Things atheists should stop saying about theists

"Theists are delusional." No they aren't, in the vast majority. If you were raised christian and you are living a good life with god in your heart, you are not delusional. If you researched Christianity vs. atheism and stayed christian because you felt the atheist's arguments were lacking, you are still not delusional. However, if you did your research, found your faith severely tested, and then clung desperately to your beliefs despite the evidence, now you're getting delusional. But it is not fair of an atheist to assume that a theist is delusional.

"Theists are idiots." Again, vast majority, no they aren't. There are Nobel prize winning scientists who are believers; I would not call them idiots (unless they pulled a Linus Pauling, and even then...). There are idiots who are theists, and they do seem to thrive here on the Internet, but it is an unfair assumption nonetheless.

"Theists abuse their children." There are certainly cases where religions is wielded like a weapon against children, but it is in the minority once again. Most theists do their best to raise children well, and use their religion as a positive influence rather than a negative one.

"Theists are hypocrites." This one I struggle with. This is aggressive and like to be incendiary in an argument, so I'd shy away from it, but is it accurate? Christians say they believe in the bible, but it's really clear that they don't pay attention to large swaths of the book that say horrible things, since most Christians don't have a problem with pork, or tattoos, or wearing blended fabrics. But does that make them hypocritical? Is it ok for a Christian to decide what god really wants and doesn't? If their priest told them that their pig roast event this week was totally ok, would that make the Christian the hypocrite, or the priest? Could the priest also not be a hypocrite? 


My take, personally, is that even if some or most Christians are hypocrites, a lot of those who are may not even realize it. Therefore I'm going to stay away from that particular statement unless someone I'm engaging with truly is being hypocritical. 


I'm sure I've missed plenty of other options, but these are a good start.

Things to stop saying about atheists...

Even I, one who usually avoids the conflicts of the atheist blog-o-sphere, have heard many inaccurate statements about atheists. I'll have more to say on this towards the end, but first some of the often entertaining things I've heard said.

"Atheists don't believe in anything." This is absurd. Mind-bogglingly absurd. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, and I'd go so far as to say that most atheists believe that too.

"Atheists worship Satan." Atheists, by definition, don't worship anyone or anything. That's kind of the point. Satanists worship Satan, and they believe in god, which makes them... not atheists.

"Atheism takes a lot of faith." Believing in a god or gods takes faith. Not believing in god takes no faith. Atheism isn't something supplanting god, it's removing god(s) from the equation.

"Atheist's lives are empty." This is back to absurdity. If you are defining a non-empty life as one that has god in it, then I would have to concede the point. However, atheists go to school, get jobs, have children, make good art, read books, live, love, lose, and all that. What about that is empty?

"Atheists are just mad at god." Absurd is clearly the word of the day. If we don't believe there is a god, why would we be mad at god? How would that even work? I'm not mad at the stamp collection I don't have for not being good enough, that's... just... seriously?

To me, for any of these statements to make any kind of sense, you have to not know any atheists. I mean, it's possible you know an atheist, but you wouldn't know or respect that they are atheists. Someone who would make a statement like those listed above and honestly think it is a true statement doesn't know very much about atheism.

Also, to me, anyone who makes a statement like that is someone I really don't want to talk to about religion, atheism, or anything in between. I would suspect people who think like this aren't so much coming to these conclusions on their own, but are being told by someone else what to think. I have seen/heard pastors, priests, and preachers (on YouTube) tell their congregations such things. And many other worse things, but that's beside the point. If a person has rigorously looked at atheism and decided it's not for them and that religion is better, that person I can have a discussion with. Someone who would spout the statements above at me isn't worth my time. I'm not out to change the mind of anyone who isn't interested in that change, so bitterly arguing with a person who won't listen to me isn't high on my to-do list.

To be fair, there are plenty of things that atheists say about theists they shouldn't, but I think I'll save that for a separate post...

Lesson Two

I do not circulate that this blog exists. I used it in a comment somewhere, possibly on Skepchick, but only once. Since then I have not bothered. I don't update often, and I really don't care about amusing anyone by myself. When I do get hits on my site, I'm just confused. Who could possibly be paying attention? So when that guy commented on the bad FTB ads I'd been seeing, in his condescending and rather amusingly arrogant manner, I was surprised. I responded, wondering what would happen.

Now, days after the initial contact I realize what lesson two is:

Drive by commenters will make you try way too hard.

Not-pology

This is an idea that's banging around in my head, but it's possibly a bad one. My theist friends, who in theory support my choice to believe different stuff, tend to in reality be annoyed or displeased if I so much as mention anything atheist related. So my idea is that, to placate them, I should post bible verses every day for a week, a week of the bible. Of course, this idea is in no way on the level. The idea is to pick bible verses, preferably from the gospels, but also from the entire new testament, that are grossly embarrassing to have to read as a liberal christian. For example:


Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


So if I don't believe, I am damned. Can't blame this one on the old testament; because I don't believe I am damned to hell to suffer for eternity. What, that's not what damned means?

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

I am the chaff, therefore I will burn with an unquenchable fire. 


John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I will know only god's wrath.

John 15:6 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.

I am a withered branch and I will be burned. Can't tell me your book doesn't repeatedly tell me I should burn in hell for being an atheist.

But this gets easier! I'm stealing all these from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Matthew 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Here's a great verse point out that Jesus isn't here for peace, but to tear families apart, something that's actually happening today.

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Here's Jesus encouraging you to abandon your family and follow him for a reward.

My hardest part of this is taking quotes out of context, because it's really easy to protest, "well, you're reading that out of context." I'm trying to find the single lines that clearly say something bad without it being necessary that you read ten lines for it to make sense.

My plan, maybe, needs work, but if I can find the quotes, I might well do it...

The "Does God Exist?" advertisement on all the FTB sites today

"Is there a God? Click to find six reasons that God exists."

I've seen this ad on all my favorite atheist blog sites lately. It was bugging me, and I was trying to ignore it, but after several days I just had to click on it to see what these "reasons" were. Jesus Fictional Christ, this is annoying. Here is what you are missing out on:

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

 Ok, so actually, you're not missing out on anything here. This is pathetic, a bunch of softballed . Although I imagine you already know the refutations to all of these, I'm going to refute them anyway because I need the practice.

1. Creationism? An intelligent designer? Really? Don't you have anything better? Oh, wait, maybe...

1. a. The size of the earth is perfect.

1. b. Water.

1.c. The human brain.

1. d. The eye.

1. a. Sigh. If things were different, things would be different, is that it? "The Earth is located the right distance from the sun". Yeah, the right distance which changes by over a million miles every year. Right.

1. b. Without water we couldn't survive. Yeah, so? Without sunlight we couldn't survive, what's your point? That is your point? Nevermind.

1. c. You know for as complex as the human brain is, it still manages to cling to some really stupid arguments.

1. d. "Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter." It doesn't? Are you sure? Because, having read several accounts about the eye and how it's evolved in several different ways, I think you might not be right...

So really, creationism is their opening volley. Not good.

2. The universe started and therefore someone or something had to start it? How do you know that it started? Why can't the universe be eternal? If "something" started the universe where exactly did that something come from? Wouldn't, by your own logic, something else have to have caused that first cause? And that regresses ad infinitum. Sorry, Philosophy 101 has you beat there.

3. The universe operates by uniform laws; how is that proof of anything other than that reality is consistently observable? This is another "if things were different" argument and it's as full of fail as the first one.

4. DNA is complex computer code that must have had a designer. Two words: junk DNA. What, did the incredibly perfect creator corrupt his files a few times before the save went through?

5. If god "is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him" then clearly you'll very easily be able to give me rock solid proof of this, right? No, you say because you "used to be an atheist" that is proof of god? I'm sorry, that's not proof. That's probably not even true. If you were an atheist, I sure would like to think you would have been better at it than this.

6. "Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us." Says you. Jesus said he was god? Really? Because I remember Jesus consistently saying in all four Gospels, "I am the son of man." You can twist that however you like, but it doesn't change what your own holy book says. But you know what? Maybe he was the son of god. Maybe he did ascend into heaven. Just call him back and have him perform a miracle and I'll believe you.

In short, this is pathetic. Creationism/intelligent design is provably wrong unless you account for the perfect creator making mistakes and doing really dumb things, "if things were different" is laughable in all it's various forms, the universe had to start fails when even weak logic is applied,  and if god and Jesus are your proof then there has to be evidence of their existence and you are lacking that evidence.

So don't waste your time on those ads. I knew it would be bad, but it's really bad. Think of this me taking one for the team.

Accept the following on faith

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

This. This! A thousand times this.

This is why Greta Christina is someone I listen to.

Richard Dawkins. I am not a fan.

It is almost heresy to call oneself an atheist and to not think highly of Richard Dawkins. He is arguably one of if not the most famous atheist in the world, his book The God Delusion is widely known and widely read. He widely respected both in his field of biology and as a writer both on science an atheist topics. Yet for all this, I am not a fan.

Dawkins chooses a aggressive stance when he argues his point. He has openly and forcefully stated that he believes that ridicule is an important part of his arsenal. He is well known for standing firmly against those with whom he does not agree, for his sharp tongue, and for his devastating wit.

You know what another word is that describes a man who ridicules people he doesn't agree with is? Asshole.

Yeah, Dawkins is really intelligent and a good speaker and writer and all of that. But he's an asshole, and that's not how I roll. The reason I think of PZ Myers and Greta Christina as the best leaders of the atheist movement is because they be firm and forceful without being needlessly insulting. Dawkins, in all that I have seen, can't. In fact, I think he likes being an asshole, and his actions do seem to prove just that, because his targets include his allies.

Phil Plait famously said don't be a dick. The message got two basic kinds of responses: "that makes sense" and "I like being a dick/being a dick is useful". In the first four minutes or so of this video Dawkins makes it clear that ridicule is more important to him than diplomacy and that he doesn't even think that ridicule will work on the person being ridiculed. I'm not saying I endorse everything Phil Plait says, but, when comparing him to Dawkins, I'd much rather listen to what Phil says.

I really hate to bring up Elevatorgate, I really do, but it's important to my point. Rebecca Watson said "guys, don't do that." Dawkins replied thusly. He ridiculed her for saying "guys, don't do that." This is a woman with whom he had been on stage with before and who was, theoretically, an ally and perhaps even a friend.

This is where the argument for ridicule falls apart. When you ridicule people who are your allies, who see you as a role model, you make a grievous error. You are shooting yourself in the foot. I almost began to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt before this incident, almost seeing his point if from a more relaxed perspective, but this proved that listening to Dawkins is a mistake. He's an asshole because he doesn't care who he is ridiculing. When I ridicule someone I want it to be someone worthy of it, not a friend, not an ally. I'll pick my targets carefully thank you.

I've heard the argument that there's no one to replace Dawkins as the so-called "leader" of the atheist movement so we're stuck with him. I've heard that Dawkins is the past, that he and the other horsemen got us to this point and now we need to leave him behind. I don't care either way. Dawkins is famous for being an asshole atheist. If that still works for him, good for him. But as far as I'm concerned, he's not worth listening to. When I get into conversations with theists and they point out that Dawkins is an asshole and I'm all like, "I totally agree with you", that gets me points. Then they listen to what I'm saying more closely because we have a common dislike of the man. Who is more likely to change hearts and minds then? An asshole or someone with whom you can find common ground?

Dawkins is really one thing to me now: an example of what not to do.

Atheist inspiration

There were a number of factors that led me to atheism, but I want to talk specifically about the people who helped me to make that choice. None of them were family or friends; they were bloggers, youtubers, and musicians. I'm not sure I remember the exact timeline, but I have enough details to explain. It all started with the Skeptic's Dictionary and significant free time at work. I read the whole thing, from A to Z. Somewhere in there I found a link that led me either directly or indirectly to my first inspiration Pharyngula, which I started to read regularly.

PZ Myers was an inspiration in that he was the first atheist I found whose writing I liked. Unlike some of the other writers with whom I knew atheism was involved, PZ was a big softie. I liked his writing style and how approachable he seemed. I learned from him that I could be firmly against religion while still not being an asshole. Through PZ I learned about all of the other atheists to follow.

Greydon Square was my first black atheist and arguably one of the most convincing atheists as well. I found out about him through comments somewhere, and after looking into his music I downloaded The Kardashev Scale. I was hooked immediately. The passion and anger on the album were compelling. I've been following him ever since.

Greta Christina's blog, specifically her atheists and anger post really got to me. She made her point eloquently and forcefully. I couldn't argue with her on almost any point, and I was amazed at the sheer length of her article. She is one of the calmest and wisest voices in the atheist world but she can get just as angry as anyone else.

Last and certainly not least, AronRa and his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism were a huge influence. I don't know what it is about AronRa, but his voice is so compelling and what he says so calmly hits like a ton of bricks. He doesn't need to talk often, but when he does it's very often worth saying.

If you want my four horsemen, these are them. Or, more accurately, these are the correct four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Dealing with the death of my grandmother

My grandmother never knew I was an atheist, and I'm glad of it. She was not a person I particularly enjoyed or respected. She was a racist, sexist, generally bigoted person. Had I told her I was an atheist, I'm certain she'd never have spoken to me again or spent her time trying to convince me I was wrong and to convert. Despite this, she was my grandmother, so I did what I could to interact with her in peace, biting my tongue when necessary.

Recently she died and I went to her funeral because that's just what you do. The funeral was Catholic. I'm sure atheists right now are rolling their eyes because they know what's coming. Before I realized I was an atheist I just found Catholic masses boring and at times aggravating. Now I see them for what they truly are: disgusting. I, silly atheist, thought that funerals were intended to bring comfort to the bereaved. Well, the only thing I got from that funeral was angry.

We weren't told we were gathered together in honor of my late grandmother, we were told we were gathered in faith and in Christ's name. Repeatedly. I think the priest mentioned my grandmother by name or indirectly maybe three times. He mentioned Christ enough times for me to lose track and that we were gathered in faith a similar number of times. But that's not the worst part. The gospel story they told was the story of Lazarus, you know, the person Jesus raised from the dead? It was implied that if we prayed hard enough we could raise my grandmother from the dead. It was also implied that if we didn't pray hard enough that she would burn in hell for eternity.

At. Her. Funeral.

Wow, suddenly I'm the enemy in the room since I'm not, you know, praying. I'm going to be responsible for my grandmother's eternal damnation by being present! But it wasn't just me that was unacceptable, but any person that didn't claim faith in Christ! And of course, not even only that, but any person who wasn't Catholic was pretty much told, you aren't welcome either. At least I wasn't alone in my rejected and denigrated status. So, as far as I can tell, the Catholic opinion on funerals is that Catholics should be comforted and everyone else can fuck off.

To me the biggest insult to my grandmother was that she was like a side show; the mass was the big deal, she was just kind of an convenient way to get a bunch of grieving people in one place to rub some Catholicism in their faces. I wanted to walk out. I wanted to make a scene, to argue with the priest, to protest the threats of hell. But I didn't. I didn't because the funeral wasn't for me; it was for my father, my uncle, my cousins, the Catholics who were grieving. Though it was repellant to me, this was how they wanted to say goodbye. So I sat there, gritted my teeth, and didn't move but to roll my eyes.

After the funeral my father thanked the priest; I considered shouting at the priest but continued to be quiet. I hoped that was the end of it. But, when we finally got to the grave, the priest came back one more time to mention my grandmother once, Christ and faith several times, and to put my teeth on edge again. The only part that gave me any peace was when the priest shut the fuck up and I put a flower on my grandmother's coffin and said goodbye.

Funerals are supposed to be sad affairs, and that I expected. I didn't expect the seething anger on my part or the utter disdain from the priest for any who weren't Catholic. Still further aggravating was that the Catholics seemed to think that it was a reasonable ceremony and none of the other non Catholics minded it enough to say anything.

I don't know no what I'm supposed to do about this. I don't know that there's anything I can do about it. For so much as mentioning the fact that I was uncomfortable I was given the "you shouldn't talk about that" comment already. The person whom I most want to tell this to is my father and I don't want to create any tension for him right now as he's just lost his mother.

I hate this. I hate feeling helpless. I want to do something, but I've nothing to do.

Lesson 1: Catholics don't give a shit about comforting anyone at a funeral who isn't a Catholic.

Learning to be an Atheist

I only recently learned that I was an atheist. I had been reading Pharyngula and other such blogs for some time, but I never called myself an atheist. It was Aron Ra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism that got me watching his videos, and it was his appearance on the Atheist Experience that ultimately got the point across to me that I was actually an atheist and had been for a very long time. I'm not new to the idea of atheism, but actually identifying myself as one, that I am new to. This is going to be my experiences as an atheist as I learn.

Honestly, I don't know how much love this particular blog will get, as I'm not exactly an atheist activist, but who cares. This blog is for me. The very act of writing helps me to think, and finding the right words to explain how I feel sometimes shows me that I'm thinking wrong. This is helpful. I'll try not to say too many stupid things, but this is a blog. They're made for saying stupid things.