I Think I Finally Get It

If you're an atheist, you probably hear this a lot: You hate God. It's not that you don't believe in God, it's that you totally hate him. Probably because your relationship with your father was bad. But you totally believe in him.

This argument is, of course, wildly frustrating. You're inside your own brain. You know what you think and believe and for someone else to tell you different is, at best, rude. Plus, how do you argue with someone who thinks they know you better than you know you? There's really nowhere to go with that.

I love music. I have always loved music. When I was five, my favorite record* was by the Tijuana Brass. I would play it endlessly and dance to it. (I was never into kids' music at all.) I played clarinet for six years. The last two years, I was playing several hours a day (up to six on weekends) and earned a scholarship to study music. Nerve damage to my right hand ended that dream, but music is still as important to me as food.

That's not true. I have chosen to spend money on music instead of food. Music is more important to me than food.

Anyway, last week, my brother-in-law (hereinafter "BIL") was at the house at the height of my husband's mixing marathon (he sent the album for mastering Wednesday). We don't have soundproofing, so you can hear the music fairly clearly on the first floor. My BIL asked me if that drove me crazy, because it would drive him crazy to hear that all the time.

I was flabbergasted.

The Awkward Out (album name) has been the background to everything I have done in the last year: cleaning, bathing, gaming, watching TV, if my husband was awake and not in the room with me, that's what I was listening to. And I love it. I've been bereft since the album went for mastering and my husband, burnt out after two weeks of 16 hour days, hasn't been writing/recording.

It turns out that my BIL doesn't like music. He doesn't like any music at all. Music is as irrelevant to him as God is to me.

That seriously freaks me out. I don't understand it. At first, I thought my BIL just doesn't like Skull Has a Secret's (band name) style of music. I don't judge anyone's taste in music. I like some weird stuff myself, so I'm not judgey about anyone else's taste.

No, he just doesn't like music. I find this very hard to comprehend. So I think I get where believers are coming from in refusing to believe I don't believe in God.

However, no matter how bizarre a statement I may find "I don't like music" to be, I trust that my BIL knows how he feels on this subject. I don't argue with him when he says he likes to watch Nascar. That's five hours of left turn, but if he says he likes it, he does. And if he says he doesn't like music, he doesn't.

And when I say I don't believe in God, I don't. Trust me on this one.



*Yes, I am totally that old.

I'm Filled with Squishy Organs (Atheist Bashing)

That's me: big, hairy and poorly dressed. Oh, and rampaging.

I hate this kind of casual smack at atheists. I really do. It just makes me tired. And it so common.

Don’t be afraid to be pious.

We lose nothing in being devout and we gain ineffable benefits.

Do not be afraid to bend yourself down before God especially and also to the angels and saints our intercessors and patrons and be simply pious. Man was made to be pious. This is the essence of religion, without which we are empty shells: to give due reverence to God. The sin of our first parents came from trying to be the opposite of pious: self-sufficient self-gods. That was defiance of due piety. But people can drift into the same emptiness of life by neglect of piety and devotion, neglect of fostering the habits of devotion.

Consider the benefits of devotion for a moment, and then consider the downside of being – not impious, in the sense of being wicked – but slothful and haphazard and lukewarm.

[emphasis mine]

I am an atheist and I am not an empty shell. I am not empty at all.

I am an atheist and I am not slothful, haphazard or lukewarm.

I am an atheist and I am human, too.

I am an atheist and I am not less than you, John Zuhlsdorf.

I am an atheist and I have feelings and they can be hurt.

I am an atheist and if you prick me, I will bleed.

I am an atheist and you hate me.

I am an atheist and you've never met me.

I am an atheist and I'm done apologizing.

I am an atheist and I'm done asking.

I am an atheist and I will make you listen.

I am an atheist and I've come here to demand your respect.

I am an atheist and I'm not leaving until I've got it.

There Is No Why

As soon as I saw what Stephen Hawking had to say about Heaven, I knew my reader would explode with articles denouncing, and completely misunderstanding, his words. For some reason, a large portion of Christians seem to think Hawking is the High Priest of Atheism and they must! denounce! him!

My reader did not disappoint. I could blog about nothing but theistic reactions to Hawking's thoughts from now until doomsday (December, 2012). I'll spare you the stoopid (see how nice I am?) and give you this one representative reaction:

I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but I missed something here. Hawking was asked about the value of knowing WHY we are here, and responded above about societies, survival, Darwin, yada yada. But what I'd like to know if, as he says, our very existence is "pure chance", WHY ARE WE HERE? Why should I care to seek the "greatest value of our action"? Why should my personal goals include the consideration of "our" anyway? And what if I belong to a society that isn't fittest? Wouldn't natural selection wipe out my goals, my greatest value of action anyway? I'm not being facetious here, either. If anyone out there wants to take a stab at WHY, from a Darwinian and atheistic point of view we're here, I'd like to know. It's only fair. I asked believers why doesn't God heal amputees. It's the nonbelievers turn.

Here's the answer: There is no why. That's it, really. There is no reason, no grand design, no plan, nothing. We are because we could be, and all things that could happen do happen at least once.

I know, right? It's so fucking mindblowing that we are not the center of the universe. We're just a speck of dust in the vastness of infinity and in the grand scheme of things, we matter not at all, except to ourselves. We could disappear off the face of the Earth right now and the vast majority of the universe wouldn't notice a thing.

It's okay. Just breathe. You'll be alright, I promise. I didn't say you didn't matter to anyone at all. I'm sure you do. And that's why you should seek out the "greatest value of [your] actions". Because to other humans, it does matter, and each other is all we have. There is no god to save us, no Armageddon to wipe the slate clean, so salvation and no glory. If you want good, you'll have to make it happen. Just you. And me.

We'll be okay. We always have been. You see, it's been this way the whole time. There was never a time when it wasn't just you and me. You may not have known it, but this is the way it always was and you got along just fine.

So take a deep breath and carry on with whatever it is you do.

Rank Cruelty

He is laughing at your pain.

I worked for about a year in Morristown, NJ. They have a seeing eye dog training facility* in Morristown (or they used to), so I saw a lot of people training seeing eye dogs and a lot people being trained in using a seeing eye dog.

I was sitting on a bench in the park in the center of town during lunch, enjoying a truly spectacular spring day, when I woman with a seeing eye dog stopped in front of me. The trainer ran up to her (they would follow behind a little once the person was a little more familiar with the dog) and asked her what was wrong and she told him she was a little overwhelmed, just let her rest for a minute. I later learned that she was fairly new to being blind and hadn't gotten her confidence back about being out in the world.

Anyway, a woman walks up to her and starts petting the dog (do NOT pet the service dog) and babbling on about her uncle who was blind and never left the house and what a burden he was on the family and how nice that this woman was brave and outside. Yeah, srsly.

She left, and I said, "I'd much rather be blind than be that stupid," and the woman laughed. We chatted for a while and then she had to get back to learning to use a seeing eye dog and I had to get back to work. I really hope everything worked out for her.

I think of this woman, in our society today, when we don't abandon the blind or assume sinfulness led to their condition, when they have programs to read the internet to them, books on tapes and seeing eye dogs, being so nervous about the world when I read this:

"In regard to the man born blind (John 9), the question was asked of Jesus, “Who’s sin was it, this man’s or his parents’, that he was afflicted with blindness?” Jesus said it was neither. In other words, the question was a false dilemma. And those who asked it were trying to reduce to two options something that had more than two. There was another option. Jesus said, “It wasn’t because of his sin or his parents’ sin. This person was born blind so that the power of God and the grace of God may be made manifest.” That person was suffering not from persecution. His suffering was used by God to bring honor and glory to Christ.

I mention this instance because it is a clear biblical case in which suffering has theological value – not merit, but value – insofar that it is useful to the purposes of God.

That is so cruel. There is no glory there, only the sort of rank cruelty that is the privilege of the able. Only a person who has never suffered so could say something like that.

Think of this man, 2,000 years ago, born blind. Think of his life. There were no accommodations, no Americans with Disabilities Act, no organizations to help the disabled, no seeing eye dogs or canes. He was pretty much at the mercy of his family and a primitive, superstitious world. A primitive, superstitious world that viewed his disability as clear evidence of sin.

Imagine that you had the power to set things on fire with your mind. Imagine further that you proved it by setting a complete stranger on fire. And then, as they screamed in agony, you said, "Hey, this is all to make me look good, stop complaining." According to Jesus, that's exactly what he did.

That isn't glory, that is cruelty on a breathtaking scale. And these people celebrate it.

*At first I assumed there was some sort of wide scale industrial accident leading to a much higher than normal incidence of blindness, but I never go for the obvious answer first.

The Land Record for Atheist Blameshift Goes To . . .

Arielle Butler (@ARIELLElaflare)
5/2/11 12:05 AM
al-qaeda and the taliban were atheist groups, they did not even practice islamic religion, they used that as a cover up

Look, my guess is that Ms. Butler is a muslim and rather understandably doesn't want even more antimuslim sentiment dredged up by bin Laden's death. I sympathize, and I sincerely hope that does not happen. I also sympathize with the fact that for the average muslim, just living their life and trying to get by, bin Laden, et al. are really embarrassing and not what you want people thinking of when they think of muslims.

I get that.

However, blaming the atheists is not the solution to that problem. We are not religion's whipping boy, Ms. Butler. You know what an atheist group is? A group of people who don't believe in any gods. After that, we're out of guaranteed shared traits and run the gamut from conservatism to socialism, pacifism to NRA member, veganism to ranch owner, etc.

We are not here to provide you, and everyone else, with a convenient target for hatred, no matter what American Christians may have told you.

It is good to know that Christians aren't the only ones with a No True Scotsman fetish, though. Thanks for that. Now leave us out of it.

Have You Read the Entire Bible?

I have. Cover to cover in several different translations. I'm an atheist, surely a group of fundamentalist Christians- who base every moment of their lives on the Bible- could say the same?

Not so much.

I'm almost 53 and have ignored his word long enough.

I started in Genesis and just turned to Ezra this morning.

I've learned a lot already.

For those who have read through the bible, what did you do when you finished? Start over??

My plan is to read through and start over at the beginning and STAY in the word. That is where I feel safe.

I've learned a lot about the faith I already had!

I have read only parts of both Chronicles, both Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but other than those, I have read the rest of God's Word at least once, most books in the NT many more times than once and that was how I became born-again---reading my Bible, book by book in context, at my kitchen table.

So, you read it book by book, but not Chronicles, Kings, Jeremiah or Ezekiel? I guess 62 out of 66 ain't bad.

i wish i could say that [i've read the whole thing], the heart is willing....

Hey, I'm an atheist, and I read all the begats- more than once! Yeesh.

I'm ashamed to say I've never read the Bible all the way through. Parts of it, yes. But not the whole thing. I start with the intention of doing so, and then I always get distracted and fail.

I've read some of it. It's totally the most important thing in my life, though. I live every moment by what it says . . . in the limited portions I have read.

Statistically most people who set ouyt to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation get bogged down early on in the OT. If you attempt this some of the books and chapters are kind of redundant and you wind up asking yourself, "Didn't I just read this yestersay?"

Yestersay aside, the Bible, the literal word of god, is a bit redundant.

I have read probably all of the new testament... and parts of the old.

Probably all? Parts? It's only, you know, central to your faith.

You know what bothers me the most about this? It makes "the Bible is the literal word of God- and that's why I'm trying to install a theocracy and why I hate gays" so disingenuous. Think about this for a second. If I thought any book was the direct word of an omnipotent, omniscient being who had the ability and apparent desire to torture me for all eternity, I would do nothing but read the Bible. I might not even bother with working and doing dishes and mopping floors. Even if I did do those things, I certainly wouldn't waste any time watching tv or reading other books or playing video games or chatting online.

These people can't get through the New Testament (the superrelevant part for Christians), let alone the Old Testament, yet they still claim to believe the book is the literal word of such a god? Stop lying to me.

Voices of Me!

Being an atheist named Faith is mostly ridiculous and occasionally hilarious*. Today it's the latter. (thank you to [redacted] for the link.)

Voices of Faith: How do I know what is the true religion?

Voice of Faith: there is no god, therefore, no religion is true. Go, and wonder no more.

The Rev. Duke Tufty, Unity Temple on the Plaza, Kansas City, Mo.: There are two basic ways to know what the true religion is. The first is to let another or others tell you. In most cases their response will be "my" religion is the only true religion.

Voice of Faith: "Most cases"? If you didn't think your religion was the one true religion, why would you believe in it? Well, I guess those friendly universalists who are pretty open about their need to believe in something even if they have no idea whether or not it is real. Unsurprisingly, universalists are pleasant to be an atheist around.

The second way for you to know what is the true religion is to personalize it and do research to discover what the true religion is for you. Read the statement of beliefs, acquaint yourself with the history and determine whether the theology inspires you, empowers you and resonates with your deepest beliefs.

Your spiritual path should be one that impassions you, not imprisons you. It should be one that continually moves you to higher levels of joy, love, peace of mind and harmony. Seek and you will find the spiritual source that is best for you. The one that truly supports your greatest happiness and highest good.

Look, I'm down with the universalism, but "it makes me happy" does not make something true. Unfortunately, "it's the highest good" doesn't make something true, either.

The Rev. Justin Hoye, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church, Nevada, Mo., and St. Bridget's in Rich Hill, Mo: You don't - that's why faith is called for! I can give personal testimonies and historical accounts that could tip the scale toward belief in the person of Jesus Christ. But you can dismiss these professions as biased, unsubstantiated or unreliable. That is, at a certain point you are asked to assent to these claims with an act of faith.

Yeah, look, you could look at the evidence and conclude this is all a bunch of bullshit, but . . . faith!

Faith: "yes?"

Priest "Oh, I didn't mean you."

Faith "Hey, you called for me, I answered. What up?"

Priest "Well, look, I . . ."

Faith "Seriously, are you selling that 'faith is truth if only you believe' bullshit again? That shit's not true."

Priest "Historica-"

Faith "If I believe that I am a invisible pink unicorn does that make it true?"

Priest "That is not a fair comparis-"

Faith "Fine. I have faith, complete faith, that the events as related in Girl Genius are the absolute truth. I even have evidence- look at all these books, and this website and all these people dressed up like the characters! It must be true."

Priest "I really hate you."

Faith "Right back at you, buddy."

A Catholic professes that Jesus Christ is the savior of all and that knowledge of this truth is universally accessible; i.e., this truth is accessible to you and to everyone else.

We say this is possible because faith is in communion with reason, and the church works tirelessly to present her beliefs so that they not only provide direction and, ultimately, salvation, but express a faith that is in concord with reason.

For what definition of reason? I can't . . . I just . . . there is no part of that that is "in concord with reason". I mean, what part of God sacrificed God to God to change a rule God made is "in concord with reason"?

Christian faith is mysterious, yet it resonates with our experience of the human condition. A Catholic would invite you to investigate the claims of the church to see if they speak to your heart and mind.

Evidence is there, along with the reality that men and women throughout the centuries have been so captivated by an encounter with Jesus that they profess him to be true. They - we - have found the truth that sets us free. Our access to this reality comes when we cease looking for undeniable proof and make an act of faith.

People have also, for centuries, professed to be true: faeries, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Odin, ghosts, demons, elementals, magic, telekinesis, telepathy, astrology, homeopathy, I could go on all day. Are all of those things also real? How many people have to believe a thing for how long to become real under your system? Is there some sort of cutoff? More people than accept the Book of Mormon as true, for longer than Islam has been around? C'mon now.

*Sometimes, I get to type bad faith complaints and I giggle the entire time.

John Piper Broked Mai Brane

How can we hate what is evil if god has ordained it to happen?

That's a question that ended with me as an atheist. That's a question that's created quite a few atheists other than me. That, my friends, is a dangerous question.

God is omnipotent and omniscient. God has a plan for everyone. Everything is God's doing . . . including a man raping a 6-year-old and then setting her on fire. Yeah, that's God's plan. Think about that for too long and you'll arrive at one of two conclusions: there is no God, or God is a vicious, sadistic psychopath- that loves you very much so get down on your knees and praise him.

John Piper has a different answer:

You hate what God wills to happen if he wills that you hate what he wills to happen. God might will something precisely so that you would hate it.

That first sentence needs a flow chart to be understood, but I think Piper said that your hatred of God's plans is also God's plan. He wants 2 year olds to die slowly and painfully of cancer, and he wants you feel strongly about it. In fact, God might very well have tortured and killed that child just so you'd be all upset when you heard about it.

. . . FUCK?!

Can you imagine being the object lesson in that situation? Can you imagine being the victim, suffering terrible pain all so some other guy can feel something about it? I don't think there's a word to describe how enraged I would be about that.

Think about that for a second. Suppose I lived on a busy street. (I do not.) Suppose my dog keeps getting away from me and running in the street. I could install a fence or something, but if I'm god, I go get another dog and then throw him out into the street in front of a car purely for the purposes of outraging my neighbors.

I would be a complete psychopath if I did that and any sane person would be perfectly justified in hating me for what I did. Not God, though. God's awesome! Everything God does is great. Including killing children and kittens and puppies just to make some guy sad.

The other way is to identify obvious commands like "Thou shalt not kill," as the will of God too. He can ordain that someone kill his son and yet still say, "Thou shalt not kill." That is not schizophrenia. God is not against himself. He has his wise and holy purposes for ordaining what he ordains. But we should govern our lives according to the revealed will of God (his moral will).

No, John, it's not schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is an illness, the word you're looking for is "contradiction". And how is that not contradictory? God says not to murder. God ordains someone to murder. Do not murder. Murder. Do not murder. Murder.

Hey, if you can find some way to resolve the contradiction, tell me all about it. (Note: simply asserting "there is no contradiction" is not enough. Anyone can assert anything. Prove it.)

When it says, "Thou shalt not kill" or "covet" then we should not kill or covet. If God gives a person up to their own covetousness as a means of judgment then you can look at that covetousness and say, according to Romans 1, that it is God's will that the person be given up into their covetousness. But still we should not covet, because God has told us not to.

Again, wtf is God's problem? Don't covet, but, you, Bob, you're going to be coveting. Everything. No, don't covet! What is wrong with you people? I am being perfectly clear.

I don't disagree that we should hate the horrific evil that is in the world. We should hate Satan's designs to destroy people, even though God could snatch Satan out of this world in a minute. He could take him away. He is clearly willing that there should be a Satan, otherwise he would destroy him in a minute. Therefore the fact that Satan is there by God's permission and design does not reduce my hatred of Satan, because God ordains that I hate Satan. In fact, one of the reasons he leaves Satan marauding in the world is precisely so that there would be an occasion for me to declare myself to be morally against evil. If there were no evil there then that kind of dynamic wouldn't even happen.

Again, bad things happen- to other people- just so you can hate them. We could live in a utopia free of hatred, pain, suffering, loss, grief, death, etc., but then you wouldn't have anything to hate. God is so good!

Honestly, I don't know why I bother. Christians do more to prove their religion ridiculous than I ever could.

That's Your Final Answer? You Really Don't Want to Change It? You Sure?

An animation of the interaction inside a neutron. Mostly unrelated, but cool.

ETA: The link to the article I was fisking. Oops!

I would like to begin this by pointing out that "New Atheist" is a code phrase, not an honest descriptive. There is no such thing as "new" atheism. Atheism is the lack of a god belief, nothing more. There hasn't been anything new in atheism since ever. Anything other than a lack of god belief is not atheism.

"New Atheism"/"New Atheist" refers to atheists speaking their minds, writing books and blog posts, wearing T-shirts and putting stickers on their cars and generally being exactly as open and vocal as Christians are in the US. So, of course, we're "rude", "shrill", "angry", "bitter" awful people who need to shut the fuck up and leave the talking to the Christians. Cuz, you know, privilege.

Anyway, here's a fun post:

This is why I don't--why I can't--agree with the so-called New Atheists. Yes, some people's religions lead them to believe demonstrably false statements, such as that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can cure cancer with acupuncture, or prayer can change the path of a hurricane. These people are wrong and should be argued with, as well as pitied. And yes, some people use their religions to justify causing great harm and suffering. These people are assholes and should be opposed.

But most religious people, which is to say most people, don't. Nothing in their religion leads them to believe anything demonstrably false, or that ever could be demonstrably false. There is thus no meaningful sense in which atheism is more or less objective, or more or less correct, than any of a host of religious worldviews, and most of the arguments otherwise are strawmen. True, atheism is more parsimonious, but parsimony is a standard of the scientific method; there is no particular reason to insist on it in other endeavors.

That raises a whole host of questions. Are you capable of agreeing with old atheists, you know, the quiet, in-the-shadows, hope-nobody-finds-out atheists? Are they just a little easier to take? Yeah, fun.

I. All religious beliefs cannot be true, therefore most, if not all but one, must be false, therefore the following statement is false.

But this, Nothing in their religion leads them to believe anything demonstrably false, or that ever could be demonstrably false, is a thing of beauty. Not one thing. Not one thing in their religion leads them to believe anything demonstrably false.

That actually cannot be true. See, the author never specifies a certain religion, though I suppose he meant Christianity. But he does not specify. Therefore, he says that this is true for Christians and Shintoists and animists and Muslims and pagans and Jews and Hindus and Zoroastrians and everybody else.

Suppose the atheists - whether new, old, medium, well done, beer battered and fried- are wrong. Suppose there is a divine force that created the universe, a divine force we refer to as god(s). So simply believing in god would not be demonstrably wrong. But religion goes a little further than simply "Hey, there's a god!" If I am a Muslim, I believe entirely different things about the nature of God(s) and what he/they expect(s) from me than a Hindu does. My religion requires that I believe these things. If I don't believe these things, I am not Muslim or Hindu.

In other words, even if there is/are (a) god(s)*, most people are believing something demonstrably false. They have to be.

II. This is a blameshift, not an honest argument

But, let's disallow the existence of unproven god(s). I am, after all, an atheist, so I don't believe in any of that. Let's reexamine the statement that Nothing in their religion leads them to believe anything demonstrably false, or that ever could be demonstrably false. First of all, the previous statement is Yes, some people's religions lead them to believe demonstrably false statements, such as that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can cure cancer with acupuncture, or prayer can change the path of a hurricane.

So, really, I think this is more about pushing Christians the author considers embarrassing away from hir own faith than anything else. There's no real need to bring up atheists new, near, far, where ever you are, into this at all, unless you're going for what all siblings recognize as the double blameshift: It wasn't me and zie's worse! Those other Christians believe ridiculous things that have nothing to do with Christianity (though they'll totally say it does), and anyway, atheists are ridiculous, too. I'm totally reasonable.

I get it. Nobody wants to be associated with some asshole saying that Japan totally deserved what they got because they don't worship the right god the right way. But you know what the difference is between me and the author? I don't deny that guy is a US citizen just like I am. I'm not happy about it, but I don't verbally decitizenize him to make myself feel better.

I also get that believers must feel a bit put upon when they read (up down charm strange top bottom) atheists' writings asking for proof and stuff. "Hey, can you prove you love your wife? Then don't ask me to prove god and the afterlife and miracles." Yeah, that's asinine. Stop asserting stuff you can't prove. And if being asked to do so makes you feel all sad inside, well, I don't know what to tell you. I wouldn't believe you flapped your arms and flew to work without proof, either, so don't feel too bad.

III. Adding demonstrably does not make your beliefs any more true, nor do they now require less proof.

Perhaps, though, I am missing the point. Perhaps the proof is in the adverb pudding**. Nothing in their religion leads them to believe anything demonstrably false, or that ever could be demonstrably false.

Demonstrably. Hmmm . . . I'd have to demonstrate the beliefs are false. Haha! Tricky! But not. Suppose I tell you that I have the cure to cancer in this coffee cup. I would imagine you'd want me to demonstrate that the substance in my cup actually cures cancer, wouldn't you? Would you be convinced if I told you that I'm not going to do that, but you can't prove that it doesn't? I would hope not. I would hope that you would go about your day, secure in the knowledge that I do not have the cure to cancer in a coffee cup.

That's what the less strident god belief is, really. I can't prove there isn't a god, so there is one. Take that atheists! You can't demonstrate I'm wrong, so I must be right! I'm in ur logic syllogizing ur statements!

Right now, I'm an eye-rolling atheist, but hardly new.

*I have been typing so many legal documents. So many. All the parens look normal to me at this point.

**Fucking delicious!

Don't Call It Love

This is from an amazing essay on why fatherhood made a man reject Christianity:

The second realization came when my young son began to realize what death was, and connected what he heard of Hell and demons in church. He became terrified of his parents dying, and then his death, and then everlasting torture. I opened my mouth to explain the sacrifice of the Lamb, and why he'll never see Hell if he loved Jesus and then it hit me like a freight train.

As a father, I was about to tell my terrified son the fairy tale equivalent of this: "If he didn't want to end up locked in a dark, dank basement filled with spiders and child molesters and murderers, then he should love me with all his heart and soul, and if I believed he was sincere, then I wouldn't lock him down there forever. I would tell him I sacrificed myself to work very hard for him, and that I was giving him this gift of a chance to live upstairs with me forever. However, if he didn't want it, then it was out of my hands and he would have to go to the basement and be locked in there, away from the warm beacon of my love forever."

I couldn't tell my child this. I couldn't tell him that invisible demons were real.

Christians always want to tell me about god's love. God loves me, I should love him back. He loves me so much, he created me. He loves me so much he sacrificed himself to himself to change a rule he himself made. He loves me so much that if I don't love him properly, he'll send me to Hell forever and I will be tortured for all eternity . . . um, wait, that's not love.

I would never, never ever ever, do that to anyone I love. I wouldn't do that to anyone I hate. I wouldn't do that to anyone at all. That's not love. Love is the desire to protect someone, to see them happy, to see them safe. Love is not punishment and torture. Love is not threats and pain. Love is patient, love is kind . . . how the fuck is that the same book about the same person, anyway?

"Oh, but you hurt god by not loving him back." I've heard that one more than once. Yes, I have loved someone who did not love me back. It sucks. It hurts and it's humiliating and no one likes rejection. I still wouldn't torture the object of my unreturned affection just because they didn't love me back. That's no part of love.

"Well, how can you comprehend the divine?" That's a better explanation, in a way. How could I possibly understand the motivations of an omnipotent, omniscient being? Just immortality alone would change how you see things, let alone having the ability to create universes. I could not understand god.

I do understand this, however, love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous or boastful or proud. Those things are true. If it is not patient and not kind, if it is jealous, boastful or proud, it is not love. And torture, even one second of torture, let alone an eternity, is no part of love. So stop calling it that. Your god as you imagine him does not love anyone, by his own definition in his own book.

It's Nicely Wrapped and All, but I Didn't Ask for This Gift

How many times have you seen this argument: you should worship god (in this specific way) because god gave you life. He gave you the greatest gift of all, so you should do whatever he wants.

I've seen that three times today and plenty of times before that.

So let's try a metaphor to help us examine this argument.

You are homeless until a man gives you a house. You don't ask him for a house, you just find out one day that you have a house. It's an okay house, decently maintained, taxes prepaid, utilities prepaid. That's awesome, right? Sure it is.

So, a month after you move in to your amazing surprise house, a man comes to your door. He tells you that he gave you the house and he'd like to ask you for a favor. Sure, whatever you need, right? He gave you a house, how can you refuse?

He takes you to his property, all 5 acres of it and ask you to mow the lawn. With a push mower. It's 100 degrees and humid. Of course you do it. This guy gave you a house, how can you complain about mowing 5 acres with a push mower in high heat and high humidity?

The next week, he asks you to paint the outside of his 5 story mansion- with a 1" wide brush. Two coats.

This goes on and on until your benefactor is taking up all your time with his requests.

That's kind of accurate, right? I didn't ask to be alive. If I hadn't been made alive, I wouldn't miss it. If I died right now, I wouldn't know the difference. And being alive is difficult at best. So why am I supposed to spend a lifetime thanking anyone for this?

But wait, it's not an entirely accurate analogy, is it? At least not concerning Christianity, or at least Christianity that believes in eternal hell, anyway. Okay, let's rework the analogy.

You're homeless. You get a free house. Some years later, your benefactor appears and tells you that he needs you to do something for him, but he's not going to tell you what. You need to figure that out for yourself by reading certain books he has written. Except a lot of people have written using the same name, so you'll have to figure out which books he actually wrote on your own. These books were originally written in Finnish, and you don't speak Finnish, so you'd better hope the English translations are accurate.

Oh, and he won't tell you how long you have to complete this mystery task, but if you don't do it in time, he has evidence, really believable evidence that you ran a child pornography ring and he'll give it to the police- and the news.

Good luck, now thank me for that house.

That's actually nicer than god, isn't it? I mean, eventually your prison term will be over, or you'll die in prison, but either way it's done. Hell is forever.

Now get down on your knees and thank god for this wonderful gift he's given you.