Not My Business, but…

The Roman Catholic (RC) archbishop of San Francisco ordered priests in his archdiocese to deny communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi because of her political support for all women’s abortion rights.

This is not because she killed anyone. She’s had no abortion. She caused no one to have an abortion. She has not molested any children. It is because Nancy Pelosi, as one of the most powerful Democrats in the USA, thinks women should have the right to choose, up to the limits of current secular law, what happens to and within their bodies.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s decision to forbid Pelosi from receiving the Eucharist in churches within her, and his, home diocese interestingly comes when the SCOTUS is expected to overturn the constitutional right to abortion embodied in the 49-year-old court decision Roe v. Wade.

Six Catholics currently sit on the Supreme Court. (No atheists.) Could their vote be influenced by the actions of their religious leadership? Could they be forbidden communion based on how they vote? Protestants and others worried about this when JFK was running for POTUS. Does anyone recall how JFK responded to that?

The RC powers consider abortion a grave sin. It is not the only grave sin. There are many. As with others of his ilk, Cordileone is willing to force his religious views on everyone, not only Catholics (Christians), by attacking lawmakers with threats and godly intimidation. In this case forbidding devout RCs (not just politicians) access to the central point of their religion.

Catholicism is a liturgical religious practice. The key part of that practice is the Mass, and the point of a Mass is changing bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. Then the Eucharist is taken into the body of the faithful by mouth. It is the biggest deal.

Cordileone wrote a tweet. He timed his letter. He said he is not “weaponizing” the Eucharist (i.e., the Christ bullet), which RC’s must believe is the actual, real, living, transubstantiated body and blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, this MF-er is doing exactly what he denies doing.

I confess to being anti-clergy. I confess to being atheist. I confess that I really do not care if Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden take Communion. But I say Cordileone is a liar and a prick. His actions are 100% politically motivated. His willingness to force his views (in defiance of his boss and fellow American bishops) on everyone is clear.

I am certain that Nancy and Joe will continue to receive Communion despite the clownery and grandstanding of dickheads (useless ones at that) like this guy.

Keep in mind that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy. Consequently, the idea of abortion never comes up. But the RC Church considers birth control, including wearing rubbers to prevent HIV, to also be a grave sin (so said a previous pope). This is a sin that has caused many, if not most, RCs to throw down the BS flag for many years in growing numbers. We used birth control.

Most RC bishops do not deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights. Pope Francis, the leader of the Church, indicated that he believes bishops and priests should not deny communion (the body and blood of JC) to anyone. He said that he never refused the eucharist to anyone. To me, it has always seemed illogical to do so.

The Holy Father also said, “If we look at the history of the church (OMG!!!), we will see that every time the bishops have not managed a problem as pastors, they have taken a political stance on a political problem.” (He did not say the omg part.) But that comment includes his own predecessors. One of the most notable of such messes is now called the Church of England. Another is Protestantism in general.

When people like Bishop Cordileone abuse their power and position, something religious hierarchy of every breed have been doing for thousands of years, they open the door for questioning, inspection, and critique. Boneheaded and blinded, many Catholic faithful will resent my harsh criticism. They will mealy mouth hair-splitting nonsense, thus enabling corruption they deny. “Religion poisons everything.”

Peace,

Bill

Give Kermit a click to read a San Francisco Examiner editorial on the matter.

I Was (vs. Am) Atheist: A Difference

Happy Friday the 13th, Y’all,

While I don’t much judge what people say regarding their past metaphysical opinions, a blog post written several years ago by Bruce Gerencser struck a chord with me. He claimed that some folks who say they used to be atheist were lying. I pondered his claim. This is what I think.

First, these brief definitions are from the online Marriam-Webster dictionary (skip these if you want):

Was is (love that) the past tense of be for first- and third-person singular. Were would apply to second person singular.
Is is (even better) for be in the present tense third-person singular. It’s the dialectal present tense first-person and third-person singular of be and the dialectal present tense plural of be.
Am is (I like it) present tense first-person singular of be.
Just to be clear, be (in this case) means to identify with, to constitute the same idea or class, to have a specified qualification, or to belong to a class of.

Stay with me here for one more. M-W defines an atheist as:

“a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods: one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.” It has nothing directly to do with religion or scripture. Just god.

I’ll stop there. But meanings of words and terms are important.

I was a believer, although always with some doubts. I was a Catholic/Christian in that I accepted and professed beliefs and did things that gave me those specific qualifications. Some Christians would want me to use their woo-woo words or terms. Anyone is welcome to doubt that I was what I claim to have been, but I make my claim and I have documents to support it.

Now for my point. While I prefer, I am atheist to I’m an atheist, either works fine. I’m uncertain which is more grammatically correct, but I think atheist is a non-count noun needing no indefinite article. But who cares? Maybe a grammar expert will comment. But that’s still not my point.

By saying in the present tense that I do not think any god exists (the definition of atheist), I am owning up, putting in writing, signing my name, and accepting all consequences. When I first did this publicly my wife’s comment was, “I am not ready to go that far yet.” She is not (an) atheist because she does not say that she is. I will return to this idea.

Unfortunately, the only decent word we have says what we are not: we are not believers in the existence of any god or deity. By default, this not-believing jettisons most major religions. I’m not saying that atheists do not practice any religions. Of course, they do. They just think it’s necessary for some reason other than a belief in God.

I am also not going to say all religions are ruled out because atheists may practice Unitarianism, Wicca, Buddhism, or some other “religion.” But this brings so much mud into the water it’s frustrating.

Here’s my question. Can anyone say that they were atheist if they never admitted that they are atheist? Can the atheist conclusion be arrived at in hindsight? Especially, after being saved.

To me, when someone tells me they are atheist, I accept that as true. However, when someone tells me that they do not go to church, that they have no (or practice no) religion, if they tell me they have fallen away from some religion, or they tell me anything except, “I am (an) atheist,” I do not consider them to be, or to have ever been, atheist. But they might have been.

Atheism has no litmus test, no creed, no organization, no scripture, no set of rules. It is just a conclusion, usually self-arrived at, about the existence of any gods. Many people reach this conclusion but never tell anyone.

However, it is not difficult to find believers, often practicing some form of religion, who will claim that in their past they were atheists. I’ll write of two.

One was a doctor in my previous parish. She eventually drifted off into a lot of not Catholic woo-woo, like speaking in tongues. The more I learned about her, the more convinced I became that she was never atheist and never in her past identified as such. I would call her a none (no religion) who turned to religion because of some trauma she had faced in her life. The other was the writer/author Anne Rice.

Mrs. Rice, in her Memoir, Called Out of Darkness, claims to have been (an) atheist beginning in about 1960 up to the late 1990s, when she found herself back in the good graces of the Catholic Church and once again claiming to be Christian. She admits that she was atheist. But was she?

I have doubts. I have not read where in those 38 years of successful prolific writing and movies where she outed herself and said that she is (an) atheist. Her self-admitted behavior toward the Catholic Church and religion for many years does not seem very atheistic, and certainly was not anti-religion, to me (except for one priest). At most she was agnostic. But it’s more correct, in my opinion, to say that Anne was a long-term, fallen-away Catholic and nothing more.

Before Anne Rice died late last year, she had renounced her identity as a Christian in favor of Secular Humanism with a belief in God. Knowing this outcome made reading her memoir more interesting for me. I recommend it for any fallen away or former Roman Catholic (or anyone).

Except for the few deists out there, very few people harbor a belief in God, particularly of the Abrahamic or Hindu variety, without some attachment to a religion. My experience is that religion removes from a person (Anne Rice being a possible exception) the ability to objectively contemplate the existence of a god or higher power. To this claim, I would add most 12-step programs such as AA and NA, all of which claim not to be religious, but in fact are at least faith-based, if not outright religious. They say we are not. I say, yes you are.

I have read what many of the former atheists who are now Christians claim and found every one of them lacking. Except for a few people who may have made metaphysical adjustments very late in life, and who were possibly mentally or emotionally affected, I agree with Bruce Gerencser’s claim that people who were nones are looking for attention by claiming (lying?) to have been atheists when they certainly were not.

I be atheist. Truly.

Bill

In some cases I do not disclose. Besides, this list is of religions. Atheism is not one of those.

Hear My Confession

It pains me to admit this. I would rather not tell because some people will get the hypothetical idea that my current metaphysical and ethereal conclusions are consequences of my youthful experience, rather than of study and thought. That would be normal but wrong.

When I was two weeks old, no one asked me if I wanted to go into a church and have a strange man, a priest, pour water over my head, and make me a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the Roman Catholic Church. I did not even know ‘Uncle Paddy’ who was my God Father. I don’t recall meeting him, but I may have been to his funeral. I knew my God Mother.

Five years later, I was again not asked if I wanted to start going to school. Nor was I given any choice of which school I would attend. For me, it was kindergarten at Saint John the Evangelist parochial school, which was a five-minute walk from home. Those nine months were the only days I enjoyed out of the nine years I spent there.

A few years later, I was not asked if I was up to telling one of those priests what bad things (sins) I had done and how often. But by then, I was conditioned to doing what they said and going along with the crowd. It was called Confession or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, a rite of passage for virtually all Catholic children. The second of my six Sacraments.

I was not asked if I wanted to go to Mass nor if I wanted to take Eucharist or Communion (Sacrament #3). I was not asked if I wanted to sing or pray. I was forced to memorize things and was demeaned if I did not get it right. The priests and nuns were always correct. Always.

The religious of the Church taught me that it was a sin for me to think certain thoughts or to feel certain ways (think puberty). For some things, Jesus would send me to Hell for eternity, but if I told a priest about it, and said two Our Fathers, Four Hail Marys, and a good Act of Contrition, all that I confessed was forgiven. Eventually, I made up sins because I had to go to confession and needed something to confess. It never occurred to me (maybe I didn’t care) that lying to the priest was a sin.

The idea was if you died then, you went straight to Heaven. Otherwise, the best one could hope for was Purgatory (a virtual certainty) for an unspecified (but long) time. If you either missed Mass (church) or killed twenty people (be it one or 20 mortal sins), you went to Hell. Forever. You could bargain your way to a shorter Purgatory sentence, but Hell meant God was done with you. Again, I was not given the opportunity at that time to say this is bullshit. Later, I did.

My family supported the church (nuns and priests) over me. But eventually, I became more independent and moved away from all that. I attended a public high school during the early 1960s, during the times when things changed from praying in school (the Protestant version of the Lord’s Prayer), bible readings (the King James Version, also Protestant), to moments of silence, then to all of that being judged unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (thank God).

None of my children objected when I had them baptized (none as infants, two Catholic, one Methodist). Only one was ever Confirmed, first as a Methodist. Later, as an adult, he was Confirmed as a Catholic. It was his choice. Today, none of my grown children attend church nor are they religiously active.

My point is this. From birth, religion and God were forced on me. I was given no choice. Even as a teen, I was forced into it for a time. I neither resent nor bemoan any of that. It’s how things were, and for many, still are. While some people might see it as child abuse (and in some cases it probably is), it simply was what it was.

However, I now strongly resent attempts to force, coerce, or to wheedle religion or any god on me or anyone else. Yet, it is a fact that many (most? all?) people would force their religious beliefs on me or others if they could.

They resent my nonbelief, my denial of any god, my contention that prayer is feckless, and my demand for hard evidence if I am to believe as they do. I likewise resent their attempts to convert or reconvert me. One guy told me on this blog that it was his job. I never heard from him again. Must have been something I said.

The difference is they can have their god as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care. Their religion is a different story. It is bad. And every day, more people are coming to see it as I do for the simple reason that neither deities nor religions make sense.

— Bill

And another skeptic is baptized. His or her day will come.

It Must Be I

To those whose baptisms are no longer valid and to those whose still are (like me):

I know. Who cares? Not the pin-head decision-makers. It’s the fixers who flip out. And rightfully so. They must look into the tearful eyes and sad faces of their faithful and lie because of some Schmutz’s in Rome said “it must be I.”

Here is a quick factsheet on most baptisms and what the Royal Catholic pains in the ass see as three levels of Baptismal judgment.

First is a list of ones they are okey dokey with. (Not a word about I, we, thee, or they.) The second group is a mercifully short list of we got no clues. (Maybe you go to heaven, maybe not.) Third list is of what we consider too fake to count.

If you got baptized in LDS, you need a redo to have a counter as a papist. That third group of no deals includes several religions and denoms who do not baptize at all. I’m Irish, but even I can see why those that don’t baptize ones might be “invalid,” since they don’t freaking baptize in the first place (oh lawdy, what next?).

Anyhow, as a once fully corrupted Roman Catholic (RC) [by some opines], a several times fallen away RC, and now a bona fide and fully convinced atheist (who claims to no longer give damn about such damnation tarnation), I must say that if you feel shocked and dismayed about the RC church bureaucrats tripping over their whacked off foreskins, no matter what you believe, you suffer from diagnosable naivety. This is what they do best. In this case, the office was created for just such purposes. In trying to look ecclesiastically smart (bless their hearts), they succeeded in making the entire RC church and all 1.3 billion members look like as many blind mice. Give them grief. They deserve it!

While the linked list does not appear to include either acceptance or rejection of atheist or agnostic baptisms, it does reject the Bohemian Free Thinkers. What? I did not know of such a group. All the Czechs I knew were RCs or Orthodox. Funny though. They (BFTs) tell ya what to think anyway.

The RC faithful and the semi-not-so-faithful are accustomed to this kind of dribble. It may seem scandalous, but it’s funny, if not silly. Do the bogusly baptized now run down to Father Peterbutt at Saint Flower of the Fold RC church for a redo? Do they sit tight? And what about the dead ones? Oh, I forgot; the Mormons can baptize them. Thank you, BYU. Even Mormon heaven beats the hell out of hades, right?

At the Pearly Gates, good old Saint Peter face palms and says, “Look Lady, I am so sorry. But the dumb shit who did your baptism said We instead of I. We, I mean I, have no record of a redo on you. I checked with JC and He’s adamant that He will not share the glory of your salvation with his Father, the closeted family Ghost, nor with any of the people who thought they were attending a bone fide, blessed event (no refunds, either).”

Perplexed, Peter whispers, “You have been metaphorically screwed by Christ. You need to go stand in line over there with all the atheists, Jews, and Muslims. Here is your ticket to Hell. They still think this is one big party. May someone have mercy on all their embarrassingly happy souls.”

To all you 1.3 billion RCs out there ignoring the rampage of insanity to which you give (much less than 10% of) your hard-earned money every week, you can fix this shit. God does not need your money. The Parish, Diocese, and bumbling snotty bureaucrats in Rome do. In fact, your local poor and homeless need it much more. Must I explain? Good people have been fired and politicians voted out for far less.

Bill

Can It Be Naught?

I forget what I read this week that put me onto this line of thinking. I read a lot of stuff that I do not understand or get. That’s fine. This whole business is crazy. One guy even told me that it was his job to get me to think like him. I am envisioning those of you who know me wanting to see him try to do that. Right?

Just to be clear, he not only wants me to be Christian; it’s with the Evangelical crowd that I must swear allegiance. On top of that, he called me a leftist for no reason. I liked the idea and told him so, but the real lefties might not agree. He wants me to be a right-wing guy. It seems I do not think like an American is supposed to think.

But when I peeked at his blog thingy, I noticed that he supports the creation of everything from nothing hypothesis. I am not sure what drug I need to take to help me comprehend nothingness. They talk about it, but how can they conceive of that? I cannot.

It is all something. We cannot portray or imagine anything but something. The movie clip from The NeverEnding Story attempts to portray the power of nothing, but it is all something. Evil is something. Absence implies something. There absolutely cannot be nothing.

In nothingness there is neither a beginning nor an end. When the Universe came to exist, nothing would cease because something existed. If there ever was a when of nothing, but there was a god or gods, then either god was nothing and still is, or god invented God.

So, all this buzz about creating everything (anything, something) from nothing makes zero sense. But at least that is something. Right?

Bill

Poetry: well, shut my mouth.

My crank goal is to write
poetry banned
in Southern USA states,
especially mine,
a few up north;
Russia,
China,
and every country
in Islam.

Find me
on the Catholic Church
shit-list so only Bishops
and Cardinals may
read my magic without sin.
May they touch themselves
with impure thoughts. May I
make a Baptist want a martini.

I want the ghost of Spiro Agnew to
haunt my poems as blatant
anarchist propaganda that threatens
to sap our national strength,
(unlike criminal conspiracy,
bribery, extortion, and tax fraud).

I want priests, rabbis, and mullahs
to denounce my freedom
five times every day from
their pits of pull on up to
minareted gravelly loudspeakers.

Let me be the de Mello or Merton
of modern skeptical letters. Bless me
with the censorship of weak minded
control freaks. May the young
bogart tabooed copies of my posey
into secret unsanctioned rooms.

Damn me to literary dungeon-hood
till the cows come home
and the ravens
overtake Capistrano.

Let sweet Jesus find me
one toke over the line, sitting
in a downtown railway station,
eyes opened, hoping
the literal reality freight train
is on time.

Let them hate me
for my
country mile honesty
about reality.

Yes. This Shel Silverstein poem from “Where the Sidewalk Ends” was banned in some places.

Gloss: In the first line (title), Crank in the sense of having or expressing feelings of joy or triumph.
Agnew was investigated for those crimes (and subsequently resigned as VP of the USA), but that is essentially what he had to say about the song, One Toke Over the Line (which was also banned).

***

Extra: Yeah, right. If you wanna hear from a couple old folk rockers (older then I), and the story of their one hit, the video is not high quality and about 7 minutes, but not bad. I watched the video of the Lawrence Welk Show number they mention being sung. The ironic humor is of that is beyond great and they agree.

Were You Really?

Are we what we do, what we say, or what we think and feel? Would the real me please stand up?

I usually take folks at face value regarding their claims. I accept that they are what they say they are. Why not? However, when I observe their behavior, I may become skeptical, or I may decide they lied. It happens.

I have met and heard of several people who, once firmly spirited into religious life, claim that they had been atheist before they found God, or vice-versa.

And things do change: “I once was lost, but now I am found, was blind, but now I see,” etc. Are people less likely to be honest, or more likely confused, when they use past tense? Maybe so. I also know people who will not say the word wretch when they sing the hymn, Amazing Grace. I agree. They probably never were miserable wretches.

I read a blog post where a former minister, now an atheist, theorized that most Christians who claim to be converted former atheists were probably not atheists, but were nones. He made a good case for his opinion. I have no way of knowing, but I’ve decided that I agree for several reasons.

Were they really atheists? Were they just ducking religion as so many claim atheists are doing? Did these people openly embrace atheism during the period of their lives when they claim to have been atheist.

Were they agnostic? Were they once practitioners of some religion before they left, sometimes angrily? Did they mentally equate some religion with the existence of God where they tossed the baby (God) out with the dirty bath water (religion)?

Setting aside false claims of unlikely death bed conversions, or someone laser-locking onto a flippant comment (like okay, maybe there is something), or confusion with the meanings of words, I suspect it is extremely rare for a convinced atheist to reach another conclusion and embrace any religion, much less Christianity. I suppose it happens. But very seldom.

The whole sociological and psychological phenomena of human religion and other beliefs are fascinating to me. When I openly declared my atheism, my wife’s comment was, “I’m not ready to go that far yet.” I doubt that she will ever say she is atheist.

Since I believe there is no god in the sense claimed by Abrahamic religions, virtually all religion becomes an interesting, often bizarre, form of human behavior for me.

I am not in the dark. I am informed and aware. I am neither lost nor wretched. I am happier being openly atheist than I ever was as a pay, pray, and obey Christian. While I may have been atheist in my thoughts and practices (or lack of) long before I said I was, it is hard for me to imagine someone like me honestly jumping back on the believer band wagon.

They were nones.

May you have a wonderful year 2022,

Bill

Is no evidence proof of no gods?

Atheists are often asked what evidence would be sufficient to enlighten us enough to agree that a god exists. Most of us can’t answer because what we need is irrefutable, repeatable, and clear proof. I would say “God” (or one of them), but how do I know if an entity is a god? One lady suggested that if Jesus appeared in my car next to me, I would believe. That can be hallucination. Since I have no way to validate the real Jesus, I must disagree with her.

I am more likely to confront an extra-terrestrial alien than any real god. And religion is a different matter altogether. Separating God and religion seems impossible for most basic believers because that is where they were led into the delusion.

When I used to say that I believed in a god (it was more like a something), that was not because I had any evidence. As I matured along with my beliefs, God went from what I was told to something downright obfuscated. If anything, I hung on to belief despite a complete lack of evidence.

I moved on to admitting that I did not believe any god existed. That was not because there was no evidence, but because such existence became permanently illogical to me. Of course, while a deity made no sense, there was supporting evidence in the form of no evidence of existence. That’s were I am on this.

When I commented on Nan’s blog that the existence of gods can be neither proved nor disproved, I was challenged by another atheist (RaPaR) with the argument that the lack of evidence supporting a god is evidence that no god exists. Well, I decided to check out this lack of evidence is evidence of absence argument (a rabbit hole). Apparently, I walked in on years of debate and discussion by scientists and philosophers. It’s nothing new, and it’s not a shallow idea. It deserves more than cursory consideration.

Two distinct concepts are absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Their relationship and distinction get rolled up in the aphoristic antimetabole, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree. It isn’t. However, we cannot logically simply dismiss real evidence nor thousands of years of none.

This discussion works best for real world things like medical efficacy, drug testing, and vaccine research. However, as Paul Simon wrote in The Boxer, “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” Why let silly things like evidence, lack of it, or proof and facts get in the way?

Here’s my argument. If the monotheistic Abrahamic God exists, why not any of the other five thousand or so gods as well? The amount of evidence for any of them is virtually the same. Only the number of gods differ. Monotheists are currently at bat, but polytheists have a bigger bull pen.

Important words that relate to evidence and proof are often used by believers. They are outward sign, testimony, bearing witness, and of course that old troublemaker, faith. Who needs it when you have proof? And which of those words provides evidence of a god?

A key defense of my hypothesis is knowledge or knowing. Many people claim not only to know that a god exists, but they further claim to know what God wants. They claim to know God’s mind. That is nuts. What does it mean to know something? The word is epistemology, but why go there?

Obviously, while I may have believed a god existed, I never knew such a thing. If I ever made such a claim, it was bullshit. I will let you go here or decide what knowing means on your own.

The unarguable logic fallacy is claiming existence of a god or supporting such a claim based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. If no one can provide evidence of non-existence, that does not make it so.

You can fill a library with the published books that claim to prove a god exists. Ten proofs, nine, six, however many you want. Why are we skeptics still unconvinced? It’s because religious books sell well, even when they are crap.

Until Christmas, Yule, Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, and New Year’s Day; Happy Human Rights Day, Dewey Decimal System Day, Animal Rights Day, and Nobel Prize Day.

Bill

The Continuum of Confusion

Howdy, Y’all,

Opinion surveys often make a statement and ask us to respond on a continuum, or scale, from strongly disagree on one extreme to strongly agree on the other, with neither agree nor disagree at the center.

Consider this statement: There is a God.

Believers would mark agree, atheists would check disagree, and agnostics would tick one of the I don’t know choices. We would all be responding to the same question based upon our opinion of the statement. Nothing more, but predicable.

How we define ourselves (believer, agnostic, or atheist) is one thing. How we define others needs to be understood in terms of how they see themselves. But people are complex. Beliefs and religions vary widely. Despite our best efforts to find common ground, we hold different meanings for many of the same words, especially the three in parenthesis above. As we strive for clarity, the water gets muddy.

One of the areas of confusion is seeing everyone on the same continuum. It is difficult for believers, especially Christians, to accept that atheists really, sincerely, deeply, and profoundly, do not believe in any god, much less theirs. Not believing is inconceivable to so many.

It’s difficult for me to accept that people believe the following.

At some point when there was allegedly nothing, God decided, I’m going to create a material universe with stars, galaxies, and planets. On one of them I’ll create animals and humans. Then I’ll drown most of the nasty bastards and start over with some incestuous drunkard. Yet, many do. I don’t know why or how. Even when I believed, I did not believe that.

We do not all belong on the believers’ continuum. Only they go there.

The following continuum is mistaken. In my opinion, it creates confusion and mental blocks.

Believer<………………………> Agnostic <………………………..>Atheist

Nope. This is biased in the same way the word atheist itself is biased. The focus is believing (theology, theism, or religion). The obvious confusion is that agnostics are halfway believers. Another is that atheists are somehow distant believers, albeit weak ones. Believers and atheists should have their own scales, like this:

Strong Believer<……………………………………………….>Weak Believer

Strong Atheist<………………………………………………….>Weak Atheist

Agnostics could probably be scaled according to degree of uncertainty, but why bother? They are merely saying that they don’t know if there is God, or that such a thing is unknowable. None of us “know” if there is a god, yet despite no evidence, many bet their life there is one. There is no continuum there. We don’t know what we don’t know. We can’t know anything that is unknowable.

Atheism is not the other side of the believer coin, even though it seems so. It is an incredibly simple conclusion drawn, often after years of effort. No proselytizing, no religion, no scripture to read or learn (as such, but many of us have read it all), and often no personal help to guide us.

There are other views and things can get complicated. For example, this one. Each group has their own bubble. Where they overlap, we creatively use both words. Funny, eh?

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, not everyone believes, not everyone knows, and not everyone cares. I would flip gnostic and agnostic on the knowledge scale above because gnostic relates to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge as in knowing. Whereas, agnostic is more, I’ve not the faintest idea, nor shall I ever.

Skeptically yours,

Bill

Five Reasons Why I Identify as Atheist

Last week I posted five reasons I don’t believe in God. By default, that is what an atheist is: a person who, for whatever reason, has serious doubts about the existence of any god. However, doubting deities is one thing. Publicly embracing atheism requires careful thought. The decision must not be made lightly.

Influential people have claimed that to be atheist is the worst thing a person can do. Worse than murder. Bush, Sr. said, “No. I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” He never recanted that. I could rant on over this, but not today.

The bible has many verses regarding killing people who do not believe. All of these do not say to kill them.

Friendships, marriages, jobs, political office, and many other social aspects of life can be negatively affected just by telling the truth. Bush seemed to think it negates US citizenship.

Pat Tillman was a war hero who was shot and killed in Afghanistan. This story gets interesting regarding the fratricide by which Tillman died, the subsequent discovery of coverups and lies by the US Army/Government, and the discovery that Tillman was at least agnostic, if not atheist.

Since this sham occurred on Dubbya’s watch, I wonder who may have questioned Pat Tillman’s patriotism. I have no evidence that Tillman ever identified as atheist or agnostic. Many people do not and should not do so. That’s my point. (Tillman’s Biography by Jon Krakauer)

My reasons:

I had nothing to lose. Back in the day I thought older folks went back to church, religion, and God as they aged, possibly to ensure a pleasant afterlife. That may be true for some, but not for me. Most of my family and friends were either dead or saw things somewhat as I did. Any estrangements had already happened for other reasons. I no longer worked, so I had time to learn.

Someone asked me if I was atheist. I vaguely remember discussions about beliefs and religion during my late teens and twenties. I recall people telling me their thoughts about atheism and atheists. It’s not uncommon for people to ask me about religion, but until this person asked, everyone assumed I believed in God. Answering the questions meant coming out.

Faking it is not making it. If there is a God, she knows who does not believe in his existence. I’m sure many who are wrapped tightly in religious practice do not believe any of it. Is it anyone else’s business? Probably not. But I felt a little guilty about my silence. When asked, I felt the promise of openness and honesty being better paths for me.

During the three days I pondered the question of coming out I began to feel better, even though I never felt the least bit bad about it. I felt a certain freedom. I was not in bondage by religion, but by my own silence. The timing was right. I was ready. It felt great to say I am atheist. It still does. No regrets.

This may not seem like a reason to be atheist, but in hindsight, it was. A world of information opened to me. My world view and philosophies regarding life became more manifest, in my opinion. I could run the race and wear the tee-shirt. While I was never unhappy about any of it, I felt more joy. I realized that I did not have all the answers and I needed none of them. I tried to learn as much as I was able (still do), but it was finally 100% up to me. I felt like I was being honest to myself and to the world. I no longer had to reconcile reality, truth, and facts with some religion or God someone else created.

Regarding using the words atheist, skeptic, agnostic, apostate, nonbeliever, free thinker, and whatever, whatever, whatever; I just don’t care. Atheist is not ideal to many of us because it defines us by what we are not. But it works for me because I have nothing else. I am not “one of the good ones.” We are all good and, in my opinion, better than many religious folks.

For the record, I’ve never murdered or raped anyone. I’ve robbed no banks and I do not lie on my income tax. I believe in love and compassion. I enjoy most of nature. And dogs like me. I like cats, but you know how they can be.

It’s almost December, a month of more US holidays. Happy and Merry everything to everyone. My Thanksgiving poem was published yesterday over on pluviolover.com. But who do you thank when you are atheist?

Bill