Remembering why I left Christianity

Every once in a while I am reminded that not all Christians are closed-minded, small, angry, judgmental people. I meet people who happen to be Christians and are perfectly wonderful examples of what was likely intended by following the teachings of Jesus.

But then I read news articles about people's rationale for blocking same-sex marriage and safe, legal abortions and reliable birth control and I am reminded once again of why I am an atheist and unashamed of it.

I see people bury their heads in their Bibles, praying for their god to do something for them, allowing themselves--or worse, their children--to stay in difficult or dangerous situations because they think it's where they have to be for their god to teach them some kind of life lesson.

And I'm reminded of why I left Christianity.

I watch a documentary like Kidnapped for Christ* and see the basic rights of human beings violated and ignored and laughed at by people who claim to defend the human rights of the unborn above all else.

And I am glad I have enough sense to step away from the hypocrisy and violence and judgment and oppression that comes from Christianity (and religion--let's not exclude anyone).

I know there are people out there who are good people and happen to follow religious traditions. That's fine. The problem is that those good people aren't the spokespeople for their religions. Instead, they let the loudmouth bigots take the bullhorn and spread lies and hate and make people think that that is what it means to be a Christian, now and forever amen.

When you've got people like this who are getting the attention, what do you expect?

There are so many people who stand by their beliefs in religion at all costs, ignoring the fact that there is a big, wide world outside of their pastor's pulpit that answers the questions they're not allowed to ask.

Sorry, I'd rather know about the world around me based on the expertise of proven scientists and authorities in their fields than become convinced that the people who contradict me must be conspiring against my children (see link above).

Thanks, though.






-----
*Available on Netflix.

Living a secular life

There is someone in my life* who recently asked if we'll be taking the munchkins to church on Easter.

No.

This person was surprised, and didn't understand why we wouldn't take the kids to church at least for Easter and Christmas. This person suggested that the kids need at least some religion** as a foundation for their lives.

No.

When the munchkins get older, if they start asking questions about religion and spirituality, I am happy to answer questions from the perspective of "this is what some people believe." But just as a Christian family would not likely take their children to a Mosque to teach them about Islam, I don't feel the need to take my kids to a church to teach them about Christianity.

We'll be spending Thanksgiving with the person who asked if we're taking the kids to church for Easter, and this person asked if Puck would be willing to say a blessing at the start of our Thanksgiving meal. So we're teaching the munchkins a short, non-religious blessing/rhyme that they can say, and I told the person that it will be a non-religious blessing, not a prayer.

I live a secular life, and so do the munchkins. I teach them how to be good people and make good choices without relying on fear tactics and threats of eternal damnation to get results. I teach them to be open-minded and non-judgmental toward all people and creatures rather than assuming that different is bad/"misguided"/"backslidden."

I am striving to raise Puck and Tink to be Good People, and I'm doing it without religion. Because religion doesn't have a corner on the morality market. You shouldn't need a Bible or threats of punishment to be a good person. We teach them it's important to be kind and compassionate out of respect for other people, not because they're afraid of what will happen if they don't. And that works for us.

There is nothing wrong with living a secular life and teaching the munchkins the same. When they're older and can make informed decisions for themselves about what they believe, they are welcome to find a church community or faith practice and follow it. But for now, we are a secular family.






-----
*Please note that this person is a wonderful person and someone in my life that I respect and love. I don't think this person knows I'm an atheist, just that I'm not really religious. There are no ill feelings about the conversation at all.

**Read: Christianity

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

There's no question that Christianity (some brands more than others) use fear tactics to get people to believe, follow, and obey blindly.

This is summed up perfectly in a quote from Dawkins's God Delusion in an argument I've heard many times from friends and family members.

The great French mathematician Blase Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds against God's existence might be, there is an even larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You'd better believe in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternal bliss and if you are wrong it won't make any difference anyway. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and you turn out to be wrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makes no difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believe in God. (Dawkins,  p. 130)

You better believe in god because if you don't and there is a god, you'll be damned for all eternity for your disbelief.

I remember when I was younger and active in my dad's FIB church. Fear of hell was used so frequently that most people didn't even realize they were doing it. You ask a question that starts with "why," and the answer usually conveys something along the lines of "So you don't go to hell." The bigger the "why," the bigger the damnation. After all, if you're questioning the Bible and the will of god, you must not have a right relationship with him. You must not be a real Christian. You have to have faith and believe everything that comes from the mouth of the pastor, or else your soul will burn for all eternity.

It's precisely these kinds of fear tactics that work so well at turning me away from belief in god. If the Christian god is truly a loving and benevolent god who only wants people to love him in return, why the threat of damnation? And why eternal? Wouldn't a forgiving god be, you know....forgiving?

It's an idle threat meant to distract people (through fear) of the implausibility of believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful creator being. When people start to question, they are told to just believe, to ignore their questions and doubts, and remember that if they don't believe--and believe the right way--they will burn for all eternity.

Sound familiar?



And when you pull back the curtain--finally--and see the overwhelmed old white guy (no offense intended) scrambling to try and maintain his intimidation over others, everything changes.

The fear of hell doesn't hold quite the same intimidation when you realize it's an empty threat.

I much preferred the Scarecrow. At least you knew he was only faking being scary.






-----

Dawkins, Richard. (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Mariner Books.

Have you found a church yet?

I talk to my dad pretty often. Whenever I'm feeling particularly hermit-y and need a human connection, he's good for a rambling conversation about life, the universe, and everything.

And, inevitably, the state of my Florida church membership. Or rather, lack thereof.

Apparently, my dad (and some of my extended family) are convinced that the success or failure of my life in Florida is wholly dependent on whether or not I hold membership at a Bible-believing, Bible-practicing church (read: IFB). It's the only way to make friends (for myself and the kids), and the only way for me to have a community. Apparently.

But I know it's more than that. According to my dad, you can't be a Christian if you don't attend church services. Ideally, three or more times a week. (Of course, Sunday school and morning worship count as once because, you know, you can't just go to one or the other. It has to be both.) The fact that I am not regularly attending a church and haven't applied for membership at a church means I'm not living as a good Christian. Chances are, he's worried I'm backsliding* and at risk of doing something stupid like becoming an atheist.

Really, it's another reminder of how important that aspect of life is to my dad and his family. In my family's eyes, finding a new home church when you move is on the same level as getting a new driver's license and changing your address.

But it's not about finding a community or making new friends, or even finding "good people." It's about following the rules.

Christians go to church.

In my dad's mind, I'm not really settled here until I have a home church and attend regularly. Until I'm a member and tithe my income. Not to grow as a person but to do the right things.

It's too bad the people pushing me to find a church aren't concerned with what the "right things" really should be.






-----
*For those not in on the lingo, "backsliding" is the term that applies to someone who is a born-again Christian but is making choices that are not in line with the teachings of the church, and behaving like a non-Christian. This can apply to anything from rejecting church teachings to drinking alcohol to women wearing pants depending on the particular teachings of the church.

There's a reason they call him "the Science Guy."

Last night, after the munchkins went to bed, I watched the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at the Creation Museum. I wasn't sure what to expect after reading some of the criticism that arose out of Nye's agreement to debate Ham, but I'm glad I watched it. It was educational, frustrating, and a good reminder of why I am an atheist.

On a side note, did anyone else notice that Nye referred to Ham as "Mr. Ham," and Ham consistently referred to Nye as "Bill"? Maybe a minor point to some, but it shows the difference in levels of respect on the stage. Just sayin'.

I admit that there is a lot about science I don't know. But that being said, it was clear to me that Nye won. (Then again, maybe I'm a little biased. After all, bowties are cool.) There are two big reasons I say this: unanswered questions and "because the Bible."

Throughout the debate, there were points raised by Ham that Nye addressed in his responses, asking specifically for clarification, evidence, or further explanation. Many of these issues that were raised--central to discounting Ham's argument--went unanswered. And not just accidentally. Because toward the end of the debate, it seemed that Ham was purposely avoiding answering some of Nye's questions in favor of bringing up additional points he thought would help support his argument.

When he did address the questions raised, it seemed his favorite response was "because the Bible." Which brings me to my second point.

I'm going to be honest with you. When someone engages in a scientific discussion and tries to refute proven scientific evidence with "because the Bible," I start to feel a little stabby. The evidence Ham provided was based on a book he admitted in the debate contains poetry and literature and is not to be taken wholly literally.*

I'm sorry, but when a scientist admits we don't know certain things about the origin of the universe, and then you say, "We do because the Bible," you lose credibility to me.

The issue for debate was whether or not Ham's creation theory is a viable model. Based on the debate, the answer is no. Ham had the burden to prove creation as a viable model--scientifically--and he didn't do it. He didn't provide scientific evidence, and he didn't refute Nye's evidence.

And, let's be honest, Nye proved last night that the math just doesn't add up. That's all there is to it.

In other news, I'm going to justify all my words, actions, and behavior because the Doctor.






-----
*As a writer/reader, that tells me it has an unreliable narrator. And if so, there's no telling what can be believed and what can't. And that's just looking at it as a work of literature, for story's sake, not as a work to be believed and followed as big-t-truth.