Obsessed with Sex

“For some reason, churches have decided the most important thing about you is what you do with your genitals.” Neil Carter, Godless in Dixie

Last September, I posted a dialog piece that was sort of about sex, if that’s possible. I didn’t say it was a sexual discussion, but the dialog implied it without directly making the claim. I never gave the sex (gender) of the people in the dialog. Either person could have been male or female. Both could have been the same sex or anyone from the long list of diverse human sexualities (preferences, orientations, or whatever the correct term may be).

The discussion could have been about any experience from paragliding to spelunking. I never said that one of them had sex with someone else, especially outside of some committed relationship. However, I was not clear with my implication. Thus, anyone could infer that one of the speakers had illicit sex, or at least some sort of untoward relationship. Readers had to assume and some did.

While I made no direct claim to a difficulty with the relationship of the two, some readers made that additional assumption. That was fair enough.

One comment compared the dialog to a real discussion with his spouse who’d had sex with someone else. Apparently, a fundamentalist Christian man, he made this comment: “Sex isn’t everything.” Indeed. I agree.

However, while nothing is everything, sex is important. I’ve heard it referred to as a need or a drive. We humans are sex-obsessed in both good and bad ways. It can be rewarding and loving or many other things, including disastrous.

The human sexual nature is a strong, powerful, and wonderful aspect of our nature that can be troublesome on its own, with no help from religious dogma. But the general nature of our sexual disguise is culturally prudish and problematic. It’s certainly obsessive. And religion adds a phenomenal trail of embarrassment and disgust.

When it comes to sex, I usually avoid the topic altogether or I can talk open and plain about it. The latter occurs more in writing than verbal.

The topic is ubiquitous. The Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, (ACA) the organization that does the internet call-in show, The Atheist Experience, also now does a show and podcast called Secular Sexuality.

Over time, human prudishness seems to be wilting, depending on the culture. But not so with religion. In the US, religion will have its hooks in the private sexual lives (genitals) of everyone, not only members of those religions for a long time. However, over time reality and human nature seem to slowly bubble up like a lava lamp in super slow motion.

Sex is not a bad word. It is neither sinful nor dirty. While it can be socially and psychologically harmful, and all forms of human contact can communicate disease, the fact is that we think about it and do it a lot. Sexual hang-ups (anxieties) can be caused by many things, religion being numero uno. There are words for our attitude toward sex.

Erotophilia is our disposition to respond to sexual cues either positively or negatively, measured on a scale from erotophobia to erotophilia. Erotophobes are more authoritarian, need achievement, observe traditional sex roles, experience more sex guilt, and have more negative reactions to masturbation and homosexuality than erotophiles.

Erotophilics masturbate and fantasize more frequently, think about sex often, have sexual intercourse at an earlier age, have more past sexual experiences, and a greater number of intercourse partners than erotophobics. Erotophiles are more likely to breast or genital self-examine, have more regular gynecological visits, and to engage in preventative behaviors regarding sexually transmitted diseases (i.e., have healthier sex lives).

If anything, many religious sexual views are downright unhealthy, even leading to physical mutilation of children without their consent, not to mention unwanted pregnancies. I don’t know the level of mental damage that is done.

I agree with Neil, with the ACA, and with Hitch when he said,

“If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine-made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life.” Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist

And then there are all the other books on this topic: books and books and more books. It must be a big deal.

Bill

When was the last time you prayed?

About a year ago a midwestern friend asked people to pray for rain. I thought, if god exists he should make it rain there. It did! In fact, I think they’re having problems with floods now. Apparently, sometimes folks need to tell him when to stop. I also tend to pray when I’m upset. I’ve invoked deities with things like god damn it (or dad gum it), Jesus Christ (or the family version of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), Oh, God!, good god (or good grief), god help you, god only knows, bless her (or his) heart, and so on.

My last in earnest prayer was reciting part of Mark 9:24, I believe, help my unbelief, which is an alleged quote said by a father during a scene in which Jesus performed an exorcism on the man’s son. That prayer was more than ten years ago as I was dealing with doubts about religion and god.

Roughly five years later I openly embraced my own atheism. My only prayers since might be called sarcastic blasphemy by some. I do not seriously pray. I would not pray if I ever came to believe in some god. I do not say amen after someone else prays, but I do (for now) sit or stand quietly while they pray or say some form of grace or meal blessing. I’m not sure how much longer I will cooperate with the holding of hands since I see that as me participating in the act of prayer.

What about people who believe in gods, especially the Abrahamic one, and never pray? Are they theists, deists, or practical atheists, as the Catholic church claims?

I have always thought that what people do matters most. I have never bought into the once saved, always saved; or what people believe matters more than what they do. In my mind, it fits well into what we do matters more than what we say.

I can’t recall ever being told that it is a sin to not ever pray. Is it wrong to never physically and verbally acknowledge a god, even if you do believe in one or more?

I no longer pray because I am mostly convinced (97.7%, if you need a degree) that no gods exist, and if they did, prayer would still be nonsense. When I prayed it was because it was a big part of the religion I practiced, not because I thought it was working. I prayed for dead people to be in heaven and I prayed for sick and dying people to recover. The sick got well, the dying died anyway.

Of the 80 or 90 percent of people who claim to believe in some sort of deity or woo-woo, how many never pray, never go to church, never practice a religion, and never dance naked around the fire during a full, or new moon?

Bill

Fandango’s Provocative Question (FPQ) #29

It shouldn’t matter, but it does.

Fandango’s Provocative Question (FPQ) provided me a prompt for my blog. Thanks, man.

This is how Fandango asked the question:

Thomas Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to tell me there are 20 gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
The FPQ asks, “Do you agree with Thomas Jefferson that it doesn’t matter or hurt you if people believe in many gods, in one god, or no gods? Why or why not?”

My response takes Jefferson’s comment at face value, since I don’t know the exact context, much less TJ’s thoughts. But I must split a hair. Mister Jefferson spoke of his neighbor telling him gods exist or do not and that causes no harm to Jefferson, or to me. I agree. The people who want to tell me god(s) exist(s) or not cause me no physical pain or financial loss. But that is not how Fandango posed the question.

He asked if it mattered or hurt me if people believe in god or not, and why. The biggest difference in the two is that Jefferson’s comment was personal, Fandango’s question is culturally broader and public: ‘people’ instead of my neighbor; ‘belief’ instead of god. Jefferson did not address belief (although he did in other comments), but the FPQ does.

I read one post in response in which the writer said she resented people doing that (evangelicals or “dedicated atheists”). While she never said if she agreed with Jefferson, that comment implies she does not.

I showed the FPQ to my wife and her reply to it was, “It’s none of my business.” I shook her hand and said, “Welcome to the neighborhood. Have you found a church home yet? Feel free to join us at….”

Yes. What people believe does hurt me! It picks my pocket and breaks my leg. The problem is that virtually all belief in god(s) is mired in some form of religion, even for those believers who claim no religion or eschew organized religion.

Religion is given a privileged status in the USA and much of the world. Some people make fortunes with religion and cry persecution if we ask them to pay taxes. The business of religion is given use of public property and protection (police and fire) without paying for it. I pay more taxes because of that.

I’m not even sure where to begin with physical harm. Maybe I should turn on the news to see what religious group has blown up another today. All Abrahamic scripture says that I should be killed because I do not believe in any god(s). Death threats are not rare over religion, nor is homicide.

What people believe matters to me, and it should to you. “Religion poisons everything.” Freedom of and from religion may be good things, but the greater emphasis should be on the from.

Bill

What is Reality?

I forget the exact words of my friend’s conversation with me. It must have been after one of her trips to Austin for a Deepak Chopra thingy. At the time she was New Age and I was trying to be a practicing Roman Catholic. She did not criticize my religion, but I am sure she thought it wrong (as did evangelicals, Lutherans, and the anti-organized religion crowd, and me today). Something she said led me to a question.

I asked, What about reality? She said, don’t be negative and depressing. I was surprised by her dim view of what she considered reality. Indeed, she’d had a shitty life for the most part, being married to a hopeless misogynistic alcoholic. But my friend’s negative view of reality and her refusal to consider it still troubles me years after. Hers was not a unique way to see the world.

Many people deliberately shun all forms of reality. And in my opinion, the same goes for human nature and truth. That was not the only time she assumed she knew my thoughts and motives. The discussion of reality stopped.

Some years prior to that, a professional therapist looked at me and said, “We each have our own reality.” I understood her comment as a mental health professional, considering how individual psychological perspective effects behavior. While I may have bought it at the time, I was skeptical then and don’t agree with her now. Schizophrenics and hypochondriacs may think they live in their own reality, but that reality is part of the illness. It is not part of physical reality, except to them. It is not true (voices or illnesses).

What is imagined does not necessarily exist, although the discussion goes on and on. Because hallucination is a real thing does not mean what is imagined physically exists.

Apparently, reality in the sense of the real physical world is not as simple as many of us see it. However, most of us only deal with our immediate surroundings—the reality we live within. The reality we can sense.

Few of us are philosophers or physicists in the professional or technical sense. Most of us claim to have some form of belief in a god/higher power/supreme being, or some form of yaddy yadda woo-woo, whatever. That belief often goes beyond the point of I think god is real to there is a god. It’s okay to believe (own reality) whatever, but belief or faith does not make it real.

Said belief is either fun, gets one laid, or makes one superior to others. Equality is wonderful. But we seem to want to feel superior to others and to have them acknowledge our better-than-you-ness. The accoutrements of beliefs and corresponding religion make for problems which too many believers are in denial of or blind to (but not all).

In order to solidify objections, we want to engage in the demonizing of others. This is done at every level from the presidency (not just this one) and the popes and virtually all religious leadership, down to the most ordinary of people, some not even practitioners of any religion.

Reality is real stuff. Real people, places, and things. It is not an idea, not a may-or-might be, or any possibility. Reality is what is. You can see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, and hear some of it. If you either want to, or for some reason must, believe something else: fine. It’s not real.

Bill

Why Do You Believe?

A lady who phoned the internet show, The Atheist Experience, said, “I cannot imagine how anyone could be an atheist.” Despite a long and patient discussion with the show’s co-hosts, she never really changed her view, outlook, or conclusion of what it means for someone to identify as atheist. She saw atheism as the rejection of an existing god, of her own personal spirituality, and the exact opposite of what she believed. She saw it as the flip side of the same belief coin that she applied to herself. When the hosts would try to explain her error, she would interrupt with defensive or attacking arguments. It’s entertainment.

Watching the show is a good lesson about human nature and communication. It is educational. However, for many believers, the puzzling question is indeed how anyone could not believe.

When callers identify as believers, they are usually invited to explain why they believe in a god, have some specific metaphysical world view, or follow a certain religious tradition or dogma. This is usually when there are silent pauses on the part of the caller. That’s understandable.

In day-to-day life, believers are seldom challenged to explain or show how they arrived at some theistic view, so they are ill-prepared to logically present salient facts regarding their belief (often a certainty to them) and how or when they came to such a conclusion as there must be a god. The internet is replete with arguments defending belief or faith. Those I have read are fallacious illogical tripe that eventually falls to pieces before melting into a just because it’s true and I have faith defensive stand. Or worse, because the bible says so.

I like to hear people explain why they believe in a god, a higher power, an invisible force or energy, or whatever it is that causes them to conclude that the high and mighty one exists. It reinforces my own conclusions. However, I do find most honest explanations refreshing for two reasons. One is that, while I’m comfortable with what I think, honesty and sincerity feel good. The other reason is that I get to listen to someone talk through what they believe. So, here are some of my favorite reasons why people do believe in god.

I don’t know why. I just do.
Ninety-five percent of all people believe, so I must be right.
God personally spoke to me or showed himself.
Things exist (universe, people, magic). The only possible explanation is a god.
I define god however I like, and that is what I believe in.
I prayed for something and it came to be, thus proving to me that there is a god (what else?)
It is beneficial within our society for me to say I believe and to act that way because it brings social privilege, economic gain, and personal protection.
It is what I was taught as a child. I have always been a believer.
Everyone will hate me if I do not say that I believe in god. I would be rejected and ostracized, as I have done to others. (That could also be a closeted atheist.)
I don’t want to spend eternity in Hell and I’m afraid of dying and other things.
It is just obvious that god exists. What else could it be?
I’m hedging my bets. If there is a god, I win. If not, I’ve lost nothing.

I think most people who believe in supreme beings and spirits make their claim for cultural reasons. Those reasons are based upon social and educational factors (indoctrination), not on intuition or logical analytical thinking. Therefore, many fundamentalist religious groups want to teach intelligent design as science and religion in public schools. Apparently, they agree with me about the indoctrination part. May I suggest additional required courses in argumentation and basic logic?

Bill

Do We Choose What We Believe?

What is human belief? What are we claiming when we claim to believe something, or to disbelieve or doubt something? Is belief a yes or no, black or white state of mind, or a maybe/maybe not (grayscale) thing?

When asked to list all the things we do (or do not) believe, can we? And do we tell the truth? Do we know the truth? How does faith factor into the discussions of belief (also what of credence, credit, and opinion)? If you want the Merriam-Webster dictionary explanation, it’s here.

I think we often tend to treat belief as a black-and-white state of mind (or habit) when what we really mean is faith. But what is faith? According to the same dictionary, belief may not imply certitude, but faith almost always does. Asking someone why they believe in a god seems to always come down to faith.

While god and religion are the favorite topics when belief and faith are discussed, they are not the best topics for two reasons. One is that they don’t really matter much. The other is that because of the perturbation or influence religion places on people’s belief or faith that god exists, or that one religion is right and others not (or less so), unbiased discussion is virtually impossible. Yet, while I am willing to have that discussion, in this piece I do not focus on god or religion, despite the intended skeptical nature of this blog site.

I read a PEW research finding that more than 75% of the people in Texas are certain (belief or faith) that a god exists. That is millions. If so, are some willing to consider another option openly and talk about it? Perhaps. But my experience would cause me to say few.

Weather

I planned to walk outdoors Wednesday morning. My online weather forecast indicated 100% chance of rain. The on-line radar supported that high probability, but it was not raining. Furthermore, we did have significant thunder and lightning associated with the rain over the previous days.

Believing it might rain, I walked indoors because the evidence I had (and trusted) gave me a high degree of certainty that being outside might not be safe. It did rain with all the light and sound effects. However, even with such a forecast, it might not have rained.

If it were a 30% probability, I would risk it because it rarely rains when probability is that low. I would have evidence which I could believe. Could I have chosen to believe that it would not rain? Maybe.

Movies and Books

Let’s try a movie: King Kong. If someone offered to pay me $10,000, plus travel and expenses, to go to the top of the Empire State Building and stand there and believe that the scene of Kong knocking down biplanes was true, I could not believe it was true. I could lie and take the money. But I could not make myself have faith and belief that it was true. Is the movie evidence?

Yet, here is proof in black and white. If I can believe whatever I choose to believe, how do I make myself believe this?

Unusual Sightings and Eye Witness Accounts

If someone said they had seen bigfoot, I would believe them, but I do not believe that the bigfoot creature exists. I don’t know what they saw. Maybe it was bigfoot, and my skepticism is asking too much. I have also seen photos of bigfoot (poor ones), but is that proof? I’ve seen photos of flying saucers too, but I don’t believe them to be real. Things we see are not always reliable (eye witnesses in court, for example, are notoriously wrong).

Other Reports of Things Happening (if it was a snake, it would have bitten me)

I like to walk on wilderness trails near where I live. I have seen few snakes, and no rattlesnakes. I have read reports of sightings and even of people being bitten on the same trails I walk. I believe enough to be watchful, and I am convinced that the stories of sightings and bites are both plausible and real. Am I choosing to believe in snakes but not bigfoot? Or is the evidence different? I have seen rattlesnakes in captivity and the wild. The only bigfoot I saw was in costume.

Why do we believe things?

This is a challenging and fun topic. My position for now is that we do not necessarily choose what we believe. We are influenced by many environmental and, perhaps, genetic factors. Even with evidence, we may not alter our beliefs. I wrote about this human phenomenon during my A to Z Challenge postings. Why do some of us never alter our beliefs despite clear evidence to the contrary? Is it choice? Or something else?

As children many of us believed things regardless of what adults told us (ghosts, monsters, etc.). At some point, most of us gave up many of those beliefs. Did we make a choice or was there insufficient evidence to continue maintaining the beliefs?

Believe whatever you like. You have that right. Everyone else has the right to disagree.

Shalom,

Bill

How I see it: Bibles

The Source

I once balked on an atheist’s blog because the writer implied something about all atheists. He said we all view the bible as fiction. While I did not agree with that description, my real squabble was with saying anything about all atheists beyond some sort of negative conclusion regarding gods. Atheists debate, argue, and many of us commit logical fallacies, especially the owner of the blog I questioned. I recall no response by him, but one comment by another atheist did make me wonder.

Her comment questioned me directly as to what we (presumably we atheists) should call the bible (or how we should see it). I did not respond. I cannot answer such a question quickly because I would be presuming to speak for how others should, or do, see something and identify it. However, I can state how I personally regard the collection known as the bible. I can also explain why I see it as I do. I can further say why I think it incorrect to refer to the bible as a book of fiction. While I don’t care how others refer to the collection, especially if their motive is antagonistic or trolling for reactions, I feel my opinion should carry as much weight as the original blogger; and I was asked.

My Background

While I grew up religious (Roman Catholic), my world was not dominated by bibles or thumpers. I went to a religious school through 8^th grade, but I only recall studying a lot of Catechism for eight years and Bible History in 7^th and 8^th grades (textbook and academic course title).

We had religious paraphernalia in our home, but I recall no bible. So, I was not indoctrinated into a bible-based form of Christianity during my formative years, although Catholic liturgical practice (Mass) included several bible readings according to a liturgical calendar which is followed closely today by several main-line protestant denominations. This probably left me with a more flexible view of scripture compared to those raised in bible-based and sola-scriptura faiths (protestants). It was many years before it dawned on me that everything in the Catholic Mass is based in some fashion on the contents of the bible.

I have attended a variety of protestant churches (I married a protestant) over the years during which I gained a greater appreciation for, and knowledge of, the bible. I have studied the bible and read all of it, including the additional books of the Catholic bible, and others for comparative analysis. I’ve read most books more than once or twice. I have read and researched various versions (side by side) and miscellaneous translations. I have taken and taught courses about the bible. For years I taught what is called Bible Study in many forms and attended same. I became something of a lay expert on the bible. I also became very aware of people reading and studying the bible and the various views and ways to interpret it.

Understanding the Bible

Hermeneutics is the study of the various ways to interpret the bible and other literary texts. How one interprets the books of the bible is important, especially for people who apply metaphysical value to them. While there may be others, there are four main types of bible interpretations: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.

I have never considered myself a literalist in biblical interpretation (or in much of anything), but I confess to using all four variants in interpreting scripture. When atheists (and some believers) challenge biblical content, they are often told that they are misunderstanding the text. This is often the case when a literalist is challenged and needs to jump into an allegorical or anagogical defense because literal interpretation is often what the atheist is doing, and what the biblical defender has been doing. Such arguments become a silly game, especially when one or more participants are basically biblically ignorant.

Is the Bible True or the Word of God?

The bible was written by humans. To believe or say otherwise is nonsense. To get around this fact, the claim of being inspired by god works well. But then the problem becomes how we are to determine which religious documents were inspired by god (or an angel). That water gets mighty muddy, but someone made such decisions regarding the biblical cannon, and the result is scattered scripture within all three Abrahamic religions, and fractured Christianity being lost within itself.

Can such variety be both true and the word of god? Not in my opinion. But it is a fact there are many bibles. None of them are original documents, and they do not all agree. All of them have been tampered with in one way or another over two millennia. All must be read in languages other than the original (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek [not Latin], all now dead languages) which confounds already questionable authenticity.

The number of books in the bible and what they say are not agreed upon. If there is a god, one would think that He would have been a better steward of the only valid communication he has ever made with his creation.

I attended an event at a church this weekend. I saw no visible signs (a cross or something) to determine its denomination, so I looked it up. They claim to be Christian in some new age, inclusive way. They also state that their biblical interpretation is metaphysical. Ok, but what they are claiming is to be philosophically interpreting the bible which is a highfaluting way to say whatever. That makes truth relative (or subjective) and literalists would have a fit.

The so-called word of god seems subject to human opinion so much so as to negate any god’s involvement with the bible.

Then What is the Bible?

Try this familiar children’s tune.

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.
Yes, Jesus loves me! … The Bible tells me so.

The original poem for this was in a novel and used to comfort a dying child. But this is not biblical, and it is not being used for any reason other than to provide solace and perhaps courage in the face of death (in a book of fiction). But notice that justification and truth are supported by reference to the bible. The bible says so, therefore it must be true.

Other descriptions of the bible include fiction, wisdom, poetry, history, and religion. Indeed, the bible contains all of this (although much of the historical value is questionable). I prefer the last. It is a book of religion. Classifying the bible as fiction is confusing even though it is without doubt fictional in many ways (parables are not true).

I do not believe any god exists, but even if one or more did, I seriously doubt they would claim any authorship of what we today call the bible. If you want to refer to the bible as fiction, that is up to you. Much of it is. If you want to claim all atheists see the bible as fiction, you’re wrong. I do not.

Shalom,

A to Z Challenge: Zoro’s Zion Zealots (Z)

Zealots (religious zeal) – are uncompromising fanatics in pursuit of their religious or political ideals. They are diehard activists, maniacs, ultra-extreme nuts. Not moderates. Members of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy. Glad we don’t have any religious groups like that today, aren’t you?

Zion and Zionism – Zion is a specific hill in Jerusalem. It’s the place from which God rules the world. Zionism is the belief that God’s covenant with the Jews is linked to Palestine and Jerusalem and that said land is rightfully theirs (Jews). Why would that upset anyone? When I say that religion is responsible for many of the problems in the world, throughout history, and today, this is one example of why. There are no gods, so it’s all bull shit, and people die every day because of it.

Zoroastrianism – is the religion founded by Zoroaster about 3,500 years ago. It reformed ancient Persian polytheism into a one god belief system. However, Zoroastrian is considered dualistic since it has a good god and an evil god. This religion influenced Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, specifically in the concepts of heaven and hell, resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and many other concepts which the Abrahamic followers think they invented. Freddie Mercury’s family faith was the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism

And that concludes the 2019 challenge of the alphabet. Shalom.

A to Z Challenge: Yin Yiddish Yoga Yang Yahweh (Y)

Yahweh – a name of the Abrahamic god in the Bible. Regarded by Jews as too sacred to be spoken. The vowel sounds are uncertain (yay-whee?).

Yiddish – is a wonderful and entertaining language. It is the source of many rich expressions, especially terms of endearment, complaints, and insults. I love this language for the many words it has given us: bupkes, chutzpah, glitch, goy, kibbitz (kibitz), klutz, kosher, maven, mazel tov, nosh, oy vey, shalom, schlemiel, shlock, schmooze, schmuck, spiel, tuches (yer butt), and many more.

Yin and Yang – are the two primal cosmic principles of a concept of dualism in ancient Chinese philosophy. The key is how seemingly contrary forces are complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world; how one may give rise to the other as they interrelate to one another. I like this idea. It’s so me.

Yoga – means union with the divine. I thought that was sex. I see it as an exercise of body and mind. Swami Vivekananda introduced Yoga in the US in 1893. It became popular in the 1950s and 60s and is now mainstream. I tried it. While I would recommend it for exercise, I found it not to my way. I would still do Yoga. Oy vey, I might strengthen my tuches.

A to Z Challenge: A Xenophobic Xenoglossia Xmas dear Xian (X)

Xenoglossia or Xenoglossy – is the alleged ability to speak or write in a language entirely unknown to the person. I have been accused of this due to my spelling and typing shortcomings. Auto-correct added to the confusion. Again, woo-woo nonsense reported in automatic writing, past life regression, and in dealings with spirit mediums. It’s fraudulent gibberish.

Xenophobia – is hatred or fear of persons of a different nationality or ethnicity than one’s own. Theophobia is dread of the wrath of a god or a phobia of which a god is the object. Atheophobia is hatred or fear of atheists, sometimes called atheistophobia, anti-atheist discrimination, or anti-atheist sentiment. Anti-theism is direct opposition to belief in the existence of any gods. Antireligion is opposition to religion of any kind, to organized religion, religious practices or religious institutions. This term has also been used to describe opposition to specific forms of supernatural worship or practice, organized or not.

Xylolaters (not xylolites) – are literally wood worshipers. A disrespectful term used to refer to Eastern Orthodox believers who revered images and icons.

Xmas – is a legitimate alternative way of writing Christmas. Some may feel it’s insulting. It’s not. This form is nearly as old as Christianity. Its origins lie in the fact that the first letter in the Greek word for Christ is chi and the Greek letter is represented by a symbol like X. Xian may also be used for the word Christian.