I have a religious friend who often states he does not accept the Catholic church and thinks that religion is bullshit. However, this very same friend thinks that prayer helped his grandmother to regain her sight rather than the doctors who did the real work. We've often argued about religious matters, and as he's a close friend, I've soft-balled him and not challenged him overmuch. I need to get my thoughts straight before I start burning that bridge.
Faith. You want me to accept things on faith. You want me to accept things with no evidence on faith. Going with Christianity, as it's familiar to me, let me show you exactly what you want me to accept on faith...
1. There is an invisible, magical man in the sky.
2. The invisible, magical man in the sky is benevolent and all powerful.
3. There is a place called hell where the damned are tortured for eternity and I will go to if I do not accept the magical man in the sky.
4. There is a place called heaven which is my eternal reward for believing in the magical man in the sky.
That's the basis, yeah? Let's go through this.
1. Ok, there's an invisible magical man in the sky. Where is he? What is he? Why is he a he anyway? What evidence do you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he exists? Things that are, for all intents and purposes invisible to me, germs for instance, I can accept as real because evidence exists to explain them, what they are, and how they work. The idea that tiny little things I can't see cause me to get sick would be a ludicrous claim, as ludicrous as the demons cause diseases claim, if not for the evidence that the germs exist. An exorcist has never proved that a demon exists and an exorcism has never proved to be useful in getting rid of the common cold. Scientists did prove that germs exists and scientists did prove that antibiotics can cure certain diseases. You have no proof, so why should I believe you?
2. If your magical man is benevolent and all powerful, explain Africa to me. Explain the starvation, genocide, AIDS epidemic, and so forth. How is any of that benevolent?
3. Your threat to me that I will burn in agony for an eternity if I disagree with you about the invisible, magical man in the sky would be more of a threat if you could prove that hell does exist. But there are no pictures of hell, no way to get directions to hell from here, no proof that it exists. That makes the threat of eternal damnation not really hold much water.
4. Heaven is my promised reward, but what is it? A vague understanding of being in the clouds, with all my dead relatives, for eternity? I get to be close to the magical man in the sky? Ok, sure, maybe that's a good thing. Where is heaven? How do I see it? How does this magical place explain how everyone is somehow alive and healthy again? Has anyone ever returned from it? No. There is no proof this supposedly wonderful place even exists.
So accept on faith that god exists, a claim with no evidence. Then accept on faith that god is all powerful and benevolent, a claim with evidence to the contrary. Then accept that hell exists as my punishment, another claim with no evidence. Then accept that heaven is a reward, another claim with no evidence.
...
Before I answer all those questions, I have one for you... Why are you Catholic? Islam has everything your religion has: heaven, hell, a supposedly all powerful and benevolent creator... Why not believe in Allah? Billions of people, I think, believe in Allah; why don't you? Why won't you accept on faith that what they believe is right? Their claims have as much evidence as your claims, that is, none, so why pick what you have picked? What reason do you have to accept your claims on faith but not their claims on faith? I reject their claims, yet you don't have a problem with me rejecting their claims. What sense does that make?
So, no, to all of your claims. You have faith in the unproven. I do not. I will no more accept your claims of the magic man any more than I will accept claims of UFOs, the loch ness monster, or bigfoot. Without evidence, you have no compelling reason for me to believe what you believe. And, yes, I am comparing belief in god to other favorite skeptics topics. I do so because the general conclusion of skepticism applied to religion is atheism, or at least a loss of faith.
And I know you'll call me arrogant for saying this. But let's look at that closer. You won't change your mind; despite the lack of evidence, you will continue to believe. You have faith. Nothing will change your mind. I know what it would take to change my mind: evidence. If you came to me with incontrovertible evidence of your magical man tomorrow, I would convert on the spot. You say I'm arrogant for being closed-minded, when I am keeping an open mind to any faith with evidence; I say that you who have made a decision and know nothing will change your mind, you are the arrogant one. Go look up arrogant and see who you think the word really applies to.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Jessica's victory won't be tarnished
Jessica Ahlquist has won her court battle and is now taking unbelievable flak for it. I read the vitriol in that second link; I read all of it. I don't know why, but I am consistently amazed by how horrible some people are who say they are Christian. It's like every time I don't think it can get worse, some Christian comes out and surprises me, and not in a good way. I have NALT ("Not All of us are Like That") friends who complain about my activism almost every time I post something about atheism. I used to accept it and give them credit for being good examples of what Christians could be. Now, every NALT makes me angrier.
You know what? Yes, we get it. You aren't the hateful bigot telling Jessica about how she's evil, should be punished, should be hurt; most of the other Christians you know would never do such a thing, in your opinion. But you know what else, what's really hurting your credibility? Every time a NALT protests, you're protesting about the wrong thing. I'm angry on Jessica's behalf, as are most atheists, and that's to be expected. But if you were as Christian as you say you are, your voice would be as loud as mine or louder condemning these bigots. You wouldn't waste your time telling us about how some people have better moral standards. You would be getting in the face of those bigots and pointing out their hypocrisy. You would be helping to point out that every time they threaten a young woman in the right that they are going against the religion they espouse.
But you aren't. I am. Atheists are. All my atheist heroes are. Yet everywhere I look, there are NALTs, deflectors, victim blamers, and silencers. Comments, everywhere I've seen, are horrifying. I just learned a new phrase, "the tyranny of the minority", as if anything Jessica's done has been tyrannical. I always had a little trouble with the idea that the moderate religious people were paving the way for the extremists, but this unbelievable situation has brought some clarity to my still opening eyes. You, moderate Christians, are part of the problem. Until it's you screaming about the injustices that people like Jessica are suffering at the hands of your extremists, then you've got nothing to say that I need to listen to.
Jessica, you kick ass. You I'll listen to.
You know what? Yes, we get it. You aren't the hateful bigot telling Jessica about how she's evil, should be punished, should be hurt; most of the other Christians you know would never do such a thing, in your opinion. But you know what else, what's really hurting your credibility? Every time a NALT protests, you're protesting about the wrong thing. I'm angry on Jessica's behalf, as are most atheists, and that's to be expected. But if you were as Christian as you say you are, your voice would be as loud as mine or louder condemning these bigots. You wouldn't waste your time telling us about how some people have better moral standards. You would be getting in the face of those bigots and pointing out their hypocrisy. You would be helping to point out that every time they threaten a young woman in the right that they are going against the religion they espouse.
But you aren't. I am. Atheists are. All my atheist heroes are. Yet everywhere I look, there are NALTs, deflectors, victim blamers, and silencers. Comments, everywhere I've seen, are horrifying. I just learned a new phrase, "the tyranny of the minority", as if anything Jessica's done has been tyrannical. I always had a little trouble with the idea that the moderate religious people were paving the way for the extremists, but this unbelievable situation has brought some clarity to my still opening eyes. You, moderate Christians, are part of the problem. Until it's you screaming about the injustices that people like Jessica are suffering at the hands of your extremists, then you've got nothing to say that I need to listen to.
Jessica, you kick ass. You I'll listen to.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Goodbye Christmas and good riddance
As a child, warmed by the glow of the fire, a pile of presents left by a magical fat man seemed like the closest thing I could experience to heaven. Then, when I was eight or nine, I figured out that Santa wasn't real. I'm sure it was depressing, but at least it made sense. How could one dude go to every single house in the world in one night? What about all the starving kids in Africa? Did they get piles of presents too? No, they got to continue starving on December 25th just like the day before. Still, I got presents, so it was pretty sweet.
Now I'm a grown man. I have a job, a house, responsibilities, and I'm an atheist. Does Christmas evoke the same feelings? No. Not even slightly. Christmas has become a joke to me, a sad joke, that very few people seem to get. "Jesus' birthday" is just the beginning. I learned young that Christmas wasn't really Jesus' birthday because my parents didn't feel the need to lie to me about that my whole life. In high school I did enough reading to know that Christmas had more to do with the winter solstice than most people thought. In college, in world religions class, I learned that Christmas had more to do with pagan traditions than Christian ones. And, as an adult atheist, I now see the joke that Christmas has become.
Christians don't know or won't admit that their precious holiday really has nothing to do with Christ. They also don't tend to know that Christmas wasn't a national holiday till 1870. They don't know that Christ wasn't born on December 25th or that there were no three wise men. They don't know that the tree, yule log, and mistletoe are all pagan traditions. Simply, they are as ignorant about this holiday as they tend to be about their own religion. I don't know why that's surprising, but it still is at times.
Then there's Santa. Or should I say Sinterklaas? Or Saint Nicholas? A magic fat man with a reindeer with a glowing nose? These are ideas that are modern, not ancient, but all this is a shock and somehow insulting to most that I mention this to. We are adults, we know there's no Santa, that he is just a creation for children, yet so many people I talk to fight learning more about this magic fat man's past. I'm "ruining the magic" or whatever.
Well, there's no Santa, December 25th isn't Jesus' birthday, and the holiday magic which, to me, is little more than ugly consumerism, does not impress. Now that I sound like a curmudgeon, I'll try to explain.
When I want to buy someone a gift, I do so with no expectation of a return gift. Generosity is good for generosity's sake; that's kind of the point, isn't it? I don't want to buy someone stuff for the sake of buying them stuff, I want to give the something they either want or I think they will love. One of the best gifts I ever got anyone was a key to my house for my then girlfriend; small and inexpensive and the best gift she got that year.
When I want to be together with my family, I want to be together with my family. Something as simple as a dinner at their home is enough. If you are someone I want to spend time with, I don't wait until a holiday to do so. Only visiting on holidays smacks of responsibility rather than desire, so I spend time with the people I want to spend time with not out of obligation, but because I want to.
If you'd like to wait for a holiday you don't truly understand to buy people hastily chosen gifts out of some archaic obligation that you never question and call that season magical, then by all means do so. But bear it in mind that your magical season is how I try to live my life all year round, so when you tell me I'm "ruining the magic", try to understand that there is no magic, and your archaic thinking limits the "magic" to a few days a year.
I prefer my way.
Now I'm a grown man. I have a job, a house, responsibilities, and I'm an atheist. Does Christmas evoke the same feelings? No. Not even slightly. Christmas has become a joke to me, a sad joke, that very few people seem to get. "Jesus' birthday" is just the beginning. I learned young that Christmas wasn't really Jesus' birthday because my parents didn't feel the need to lie to me about that my whole life. In high school I did enough reading to know that Christmas had more to do with the winter solstice than most people thought. In college, in world religions class, I learned that Christmas had more to do with pagan traditions than Christian ones. And, as an adult atheist, I now see the joke that Christmas has become.
Christians don't know or won't admit that their precious holiday really has nothing to do with Christ. They also don't tend to know that Christmas wasn't a national holiday till 1870. They don't know that Christ wasn't born on December 25th or that there were no three wise men. They don't know that the tree, yule log, and mistletoe are all pagan traditions. Simply, they are as ignorant about this holiday as they tend to be about their own religion. I don't know why that's surprising, but it still is at times.
Then there's Santa. Or should I say Sinterklaas? Or Saint Nicholas? A magic fat man with a reindeer with a glowing nose? These are ideas that are modern, not ancient, but all this is a shock and somehow insulting to most that I mention this to. We are adults, we know there's no Santa, that he is just a creation for children, yet so many people I talk to fight learning more about this magic fat man's past. I'm "ruining the magic" or whatever.
Well, there's no Santa, December 25th isn't Jesus' birthday, and the holiday magic which, to me, is little more than ugly consumerism, does not impress. Now that I sound like a curmudgeon, I'll try to explain.
When I want to buy someone a gift, I do so with no expectation of a return gift. Generosity is good for generosity's sake; that's kind of the point, isn't it? I don't want to buy someone stuff for the sake of buying them stuff, I want to give the something they either want or I think they will love. One of the best gifts I ever got anyone was a key to my house for my then girlfriend; small and inexpensive and the best gift she got that year.
When I want to be together with my family, I want to be together with my family. Something as simple as a dinner at their home is enough. If you are someone I want to spend time with, I don't wait until a holiday to do so. Only visiting on holidays smacks of responsibility rather than desire, so I spend time with the people I want to spend time with not out of obligation, but because I want to.
If you'd like to wait for a holiday you don't truly understand to buy people hastily chosen gifts out of some archaic obligation that you never question and call that season magical, then by all means do so. But bear it in mind that your magical season is how I try to live my life all year round, so when you tell me I'm "ruining the magic", try to understand that there is no magic, and your archaic thinking limits the "magic" to a few days a year.
I prefer my way.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Atheism in the martial arts
I have been studying the martial arts since I was eleven. I have studied numerous styles; I have belts and sashes and cords from many styles, the highest of which is my second degree black belt in karate. Suffice it to say I am an experienced martial artist. What's interesting to me about that is, after my turn to atheism, the amount of my martial arts heritage I've had to leave behind.
Chi, ki, xi, prana, axé... All of these are "energy" of a mystical type I've run into via the martial arts. In some cases these are viewed as merely the energy that you get when you gather together with a group of people; in others, it is a literal energy flow that can be harnessed for various skills and techniques.
In karate, I was taught that by flowing my chi I could punch harder, use my attacks to damage internal organs without bruising the skin, even make getting punched hurt less. In kung fu I was taught many of the same things, as well as that specific sounds made with the mouth had specific effects on fighting. In taichi I was taught that it was chi, internal power, that made taichi boxers strong rather than muscles. In each of these cases, what I was taught was either exaggerated or just plain false. However, few question these unscientific ideas and accept the anecdotes they are given as fact.
The only energy that I can't argue with is axé, the energy said to gather when groups of capoeiristas get together to play together. I've heard it said that this is some kind of mystical energy, though in my experience it's just seemed to be used by "the group has a lot of axé today". Feeling more energy in a group is some kind of a real thing, I think.
Capoeira, however, isn't free of religious trappings. A lot of the songs we sing are just fun songs that don't say much, like "Si si si, nao nao nao", which is, literally, singing "yes yes yes, no no no" over and over again. However many songs call upon saints, ancient gods, Mary, and indeed the christian God. These are all part of the history of Capoeira, so I'm ok with letting them slide I guess. No one has made religion an issue with me yet, so letting it be seems like the best choice.
Knowing what I do know makes me curious about other martial arts that I haven't tried, but there isn't enough time in my life to learn all the martial arts that I'm curious about.
Chi, ki, xi, prana, axé... All of these are "energy" of a mystical type I've run into via the martial arts. In some cases these are viewed as merely the energy that you get when you gather together with a group of people; in others, it is a literal energy flow that can be harnessed for various skills and techniques.
In karate, I was taught that by flowing my chi I could punch harder, use my attacks to damage internal organs without bruising the skin, even make getting punched hurt less. In kung fu I was taught many of the same things, as well as that specific sounds made with the mouth had specific effects on fighting. In taichi I was taught that it was chi, internal power, that made taichi boxers strong rather than muscles. In each of these cases, what I was taught was either exaggerated or just plain false. However, few question these unscientific ideas and accept the anecdotes they are given as fact.
The only energy that I can't argue with is axé, the energy said to gather when groups of capoeiristas get together to play together. I've heard it said that this is some kind of mystical energy, though in my experience it's just seemed to be used by "the group has a lot of axé today". Feeling more energy in a group is some kind of a real thing, I think.
Capoeira, however, isn't free of religious trappings. A lot of the songs we sing are just fun songs that don't say much, like "Si si si, nao nao nao", which is, literally, singing "yes yes yes, no no no" over and over again. However many songs call upon saints, ancient gods, Mary, and indeed the christian God. These are all part of the history of Capoeira, so I'm ok with letting them slide I guess. No one has made religion an issue with me yet, so letting it be seems like the best choice.
Knowing what I do know makes me curious about other martial arts that I haven't tried, but there isn't enough time in my life to learn all the martial arts that I'm curious about.
Do I look down on the religious?
Hrm, this is a hard one to answer without sounding like an asshole. Some religious people I look down on for certain; scientologists, diehard creationists, theists who openly and proudly use their religion for the purpose of bigotry, and the like fall in that category. However, some religious people I look up to, despite completely disagreeing with many of their beliefs: Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II, Mahatma Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, and other such people who, despite their flaws (sometimes extremely glaring flaws), definitely did something good with their lives far beyond anything I could hope to achieve. That, of course, leaves the vast majority of the religious people who are neither saints nor psychopaths. What about them?
I disagree with them, obviously. Their proof for god is usually limited to "because" or "God is love" or some other groan inducing bit of "proof". But these people can range from profoundly stupid to wildly intelligent in every possible iteration of lifestyles, experience levels, jobs, etc. Do I look down on them all? Certainly not. A lot of people were raised with religion and don't know any better. And, as I'm finding out, a lot of those who people know atheists are ok with them. They aren't necessarily saying I should marry their daughters, but when I ask them if they think I'm going to hell for disagreeing with them, they don't hesitate when they tell me of course not.
The next group of theists are the "you're going to hell for being an atheist" types. This group consists of another dichotomy: the people who feel bad that I'm going to hell and want to help and the people who are looking forward to watching me burn in hell from heaven. The people who genuinely believe I'm going to hell, but just as genuinely want to help me find Jesus to save me, really, I'm ok with. I will rip right into them if they start a religious argument, don't get me wrong, but I appreciate that compassion is what leads them. It's entirely possible that they, as rational human beings, have looked at the same evidence that I did and came to a different conclusion. That happens all the time. I don't think they're right, but that's not a reason to look down on them.
That leaves "holier than thou" theists who don't care about compassion. I have no problems telling you that I look down on these people. However, there's an an entertaining parallel here: these theists who say "I know better than you and therefore I am better than you" have mirrors in the atheist world. I have experience with atheists who say they look down on all religious people. I don't really like the "I'm smarter than you" atheists any more than I like "holier than thou" theists. As far as I'm concerned, they're all assholes.
So do I look down on the religious? Sometimes, but usually no.
I disagree with them, obviously. Their proof for god is usually limited to "because" or "God is love" or some other groan inducing bit of "proof". But these people can range from profoundly stupid to wildly intelligent in every possible iteration of lifestyles, experience levels, jobs, etc. Do I look down on them all? Certainly not. A lot of people were raised with religion and don't know any better. And, as I'm finding out, a lot of those who people know atheists are ok with them. They aren't necessarily saying I should marry their daughters, but when I ask them if they think I'm going to hell for disagreeing with them, they don't hesitate when they tell me of course not.
The next group of theists are the "you're going to hell for being an atheist" types. This group consists of another dichotomy: the people who feel bad that I'm going to hell and want to help and the people who are looking forward to watching me burn in hell from heaven. The people who genuinely believe I'm going to hell, but just as genuinely want to help me find Jesus to save me, really, I'm ok with. I will rip right into them if they start a religious argument, don't get me wrong, but I appreciate that compassion is what leads them. It's entirely possible that they, as rational human beings, have looked at the same evidence that I did and came to a different conclusion. That happens all the time. I don't think they're right, but that's not a reason to look down on them.
That leaves "holier than thou" theists who don't care about compassion. I have no problems telling you that I look down on these people. However, there's an an entertaining parallel here: these theists who say "I know better than you and therefore I am better than you" have mirrors in the atheist world. I have experience with atheists who say they look down on all religious people. I don't really like the "I'm smarter than you" atheists any more than I like "holier than thou" theists. As far as I'm concerned, they're all assholes.
So do I look down on the religious? Sometimes, but usually no.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why I'm becoming more of an activist...
Why did I take so long to be convinced I was an atheist? Why didn't I just go "religion is clearly wrong, the proof for god doesn't exist, I'm done"? Why did I spend time being "non-religious" and call myself an apatheist? I didn't think I cared what people thought of me, yet I avoided what should have, in retrospect at least, been obvious. I am an atheist. I've been an atheist for longer than I realized it. So why didn't I admit it, even to myself?
Fear.
Fear? What the hell was I afraid of ? That people would disown me? That my parents, my religious one at least, would be disappointed in me? That people on the street might complain if I wore a shirt that said "I think therefore I am an atheist"? Yes. Yes to all those things. It's unbelievable that I realize this now, and I mean just now, but I was afraid of calling myself an atheist. Now I'm angry.
I'm angry because it is unbelievable to me that I would let something as petty as a little fear keep me from being truthful with myself. I'm angry that what little religious experience I had when I was a child still haunts me to this day, and I count my religious upbringing as largely positive. Now it infuriates me that I realize I still feel like I have to walk on eggshells around certain people just because we disagree about something.
As an atheist I find I don't care what other people believe so long as what they believe doesn't actively hurt anyone. My Catholic friends who don't sweat the details are so far down the list from the people who mutilate and abuse women for religious purposes, I'm not sure I'll get the chance to worry about their beliefs in my life time. Yet to them, I'm the clear and present danger. I'm a threat to their friends, their families, their children... All because they believe something I don't.
This is lunacy. I'm worried about people a thousand miles away who can be stoned to death for something outside of their control and want to do something, anything to try to help. It feels like the people whose reaction I fear are more afraid of me than they are concerned about what religion is doing to oppress and kill people. If I bring that up, I'm the angry atheist.
It's time I stopped letting fear control what I do. I have something to say and it's damn well time I said it.
I am an atheist, and if you can't handle that because of your religious hangups, well that's *your* problem isn't it?
Fear.
Fear? What the hell was I afraid of ? That people would disown me? That my parents, my religious one at least, would be disappointed in me? That people on the street might complain if I wore a shirt that said "I think therefore I am an atheist"? Yes. Yes to all those things. It's unbelievable that I realize this now, and I mean just now, but I was afraid of calling myself an atheist. Now I'm angry.
I'm angry because it is unbelievable to me that I would let something as petty as a little fear keep me from being truthful with myself. I'm angry that what little religious experience I had when I was a child still haunts me to this day, and I count my religious upbringing as largely positive. Now it infuriates me that I realize I still feel like I have to walk on eggshells around certain people just because we disagree about something.
As an atheist I find I don't care what other people believe so long as what they believe doesn't actively hurt anyone. My Catholic friends who don't sweat the details are so far down the list from the people who mutilate and abuse women for religious purposes, I'm not sure I'll get the chance to worry about their beliefs in my life time. Yet to them, I'm the clear and present danger. I'm a threat to their friends, their families, their children... All because they believe something I don't.
This is lunacy. I'm worried about people a thousand miles away who can be stoned to death for something outside of their control and want to do something, anything to try to help. It feels like the people whose reaction I fear are more afraid of me than they are concerned about what religion is doing to oppress and kill people. If I bring that up, I'm the angry atheist.
It's time I stopped letting fear control what I do. I have something to say and it's damn well time I said it.
I am an atheist, and if you can't handle that because of your religious hangups, well that's *your* problem isn't it?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)