Category Archives: Atheism

Bruce, Do You Think Ken Ham is Sincere?

11 Replies

A commenter asked this question in the comment section of my latest post on Ken Ham.

It would make things easier if Ken Ham was a money-grubbing Elmer Gantry.  We could then dismiss him as a con-artist and shake our head at those who are conned by him.  However, I don’t think Ken Ham is a 21st century Gantry-like con-artist.

I have no doubt that Ken Ham is a sincere, devoted follower of Jesus Christ. I am sure that we would have been friends if we had known each other in my Fundamentalist days. Everything I have read written by Ham is consistent with his Fundamentalist belief system.

Now, we may rightly think Ham’s beliefs are ignorant and superstitious, but millions of people hold to similar beliefs, and, we should at least acknowledge that they are sincere believers.

Before we we can understand Ken Ham we must first understand his belief system. A lot of atheists and evolutionists fail to do this, and, instead, attack Ken Ham the person rather than Ken Ham’s beliefs.

Ken Ham is a true-blue Fundamentalist and part of his religious DNA is the belief that the world will become more evil the closer we get to the Rapture and that there are Satanic forces at work trying to destroy ‘”Biblical” Christianity. Anyone who has been a part of the Evangelical church for any length of time knows how this kind of thinking permeates Evangelicalism.

Atheism is on the rise in the West and Ham sees this as Satan attacking “Biblical” Christianity.  He fears that if he, along with his followers, don’t fight the atheist horde, that America will be destroyed.  I have no doubt he sincerely believes these things.

Everything Ham does is an attempt to promote “Biblical” Christianity and turn back the unrelenting attack of Satan. Yes, Ham makes a good living off his work and his efforts to promote Young Earth Creationism and “Biblical” Christianity attract millions of dollars in fees and donations. But, I suspect that Ham would still be an Evangelist for Young Earth Creationism and “Biblical Christianity” even if he wasn’t financially remunerated.

I remember when I used to think like Ken Ham. It was never about the money. My goal was to preach the good news of the gospel to as many people as possible. I was willing to do without and live in poverty if necessary to accomplish this goal. It was all about being obedient to Christ and being a faithful messenger to a lost and dying world.

When we attack Ken Ham the person we only make ourselves look bad. We need to focus on his beliefs and we need to challenge his assertions.  When going head-to-head with an adversary we owe them our respect. I may hate what Ken Ham believes and I may think those beliefs promote ignorance, but, if my objective is to counter his beliefs, I must focus on his beliefs rather than his person. (even when it is very hard to do so) I must, as an atheist, be a better man than many of the Fundamentalist Christians who personally attack me in the comment section of this blog and in the local newspaper.

To put it in religious parlance, I must be a good witness and I must always remember that people are going to judge me by the words I say and write. If I personally attack someone, I know that some readers will not hear what I have to say. And, I don’t blame them. (and yes, I am aware of the many Christians who confuse a critique of their beliefs with a personal attack.)

Kerry left a comment on my latest Ken Ham post that I think sums up well what I am trying to say:

Name calling does nothing to advance the understanding between world views. I didn’t do it as a believer and I don’t do it as a non-believer in Christianity. I do, from time to time, rework the pithy little sayings so many Christians use, such as; “Love the sinner but hate the sin” which I change to “Love the believer but hate the belief.” For the various beatitudes that get quoted, I usually quote from Confucius or Buddha which sound the same but are a little bit different. They of course do not notice until I point it out to them and educate them on the fact that these sayings are some 600 years before God gave them to the Jews. There are ways to make the point about the facts we as atheists have embraced without doing it in a manner that closes off all minds and debate.

Thou Shalt Not Lie Evidently Does Not Apply to Ray Comfort

1 Reply

If you are not familiar with Ray Comfort, Comfort is a street preaching Fundamentalist Evangelist who is considered by many Evangelicals to be an expert in evangelism. Comfort’s Bio page on the Living Waters website states:

Ray Comfort is the Founder/President/CEO of Living Waters Publications. After relocating from New Zealand to Southern California in the late 1980s, Ray introduced a long line of pastors and churches to a biblical teaching which he called Hell’s Best Kept Secret. The positive and enthusiastic response that followed took Ray’s Living Waters Publications ministry to a whole new level. From humble beginnings, LWP has become an internationally recognized ministry, reaching the lost and equipping Christians with every necessary resource to fulfill the great commission.

When I pastored Our Father’s House in West Unity Ohio, I showed the church congregation Comfort’s multipart series on Evangelism. I am quite familiar with Comfort’s methodology and Fundamentalist beliefs.

The video clip that follows is a blurb from a typical Ray Comfort street preaching session. What I want you to pay attention to is how Comfort reedits the video to make it seem like the men in the video are saying something different from what they originally said.

Video Link

Email from a 76 Year Old Evangelical Woman

30 Replies

email_2

An Evangelical woman by the name of Mary emailed me several days ago. She wrote:

First time to read your blog. Just amazed that by becoming an atheist you have thrown out the baby with the bath. Seems like overkill.

Mary’s email to me was based on her reading ONE post on this blog, But Bruce, Don’t Women Choose to Stay in Fundamentalism.

One post. Like many of her ilk, she made NO attempt to read anything else I wrote.

After five years of letters from Evangelicals, I am not as kind, nice, understanding, or longsuffering as I should be. After getting these kinds of emails day-after-day,, week-after-week, it wears on me. I guess I could just not reply to them…but I have never been able to ignore people like Mary. I don’t want them to think that they have put the atheist in his place or think , boy I sure told him.

I can be snarky when dealing with Evangelicals, so I hope you will forgive my snarkiness as you read my response to Mary:

By becoming an atheist I am free.

You see, I found out that there is no baby in the bathwater.

I spent 50 years in the Christian church, 25 years as an Evangelical pastor. The single best decision I made was to walk away.  I am sure you see things differently but it is where my journey led me and I am quite happy to be where I am now. (and so is my wife)

I wish you well.

In today’s inbox was this from Mary:

Thank you for your response.

I am so sorry. Sorry that while you successfully escaped one Lie, you turned and swallowed another.

I responded:

And you are now an insufferable Christian who arrogantly and self-righteously thinks they have the truth and that anyone who doesn’t has bought into a lie.

Instead of accepting people as they are and respecting the path they have chosen, you want everyone to be like you. Ask yourself, WHY would I want to be like you?  Your emails are just a reminder of what I left. Why would I ever want to go back to the leeks and bondage of Egypt? The atheist/humanist/secularist Promised Land is better, far better than that which I have left behind.

Hell? judgment? I fear neither. I don’t think there is a god, but if I am wrong then my good works will have to suffice. If not, why would I want to live in eternity with a god who values believing and right doctrine over good works?

So, enjoy your smug Christian life. I will continue to enjoy the lie I am living. It really is sweet. You ought to try it.

Mary responded:

It is interesting that while you do not even know me as a person, yet you have judged me to be a judgmental person?? I hear your anger. No doubt you have reason to be angry from your description of your past with its cast of characters who ascribe to a  harsh and indescribably self-righteous religiosity. I am 76 and have interacted with many like that. Even got caught in a group who originally taught truth, but eventually used it to manipulate and trap others. I am thankful to be free of that spirit.  Today I, too, am free . But I did not have to reject God in order to get there.

While your anger may have a legitimate base, your bitterness seems to spew forth on everyone, regardless.

I responded:

You read one blog post of mine (I checked the logs) and came to the conclusions you did.

You also have an online presence that I checked out. Surprise.

If you had bothered to read a bit more of my writing you would have learned that I left the Fundamentalist church in the late 1980′s. You would have learned that when I left the ministry I left as a progressive/liberal Christian. You would have learned that the reason that I am not a Christian is because I do not believe the Bible is an inerrant, inspired text and I reject the claims Christians make for the Bible. You would have learned that I think Jesus existed but that he was a man who lived and died. End of story. No miracles. No resurrection. It is for these reasons I am not a Christian.

But, please, by all means, dismiss me as an angry man. No one but people like you believes this about me…but, I don’t want to interrupt your delusional thoughts about me with facts.

Again, you made no effort to get to know me as a person. You read a post and responded.

You seem unable to see how your words might be offensive to me. You refuse to accept me as I am and you assume that there is some defect in my character. After all, imagine an atheist writing you without ever reading anything you have written, and them telling you your Christian faith is a lie and that you have bought into that lie?

What did you hope to gain by emailing me? It certainly couldn’t have been to help me nor was it an attempt to understand me better. No, you just wanted to make sure I knew that I had thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater and that I am believing a lie.

I am not a novice when it comes to Christianity and the Bible. As a former Evangelical I know how you think. Since it is clear you think the Bible is God’s word (based on your old blog posts), you know the Bible says in John 8:44:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When you say I have bought into a lie, you are saying I am following after my father Satan.

Again, I ask you, what did you hope to gain by emailing me? There is nothing you can say that would ever cause me to reconsider Christianity. In fact, I doubt there is anything you can tell me from the Bible that I do not already know. To be blunt…been there, done that.

I wish you well Mary. Now I am going to go back to watching the ballgame and enjoying my family. They are what matter and they are all I need.

And so it goes. I am sure Mary is a nice person. I am sure she means well. But, nice, well-meaning people can also be blinded to how their words and actions are viewed by others, especially people like me.

You see, Mary is not concerned about me. Her email to me is all about making sure that the “truth” is proclaimed.  Those of you who are non-Christians understand this quite well. Many Christians feel they have a God ordained responsibility to confront what they think is error. (in Mary’s case, what she considers a lie) They rarely consider how their words will be received, or, for that matter, who they are even speaking to, Understanding my journey is of no importance to the Mary’s of the world. All that matters is Jesus.

After five years of this kind of stuff, I have come to accept that this is just how it is. Evangelicals are incapable of seeing anything outside their narrow, truncated worldview. Everything is judged according to the standard of the Bible, or should I say their own peculiar interpretation of the Bible.

Now back to the ballgame. The Reds have the bases loaded. I WILL be angry if we don’t get some runs out of this. Smile

Dear Christian, Before You Hit Send

21 Replies
This entry is part 6 of 6 in the seriesLetters

send_button

Dear Christian,

I have been blogging for going on six years. When I first started blogging, I was still a Christian. I was a liberal Christian with sympathies for the emerging/emergent church movement.

In my Christian blogging days, I would get emails from people I called the Keepers of the Book of Life. These people thought of themselves as TRUE Christians. They judged every other Christian by their own personal beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

According to these Christians, I was not a “real” Christian.

In late 2008, I deconverted and became an atheist. Of course, my deconversion was proof to the above-mentioned Christians that they were right…I was not a “real” Christian. As one Christian said, we now know who the REAL Bruce Gerencser is.

Since 2008, I have received hundreds of emails from Christians. These emails are an attempt to witness to me, chastise me, judge me, correct me, ridicule me, challenge me, feign friendship with me, preach at me, attack me, or quote Bibles verses to me.

There are a handful of emails from Christians who sincerely want to understand my story and are willing not to make any judgments about me. All of these letter writers are liberal/progressive Christians.  They accept my storyline as is and make no attempt to convert me or judge me.

However, the rest of the letter writers are of the Conservative or Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian variety. They all have one thing in common. They are CERTAIN they are right and I am wrong. They are CERTAIN they worship the one, true, and living God. They are CERTAIN the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God.

They are certain that their peculiar interpretation of the Bible is absolutely correct. They never consider the arrogance of such a claim or consider their own fallibility. Armed with certainty, they become insufferable bigots who attack anyone and everything that does not fit their narrow, truncated worldview.

And here YOU are…at the contact page. You have filled out your name. Did you use your real name or are you going to be a coward like so many Christians before you and use a fake name? You have filled out your email address. Did you use your real email address or are you going to be a coward like so many Christians before you and use a fake email address?

And now, you have written out your comment. You are proud of yourself. You have put in a good word for Jesus. You have put the preacher-turned-atheist in his place. You have given him a, THE BIBLE SAYS or a THUS SAITH THE LORD. Like a proud Peacock, you think you have really done a wonderful work for Jesus. You think that Jesus will someday say to you, Well done thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of the Lord.

And now, you are ready to hit SEND. You pause for just a moment. Is that a twinge of conscience you have? Perhaps a doubt?

Before you hit SEND, let me talk to you for a moment.

Have you honestly taken the time to understand who I am? Have you bothered to read more than a post or two? Have you read the posts in the START HERE series? If you haven’t, how can you make a judgment about me without making any attempt to know me? Surely you know the Bible condemns such behavior?

Do you know that I was part of the Christian church for 50 years? Do you know that I was an Evangelical pastor for 25 years? Are you aware of the fact that I studied the Bible daily for over 30 years and that I preached thousands of sermons? Do you know that for the last 15 years in the pastorate I preached expositionally and that I preached over 125 sermons over 2 years from the Book of John?

You might ask, so what!! Well, here’s the so what… I know the Bible. I know it from every possible angle. Hundreds of emails from Christians, yet not one of them has told me something I did not know.

Does this sound arrogant to you? I am not concerned with how this “sounds” to you. I want you to consider the fact that I have read and studied the Bible over 20,000 hours in my lifetime. I have spent more time reading and studying the Bible than I have going to the bathroom, having sex, or eating.

I have spent 130 weeks or 2 years and 6 months, reading and studying the Bible. So, yes I know the Bible, and yes there is nothing you can tell me that I have not read or heard before.  There is nothing you can say that cause me to proclaim, Wow, I never saw that before!! Dear Jesus, Save me!! I believe!!

I am an atheist because I don’t believe in the existence of gods. Am I certain? Of course not, No atheist can be CERTAIN, and unlike you, we are willing to admit we are uncertain. This is why most atheists are agnostic on the God question. We are certain that the gods in the panoply of gods created by humans are no gods at all, but…maybe there is a god who has not yet revealed itself to us. Probable? No. Possible? Sure.

When it comes to Christianity, I have weighed it the balances and found it wanting. I know the Bible is not what Christians claim it is. It is not an infallible, inerrant, or inspired book. It is an admixture of myth, legend, and history. It has great wisdom but it also has commands and teachings that must be dismissed and condemned by people who consider mercy, justice, and peace important.

I am not a Christian because I choose NOT to be one. I did not deconvert because I was angry or hurt. At the end of the proverbial day, I left Christianity for intellectual reasons. I no longer believe the claims of Christianity to be true.

If you have read what I have written above,  I hope you know quoting the Bible to me will have no effect. I am an apostate, and according to the Christian Bible, I am a fool with a seared conscience. There is no hope for me since I have trampled under the blood of the covenant and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace. (Hebrews 10:29)

I don’t think the God you worship exists. Telling me I am living in denial or that there are no atheists in foxholes, will have no effect on me. I don’t think Jesus was divine, I think he was a good man who lived and died.

I don’t think there is an afterlife, a heaven or a hell. I think we make heaven or hell for ourselves and others by how we live our lives. So, knowing this, don’t bother to threaten me with God’s judgment or hell. I am immune to such things.

Perhaps you are getting ready to tell me that you are going to pray for me. Don’t bother. I don’t need your prayers and I am not afraid of your praying power. There are Christians who are praying for God to kill me…yet here I am.  There are Christians who are praying that God will reveal himself to me…yet he hasn’t. There are Christians who are praying that God will save and deliver me…yet…he hasn’t. Take the hint. God doesn’t want to be bothered and neither do I.

Nothing you write in your email will make one bit of difference. I hope you understand this. After all, God frowns upon those who waste their time in foolish, unproductive endeavors. Instead of writing me an email, why not spend your time helping someone in a nursing home or local jail.

Now, if you have a question you would like me to answer, I will be glad to answer it. I will politely answer your question. Please do not take my polite answer to your question as an invitation to have an email debate with me. I am not interested, and, as one recent writer found out, when I am attacked, after I have been polite and respectful, I am liable to tell you, with words you are not likely to hear in church, what I think of you.

Perhaps you are a, let’s be friends, Christian. Sorry, I don’t want to be your friend. Let’s face it…we have nothing in common. Dozens of Christians have taken the, let’s be friends, approach with me, and, in every case, they had an ulterior motive or became upset at me because I wrote something that “offended” them.

Besides, the Bible is clear. Friendship with the world is enmity with God and you are commanded not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. We all like to hang out with people who think like us…so, if you really need friends, I suggest you visit any of the thousands of churches that populate the street corners of America.

Perhaps you are an armchair psychologist and you know, contrary to what I say, that I have deep emotional or mental problems. Surely, no one in their right mind would ever walk away from Jesus after they have intimately known him for 50 years. There must be a secret reason for my deconversion.

Whatever my emotional or mental state may be, you are not qualified to make any judgments on these things. I see a psychologist on a regular basis…so I am good. Really, I am…

Well, you have read all of this and you are STILL going to hit SEND, aren’t you? Like hundreds before you, you don’t care what I think. Sending me an email isn’t about me at all…it is about you. It is all about your need to be right or feel superior.

Perhaps, YOU are the one who needs to see a psychologist. Perhaps she can help you with your need to take a passive-aggressive approach to people like me. Perhaps she can help you see that your attack of me is actually you revealing that you are not as certain about your beliefs as you say you are and that you think if a person like me can fall from grace so can you.

Most Christians who hit SEND will ignore everything I have written in this letter. It doesn’t matter to them that they are causing others to look poorly on Christianity, on their Jesus. They are convinced that God is leading, directing, or telling them to hit SEND.  They never consider that the voice they are hearing might be their own.

Dear Christian, I thought you might want to know these things. What you do next will say a lot about what kind of follower of Jesus you really are.

Sincerely,

Bruce Gerencser

Why Doesn’t God Heal the Sick?

14 Replies

jesus_great_physician

Take a look around you. Do you know anyone who is sick? Do you know anyone who is suffering?  Are many of them Christians? I am sure you have quietly asked yourself, WHERE is their God? Why does God ignore their pain and suffering? Why does it seem God is more interested in Tim Tebow scoring a TD than he is dear Christian Aunt Suzie finding relief from her suffering?

According to orthodox Christian belief, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. God knows who will be sick, who is sick, and what their outcome will be. God has unlimited power to heal them or keep them from getting sick. According to Christians, God is an AWESOME God and he can do ANYTHING!!

Ask yourself, how awesome of a father would I be if I saw my child suffering, knowing I could do something about it, and did nothing? I would rightly be considered an evil man, perhaps even subject to criminal charges.

But, God gets a free pass. When a plane crashes and one passenger out of the hundred that boarded the plane survives, God is praised for deliverance of the one passenger. He delivered 1% of the passengers. What about the other 99%? Were they not worthy of being delivered by the awesome God who can do anything?

Christians can say what they will, but look around…God is nowhere to be found. Every once in awhile a healing is attributed to God, but, for the most part, people get sick, suffer, and die. Christians go to the grave praising a God who they just know will be waiting for them on the the other side. If he wasn’t around when they really needed him, when they were suffering and in great pain, what makes them think God will be around once they get to the Promised Land?

Of course, Christian pastors have all kinds of answers for the issues I raise here. Sam Storms, in an article on the Resurgence website, had this to say:

“Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this [thorn], that it should leave me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’” 2 Corinthians 12:8–9

God loved the Apostle Paul. Yet God sovereignly orchestrated Paul’s painful thorn in the flesh and then declined to remove it, notwithstanding Paul’s passionate prayer that he be healed.

We are not apostles. Yet, God loves us as his children no less than he loved Paul. We don’t know the nature of Paul’s thorn, but each of us has undoubtedly suffered in a similar way, and some considerably worse.

We, like Paul, have prayed incessantly to be healed. Or perhaps knowing of a loved one’s “thorn,” we have prayed for him or her. And again, as with Paul, God declined to remove it.

Why?

It’s hard to imagine a more difficult, confusing, and controversial topic than why God chooses not to heal in response to the intercessory pleas of his people. I don’t profess to have all the answers, but I think I’ve got a few.

Storms goes on to list seven reasons why God might not heal someone. I have put these reasons in statements that are easy to understand:

  • A Lack of Faith-Occasionally healing does not occur because of the absence of that sort of faith that God delights to honor. This does not mean that every time a person isn’t healed, it is because of a defective faith, as if healing inevitably follows a robust and doubt-free faith. But it does mean that faith is very important…
  • Sin in the Person’s Life-Sometimes healing does not occur because of the presence of sin for which there has been no confession or repentance. James 5:15–16 clearly instructs us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed.
  • A Lack of Desire to be Healed-Odd as it may sound to hear it, healing may not happen because the sick don’t want it to happen. Jesus asked the paralyzed man in John 5:6, “Do you want to be healed?” What on the surface may appear to be a ridiculous question is, on further examination, found to be profoundly insightful. Some people who suffer from a chronic affliction become accustomed to their illness and to the pattern of life it requires. Their identity is to a large extent wrapped up in their physical disability.
  • A Lack of Praying-We must also consider the principle articulated in James 4:2, where we are told, “You do not have, because you do not ask.” The simple fact is that some are not healed because they do not pray. Perhaps they pray once or twice, and then allow discouragement to paralyze their petitions. Prayer for healing often must be prolonged, sustained, persevering, and combined with fasting.
  • The Person is Influenced by Demons-Some are not healed because the demonic cause of the affliction has not been addressed. Please do not jump to unwarranted conclusions. I am not suggesting that all physical disease is demonically induced…
  • Because God has a Reason and He is not Telling-We must also consider the mystery of divine providence. There are undoubtedly times and seasons in the purposes of God during which his healing power is withdrawn or at least largely diminished. God may have any number of reasons for this to which we are not privy, whether to discipline a wayward and rebellious church or to create a greater desperation for his power or to wean us off excessive dependence on physical comfort and convenience or any number of other possibilities
  • Because God Wants to Teach You a Lesson and Make the Person Stronger-Oftentimes there are dimensions of spiritual growth and moral development and increase in the knowledge of God in us that he desires more than our physical health, experiences that in his wisdom God has determined can only be attained by means or in the midst of or in response to less-than-perfect physical health. In other words, healing the sick is a good thing (and we should never cease to pray for it), but often there is a better thing that can be attained only by means of physical weakness…

For those of us raised in the Evangelical church, we have heard each of these statements many times as church leaders attempted to explain why so many Christians are sick and why God doesn’t seem to be healing them.

Did you see a common theme in Sam Storms reasons? It is YOUR fault if you are not healed. You lack faith, have sin in your life, don’t pray enough, are influenced by demons, or you really don’t WANT to be healed.

Of course, this is Evangelicalism 101. The sinner is always to blame. God gets a free ride because be is an AWESOME God and he has a wonderful, super-duper plan for our lives. God gets credit anytime something good happens, but when bad things happen God is absolved of any culpability. (if only life was like this) Smile

Storms does allow for the fact that maybe the reason a person is not healed is because God has a mysterious plan that he is not sharing with the sick person OR God has a lesson he wants to teach the person.

Why would anyone want to worship a God who uses suffering and sickness to teach people a lesson? Why would anyone want to worship a God who leaves people in pain because they don’t do EXACTLY as he says and even if they do EXACTLY as he says, he still leaves them in their pain? In other words, the suffering Christian is damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

whoop_assThis is why Christian pastors often teach that life is meant to be endured, a test from God. Those who endure to the end will be saved, the Bible says. If the Christians bears all the cans of whoop-ass that God opens up and pours out on their lives, God promises to give them a real nice place in Heaven after they die.

I find the humanist approach to suffering and sickness superior to the Christian view. As a humanist, I know there is no deity behind the health problems I have. Genetics, environment, lifestyle choices, and a healthy dose of, we don’t know why, are the reasons I am disabled and live with unrelenting pain, fatigue, and loss of muscle strength.

When I go to the doctor, I expect him to help me IF he can. I have told him many times, I don’t expect you to heal me. All I want is for you to help me as much as you can. The rest? I just have to live with it, and when I no longer want to live with it…well…I won’t live with it any longer.

As a humanist, I embrace my life as it is. I don’t live in hope of a divine payoff in the sweet by and by. This is my life and it is the only one I have. Either I embrace my life as it is and make the most of it or I roll over and die.

I know this seems hard and cold but it better than living under the Christian delusion that if really, really pray God might, if he is not too busy, heal me. Imagine going to the doctor every week for six months, and every time you went to the doctor he wasn’t there. I suspect, after a while, you’d be looking for a new doctor.

And that is exactly what I have done. I no longer have need of the mythical, absent Great Physician. I choose to embrace my humanity and hope that those who love me will help me when I need it.

Ken Ham Has a Point

14 Replies

ken_ham_dinosaur

Ken Ham, the CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, posted a short post on his Facebook page today about how some atheists and secularists personally attack the Answers in Genesis staff.

On one hand, Ham never misses an opportunity to gin up hysteria over the secular horde that is, according to Ham, trying to destroy America.  He routinely overplays his hand and it is hard to take him seriously when he does this.

On the other hand, atheists and secularists often do make their attacks personal. Instead of attacking Ham’s ideas, they attack the person, using invectives and disparaging words to demean Ham and those who believe like he does.  I have, on occasion, done it myself. (and I am trying to do better in this regard)

Ken Ham stands as the representative for Young Earth Creationism. His beliefs are no different than mine were for many years. I suspect many of the readers of this blog were at one time Young Earth Creationists.

Ham’s literalistic interpretation of the Bible is generally consistent, and I commend him for sticking to his guns, no matter what comes his way.  I generally have more respect for people who take the Bible as written and don’t try to reinterpret, massage, or reinvent the text when they are faced with teachings that make them uncomfortable. Of course, this way of thinking is a two-edged sword since there are a lot of things in the Bible that most Christians wish weren’t in the text. (i.e. God’s genocidal behavior, approval of slavery)

Now, this does not mean I think Ken Ham’s beliefs are rational or intellectually satisfying. I think modern science, history, and common sense, clearly show that Ham’s beliefs are ignorant and are best left buried in the past where they came from.  Yes, millions of people believe just Ham does, but this does not mean their beliefs have merit. Millions of people are Mormons, and I have no doubt Ham thinks they are deluded.  A large number of people believing something doesn’t necessarily make the belief true.

I think his beliefs impede progress, encourage intellectual sterility, and any attempt to teach his beliefs in the public school system must be stopped. Our children are already science-ignorant, so we don’t need to add to their ignorance by teaching them Creationism or Intelligent Design. (unless it is taught in a World Religion class, a class I think EVERY student should be required to take)

Evangelical Christianity is dying, ever-so-slowly. The extreme Fundamentalist end of Evangelicalism, represented by people like Ken Ham, James Dobson, and the like, is dying even faster.

Time is on our side. We must be vigilant and continue to stop any attempt to sneak Evangelical beliefs, especially Creationism, into the public schools. If we successfully do this, Evangelical beliefs will be pushed back into the church and home where they belong.  Given enough time, maybe another generation or two, Evangelicalism will be a shell of what it once was. Yes, there will always be Ken Ham’s, but their influence will be minimal. I have no doubt that this is a battle that we WILL win.

This is why we should not waste our time personally attacking people like Ken Ham. Let’s challenge their ideas and beliefs. Let’s make public their beliefs and judge and critique them according to science and reason.  If we do this, we will, first of all, keep some people from being attracted to Evangelicalism, and second of all, we might be able to help those who want to be free of the narrow, close minded, stifling constraints of Evangelicalism.

Of course, it would be nice if Ken Ham did the same. While he rightly complains about the personal attacks, he turns right around and does the same thing. In the post I  mentioned above, Ham wrote:

However, I find so many atheists who are not just intolerant of what we believe as Christians but are intolerant of us personally. Why? The Bible tells us that “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?”
(Jeremiah 17:9)—so because of sin it is going to be a lopsided battle. While a true Christian may be intolerant of an atheist’s belief, the atheist is often intolerant of the Christian personally.

Instead of practicing what he preaches, Ham disparages his critics by saying that they are deceitful and desperately wicked. I am sure Ham will say that he is just repeating what GOD said, but he using the Bible to personally attack people. (a common Evangelical practice)

Ham might also want to send his followers a memo about not attacking people personally. Several of his followers, coming directly from his Facebook page or associated with Answers in Genesis, have personally attacked me, going after my “emotional” state instead of my ideas and beliefs.

All the way around, the level of discourse needs to be raised.  Atheists hurling invectives at Ham and his flowers, calling them child abusers unfit to be parents, does nothing to advance the atheist cause. Christian parents are free to educate their children as they wish, and quite frankly, if the only deficient aspect of their education is that they were taught Creationism, I think they will survive.  This is nothing that can’t be corrected at the college level.

Evangelicals need to stop demeaning and disparaging atheists, humanists, and secularists. Hurling Bible condemnations our way, attempting to make us look like immoral, indecent, vile creatures, is not only untrue, but not what Jesus would have done. (Jesus reserved his sharpest criticisms for the religious)

Now, do I think anyone is going to listen to me?

No.

But, I said it. It needed to be said. Do with it what you will.

Why I am Agnostic on the God Question

4 Replies

clarence_darrow_quote

A commenter on Ken Ham’s Facebook page stated:

Interesting how one billboard says: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. Notice the word “probably” : ) …and we thought they knew for sure!

Why do many Christians think atheists are certain there is no God?

One reason is that we tend to speak in absolutes when we talk about God. As a blogger, I don’t have the time or energy to modify everything I write about the Gods with nuanced words so it “seems” that I am certain there is NO God.

It is like the word Christian. When I write about Christians and Christianity, I am almost always referring to Fundamentalist oriented Evangelicalism. People who frequent this blog know this, but the newbie who finds this blog via a web search does not know this. As a result, they will often think that I am painting all Christians with the same brush. (and I need to do a better job at being clear about WHO I am writing about)

So it is with atheists and their talk about God.

I am an atheist and an agnostic. I live my day-to-day life as an atheist. The only time God enters my thinking is when I am writing a blog post or working on a book project.

When I first deconverted I called myself an agnostic. But, I got tired of having to constantly explain myself, so I decided to call myself an atheist.  Even then, many people do not really understand what it means to be an atheist. (please read my post The A Word)

When it comes to the God question, no one can be absolutely sure there is no God. Anyone who says they are absolutely certain there is no God is stating something that can not be proved.(no more than the Christian can prove there is a God)

At best, atheists are agnostic on the God question. Based on the available evidence it is unlikely a God exists. It is all about probabilities. Is it probable a God exists? From my seat in the pew, I say No.

An atheist can, however, be atheistic towards the current panoply of Gods worshipped by humans.  It is one thing to say, I am not certain a God exists and a whole other thing to say, the Christian God, as revealed in the Christian Bible, does not exist.

Perhaps there IS a God and that God has not yet revealed itself to us. Perhaps there is a divine energy that we can not see and know.  We simply can’t and don’t know for certain and we need to be honest about not knowing for certain. Of course, the same could be said of those who believe there is a God. They can’t know for certain either.

Some atheists deride agnostics as people who are cowards, people who still have religious sympathies. I don’t think this is a true assessment of agnostics. The agnostic is a still open to new evidence. They are willing to consider any new study, find, or evidence that comes to light. However, the hardcore, there are NO NO NO NO NO God, atheist has closed their mind and is not much different from a closed-minded Fundamentalist Christian. Both have their minds made up.

Some people suggest that science will give us the answer to the God question some day. Science will some day answer the origin question. Perhaps. But, until then, I intend to continue to be agnostic when it comes to God. It will take a lot more evidence than is currently available for me to state with great certainty, there is NO God.

Let me end this post with the words of Clarence Darrow:

An agnostic is a doubter. The word is generally applied to those who doubt the verity of accepted religious creeds of faiths. Everyone is an agnostic as to the beliefs or creeds they do not accept. Catholics are agnostic to the Protestant creeds, and the Protestants are agnostic to the Catholic creed. Any one who thinks is an agnostic about something, otherwise he must believe that he is possessed of all knowledge. And the proper place for such a person is in the madhouse or the home for the feeble-minded. In a popular way, in the western world, an agnostic is one who doubts or disbelieves the main tenets of the Christian faith.

I would say that belief in at least three tenets is necessary to the faith of a Christian: a belief in God, a belief in immortality, and a belief in a supernatural book. Various Christian sects require much more, but it is difficult to imagine that one could be a Christian, under any intelligent meaning of the word, with less. Yet there are some people who claim to be Christians who do not accept the literal interpretation of all the Bible, and who give more credence to some portions of the book than to others.

I am an agnostic as to the question of God. I think that it is impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing. Since man ceased to worship openly an anthropomorphic God and talked vaguely and not intelligently about some force in the universe, higher than man, that is responsible for the existence of man and the universe, he cannot be said to believe in God. One cannot believe in a force excepting as a force that pervades matter and is not an individual entity. To believe in a thing, an image of the thing must be stamped on the mind. If one is asked if he believes in such an animal as a camel, there immediately arises in his mind an image of the camel. This image has come from experience or knowledge of the animal gathered in some way or other. No such image comes, or can come, with the idea of a God who is described as a force.

Man has always speculated upon the origin of the universe, including himself. I feel, with Herbert Spencer, that whether the universe had an origin– and if it had– what the origin is will never be known by man. The Christian says that the universe could not make itself; that there must have been some higher power to call it into being. Christians have been obsessed for many years by Paley’s argument that if a person passing through a desert should find a watch and examine its spring, its hands, its case and its crystal, he would at once be satisfied that some intelligent being capable of design had made the watch. No doubt this is true. No civilized man would question that someone made the watch. The reason he would not doubt it is because he is familiar with watches and other appliances made by man. The savage was once unfamiliar with a watch and would have had no idea upon the subject. There are plenty of crystals and rocks of natural formation that are as intricate as a watch, but even to intelligent man they carry no implication that some intelligent power must have made them. They carry no such implication because no one has any knowledge or experience of someone having made these natural objects which everywhere abound.

To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginnings of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God? Did he always exist, or was there some power back of that? Did he create matter out of nothing, or is his existence coextensive with matter? The problem is still there. What is the origin of it all? If, on the other hand, one says that the universe was not made by God, that it always existed, he has the same difficulty to confront. To say that the universe was here last year, or millions of years ago, does not explain its origin. This is still a mystery. As to the question of the origin of things, man can only wonder and doubt and guess…

Does Tone Matter?

5 Replies

atheist_preacher

What is a tone troll?

The Urban Dictionary defines tone troll as:

A tone troll is an internet troll that will effectively disrupt an internet discussion, because they feel that some of the participants are being too harsh, condescending, or use foul language. They often complain loudly and target specific subjects, even though they may actually agree with their subjects’s point of view.

Tone trolls often emerge in the comments sections of the Pharyngula blog by Prof. PZ Myers.

It is interesting that the prime example given of where tone trolls can be found is the blog of atheist PZ Myers.

I have been accused from time to time of being a tone troll. It has been awhile, because I have given up trying to get atheists to consider how they are  perceived by the public.  The worst offenders love being offensive and trying to “reason” them out of their behavior will not work. (as I learned with Richard Carrier)

Nasty, hateful, mean-spirited, atheists are no different from Fundamentalist Christians who do the same. The only difference is the Christian believes in God and the atheist doesn’t.

Let me be clear…I am all for pointed, direct, forceful speech, and writing. I think atheists need to be very clear in their arguments against religion. Discussions and debates in the public square must be with language that can be clearly understood by all.

However, our debates and discussions in the public square are more than just our words. We must also consider our methods, how we deliver our words. People are paying attention, not only to our words, but to how we present ourselves.

They are sizing us up. We are making a “first” impression and people will often judge the value of our words from this first impression. Atheists naïvely think it is all about the evidence. All we need to do is present the facts, method be damned.

As a person who has spent a lifetime publicly speaking and writing, I know first impressions matter. My message doesn’t matter if a person forms a negative first impression of me. It is almost impossible to overcome a negative first impression. Yes, this is a flimsy way to decide the value of a person or argument, but that’s how it is.

This is why some atheists should never do public debates. They have a head full of good, solid arguments, but their debating skills and persona are not conducive to debating.  Their deficiencies turn people off, and once they are turned off they are no longer “hearing” their atheist debater’s good, solid arguments.

Take Atheism+. Generally, I support most of the goals of atheism+, yet I do not support it, Why? Simple. PZ Myers and Richard Carrier.

At the time, I told everyone who would listen that it was a bad idea to have PZ Myers or Richard Carrier speaking on behalf of atheism+. They are petulant children who lack basic social skills. They are the atheist version of the playground bully.

I am of the opinion that PZ Myers and Richard Carrier playing a prominent part in the startup of atheism+ has turned off countless people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the goals of atheism+. Perception matters.

Ask yourself…does tone matter?

Does HOW your wife or husband speak to you matter?

Does HOW your children or grandchildren speak to you matter?

Does HOW your mother or father speak to you matter?

Does HOW your neighbor speak to you matter?

Shall I go on? These are rhetorical questions. Of course, how they speak to us matters. None of us like being attacked, berated, belittled, or demeaned. None of us like being reduced to dog shit on the bottom of someone’s shoe.

Why is it then that we give notable atheists a pass when they treat the religious in ways we would not want to be treated?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:12:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

This is a great maxim, even if it is found in the Bible. We should treat others like we would want to be treated. This includes those we vehemently disagree with. Yes, some Christians are quite hateful, but we don’t have to lower ourselves to their level. As atheists, shouldn’t we show the believing world a superior morality and ethic?

A good rule of thumb is this…when we are done discussing and debating, will our opposition want to eat a meal with us or drink a beer at the local pub? If we leave someone bitterly hating us, what have we accomplished?

The atheist movement needs to grow up. After the Reason Rally, I said, I hope atheists got everything out of their system . Pent up anger towards religion and religious leaders is understandable. Wanting to spend a day attacking religion is fine, but if every Reason Rally is the same, the media will rightly report that the sum of atheism is being angry at God and religion. (and I am not suggesting that we never be angry)

I am sure some atheists are going to think I am being preachy. Yep, guilty as charged.  Someone needs to say these things. Continuing to let the atheist movement be defined by the schoolyard bullies only hurts our cause.

We chide Christians over their schoolyard bullies. We tell them they must own their crazy-uncles. Well, we as atheists, need to do the same.  We can’t run off the schoolyard bullies, but we can quit presenting them as the face of atheism.

I have been critical of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Clergy Project, and most every atheist/humanist group, for their constant use of atheist/humanist superstars as their spokespeople. The community is broader than the roster of speakers many of these groups have. People need to hear diverse voices, lest they, like the religious, begin to think that only their beliefs are correct. (and yes, I think atheists can act just like the religious when it comes to their beliefs)

There are countless clergy who have left the Christian faith, yet, every time I see a news report or see a conference schedule, it is the same three or four ex-clergy giving an interview or giving a speech. Again, diversity is important and the best way to show the world the face of atheism is to present them with a diverse pool of adherents.

The future of atheism and humanism will depend on how we prosecute our case in the public square. IF we want a hearing, IF we want to be understood, then we must understand that perception matters. Our tone is every bit as important as what we have to say.

If we do not realize this…we should not be surprised that we will continue to be a marginalized group that everyone thinks is a bunch of angry God-haters. Once we have rid the public sphere, through litigation, of all the vestiges of Christianity…then what?

What we really need is big-picture atheism and not the reductionist, shallow atheism that is prominent in the United States. What is our end game? What do we hope to accomplish?

Our answers to questions like these will determine the viability of atheism and humanism in the future.

Robert Price on Atheist Hostility Towards the Religious

14 Replies

robert_price

I found the following  on Robert Price’s excellent blog, Zarathustra Speaks. I thought it would be an excellent addition to the post I wrote today about Fundamentalist Atheism.

Price wrote:

…My disagreement with religion and religious people is, I hope, a gentleman’s disagreement. As a humanist, I cannot despise the cultural fruits of religion, including the art, literature, music, and even the fascinating theology it has given rise to. That doesn’t mean I can’t condemn the atrocities it has also spawned. But I cannot share, and dare not share, the loathing that many of my atheist compatriots harbor toward religion and religious folks. One reason is that, insofar as atheists adopt such disdain and hostility, they are mirroring and mimicking the very things they so hate about religion. As a humanist I have to approach all things human as an anthropologist does, as a sympathetic observer seeking to understand human nature and motivation, and to appreciate the products thereof. In fact, “anthropologist” is almost a synonym for “humanist” in my lexicon.

A few weeks ago I was interviewed for Ahmadiyya Muslim Television. My gracious hosts were, of course, members of the sect. Do you think I should have taken the opportunity to “witness” to them about atheism? To try to disabuse them of their beliefs? The notion is grotesque. I just wanted to learn about these friendly emissaries from a different “cognitive universe.” And that’s the way I feel about Mormons, Moonies, Satanists, Communists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and others who cherish beliefs different from mine. I don’t especially want them all to be like me. Sure, I think I’m right and they’re wrong, and I am happy to engage in friendly debate in the right forum. But I don’t want to be an atheist evangelist, an atheist imperialist. Are you over religion? Then be over religion.

This is why I cringe every time I hear about the latest attempts of the Freedom from Religion Foundation to scour every expression of faith from the public square. Just today I dropped by Town Hall to pay my utility bill, under the wire, I might add, and I was disappointed to find the place closed in observance of Good Friday. But my instinct was not to get on the phone with the ACLU and to start legal proceedings. I believe that the FFRF and like-minded zealots are operating from a basic confusion. They see as a church-state issue what I believe is better understood as a culture-state issue. For local government to allow a manger scene on public property or to allow crosses to adorn veterans’ graves is in no way tantamount to a legal establishment of religion, though making churches tax-exempt probably is. Posting “Thou shalt have no other gods besides me” in public schools is.

But not everything is. To forbid Easter egg hunts or Christmas carols in public schools for fear the Buddhist or Manichean kiddies would be “offended” is like canceling “Italian day” in the cafeteria for fear that Poles and Jews would feel discriminated against. (And why not have latkes or knishes some other day of the week?) We want to affirm cultural diversity, not suppress it, don’t we? Atheists of all people ought to see that religion is no more than someone’s culture. But the atheists I am talking about seem to share the belief of the religious that religion is something metaphysically more than that. Only for them it is demonic, not divine. Are not these atheists then being superstitious, like the fundamentalist Christian who believes in the devil?

Don’t you see what’s really going on here? To contend that so much as a mention of one faith amounts to discrimination against members of other faiths is a formula for the suppression of all faiths, and that is the goal. Who is “offended” at the expression of, even the friggin’ mention of, religion? Why, of course, only thin-skinned religion haters. And this is all done in the name of “sensitivity”?…

…I am not only an atheist; in my role as a New Testament scholar I do not even believe there was a historical Jesus. I certainly do not mind causing a bit of discomfort among those too comfortable with their assumptions. Accordingly, I applaud the various billboards posted by American Atheists, FFRF and other secularist groups proclaiming “You know it’s all a myth” or “There’s probably no God,” etc. I’m all in favor of the Zen slap to wake people up. An unexamined faith is not worth believing. You’re doing the pew potatoes a favor. But, though I hate to say it, I think conservative Catholic TV host Eric Bolling is right to compare the litigious atheists with the Westboro Baptists. They are making themselves appear as horrific, bullying nuisances.

The part of this whole mess that upsets me, given the sort of stuff I write, is that the kind of scorched-earth “sensitivity” censorship which these secularists practice will sooner or later be turned against them (and me!) when, for sensitivity’s sake, the public criticism of religion will be banned and/or bullied as “hate speech.” In fact, we are inviting it insofar as we make ourselves look like hate-spewers, “Westboro Atheists.”

You can read the entire post here.

Comments anyone? Smile

Fundamentalist Atheism

20 Replies

bridging_the_gap

Atheists pride themselves in being people of reason. They think of themselves as superior to the religious, untainted by delusion. Is this really true?

By and large, most atheists are decent people who just want to live their life without being bothered and harassed by  Christians. They want the United States to live up to its secular ideals and keep Fundamentalist Christianity from infiltrating the schools and  government policy. These kind of atheists take a live and let live approach to life and other people.

There’s another type of atheist that unfortunately has become the stereotype for religious people when they think of atheism. This is the Fundamentalist atheist.

My friend Geds left an insightful comment on a previous post. He wrote:

…The first and last atheist book I read was Hitchens’ god is not Great. I found it awful, shallow, and judgmental. I’ve been fighting his stupid “religion poisons everything” formulation ever since, especially because a certain stripe of fundamentalist atheist (which is totally possible, might I add, any belief can have fundamentalists) seems to think that it’s the answer to any and every positive statement about religion and the religious. It’s just begging the question, though. Define “religion” as “superstition,” define “superstition” as an impediment to all things good and positive, and then define “poisons” as “introducing the possibility of rejecting appropriate thinking in favor of superstition” and you’ve got yourself a begged question.

I followed PZ Myers’ blog for a long time and was totally anti-accomodationist for a bit. In the back of my mind it never sat well, though. I remembered all the fights about the right way to be a Christian and who was or wasn’t in the tribe and I knew that it was exhausting and pointless. I also didn’t think of “Christians.” If someone mentioned Christianity in conjunction with a behavior I could usually think of several people I knew who represented that behavior or belief. I also realized that my decision to leave Christianity didn’t come because I was argued out of it. I had friends who weren’t Christians and knowing that I wouldn’t be alone if I left Christianity helped immensely.

The mistake that the confrontational atheist types make is exactly the same mistake that the confrontational Evangelists make. They imagine that there’s a Platonic ideal of a Christian out there who strives to live up to all their negative stereotypes: hates gays, stockpiles guns, blows up abortion clinics, etc. Then they say that since that Christian could exist that means that all Christians are like or want to be like or will inevitably become like that Christian, so it’s totally okay to hate on and argue with every Christian they meet.

But it doesn’t work that way. And, as Nietzsche said, if you spend too much time fighting the monster you become the monster. So they become that atheist Bryan Fischer or Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps and whenever someone tries to tell them they’re doing it wrong they say, “No, that”s impossible, I can’t be like that guy because he’s wrong and I’m right.” It’s annoying and it’s stupid, but it’s also incredibly human.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

For those of us who came from Evangelicalism, we are quite sensitive to Fundamentalist thinking wherever it might be found. Personally, I think Fundamentalist thinking lies at the root of MOST of the problems we face in the world today.

A Fundamentalist is unable to see a person as a real flesh and blood human being. They see them as either being for or opposed to their ideology. They see them as a statistic, a demographic. They see them as part of a collective whole and not as an individual.

Look at what is going on in Washington now. Fundamentalist Tea Party members have successfully brought the U.S. government to a halt. A 4 million member club, the NRA, has successfully stopped background check legislation that 90% of Americans, and most NRA members, support. This is what Fundamentalist thinking does…it stifles debate, discussion, and working for the common good.

Our common humanity demands that we see each other as we are. Yes, I am an atheist, an agnostic, a humanist, a liberal, at times a socialist, and at times a libertarian. I am ALL these things and more, but these are only the labels I wear.  They are not the sum of who I am.

Part of the problem is the internet.  People read blogs and they think that they “know” a person by reading their writing. They think they “know” all about me. In fact, several Christians have told me that they know me better than I know myself.

When we read a person’s blog or book, we are only catching a glimpse of who and what they are. We only get to read what they decide to share with readers. I don’t know of one writer who shares every intimate detail of their life. For those of us who write about  our past, we know that our memories are selective and may even be wrong at times.  The story we present to the reading public about our past is the past as we “remember” it. (I have caught myself more than once writing something about the past that I later had to correct)

what_is_your_name

Many Christians want to divide the world into two neat categories: Christian and non-Christian.  Either you worship the Christian God, who is the true and living God, or you don’t.

Some atheists do the same. They divide the world into two groups: Religious and atheist.  Either a person believes in a God or they don’t. End of story…

Both of these  views lack nuance. Christians and atheists who think like this have tunnel vision and are unable to see degrees or shades. Their thinking is black and white. Both are guilty of Fundamentalist thinking.

Over the past six years, through this blog, I have met countless Christians who I admire and respect.  Yes, their beliefs are antithetical to mine, yet they are decent people who I know I would love to be friends with in the “real” world.

I have to be careful that I do not let the nasty, hateful Christians that frequent this blog and attack me in the local newspaper keep me from seeing the good in religion and those who practice it.

Christians need to do the same. Not all atheists are the same. Yes, there are nasty, hateful, mean-spirited atheists. (and don’t bother telling me I am tone trolling) They love attacking the religious, ridiculing them for their stone-age beliefs.

When I began questioning my faith, I wrote a post that was cross posted on exchristian.net.  I thought that on a site called exchristian, that my story would be embraced and understood.  Boy, was I wrong. The Fundamentalist atheists eviscerated me for not being as atheistic as them. They attacked the words I used and even went so far as to suggest I was still a Christian.

Their treatment of me caused me to run in full-scale retreat from atheism/agnosticism. I thought, these guys are just like a bunch of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preachers. Even the moderator of exchristian thought their treatment was excessive and my post was removed. (he was, by the way, very kind to me)

A few years ago, my friend Jim Schoch and I drove to Fort Wayne to hear Robert Price speak. After his lecture, a young man stood up and challenged Price’s comment about the “good” religion has done in the world. This young man refused to allow that Christianity had done one good thing in 2,000 years. He badgered and berated Price to the point where a flustered Price gave him a quick answer and moved on.

Now, I am not suggesting that we never need vocal atheist Evangelists to use their rhetoric to spur the faithful on. I recognize the value of the people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, and company. However, I also know that the real work of advancing the humanist cause will be done by people who patiently engage the religious, treating them with decency and respect.

Confrontationalism has its place, but it is not the approach that will elicit the greatest gain. It may make us feel good to put the religious zealot in their place, but what have we really gained? I know it feels good to get in shit-throwing contests with Christians on Facebook and Twitter, but, ask yourself, what have you really accomplished?

Now, many atheists don’t care what others think about atheism in general. They take the, fuck them, approach. While I certainly understand this sentiment, I must always remind myself of what my real objective is….to advance the humanist ideal.

We must find ways to productively work with the religious to bring about a more just society.  This requires both sides to accept each other at face value. Take the issue of abortion. One side takes a life begins at fertilization position and the other side takes an unrestricted right to abortion position.  Neither side is willing to work with the other to actually reduce the number of abortions. Far too often, this is the same thing that happens when atheists and Christians battle one another. Neither side can see the value of what the other believes.

I realize that hard-core, dare I say, Fundamentalist atheists despise my accommodationist approach. They think of me as a compromiser, a facilitator of superstition. They see me as a coddler of the religious, a person who is hindering progress.

They are certainly entitled to think what they will about me. I can’t control how people view me and the things I write. All I can do is stay true to my objective:

  • To help those who are considering leaving  Christianity
  • To help those who have already left Christianity
  • To promote and advance the humanist ideal

If these are my objectives, then I know being an in-your-face confrontationalist is not the approach I should take with the religious. That does not mean, however, that I should not be pointed and direct in what I write or in the discussions I have with Christians. Frankness should not be confused for confrontationalism. Directness should not be viewed as an attack.

When beliefs are brought to the public square they should be discussed, challenged, critiqued, and debated. If a person is unwilling to have their beliefs challenged or questioned, then they need to stay out of the public square.

Let me end with this. There is a time and place for ridicule. When people like Sarah Palin, Bryan Fischer, Sean Hannity, David Barton, and Ken Ham attempt to spread utter foolishness, they deserve to be laughed at and ridiculed. But, remember these talking-heads don’t speak for every Christian. (as a Christian, it upset me when people assumed when Jerry Falwell said something, he was speaking for me)

And to my Christian readers let me say, when Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, John Loftus, Dan Barker, Jerry Dewitt…or GEDS or Bruce Gerencser, for that matter, speak or write, they do not represent all atheists.

As I have often said, I am one man with a story to tell. I do not represent any organization or group. I am not a spokesman for atheism. I am one man trying to flesh out on this blog what he thinks and believes. I hope that you can see beyond the words and see the man.  If you cannot  see the man behind the words then I have failed as a writer. If all you see is sterile words and beliefs and cannot  see my humanity, then I must do better.