldn’t consent to that, and so do you.

Shouldn’t this new information be a deal-breaker for you? Can you really support and promote the eternal torture of someone just because he doesn’t believe some ancient stories are true? Does this kind of command by Jesus really align with your moral character?

Ah, but Jesus is god, you say, a perfect being, so I must be misunderstanding this because Jesus couldn’t make a mistake. No? Well, doesn’t making a statement that results in the hideous burning death of thousands of good honest people count as a mistake? And, how is saying non-believers should be killed any different from saying homosexuals should be killed? You don’t agree with either of these statements, and I’m sure of it. If I’m wrong on this, then please write a comment, below, and tell me, straight out, that I deserve to be tortured and killed for the reason that I don’t believe Jesus Christ was a god. But, be advised, in doing so you would be proving my contention that the Bible contains many perversions of modern Western morality. You know as well as I do that almost no one in the Western world would agree with torturing and murdering me just because I don’t believe Jesus was a god.

I have shown you a number of passages from the Bible which could - and probably should – be deal-breakers for you. The Bible is built on a crude, very primitive concept of morality that you really can’t agree with. In it, god makes commands you would not dream of carrying out. Not only would you be imprisoned if you actually were to carry them out, but you know in your heart they are simply wrong, as wrong as can be.

If you are still unconvinced, then I recommend a reading of Leviticus. The Bible is a primitive work dreamed up by superstitious men, and probably no other book of the Bible more clearly attests to this fact. Leviticus is an absolutely laughable compendium of stupidly meticulous instructions on how to carry out “proper” animal blood sacrifices for specific “infractions.” Why do you suppose no one does all this animal sacrifice business anymore? “Kill an animal for god!” That sounds kind of stupid now, doesn’t it? But it’s still a part of that “holy” book that you claim contains the TRUTH of god. Do you really think that EVER made any sense?

At any rate, the Bible has some very serious problems and you know that now. Can you just ignore them? Can you just continue to swear allegiance to a book which, in all seriousness, commands you to go out and murder homosexuals? Can you ignore your own conscience, and deny the better side of your humanity?

Now, I bid you go forth and be a good man or woman – not what the Bible says is good, but that good which you know in your heart is even better.

By DavidBroman ~

This is for my children when they are older -- to help keep you free from superstitious thought and culture. It's for my friends and family who often invite me to church or ask me why I don't go to church anymore. In this video, I explain why I am no longer a Christian, why the claims of Christianity are not true, why many people still hold on to religion, and why the world is a better place without religion.

By Hoopy Frood ~

At what point should we give up on someone? I am speaking primarily about Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. They are the most hateful, intolerant, fear mongering people you will ever meet, but should we give up on them? By give up on them I mean give up reasoning with them to try to show them that what they are doing is wrong and extremely harmful. I fully support reasoning with someone to try to come to a peaceful and reasonable solution, but where do you draw the line? When is someone beyond helpable?

WBC 20051202 sacco-topeka7 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe that this may be the case for the WBC but I really hate just giving up on anyone. I am willing to listen to and consider anyone else’s POV as long as they are willing to sit down and have a civil conversation and listen to mine as well. But after you watch and listen to the WBC for a while you realize that most, if not all, members cannot be reasoned with. I am afraid these are the people that cannot be reached. Ironically, they say the same thing about America. It is too late for them to understand or embrace any kind of reason. The only way to cure the US of groups like theirs is to ignore them, but we love to hate sensationalist groups with controversial messages so they will continue to make the news. I don’t really even like writing about them because it gives them publicity which leads to power but this is something important that should be said.

I am willing to listen to and consider anyone else’s POV as long as they are willing to sit down and have a civil conversation and listen to mine as well. The WBC is a great example of why it is so hard to place faith in the Bible. Of course there are MANY varying interpretations, but the WBC’s interpretation seems very extreme. It seems so extreme that you would believe that there is absolutely no way that they can spin the Bible into what they say if for no other reason than most Christians believe that the Bible is a book of extreme love. But if you check on of their many websites you will find that everything that they preach and believe in is completely backed by scripture. Of course, if you actually read the Bible then you realize that the WBC is just like the God of the Old Testament. It’s too bad Fred didn’t live during those times. He would have been a perfect fit.

Fred Phelps himself may be evil, or he may be a victim of his upbringing or maybe just mentally deranged, but it’s hard for me to hate his children and their children because it’s not their fault that they were indoctrinated into this cult. Still, it’s hard to envision a situation where any of them wake up and see the harm that they are causing to the people of our country and the reputation of our country. The scariest part of this situation really is the children and grandchildren of Fred. The difference between Fred and his children is that Fred was not raised believing this. He had a religious experience in his late teen years and then came to the conclusion that his minister was not properly interpreting and preaching the Bible, so he formed these beliefs on his own without being indoctrinated. One could argue that reaching these conclusions on one’s own could lead to a greater belief in them than if you were raised to believe these thing, but I disagree. If you are raised with these beliefs then you really have no frame of reference for how others think. You completely lose the ability to be objective in any way. But if you begin believing this on your own, at least there was a point in your life that you can go back to where you saw things from another perspective. His children and their children are different because they were raised believing this and were indoctrinated from birth which could make them twice as dangerous and zealous as Fred himself. This is all they have ever known so they believe it to the core. The only difference between the WBC and Muslim extremists is that Muslim extremists will actually kill you whereas the WBC will only picket or sue you. This is the case so far, but I would not be surprised if, in the future, the WBC tried something violent. Still, the precedent set by Fred and the indoctrination of his children and their children is extremely dangerous, but luckily there are not many of them.

As terrible as they are, they are still a great teaching tool. They are the prime example of what free speech means and how powerful that right is for our citizens. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of Americans vehemently disagree with what they say, but because of the First Amendment, they are allowed to say it. This is what’s great and terrible about our country. Having the right of free speech means that you can say what you want but it does not mean that you ought to say it. With this right of free speech also comes the responsibility to know when to use it. Unfortunately, the WBC seems to have perfected the art of knowing exactly how to abuse this right.