Moved

Moved to Wordpress.

an atheist bumper sticker

If you can read this,
there's no god.

Non-sequitor humor rocks my socks. Or maybe I just find all my own jokes funny. Can't say I blame me. I am pretty much hilarious.

If I was going to be a theist...

I would be a pagan. And not one of those modern neo-pagans, either. I mean worshipping a pantheon-- the real deal, which probably doesn't exist any more. Unless you count Hindu. That's more what I'm going for, but I'd go with Roman "myths" (i.e., religions that nobody believes in anymore) because I've got a lot of Italian ancestors. So ritual sacrifice (but no human sacrifice, please), seasonal celebrations where we really do get drought if we don't do it right, temple prostitutes, the whole deal.

Another possibility is Catholicism. There you've got your trinity, your saints, your mother of god, you can pray to them all. And loads of religious festivals, especially if I move to Central America or something. But it would be a shame to lose out on temple prostitutes.

Origins Part II: the epiphany

My de-conversion happened in a couple phases, but if any one moment can be considered the starting point, it's phase one:

I realized that the Jewish god and his teachings is for the Jews.

Q: Well, then, what's required of me, a non-Jew? A: "The Talmud teaches that the righteousness of all the nations has a share in the world to come."

Q: The world to come? You mean Heaven? Will there be a judgement? A: "For the Jews, if at all. Judaism doesn't have an official stance on Heaven and Hell. And there's certainly no eternal damnation."

Q: So... can I make a graven image? [the second teaching/commandment to the Jews] A: "Sure. Why not?"

That one blew my mind. I can make a graven image.

It sounds a little silly now, but there it is. I mean, I grew up thinking that these laws were for me. Maybe its not as practical a change as an ex-Muslim eating pork and having a pet dog, but it's still kindof a big deal-- even though I didn't go out and make a little deity. But I've always loved little artistic statues and figurines, and now I won't have any qualms about getting one purely because it's a depiction of a lovely Hindu goddess with twelve arms.

Phase two started when I entertained the question, "Well, what about the gods of other nations? The scriptures refer to them, after all. Why can't they be considered as real as the Jewish god?"

Q: So, are there many gods?

At this point I basically started to create a fantasy universe in my head, with warring gods and goddesses using humans to wage war against the followers of rival gods. It was actually pretty cool.

But then, phase three. "Well, wait. Why am I assuming that there are any gods at all?"

See, if I accept that the Jewish god truly revealed himself, that means that all the other religions must have been divinely inspired as well. To say otherwise just wouldn't be fair. Besides, it requires too much explaining:

It must have been demons who inspired all the other religions!

What? Where did the demons come from? Why can't they be considered gods, too?

They are fallen angels!

Whoa there! Who said anything about angels? We're talking about gods. You're making this all very complicated.

No, it is simple. My god is going to judge you after you die and all the other gods will be revealed as demons who deceived the world.

Are you sure I'm in your god's jurisdiction? We've already established that the Jewish god, if he exists, won't come after me because I'm not a Jew. What gives your god the authority over me? And, how could your god punish me after letting the demons out to deceive me? That's not very nice or fair.

You don't understand nice or fair. My god invented those ideas. My god is those ideas.

I don't understand. How do you figure?

My god made the earth and you and everything.

Are you sure? Let me tell you about a little thing called descent by modification...

Here's a simple solution to the problem of which god is god: There are no gods.

But what about good and evil? What about the afterlife, what about justice?

Here's a question. How do you know that the gods of the ancients aren't up there counting our sins against them? I don't see you worrying about that. And what makes you think there will be perfect justice someday? It sounds like wishful thinking, to me.

Just because I wish for something doesn't make it not true. And anyways, where did our morals come from if there are no gods?

Are you saying different gods are giving out different moral standards?

No, there's only one god. The rest are demons.

Where are you coming up with this stuff?

Okay, okay. But how did we get here if not from a god creating the world and the universe and everything in it?

Can't we just say we don't know?

...

Listen. How many times has a religious understanding of the world been replaced by a scientific one? Every single day. Biology, psychology, chemistry, astronomy... we understand the world by observing and examining and testing it, not by making up stories about it!

But I'm getting off the subject. Those were a few of my epiphanies.

I'll likely add to the Origins as necessary.

How to annoy an atheist

How to annoy an atheist, or, how to bring a friendly conversation between theist and non-theist to a halt (at least temporarily). Method I Say, "evolution is just a theory." A scientific theory is not a wild guess, or something that was come up with after too much to drink. A scientific theory is supported -- or if not exactly supported, it is not falsified by -- all the evidence. That's right, all the evidence. It might seem a little crazy, it might not make sense (especially to a layperson), but unless you are also ready to discard the theories of gravity and muscle contraction, as well as discoveries of modern medicine like chemotherapy and blood pressure medication, you'll not want to be discarding evolution. At least not with a lame statement like "it's just a theory." The statement is not an argument; it only shows your ignorance. Method I and a half "There is no proof for evolution." That is correct. Proof is a mathematical term. When you're talking about science, you'll need to use terms like "evidence" and "falsified" and "objective testing." For example: "In the last 200 years, evolution has not been falsified by any evidence," or, "There is no objective test that could falsify intelligent design; therefore, it is not a scientific theory." Method II "Atheism is a faith." -- or "way of life" or "philosophy." The first response to this statement could be, "Oh really? How?" (And you could also try, "Trust me; I think I'd know what atheism is, being that I am one.") This is good because then the other party will tell you why they believe it, and this will make it easier to offer a rebuttal. I'd wager, though, that in many cases, a theist may not be able to explain the "faith system" of atheism-- because there is not one. They may try to connect atheism with certian philosophies, such as communism, or they may associate atheism with acts of certain dictators and mass murderers. But they would benefit from the gentle reminder that atheism, in and of itself, is nothing more than a lack of faith in gods. It bears repeating: Atheism is a lack of faith in gods. Nothing more. I believe in no Gods, therefore, I am an atheist. This may lead me to actual philosophies, but whatever follows is not atheism. Does this make sense? Atheists may also be humanists, socialists, democrats, anarchists, nihilists, Jews... but those are in addition to atheism, and even if correlation could be found between atheism and certain philosophies, that does not mean there are causations or other stronger links. But by saying there may be "links," you acknowledge the implication that even if atheism is linked to certain philosophies or behaviors in an individual, it is separate from them. I can kill you and say it is because I don't believe in God; that makes me a murderer and an atheist. But I can also treat you according to the golden rule and say I am an atheist; that makes me a good neighbor and an atheist. Now why should we link the murder and not the moral behavior to the atheist? Because it is simpler to say that theists are moral and atheists are immoral? Christians also murder, and Christians also treat others as they would wish to be treated. I would argue that humans behave civilly to each other because we are civil, social creatures. And we behave selfishly and hurt others because we are selfish, independent creatures. We are complicated and our brains are a big mess of conflicting thoughts and desires. We have a desire to "sin" and we have a desire to do good. It's all there. I believe people should be celebrated and rewarded for their goodness, not for conforming to the local demands of religion.

Consequences

One of the biggest consequences of Christianity in my post-Christian life has been the idea of providence. It's a nice word; I actually like it quite a bit. As far as English appreciation, its got a pleasant sound and elegance. And the concept of care and guidance over the earth is a comforting idea: everything is as it should be. God's in his heaven, all's right in the world. It is well with my soul. That sort of thing. At its best, being resigned to providence or fate can give comfort, and not just in some vague sense of "God's will be done." It's not much more than the idea that one has done all she could and the rest is up to things outside her control. Perfectly natural way to look at things. I'm not really sure what the idea of providence could do at its worse. Perhaps it can lead to a laziness and depression, but I imagine it would have to be coupled with the complete denial of free will. For myself, I have often thought, "Well, it's just not God's will that this happen right now." I think it has covered up my laziness, though. I am not as willing as I should be to do hard work to achieve a goal that is not coming very easily. The main example I can think of is my art. I am sure that I have talent and I should pursue my art. But any number of excuses have come between me and that goal. Sometimes things do just happen outside my control, and its best to be resigned to those events to some extent. But I have done far too little to achieve what I want, and far too quick to say "it's not God's timing." I have a feeling that this is not so much a weakness of the Christian faith in general as it is a personal weakness and willingness to use a noble idea for selfish and self-crippling reasons. It is, after all, well-known that religion is just as easy to exploit for evil as anything else. Unfortunate, really. You'd think there'd be something impervious to evil. But I guess that's where the idea of God (well, some gods) came from in the first place. There must be something all mighty, all holy, all good, right guys? Well, there's got to be. So let's worship it just in case it gets mad at us for being evil. Ah.... religion.

The universe and you

The universe does not like you. It does not need you, want you, or desire to do you any favors. The universe is ruthless, and any who cannot survive, die. Virtually one hundred percent of the earth and it's graveyard's inhabitants do not know you, need you, or care what happens to you. Nobody is coming to save you; no deity or superhero or mother or boyfriend. You are the only person in the universe who is constantly, obsessively, unavoidably aware of you. You are all you've got. You have the authority, and you must have the courage, and only you can know yourself. So it's all up to you. Cheer up; it could be worse: the universe could hate you.

Origins Part I: A heretical context

Because every hero has an origins story. I hesitate to explain too much about the context of my de-conversion because I am wary of causing the reaction, "Oh, Alice was just under a lot of stress. That explains it. She'll come back to Jesus when her life is in a little more order." Well, I'll be honest. I was under a lot of stress. I finished grad school, started job hunting, moved four hundred miles from home, family, and friends, lived in very diminished circumstances for a few months, moved to the desert, found out my sister was a selfish liar and has been taking advantage of me and my husband, had a relationship-ending blow-out with a dear friend, and my husband was in a major accident. And I bought a house. I got an excellent job, and we moved again. So far as I can tell, I have recovered from the worst effects of all these life changes. My husband quit his job (that he can't really perform anyways, on account of the injury), and is going back to school and is very excited about his new career. Ends are meeting and I still have a few dollars to buy coffee once a week at a local coffee roaster. Things are going well. I should explain my Christianity. I had moved away from the extreme fundamentalism that characterised my youth. I loved the Episcopal church because there was a woman preacher, and that open up some emotion in me that I had never felt before... the recognition of woman's place in religion and religious authority. That was big, and it changed me from a girl who accepted everything on the authority of religious leaders to a woman who thought more critically about what she believed. I did not think that abortion was murder, though I still believe it is quite sad that women seem to have no other options. I did not think that being gay was the epitome of defiance against God and a challenge to family values. I did not think that Genesis was a science text. So as time went by, I began to release these religiously installed opinions when I discovered I could not rationalise them any longer. Perhaps it was some kind of slippery slope. But I never faltered on the ideas that God loved me and had sent his son, Jesus, to redeem me from a life of sin and rebellion against God so that I could be with Him in Heaven when I died. I prayed regularly, and though I continued to adjust some of the details of my beliefs, I believed that they were all in line with the scriptures -- and believe me when I say I know the scriptures very well -- and God's will. It was in that context that I began to explore Judaism as a way to understand the history of my faith.

A dilemma

I have a dilemma. It arises from a personal problem. The problem is coffee. I have always been proud of the fact that "I don't need coffee". It was a part of my character and my personality, you know, crazy ol' Alice hasn't been hitting the coffee again, she's just like that. Well, that was high school. College was interesting and varied enough that I didn't start to think I needed coffee then, either. Besides, coffee tastes nasty and it is an extra expense. Why would I want to drink it unless I need it? Then, in the summer of 2006, after a long weekend during a heat wave which left me weak and ill, I needed coffee. I got a cafe latte at Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf. And it was... It was good! It was delicious! I like this! How come I never tried it before? And I continued to drink cafe latte weekly. Fast-forward a couple years to a few months ago, when I started drinking coffee at work in the morning, just because I liked it. It was cheap because I had my own coffee maker and everything. Then I decided to take the thing home because I was pouring out too much coffee at the end of the day. So I quit coffee, sortof by accident. The next three workdays saw me nearly unconscious at my desk all day, and cranky and headache-y in the afternoons. How could I have done this to myself? I have become that which I scorned and swore to never be! I like my job; I don't need coffee just to get myself here every morning! Etc, etc, etc. And now I am long over my withdrawal, but this brings me to my logic thinking problem. I have let go the idea that I have to hold the same opinions and have the same tastes as I did when I was in high school. That's a little embarrassing, to have taken so long to realize that, I mean, but it feels like a big step toward maturity. I still don't want to be addicted to anything. But it is just that the word addiction has overly-negative connotations in this case? I mean, I like coffee, with a little bit of cream, and one 8-ounce cup per day is hardly the sort of behaviour that will hasten my demise. Most of all, I don't want the sort of job where I feel I need some artificial stimulant to do my work. That just seems too sad. But whether I want to have that sort of job or not, apparently, I have that sort of job. I spend around eight hours a day in a 6x6 cubical, so it's no wonder I need a little pick-me-up. Not that it's boring; I like what I do. I went to grad school for this, for crying out loud. I guess it just gets a little old every day, and the environment isn't helping, either. So I guess my primary problem is this: Faced with the fact that 1. I don't want a job where I have to drink coffee 2. I have a job where I need coffee Which should I do? Drop the coffee or the job? I can't quit my job, and I'm under-productive without coffee. Should I simply resign myself and drink the coffee? It seems like the right thing to do. Or maybe the righter thing to do is to simply have a little discipline and just do what I know needs to be done; you know, do work, earn my paycheck. Am I being unreasonable if I keep resisting the coffee? Is some ideal about what I think I should be like more important than my actual, physical need for chemical motivation? I mean I'm having a little trouble motivating myself through this blog entry, and I like writing. This brings me to another idea, too. Why is it that people are proud of themselves for their preferences? I mean, for your accomplishments, sure. But your taste in music? "I don't listen to the radio" ...So? I mean fine, know what you like and maybe even why you like it, but I don't see what the point is of getting all smug about it. Do I drink coffee because I enjoy it? Do I drink it (or not) to for the express purpose of being counter-culture? Should I avoid it because it's unhealthy despite the fact that I just long and long to have a nice hot cuppa when I get to my cubical? I guess what I'm getting at is this. Where's the line between doing what I want and doing what I should? How can we even define what a person should do, anyways, and how much of that is only based on opinion? What if my opinion changes? Should I apply the scientific method to my coffee dilemma?? Hey... that might be kinda fun.

Introduction

My name is not really Alice. Perhaps I could have come up with a more creative pseudonym, but I like Alice. If I had a daughter, or a new pet lizard, or something, I'd want to name it Alice. But since blogs are cheap and easy, unlike my imaginary daughter or my iguana, I'll have to settle for naming the blog Alice. Or am I naming myself Alice? Not really, Alice. I'm here because I need a place to be an atheist heretic hell bound apostate. I've got a blog on mySpace where I avoid religious topics, but the feeling that I am censoring myself for no good reason is getting frustrating. I am wary of rubbing my atheism in everyone's face and appearing smug and superior... and I don't want to actually feel superior, too. Losing my religion doesn't equal losing my moral character. It's not that I mind causing my religious friends a little metaphysical strife, but my grandma reads my blog (I know! How cool is that!), and her dear heart is worried for my immortal soul. Now since I never was Catholic, I think that was technically forfeit from the start. But being an atheist is a hell of a long way from being a Protestant, so I can see where she'd be worried. With what I'm sure were the best of intentions, I have been told I need to get my head on strait. So let's get to work on that, shall we? There's two things you should know about me. One, I was raised to be an Evangelical Christian. Two, I am now an atheist. My last words to god were spoken approximately fourteen months ago. Oh, and one other thing. My spouse is an Evangelical Christian. There are things we don't talk about. So you're going to hear it here. Sincerely, Alice