Ham-boned Arguments

For friends and readers: I have altitude sickness. I've spent my life at sea level, and now I'm in the mile high city. Kid doesn't seem to be having too many troubles, fortunately. He's got a stuffy nose but that's about all. I, on the other hand, feel like my very bones are tired, and getting out of bed takes a lot of energy. On the plus side, I'm much better off emotionally here in Denver, so what's a little altitude sickness?

Viking is over a lot, and he plays video games for the Kid (who loves to watch but keeps saying, "My turn? My turn?" till he gets the controller, and then just makes the guy run around in circles.) Once I'm feeling better, I'll return to making YouTube videos (though probably not at quite the same rate, since Kid is out of school till he starts Kindergarten in the fall.) [Edit: I made one today.] With all that said, let's move on to an apologetic. (Once I'm feeling better, and once the Kid is in school, I'll go back to writing childhood trauma stories.)

Separation of Christianity and State
by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis

Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), disallow Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and stop the teaching of creation in science classes.

When dealing with Ken Ham, it's important to remember that he won't let one lie per sentence suffice. Separation of church and state is beneficial both to the state and to the church. It has in no way been used as a club to "beat down" Christianity. Its purpose is to stop Christianity (or whatever other religion like Islam becomes dominant) from beating down the rest of us and our free and civil society. The church doesn't step in and tell government what to do, and the government doesn't step in and tell church what to do. It's a win-win situation, but not to Ken Ham.

Christianity has hardly been "eliminated" from public spaces. Tim Tebow's running around the football field with John 3:16 in his eye black. There are street preachers in every college town in the country, railing against the sins of getting an education and having a good time. There are Christian prayer meetings in the Pentagon (something which would make our founding fathers turn in their graves, if their bodies were still animate.)

Bible reading and prayer in public schools have not (and never will be) disallowed. State mandated prayers that everyone in school must say, directed to the Christian god and violating the freedom of religion for every child in the school, are no longer allowed. But individual students and groups of students can pray - at lunch, before an athletic event, or at the flagpole. I was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I attended public school, and we met on school grounds during school hours on club days.

Crosses and other religious displays are permitted on any private property, just not on government property, because that's space we all share (and we don't all share your religion.) And creation isn't taught in science class because it isn't science. The fact that you consider this an element of a Christian "beat down" betrays the whole "Intelligent Design isn't *religious!*" outrage your own side tries so desperately to drum up. You cannot claim it is science, supported on its own merits, and simultaneously claim that it is religious persecution to not allow you to lie to children in government funded schools.

Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.

The phrase "separation of church and state" did indeed appear in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. James Madison also wrote, "Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." (Since these guys basically wrote the thing, I think it's safe to believe them on what their intentions were.) Here's more from Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."

Now that we've cleared up the history and its relevance, we need to address Ken Ham's fear-mongering deceit. There is no anti-God religion powerfully taking over the nation. This is not Soviet Russia and secular humanists are not the "militant atheists" you imagine - not even as anti-theist humanists. Humanism: it's a good thing.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.

Here we're talking about intention. Intention is not the same as interpretation, and if we want to know what the authors of the Constitution thought, we have only to look at their public and private statements on the matter about their intentions. (Yes, people sometimes lie about intentions, but it's extremely doubtful the founding fathers would have lied about their intentions for the Constitution.) Ken here has no evidence of the founders intentions - just assertions. So allow me to provide the relevant data points.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
- President John Adams "A Defense of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;
- James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

There are many more, with a good sampling here. What was that again Ken?

I will highlight key words of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution).

God is also nowhere in the Constitution. Neither are Jesus or Christianity. It's a secular document, composed by liberal Enlightenmnet era Christians and Deists (and possibly a few atheists.) And as for the words themselves not appearing in the Constitution, I turn once again to the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State.

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

And now let's see Ken's version...

The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

And what about this aren't you getting, Ken? Jefferson was saying that you can't stop gay marriage because your Bible calls it an abomination - that the government should only legislate on actions which are deleterious, and not on beliefs which are held. He's talking about the kind of government I want.

Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head.
“Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.

No, that would not have been foreign or unintended. To wit,

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Yeah, this isn't a Christian nation, and our laws aren't based on the Bible or on Christianity (which might be why they make no reference to either!) Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, coiner of the phrase, had to say about separation of church and state in a speech he gave to Virginia Baptists in 1808.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

I think I've demonstrated good evidence for my case - that the founders intended for this to be a nation of no government religion, separation of church and state, and free exercise of religion for those who choose it. Let's see what Ham-bone has to support his case.

This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!

Even the other Christians are against me! I'm in the minority, so I must be right! Ahem. We've amped up the pressure here now, haven't we? Suddenly Reverend Barry Lynn is against Him? Now Ken Ham has determined that the only way to be for Jesus is to be for a government run by churches (and you know clergy, like him.) Never mind, for the moment, what the Constitution has to say about such things. I don't remember JESUS ever saying anything about running the government! Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, pretty unconcerned with earthly things. He was all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "sell all that you have, give the money to the poor." That's not the same as "elect Sarah Palin" and "keep people ignorant of science, fight life saving medical advancements, and deny women the right to bodily autonomy." It certainly isn't, "Go shoot up the brown people for their oil."

The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):

Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.

This is the "non overlapping magisteria" argument, which Richard Dawkins discusses at length in "The God Delusion" (which I am just now finally reading. Thanks again to Lee from St. Louis for the atheist library!) I think what it is saying, very politely, is that the supernatural is not observable, repeatable, or testable because there is no evidence any of it actually exists. And of course, the way you would verify if something supernatural did exist would be through science. It's a very good way of determining whether or not a claim is true, and religion just folds.

Getting back to Ken's original lies: Atheism is not a religion. I did a whole video on it. Atheism is not naturalism, at least not in any religious worship sense. (Although I do like nature quite a lot, I don't worship anything.) He's trying to say that a competing religion is being imposed on our youth, so that he can cry unfair that he isn't being allowed to do the same. He's not looking out for children - he's jealous because he's being deprived of valuable brain washing opportunities. But here's the thing, not only is atheism not a religion, it isn't a philosophy either. Atheists don't universally agree on anything that I'm aware of. There are anti-choice atheists, conservative atheists, atheists in fox holes, pole dancing atheists, anti-porn crusader atheists... We come in all flavors. We have no unifying dogma we are trying to impose on anyone, even if some of us would really, really like it if you would just put down the holy book and take a couple of deep breaths.

In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!

Dude, calm down. You made so many false equations in that mini rant, I'm a bit concerned about the state of your heart. Chill. There is nothing nefarious about the teaching of science in science class (nor history in history class, despite what the Texas State Board of Education may claim.) The theory of evolution - what Ken here is really concerned with - is true. That's why it gets taught in science class and goddidit doesn't. It's not religious persecution, and it's not government sponsored atheist religion. It's just a matter of which one is science and which one is bullshit.

Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did he just say racism? He wants to stand on the Word of God? (I guess he means the Bible, but I've already explained why I don't think Christians should call it that.) The Bible says you can kill and enslave anyone who's not a fellow Jew! The Bible is immoral and outdated and false! And you want to use this book to control my uterus, tell my friends they can't be a family, and be bigoted and racist? Well, fuck you!

Answers in Genesis has launched its “I am Not Ashamed” campaign to challenge Christians to publicly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God. Only then, from the basis of the Bible’s absolute authority, will Christians be able to effectively combat the immorality that plagues our nation.

Wow. Imagine how big of a prick you can be, if you think you have absolute authority in your hand? Case in point: Ken Ham.

What a douche nozzle.

Read more!

Angie on TV & Radio

I've done several podcast appearances lately, and haven't provided any of the links (oops!) so let me amend that now.

I was on the ThinkAtheist radio show hosted by my good Twitter buddy @Synthaetica (or Synth for short) a couple of times. The February 28th episode on "The Week in Review" is here. I was also on the March 7th episode.

I was invited on Third Wave Radio and Infidel Guy, but neither show has put up the audio yet. (Sad face goes here.)

Issues for Your Tissues, hosted by Katie Vitale, did two episodes on the #livetweetingabortion issue. For the first episode, Mary Ann Sorrentino (whose slut-shaming "abortion is irresponsible but I'm a pro-choice warrior, really!" piece appeared on Salon.com) came on to explain her viewpoint and reveal her ignorance of how Twitter works. Yesterday, I was able to respond and Katie has already uploaded that audio. (Thanks Katie!)

As for mainstream media, here are my TV spots for ABC News and CNN (stupid embedding disabled by request!)

That's all for now folks!

Read more!

4 new atheists so far

I just got an email from a girl who deconverted. She's been struggling with why god hates her so much for loving another woman, and wanting to let go of god for awhile. Then she saw my video on Sunday School and what I said about children being taught they are flawed, evil, sinful and wrong was exactly what she needed to hear.

"That was why I couldn't get away from god. Because deep down I was still that child in Sunday School being told again and again that I was sinful. And just like that, sitting here in my room and listening to your video, all my fear about hell and god went away. What's left is a woman free to live her life without fear."

Epic just isn't a powerful enough word. Stellar maybe? A YouTube video did the trick for me; it's why I do videos myself. Still, there's a world of difference between believing you're doing some good and knowing it.

Read more!

What's the point?

It bugs me that people even ask this question.



Biography post coming later today, as well as promotions & the (belated) Charity of the Month.

Read more!

The High Cost of Fame

I haven't had much time to write on the blog lately. Partly that's been because of life stuff & a disrupted schedule & a child home from school & starting a YouTube channel, but a lot of it has been that it takes me a couple of hours a day to go through my email. Between comments here (which I've sadly had to add moderation to after a few banned commenters discovered anonymizers), comments on YouTube, messages on Facebook, comments on Facebook, moderating ExCult Network, direct emails, Think Atheist comments...

So, if I take a while to get to your email, I apologize. I'll do what I can. It used to be I could knock out all my overnight emails in half an hour or an hour while I woke up, and then have plenty of time to write. As Angie the Anti-Theist has expanded, uh, I guess I've become a little stretched thin. The whole point of all this is to write the book, to get my story and the story of other cult kids out there. So of all the things on my plate, email is the one that's gonna have to move to the side a bit (and yes, Farmville, too. I know, it's *tragic*.)

In the meantime, check out a few of the less pleasant comments I got on my YouTube channel today (and feel free to drop by & subscribe or vote me up, hint-hint!)

you atheist bitch! REPENT NOW!!!!

on 9/11 i had the biggest fucking wank ever. you stupid fucking american cunts deserved that shit.

i laughed when TJ's dad died as well... that shit was hilarious.... but the icing on the fucking cake was when I found out he had been molested as a child. what a fucking fat loser! lol

when you look at the creation of the universe. you see INTELLIGENT DESIGN. we did not come from a puddle of goo and microorganisms. there is No proof of that. you god awful stupid bitch

ofc it's not a religion you ugly dike!

I feel sorry for the poor deluded maker of this video, not to mention the many young & impressionable kids who will be led into a life of crime and rampant anti-social behaviour after being brainwashed, I mean, indoctrinated, by it.

no Atheism is NOT a Religion its garbage that people think because theyre skeptick
thats who the athest are skepticks who bother the hell out of people who have a Religion and one guy i know laughs if if find out if you belive omg you have a falth how upserd hahahaha
you know what athest (some) belive that they come back as a tree or another person how stupid does that sound

True...they build their whole lives around disbelief. They offer "nothing" in it's place. It's like voting against something, instead of FOR something. Sounds just lazy. ((Like gay marriage, you asshole?))

YOUR ALL GOING TO HELL YOU ATHEIST QUEERS!!!!!!!!!!!! atheist = faggots You're gonna eat your babies!

I am not a troll, I hate trolls. I am here spreading God's love and compassion and you atheists hate the truth so you act like assholes.

You can see what a good God he is. A lot of people have the term "curse" very confused. God doesn't actively curse or damn anyone. A curse is actually what happens to us when we lack God. Because if we push him away and curse him He cannot cover us because we don't allow him. So when this happens we're under a curse...

You have the «Don't believe in God» God.
So, if a christian has a «Believe in God» God, where is the difference?

Real brain trusts, huh?

Read more!

Atheism is NOT a Religion (Really)

So, YouTube ate my first two videos, but after I recorded this third one, it coughed up the second one also. So, I have two videos that are pretty similar but I like this one slightly more.



Here's the second.



So what's your vote, Anteaters? Which do I keep on my channel?

Read more!

From my Facebook Inbox

From: [Name Redacted]
Subject: damn

can you change your profile pict because you are just to damn hot, i get little done when your pict is up! lol. happy new year!!!!!! :D

Do you think Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins deal with this crap? I know PZ Myers gets squid porn in his inbox, but I don't know how many come-ons Daniel Dennet has to turn down (or chooses not to, for that matter.)

So, Anteaters, what is your opinion in this? Is my totally-covering all my skin except arms, neck, face, and *gasp* shoulders avatar too revealing? Is it my job to be less attractive so I won't distract him, or is it his job to *turn off Facebook* when he's at work?

This is the same logic, taken to an extreme I'll grant you, that justifies forced wearing of veils and burqas.

Today's image is Lil Kim in her concept of a burqa for One World Magazine.

Read more!

Adam & Eve, the Snake & the Tree

I promise to be a better blogger as soon as winter break is over & my child leave my house for 7 hours a day again. Till then, make do with this.

Read more!

ATAT Fundraiser

Okay folks, I'm in a financial bind. It looks like there's going to be a one week gap between being evicted from my craptastic apartment and the rental house being ready for us to move in. Between that and all the usual expenses of moving, I'd be truly appreciative if anyone is able to help. (Also if you have good short-term solutions for me, I'd love to hear them.)

You can, as always, donate via PayPal online or by phone by clicking on the yellow Donate button in the top right hand corner. You can also help support ATAT by purchasing a product from my new CafePress store. I recommend the "Go Psalm Yourself" series, inspired by this post.

Sorry to be all televangelist in monetary requests, but I promise this will not go to defending pedophiles, infringing on gay rights, or keeping condoms out of the hands of Africans.



See? I'm not claiming a higher power wants you to give me money. I just want you to (so, no pressure or worries about smiting!)

Read more!

Happy Devil's Holiday!

I know at least a few ATAT readers weren't allowed to celebrate the Devil's Holiday growing up, like me. I remember being sent to bed early that night every year. We usually had an hour between when we went to our rooms and had to turn the lights off, and my siblings and I were all big readers at that age (my brother and I still are). But on Halloween night, we had to turn all the lights in the house off early, to discourage trick-or-treaters. Of course, that never worked and some huge mob of kids would stand outside, ringing the doorbell and caroling "Trick or treat!"

"Get back, Satan!" I screamed through the screen of my bedroom window. "We don't have any candy and we don't want you!" That was honestly the most fun part about Halloween the way my family did it - yelling at the heathen kids.

We moved to Iowa when I was in 4th grade, so that was my first time trick-or-treating. Since we had no friends, it was just me and my sister, on a street with a bunch of poor grad students who hadn't thought to buy a bowl of frigging candy, or else were out getting sloshed somewhere. By the time we got back to Florida's warm weather (it's in the 80s today, y'all) I was too old to run around begging for candy, and too young to do much else.

About 8 years back I discovered the Sacred Grounds costume party. I don't know that it's as big an affair now as it was when the coffeehouse had more business a couple years ago, but it was fantastic. Everyone goes all out. I've seen everything from a black man dressed as a KKK member, to a lesbian Harry Potter, to the most-convincing all-night performance of Anna Nicole Smith I ever want to see. (Seriously, after the first two hours no one wanted him to be so in character anymore.)

This is the first year Little Man is old enough to really "get" Halloween. He's been talking the vocab words from school for weeks - pumpkin, bat, Halloween, trick-or-treat, and scary. We carved my first-ever pumpkin a couple weeks ago, which means it's already rotted and been tossed. (How was I supposed to know? It's not like my parents ever carved a pumpkin with me.) I hid his costume two weeks ago after he refused to change out of it for a dirty pull-ups change without tears and recriminations. (He calls it his "zupa zuit" or "super suit". So cute.)

I'm really jazzed about tonight. I'm just wearing a pumpkin t-shirt with some big old purple fairy wings because an actual costume sounds like too much fun if I gotta pull the big red wagon of preschooler and candy all night :) Two years ago Little Man was Captain Hook and it was adorable - he still had Shirley Temple ringlets at the time, and the little tiny frock coat was perfect. But between the giant feathered hat, the lace cuffs on the frock coat, and the hook-hand it was way too much for him to hold onto. (He loved the hat though.) This year Little Man is dressed as Buzz Lightyear in a really simple lightweight non-flammable one piece.

Be safe, be comfortable, have fun. And remember, too much candy gonna make you sick.

*Child pictured is a model, not Little Man. LM is cuter, but you'll just have to take my word for it.

Read more!

Angry Rant on Atheists

Fuck Atheist Nexus. I'm done with catty bitches. #outatheist (Sun 25 Oct 11:07 am)

Okay, so I typed that in a moment of anger. A familiar one. It's the feeling I get anytime I'm involved in a discussion on Atheist Nexus. The same five people (you know who you are) continually put words in my mouth, ascribe untrue motives to my action, feign offense at every other word I type, sexually harras me (hey bozo - the fact that you find ME sexually attractive does not mean I want to hear about the size of your penis, your ideas on women in the home, your plan of an atheist uprising centered on freethinking women as Quiverfull broodmares, or how sexy you find me! I. am. not. attracted. to. YOU.)

I think Brother Richard's a great guy and I admire what he's trying to do with Atheist Nexus. I've met a lot of cool people on the Nexus and I hope they'll stay in contact through my blog or by email (angieantitheist@ gmail [dot] com). By no means do I think these five asshats are representative of the whole. But they are mouthy long-winded motherfuckers and I don't go to ATHEIST websites to get stressed out. I can do that just fine on apologetics sites and end time prophecy screeds.

So yeah. Fuck A/N. I'll leave my profile up so people can send me emails or see this note or whatever. If the mods delete it or this post, so be it. I am through. I really wanted it to work out. But the freelance of "don't pick on the white dude!", "let's conquer the world through your uterus", "having to pay child support is just as bad as going through pregnancy/labor/birth so abortion shouldn't be legal until I can quit paying my ex", "meat-eaters are going to vegan hell" and "my life sucks, sob sob, whine and do jack shit about it" I am done.

(Since I try really hard to rarely curse on this blog, I hope my invective indicates just how DONE I really fucking am.)

Roar. And now today's Bujold quote, from Mirror Dance.

It seemed he could trust them, not so much not to hurt him, but to be what they were, what they appeared. He could not at first put a word to it, this sense of personal unity. Then it came to him. Oh. So that's what integrity looks like. I didn't know.

Read more!

Faith

From Dictionary.com Faith (noun)

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I got into a recent good-natured comment debate with a reader who says she has faith in god, and that faith itself is good (or at least neutral - I'm not actually sure of her position here), but that she opposes organized religion. She thinks god interacts in her daily life, but that reason and logic are sufficient most of the time. However, she does support occassionally doing things that fly in the face of logic and reason, based on feelings (which she stresses are not the same as emotions), and claims that this is a good thing in her life.

So, let's explore faith. I've copied the eight noun definitions of Faith here, so I can let you - my readers - know exactly what I mean when I rail against faith, and why I say that faith is not a virtue, it is a vice. Definitions 1, 4, 6, and 7 relate to entirely to the natural world, and are therefore not what I (as a skeptic, atheist, and critical thinker) object to. Obviously, I could say I believe in secular humanism or have faith in it, although I'd be more like to say that I subscribe to secular humanism, and that I think (based on evidence, not faith) that it is a good way to live.

The second definition "belief that is not based on proof" is certainly something I find reprehensible and dangerous. If I believe a gnome steals the socks out of my dryer, I am delusional. I am believing something - or having faith in something - without evidence. I haven't seen the gnome; scientists have not confirmed the existence of gnomes; the vast majority of (if not all) gnomes are fictional. Without actually gnome evidence, it would be fool hearty to believe I had a dryer gnome even if my socks continue to disappear. I have no reason to suppose that the gnome explanation is the best one. I haven't explored other possibilities for why my socks are gone, and I've jumped to a supernatural or fictional answer as my first guess, rather than looking at the natural physical possibilities that fit in with the rest of my experience of reality.

Likewise, believing in a god that has not even been proven to exist, much less beliving in certain aspects or character traits of that god, is just as fool hearty. There is absolutely no difference in the evidence presented for god and for the dryer gnome. (If you think you have evidence for either, please leave a comment!) However, the dryer gnome belief may be fairly innocuous. I might successfully live my whole life without harming myself or others, infringing on the rights of minorities, or imposing my dryer gnome belief on others. God belief is rarely so benign.

The third definition, "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion" can be thought of as extension of the second. Since no gods have ever been proven to exist, this further faith in a god or the doctrines or teachings of a religion worshiping that god, is built on a foundation of "no proof". It is just as stupid as believing in the dryer gnome. There is no evidence, no proof, no reason to believe that this is true. And unlike intellectually sloppy but rarely cataclysmic belief of a deist, this is theistic belief, which does harm. Some belief systems may be gentler, or less legalistic, or less wicked than others. Some particular religions or religious congregations or religious individuals may do good, and may ascribe that good to their religion. Neither of these things changes the fact that religion is foolish, harmful, and degrading to humanity. (There is no god - get the fuck up off your knees.*)

The problem is religious belief and belief in god do effect people's actions. It can lead people to trust untrustworthy people, as seen time and time and time again with despicable clergy sex scandals. It can lead whole groups to treat women and children as property, and it can lead the women to go along with this. It can lead loving parents to pray their children to death. It can (and does) justify homicide and terrorism. It can (and does) justify child abuse. It can (and does) justify the subjugation of women. Why aren't people MORE pissed off about this kind of "faith"?

Moving on. Definition 5 "a system of religious beliefs" can be effectively covered by the last rant (and is also an extension of definition 2.)

Definition 8 is probably the one I spend the most time on, in this blog and in my life. "Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved." Christian theology is inherently wicked. I am not saying - and probably never would say - that all Christians are inherently wicked. Unlike them, I don't believe people are born guilty of sin and deserving of hell and death.**

I don't think humans need a justification or salvation - we're doing fine. Where we need to make improvements, let's make improvements. Where we're doing well, let's do more of that! And where we're dragging ourselves back into the Dark Ages, let's just stop it. Stop with the religious nonsense, the persecution, the notion of thought crimes. Just stop. If we give up all this theological bullshit and belief in things that aren't true and believe without good justification, we can get things done. We - humans - have the power and ability to improve our lots in life, and to help each other. That's phenomenal! Let's do more of it. Let's learn and grow and change and try new things and help our fellow apes and try not to destroy our planet. Faith keeps you stagnant, childlike, ignorant and foolish. It keeps you from growing, from expirmenting, from being free and autonomous and grown up.

So, to any and all who believe that faith is still a good thing, or who still believes in a good god, where do you think my socks are? And because I feel odd to leave a song on a minor chord, or a post on a meaningful point, I'll deflect from the moment with comedy.



Do you have more evidence for your god than Mr. Bean has for his invisible drum kit?







*Or help me catch this damn gnome. I seriously don't know where my socks are going, and it's annoying.

**On a side note, at this point in the post I went to go swap our TV for a bigger one from a neighbor - and nearly brought the entire entertainment center down on me. Heart beat = epic. (And yet what I yelled out was "My god... or somebody else's!")

Read more!

Stealth Atheism

I play a few games on Facebook, like Farmville and Cafe World, where you get more points or advance faster in the game by having more friends who also play. Rather than harass my blog readers or the few family members who haven't un-Friended me yet with invitations to play, I added a whole bunch of other gamers to my Friends list.

And then I post things about atheism, and the First Amendment, and faith healing. Most of my game friends appear to be Christian. I can't tell you how many times someone has sent me an angel or a "God loves you" app invitation, or how many times I've seen "god's message to you" posted on someone's Facebook wall. (That one's actually hilarious, because it's always "In God we Trust" for everyone, and it's a picture of a freaking dime. So I get to comment and tell them how that's only been on the money since the 50s.)

The majority of these people might never knowingly befriend an atheist. I may be the first open atheist they've ever even slightly known. So, I try to use these annoying pro-Christian messages as an opportunity to let people know atheists are out there. I got an invitation today to join the group "Let God in Schools" *shudder*. Rather than just ignoring it, I sent this private message back to the woman.

Hi M,

I wanted to thank you for asking me to be involved. I'm actually a fierce defender of the 1st Amendment, which calls for separation of church and state. The government stays out of churches, and churches stay out of the government, including public schools (which includes children of all faiths and no faith at all).

I am an atheist myself, but I completely respect and will fight for your right to practice your religion respectfully. I would ask that you consider the imposition of god into school, if it was from some other religion. If Muslims were the dominant population in America, would you want the Koran taught in public schools, or would you want your children to be free to worship Jesus and read the Bible, and not be required to pay homage to Allah during school?

Again, thanks for the invitation. I enjoy being Facebook game buddies with you :)

Take care,
Angie

I spectifically used the Muslim argument, not to pit Christians against Muslims, but to put them in the atheist's shoes for a second, as the "other" from the group in power. And because it worked on my mom, who didn't see why I was complaining about my son being asked to sell "Bible Verses for Kids" as a school fundraiser, until I asked her how she'd feel about him selling "Koran Verses for Kids".

Now M. here might unfriend me. My family has shown me that's an option. She might ignore my note entirely. She might think about these things, and be a little less pushy about getting her faith in school - maybe she never considered it from another perspective before. And she may email me back with questions like, "What's an atheist?" or "But why can't we have god in school?"

I encourage you to engage in "stealth atheism" as well. Make friends or acquaintances with believers. Let them know you on some minimal level, and form an opinion of you based on your character, and then let them know "Oh yeah, I'm an atheist." It's not a dirty word; it's not inherently offensives; it's not even necessarily anti-religion (that's anti-theism folks, not atheism). And the more we just own up and claim the word and say, "Yup, we exist" the less marginalized we'll feel, AND the more some Christians will consider atheists and non-Christian theists in public policy. Not every Christian is a theocrat, so the better we can educate them on atheism, secular humanism, and non-religious ethics and morality, the less distrusted atheists will become.

Read more!

Atheist Association of Uganda

My Atheist Nexus friend Micheal from Uganda is a member of (and runs?) the Atheist Association of Uganda. Go show some love to the Ugandan atheists. They're trying to eliminate witchcraft and child sacrifice, which I think all of us can get behind.

Read more!

With Friends Like This...

Well, there seems to be a new one every week, a Christian who claims atheism is a kind of faith. So let's parse this nonsense and explain again the chasm of distinction between belief and non-belief. (You'd think it would be so obvious they aren't the same thing, but you'd be surprised.)

Irish Times Op-Ed writer Breda O'Brien claims

Atheists often appeal to science to underwrite their disbelief, but the decision not to believe in God lies ultimately in the arena of gut feeling, or hunch, or intuition. That decision is something that the scientific method cannot arbitrate on.

Oh, I see. So it's just a "gut feeling". Well, that is a good description of faith - an ultimately emotionally driven institution. When I believed I did so because I'd been indoctrinated as a child, and then later on as a young adult, because I desperately wanted it to be true. There was no evidence, no proof, no real good logical defense for my belief. I just felt it; I felt such certainty I thought I knew it was true, although if you'd asked me why I'd have been pressed to defend my belief. I probably would've have said it was a matter of faith, if forced to have such a conversation at all. I certainly would not have presumed to understand atheism.

The author goes on to assert that

The decision to live as if there isn’t a god requires a leap of faith, as does the decision to live as if there is. Religious people and atheists have a great deal in common. And now that Irish atheists are banding together, planning good works and hoping to influence Irish society, it looks more and more like a religion.

Because after all, sleeping in on Sunday morning requires so much investment! Seriously though, saying "I don't know, but there's no real evidence" doesn't require faith. Saying, "I know there's a God, and I know what he wants, and he wants me to worship him"? That requires faith. Undoubtedly. Can you see how those are not truly equivalent though? Stating a positive claim ("There is a god") asserts that something is true. And, as Tracy often says on The Atheist Experience, "Things which exist manifest in reality." Since there are NO manifestations of a supernatural all-powerful deity in our reality (zip, zero, zilch, nada, nein, none), disbelief seems only rational. It is not the same as asserting the positive claim "There is NO god". Lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. But I have to say it seems more likely to me.

That said, although I blog about it regularly here and on Atheist Nexus, I'm not so invested in my atheism I'd be unwilling to chance my stance. If I was presented with sufficient evidence, I would discontinue my disbelief, and have to accept the existence of whatever deity was proven. (Whether or not I'd worship a god would be entirely dependent on the character, attributes, and actions of said deity.) It is rather rich of the author to try to hijack secular good works as making atheism "more and more like religion". That might be a more valid argument to make if atheists were say, depriving their children of medical care or killing them for demon possession. Those actions really are more and more like religion.

Our author now claims to have many atheist friends. This gives me de ja vu thinking of racists who always preface their comments with, "One of my best friends is black!" In quoting an atheist friend, the author misrepresents Richard Dawkins by suggesting

Dawkins takes the Bible as literally as any Protestant fundamentalist. The only point of disagreement is that Dawkins finds it unreliable about science, whereas fundamentalists do not.

This is categorically false. What Dawkins does do is illustrate through a literalist, non-apologist reading of the Bible (which is what your typical American non-theologically trained Christian will do) that if the character of Yawhew was real, He'd be a right immoral prick. The quote she is almost certainly referring to is from The God Delusion

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And you know what? He's got a really valid point going on here. (See my comment above re: Even if a god exists, it might not be worthy of so abject a thing as worship.)

The author next claims new atheists don't care about the poor, human rights, or justice, and that we are instead content to blame everything that's wrong in the world on religion. (Join Atheist Nexus on Kiva, as the largest "religious group" micro-lender!) Finally, religious atrocities are brushed aside as nothing more than a "dark side" of this era, and in no way actually the responsibility of organized religion. As a closing (clumsy) shot the author quips

With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Oklahoma !, the atheist and religious person can be friends.

Well yes, obviously. I don't know a single atheist who doesn't have at least some theist friends. In this country for instance, over 80% of the population claims to be a follower of some kind of faith. The question isn't whether or not atheists can be friends with religious people. The question should be, why on earth would they want to be friends with Breda O'Brien?

Read more!

Bible Study

I have two relationships with the Bible - a physical one and an emotional one. I have carried a Bible in my left hand, felt its weight against my side, touched the light, cool, thin pages of it, tracing my finger below each line of verse, trying to translate in my head from the King James Version. I have flipped its pages back and forth, gripped its leather cover, rifled through the tabs on the side when following the minister, and rubbed my thumb across my gold embossed name on the face of it. There's something distinct about the physical shape and nature of a KJV. I've yet to come across any other book that thick and that flexible. What else is bound in leather? It's heavy, which is easy to mistake with being weighty.

Then there's how I've felt about it or while reading it, over the decades. The Bible is the first book I ever read as a child. I still like old English enough to enjoy the sound of the Bible, and the taste of some of the more poetic words. I also think being immersed in that tongue as a young child made Shakespeare much more accessible as a poetically inclined teen. In so much of life growing up in a rather odd religious sect I find that I miss out on cultural ties. I didn't watch the same TV shows or listen to any of the music my peers did as kids in the 80s and 90s. But I know the Bible stories. And those are rather well known, at least the ones that make good illustrations, like Noah's Ark. Besides, I really enjoy the little details they throw into the writing of Kings. They're inside stories for someone familiar with the Biblical story of David and Saul.

As a small child I loved the fables and folk tales of many cultures. I thought that by reading the stories they told themselves, I could understand them better. The knee-jerk hatred I felt towards the Bible during the early months of my atheism is gone now. I don't think it's true, and I think it's used to commit horrible crimes about people, but I still like the fact that I understand the culture and I can speak the language. I know their fables.

I want my son to have that knowledge, but not the cost of gaining it. I don't think I would know the tiny Old Testament story details that I do if the Old Testament hadn't been the first book I ever read. I may not have found Shakespeare appealing without early exposure to the literary style. And I doubt I'd have any real insight into American Christianity if I hadn't been raised in it. Those benefits can't justify the price. No other book has caused me to feel so much so intently. Fear, shame, excitement, incredulity, amusement, humility, desolation, solitude, companionship, comfort, humiliation, and self-loathing.

When stressing to me that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons aren't "real Christians", an acquaintance said to me, "It's annoying that they would just change the book or write their own and then still call it the same religion. They just stole ours." Of course, that's exactly what Christianity did to Judaism, and one reason to suppose that Christianity used to be nothing more than a weird little cult in Jerusalem.

Read more!

Fruits of the Spirit

A favorite topic among Protestant Christians is the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. These fruits are:

• Faithfulness


• Self-Control


• Patience


• Goodness


• Gentleness


• Joy


• Kindness


• Peace


• Love

I've heard these spoken of a few different ways. One theory is that these "fruits" are present in anyone "filled by the Holy Spirit", and presence of these "fruits" is evidence that the person is indeed holy or spirit-filled. I've also heard Christians say that it should be the primary aim of any Christian desiring to please God to strive to attain these characteristics through conscious choice and acts of will. Now, these are more different than they maybe sound. On the one hand you have the God-did-it solution: You ask the Holy Spirit to make you a kind, generous, nice person and he/it does it. On the other hand, you desire to BE a spirit-filled person, or a person with fruits of the Spirit, and so you do your best to be a person who displays all these characteristics, in the hopes to be good enough for God (or other Christians).

As a child I grew up with a very guilt-inducing dogma: All life's problems were my fault. Sickness was a sign of being out of God's favor; tragedies indicated I had somehow "opened a door" for demons to enter and start screwing with my life. Once I became a teen and tried to find more liberal, forgiving churches, I embraced Ephesians 2 as my absolute favorite chapter of the Bible. It states in verse 8 that "through grace we are saved, not by works, that no man may boast". It meant that I could screw up as often as I wanted - that I had carte blanche immunity to sinning - and God would forgive me. After all, if we don't get into heaven based on our own works, why bother doing good works? Besides, some sins are a lot of fun. (You'll find out which ones when you're older.)

Now as an atheist, I don't think anyone can take away my responsibility for my actions. I don't think any mystical being, holy or otherwise, can change my basic character. All of that is my job now. And I would have to say, that although I'm certainly not filled with any kind of Holy Spirit, I do seem to have quite a bit of his fruit. I'm generally loving, kind, gentle, and good. Anyone who has seen me with my son will vouch for my patience and self-control. I majored in Middle East Relations in college, with the hopes of being a peace negotiator, so I would have to say I'm fairly peaceful. I laugh at life's struggles and absurdities, and while everyone has their blue days, I'm overall a joyful person. The only question left is faith. If by faith we mean belief in an unseen deity, then clearly I am not faithful. But if faithfulness means reliability, keeping my word and my commitments, or loyalty to my loved ones, then yes, I am faithful also.

So if an atheist, apostate, non-believing blasphemer can attain or possess all 9 Fruits of the Spirit without being "filled" please answer me this: What is the point in the Holy Spirit in the first place?

Read more!

I watched Daniel Dennet's presentation at TED recently, and was struck when he mentioned that "Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain".

This can be very useful when studying. In college I would carry a single small notebook in my purse, and jot down practically every single word one of my professors would say. Once I got home, I'd recopy these notes into separate notebooks for each course. Each weekend, I'd review the notes for each course, and as exams approached, I'd go over them once again. For classes which required a lot of memorization of specific facts or definitions, I'd also make flash cards, and keep these in my back pocket to review while standing in line or between classes or at red lights in traffic. I made repeated copies of the information in my brain, so that I could recall it with ease in the high-pressure setting of an exam. I would know the right answers, because I had drilled myself on them so many times.

I got to thinking about what this meant in terms of religious practice. As a child, prayer was woven into the fabric of everyday life. We prayed over meals, in the mornings before traveling, and at night before going to bed. We went to church every week, at least once a week, and sang the same songs over and over every year. We made copy after copy after copy of these ideas in our brains. Perhaps this is exactly why so many religions emphasize the importance of daily devotions, bible studies, offices of prayer, and weekly church attendance. Each of these activities acts as a form of memorization, embedding the ideas more and more thoroughly into our minds, so that they occur to as the "right" answers, much as the notes I studied before exams.

I quit attending church services regularly after my son was born. For one thing, I was tired all the time. He was sickly as a young child, and I was nursing him, which was difficult when the church wanted me to leave him in the nursery, where he wouldn't be a distraction during the service. I also didn't fit very well in my "Sunday best" anymore with the addition of baby weight, and happened to break my ankle when my son was only a few weeks old. The combination left me at home a lot of Sunday mornings. As time went on and I could reasonably have begun attending services regularly again, I had begun to appreciate the heathen thrill of sleeping in, or lounging around in my pajamas, on a Sunday morning. I didn't quit attending church because I didn't believe in God, but as I failed to go to church, my belief waned. I'm not sure it would have been as easy for me to disbelieve as it was, if I'd been hearing the counter-message "God is true, God is real, God is here, God loves you, God cares inordinately about your sex life" every single weekend.

Many former believers I know talk about still having fears of hell, or dreams about church attendance, long after they leave their faith behind. I think this concept of "making another copy in your brain" may be the root of it. There are some things I learned in college I doubt I'll ever forget, like the principals involved in the "Corrupt Bargain of 1824" (when John Quincy Adams stole the election from Andrew Jackson). In the same way, I don't know that I'll ever forget the words and sign language to "Jesus Loves the Little Children" which I must have sung a thousand times in my early years of life. So when thoughts of God or Christian songs pop into my head, I don't need to give them any more credibility than the memories that they are. I was taught a myth as truth for over 20 years; it seems reasonable to believe, it may take some time before these ideas fade. In the meanwhile, I can study and drill and read and write over and over again the things I know ascertain to be true - the universe is a weird and wonderful place, no more designed for me than for the influenza virus. And I'm going to enjoy every guilt-free moment of the brief life I have in it.

Read more!

Rapture Ready

I called my senile former-cult-leader grandmother today, to wish her a happy Mother's Day. We spoke about the weather, about my son, and a few other neutral topics for about ten minutes. Then she let me know she had to get off the phone to go attend a discussion group in her nursing home - an Armageddon Preparedness Group. I was rather crushed.


My childhood was colored by her obsession with the End Times. She firmly believes that Jesus will return - Rapture, Tribulation, and all - during her life. Since she is in her late 70s now, it seems like it must be just around the corner. Having studied American history, I know that even just in this one, relatively young country, apocalypse predictions have prevailed time and again, without the event itself ever showing up. It is some sort of extreme arrogance to believe we, the individuals alive in a given generation, are so important that the end of life itself will occur for our viewing pleasure.

I also think that intense focus on the destruction of humanity - often a gleeful focus - is inherently "soul-crushing". It's what reminds me that Christianity is, in the end, a death cult. We can all agree that the Heavens Gate cult members were odd in their anticipation of leaving their "containers" (bodies) behind, and their mass suicide. We can probably all agree that they had mental problems, and that their beliefs were irrational and unhealthy. So why is rapture readiness considered okay? How is it any less ludicrous to hope for the end of your life because you're a Christian? It's the opposite of life-affirming; it's suicidal ideation.

Read more!

If the Bible was True: A Case for Christian Fundamentalism

My family were true believing fundamentalists. In fact, we looked at churches like Saddleback and thought "Pff! They aren't TRUE Christians." Frankly, we didn't have much respect for people who didn't take their faith seriously enough to entertain the notion of drinking a little poison now and again or handling venomous snakes. I mean, come ON - the Bible says if you really have faith you can do it and not be harmed!

Christians and atheists all seem to agree on one thing: My childhood was wacky. Christians say it wasn't the "right" interpretation of scripture, and atheists say it's further evidence of the madness religious teaching can lead to. This reaction from Christians has always bothered me a bit.


See, I tried the whole mainline Christian thing for a few years. Churches where they let parents take their kids to doctors, or where women were allowed to speak, and no one wore funny clothes. My youth group invited Christian "hardcore" bands to play at the church, and my pastor and I actually had an outreach ministry to the dancers at a nude bar (he sat outside and talked with the bouncer while my mom and I went in to tell the ladies about God's love and grace). But the whole time I was being a "moderate" Christian, I was worried about that lukewarm verse, Revelations 3:16 "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." I worried that being a lukewarm believer was worse than rejecting God outright.

My grandmother (Carol Balizet, leader of Home In Zion Ministries cult) put a lot of focus on the promises Yaweh/Jesus made. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, if God only speaks truth, then the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, and God made these promises in the Bible, then the promises are true. (Yeah, I realize now exactly how many "IFs" are in there, but I was young and ignorant.) So what are some of these promises?

- If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move a mountain by commanding it and "nothing will be impossible for you" (Matthew 17:20) (Also, a mulberry tree in Luke 17:6)
- You can stomp all over snakes and serpents and demons and "nothing will injure you" (Luke 10:19)
- You can handle venomous snakes and drink poison safely, and you can heal people through the laying of hands (Mark 16:18)
- Life and death are in the power of the tongue, of your words (Proverbs 18:21)
- If you believe in the biblical story and accept christ as your savior, you'll enjoy paradise in heaven (John 3:16)

These are the verses I lived the early years of my life by. Frankly I don't see the POINT of moderate religion. If all the IFs above are true, then why NOT live the crazy fundamentalist lifestyle? I mean really, he says you'll be known by your ability to handle snakes, drink poison, and heal people. Why *would* Christians go to doctors or lock their front doors? Why start a savings account, when God promises to provide for all your needs (Jehovah-Rapha, I will provide, somewhere in Deuteronomy I think)? Why live a balanced, reasonable life if you've got the ultimate Ace in Hole?

Now I've come to the conclusion that the IF statements above are all false - no god, no true bible, etc. But if they WERE true, why not have crazy faith? Why not TRY to move some mountains? How many Christians do you see trying to move mountains? Or fix the economic crisis? Or just pray away world hunger? No, they live small lives because they have a small god. And I have no use for a small god. Once I learned the hard way that the big God I grew up with was a myth my grandmother told me, I had no need for any kind of god at all. Who would anyone settle for something so paltry as the American Christian god?

Read more!