Churching an Atheist: Respect Your Leaders

Church was interesting today. When I got there, I had a discussion with a member of the church named John. We had a civil discussion on why I don't believe. I explained that I had began an inquiry into other points of view, because only hearing one point of view doesn't allow one to hear a dissenting opinion and see if they could be wrong. He was one of the very few Christians(I could count the number on one hand) that have agreed with that. The rest have said something to the tune of "that is dangerous" or that it is from Satan. Then again, I expected such an intelligent response from him. he is a brilliant man.

The sermon was given by Robert, my personal favorite of the people on the sermon rotation(possibly because he is a bit of a geek like me). It was over the point that we should respect our leaders, but not revere them to the point where their actions are what makes ones belief in god. He makes the point that they deserve respect for being a leader, and because they were appointed by god. I disagree, because a leader deserves no inherent respect just for being a leader. They deserve the respect that is given to any human being, and earn or lose it based upon their actions thereafter. And to say they were picked by god seems rather foolish. I don't think he would accept the priests who use their position as a tool to rape children was chosen by god. He does, however, make the valid point that being a leader puts you in a spotlight that practically begs you to be attacked. Finding fault with the guy who is visible is much easier. Just look in a tabloid to see how true that is. He makes the point that we shouldn't nitpick on the things we see as a problem with our leaders. I agree that we should not nitpick and gripe over every little thing we hold as a problem, but we also should not discard any potential serious issues on the fear of being 'nitpicky.' He then transitioned into the point that we should not revere our leaders to the point where we do not think for ourself. This is very true, and common of many people. Blindly accepting what your pastor says, or what Glenn Beck says, or Keith Olbermann, or Obama, or Richard Dawkins is a stupidly ignorant act. Inquire for yourselves, and do not blindly accept what you are told. He gave a brief history on how for over a thousand years no one other than the priests had access to the bible, so they couldn't examine it themselves. He made the point that many people feel they do not need to read the bible, because they have the preacher to explain it for them.

Class was largely uneventful. It was over chapter 3 of 1st Corinthians. The only interesting thing was a comment. John, the speaker, and the same one I talked to before class, made the comment that if people are too hardline in their beliefs, they can become incapable of changing their viewpoint. If new evidences are presented to them, they will either try to incorporate it in what they already believe, or throw it out. I immediately thought "Isn't that what fundamentalist Christians do in regard to evolution?" I did not say this, because I learned last time that such things are not tolerated. There were a few other comments, but I cant quite remember them exactly, and I don't want to paraphrase wrong and make anyone look unduly bad.

Received a Letter Today...

It was from a member of my church. I will not post it, partly for length, and partly for other reasons. This letter pointed out, and rightly so, that I was being biased in my coverage of the church's lessons. I never intended such bias, and am truly sorry for it. My goal is objectivity, not polemics and being a jackass. I come off as thinking all Christians are complete bumbling fucktards apparently, and that is a message I do not wish to convey. Christians are wrong to believe in a magic sky fairy like they do, but that doesn't make them complete morons(eg Ken Miller). In my recent posts, I have been that which I have despised. I have been an angry, belittling jerk who picks fights with people who have done nothing to deserve it. All I have done is pick on them for being different than me.

Another comment from this letter, one that hit me deep, was how I treated my mother in my posts on her position on me going to skepticon. Apparently I came off completely unloving towards my mother, and like I had no respect for her. I did not mean for this at all! I love my mother, and I know she loves me. There is nothing I would take back from those letters, but I do admit I was rather angry while writing them, and none of the love i feel for my mom was being expressed.

If this post isn't fully coherent, that is because I am in a introspective out of it state.

Churching an Atheist: Open Discussion Unwelcomed

Went to church again. Started with singing songs. It is interesting listening to the songs from the 'other side.' The song 'I am Thine, Oh Lord' seemed a little morbid for kids with the words "Draw me nearer, nearer to thy precious bleeding side" and the song 'Have Thine Own Way' had me thinking about Burger King.

The sermon was over Jesus' "If you've been angry, you are guilty of murder" comment in the beatitudes. The preacher started by saying we need to ask God to change us, and make us nonjudgmental. But if that happened, how could Christians hate gays? They HAVE to be judgmental and angry. He also made the comment that everyone is made in the image of God, and it is that reason that we don't murder. Not the fact that it is deplorable, cruel, and inhumane, but because the Sky Fairy says so. He then made a funny quip that he is German and Irish, and was thus born angry. I chuckled at that, being mostly German and Irish myself. He goes into a rant on how my generation is angry, insulting and disrespectful, ignoring that what he just said was an angry disrespectful insult. He begins talking about an argument he had with his wife, and how he talked to God, asking for her being wrong to be forgiven, and How god talked back to him. Im not sure if he believes that God actually talked to him or not. I'd like to assume it was metaphorical, but there are whack-jobs who believe that. Not that it really matters, as a delusion is a delusion. He then ended by quoting a verse from The Message Bible, and then bashing it for not being suitable for deep textual analysis, as if anything other than the original Greek and Hebrew(if even that given the huge gap from story to written record) would be suitable for real analysis.

After the sermon, classes are offered. I went to one that goes through various kook theories(ESP, mind reading, ghosts etc.) and shows why they are false. Surprisingly, the reasons offered for why these things were false were relatively sound(there is a rational explanation for how it happened, the scientific tests show no evidence of it, no one has ever successfully shown it to be true). It was on the lack of evidence that it is true that he even played a short clip by James Randi. It all was very good, but the speaker seemed to overlook that every critique he offered applied to his God and his bible.

I waited until after class to bring this up with the speaker, in an attempt to not appear disruptive(I am on their property during their worship time, so I have to obey their rules). I mention that the things he mentioned apply to the bible, and he responded with 'no, the bible is the word of God.' I brought up that he is using what the bible says about itself to prove itself. He simply responded with the fact that you HAVE to(which I agree with, because there is no other reason to believe it) and thus it is ok. He then brought up a useless non sequitur of 'who is the god of the atheists?' I replied that we do not have one, and he just said 'yes you do, who was the first atheist?' I couldn't form a reply to that because it made no sense. It was then that one of the people who had been in the class(who happened to be a church elder) accused me of 'pushing atheism' by asking how those arguments don't apply to the bible. I responded that I was not pushing atheism, but merely trying to start a discussion that allowed all parties to learn something. The associate minister walks in to unplug the tv we used to watch the Randi clip, and asks me to not bring up debates in the future, because this is their time to worship, and I should not get in the way. I agreed that I should not disrupt, and made note that I actively avoided it by having a one on one with the speaker. The associate minister asked me to not do that again, and said he had gave my mom some books for me to read(Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek). Not sure if I'll read them. Craig is the idiot who just redressed Aquinas' first cause argument in slightly different terms and felt he had proven God. Strobel... well... having read the Case for Christ, and the Case for a Creator(great systematic chapter by chapter debunking here) I don't expect the Case for Faith to be any better. The other book I have no knowledge on, but the title reeks of ignorance.

Have any of you read them? If so, let me know what they were like.

Churching an Atheist: It takes Faith to be an Atheist?

I went to church tonight. I know, you are thinking "Why in the fuck would you do that?"

The reason I went was to get my mind of some things. I figured that there would be no better way than challenging some Christians in the nature of their theology. It was interesting. The lesson started by asking us questions with 2 answers. The first answer was 'from Satan' and the second was 'from God' and, as I expected, I was 100% satanic. The teacher(Devin) asked how we should deal with hardship, and of course someone(Brittany) said 'praying to God.' Devin said that was a good answer, but I asked him how you account for people like me who asked God for help again and again and again and felt nothing.  Brittany responds 'take it on faith that God will help.' I start to chuckle, and Devin correctly noted that that was unlikely to sway a skeptic like me. Yet, after getting that right, he fails by making the old 'atheism takes as much faith as believing in god does' which I brought up after class to him.

I told him that Atheism is not a matter of faith. He stated that it does, because being certain there is no god is just as much a mater of faith as being certain there is a god. I told him that that is not what an atheist is. An atheist is anyone who does not positively affirm the existence of god. I then stated that assuming nonexistence until evidence of existence is the rational way to go. After all, you wouldn't believe in a two horned purple unicorn just because I said so, would you? He responded with a 'but you take history books on faith because you weren't there' argument, which is foolish. Saying that a reliable well documented source takes faith to believe in the same way that the words of a bunch of ancient goat herders does is quite a stretch. It was after this that I had to leave.

I intend for this to be a weekly feature, on Sundays(or the occasional Wednesday), entitled "Churching an Atheist"

EDIT: remembered something after posting. I had a member of the group admit to me that they didn't believe in god. That first dissenting voice makes the second easier. I will keep their identity secret because a few members of the church may read this blog.