Messages of faith for Birthday week

No, the attempts to woo me back to Jesus have simply not let up. While the lady that I went to church with a few weeks ago continues to do all she can to make sure my first visit is not my last, I have had new measures aimed at restoring my faith, coming from back home in Barbados.

I celebrated my birthday last week and was thankful to receive many messages of good will. However, two messages in particular demanded my attention. The first was from a close friend from childhood. We were born just two weeks apart and many of our friends used to say back then that we looked very much alike. Because we also spent a lot of time together around church, music and other social circles, people tended to assume that we were brothers. The belief became so widespread that we started to see ourselves in that way, and eventually we came to refer to each other as  'brothers.' This 'brother' of mine was actually Best Man at my wedding. I will never forget that because he said on that day, that one thing my wife could always be sure of is that with me, she would always have a committed Christian by her side. I have often wondered if ever a more ironic statement has been made in a wedding speech.

Well, my friend and I have remained close over the years in spite of the fact that we have both spent considerable time out of Barbados, the country where we both grew up. This time that we have spent out of the country, in addition to the fact that my friend is a leading professional in his field and always in demand and busy,  has meant that although I have seen him on the last two visits I have made to Barbados,  we have not had the chance to sit down for an extensive discussion. In other words, we have not had THAT religious talk. Another important point, is that this friend is not on Facebook. Facebook is the main medium through which I have revealed my non belief to the wider world. He is not part of that network and therefore has missed out on this news story.

In spite of our lack of time interacting in recent years, one time of the year that we always make contact is on each others birthdays, this year was no exception. However, the text that he sent me this year made me sit up and take notice. Here is what it said:

"A beautiful, holy and God filled birthday to you. May God grant you many many more birthdays."

Wait a minute. What was this? I am still caught in two minds about what happened here. At first glance it seems obvious. He is laying on the God thing just a bit too thick. Clearly someone has told him of my atheism and this is just his way of testing the waters. Either pushing me with a stick of provocation to see if he gets a resistance reflex or putting that stick there with words for me to grab hold of, hoping he can eventually pull me out of the abyss.

But truth is I am just not sure. I think it may just be his way of wishing me birthday greetings with sincerity. I have to add that he was always a bit more into religion than I was anyway. If he had sent me a message like this even three years ago, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I may have thought to myself that he seems rather 'godly' this year, but it would have ended there. It made me realise how much I had changed. I have moved so far from religion now and spoken so much in its opposition, that any mention of the 'G' word just resonates in my head. It's like an alarm that goes off or a red flag that goes up. Quite often in everyday discussions with believers who are very aware of my atheism, God will be mentioned by them in passing.

' I hope to God this' or 'Thank God for that,' ' God help me with this' ' The Lord knows what's best' 'God don't sleep' and many more.  I smile to myself when these phrases come up. The believer carries on with whatever he or she is saying without missing a beat. I know that if I stopped them to point out their use of a superstitious referent that I don't subscribe to, they would be completely oblivious that they had called on God. If they were aware, I am sure they would have stopped and smiled, teased me a little or at least made a note of my non belief. Indeed, there have been times when I have expressed to people in no uncertain terms about the difficulties of being an atheist, the isolation I sometimes feel, or the anger I feel when people try to make judgements about my morality or intelligence because I don't believe. The person I would be talking to, would nod and empathize and say that they understand and agree, then attempt to give me support with a reassuring , 'God is good.'

I know it sounds like something from a sitcom, but the theist makes the statement in these situations out of sincerity. It's not something said in irony or to piss me off, it's actually said in love. Because that's how it is when 'theish' is your native language. 'God is good' in that context is a statement meaning to say I feel your pain and wish you much better. So I wondered if it was just my God sensitivity at work when reading my friend's text. Maybe it was just a nice little note my friend was giving me in his own 'theish' way. Assuming of course that he was talking to David the committed Christian, the one who he knew, the one who existed as recently as 2006.

I know I have gone through a transformation. I have a 'God-dar ' now. It's a kind of antenna that I am sure must have some commercial application which I can put to use some day. I have this ability whereby I can have a conversation on the most mundane subject with a theist and at the end of it I can tell them how many times they said the word 'God' and what was the context in which it was used. Not that I actually do that, of course. However, I know people who pay quite a bit for software that is able to do word frequency analyses like that. Try to top that, Google!

Well, whether it was a proclamation of my friend's faith or a provocation due to my lack of faith, one thing is for sure. I have to respond by telling him something now and I will.

The Auntie Fundamentalist 

My friend's short text was not the only one that caught my attention on my birthday week. A few days earlier I had received a letter from my aunt. This aunt is no ordinary auntie, by the way. She is one I can only classify as a super fundamentalist. From the time I was a small child this was clear to me in every visit we ever made to her home. There were bible verses on the walls, the bible itself was always on hand as a reference and conversations never wondered far away from God and the spiritual. It seemed every time we visited her, that she was either just about to get ready for church or had just got back. She asked me several times on visits even before I was ten, whether I had accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and saviour. Back then I hoped that telling her that I go to Sunday School regularly would be good enough.  From her facial expressions, I don't think that it was.

In my childhood, her strong emphasis on faith made her not the most fun Auntie to be around. Birthday parties, movies and sporting events were definitely not part of her repertoire. In adulthood, I had come to know this Auntie better and appreciated having a relationship with her more. Of course she would still bring up the subject of faith from time to time, but I generally didn't engage her in this area. This was especially so when I came to the period of my life where I was beginning to have doubts. I just knew there would be no way I could talk to her about such things. I remember just before I left to live in Canada she told me that she hoped I would be able to balance the spiritual, with the intellectual. It was as if she sensed danger on the horizon.  I agreed to keep that idea in mind, even though I knew by then that my faith was extremely close to slipping right of the scale.

When I reached that point where I had recognised that I was indeed an atheist and was contemplating if, when and how I would tell others of my change, I thought of my Auntie regularly. I just couldn't imagine telling her, it would break her heart. I knew it would.  In fact, at one point I just vowed that I won't tell her. I would just smile and play along with her God talk and just be atheist when I was outside of her four walls.

I remember receiving a phone call from Auntie on December 31st, 2009.  This date sticks in my mind because I made a New Year's Resolution that I would start making my atheism public in 2010. It is amazing to reflect on it now, but at the end of 2009, my wife was the only other human being that knew I was an atheist. On that last day of the year, Auntie called and we wished each other a Happy New Year and she spoke about how the weather had been in Barbados, that it had been very strange and that the waves had been extremely rough, even on the usually placid west coast. I told her that I thought it was clear that there were significant changes in climate patterns all over the world and that we had to get serious about studying the phenomenon and put our minds together to find ways to effectively deal with some of these impacts. I got a response from my auntie, that stopped me in my tracks. " No!" she said. "There is no way that any human being can do anything to solve these problems. Our only option is to call upon God. The answer to these problems has to come from the supernatural!"

I tried to argue that I didn't think we could just pray the angry waves away, but I knew my Auntie would have none of it. I also knew at that moment that I had to stick to my New Year's resolution. This was exactly the reason why I thought that religion was a foe rather than a friend. Much of my work and research is aimed at promoting the development of renewable energy technology. A large reason for doing this, is to reduce the climate change impacts relating to burning fossil fuels. When people like my Auntie, tell me that ' there is nothing human beings can do about these problems' they are effectively telling me that all my work is for nought. Better just sit back and do nothing. I thought of how much her words sounded like a slap in the face of the scientist. Declaring my atheism starting the following day, would be my way of sending out an SOS. I just simply had to save our science.

I am happy to say that was one New Year's resolution I stuck to. Probably the only one ever. From the next day I started to make the movement 'out of the closet.' A journey that of course continues to this very day. Since our New Year's Eve talk three years ago, the interactions between my Auntie and I have been brief "hellos" over the internet and a solitary visit to catch up with her when I was home in Barbados last year, but not much in the way of discussion. Then earlier this year I got a friend request from my aunt on Facebook. That made me sit up and take notice. For one, she is not the person that I would easily associate with technology and social networking, but more than that, I knew that I could be in for a difficult ride. Once I accepted her request and she clicked on my wall, my atheism would be revealed.

I thought a bit, and then considered I could handle whatever came and basically waited for the other shoe to drop. Months I waited and nothing, but I also saw that she wasn't ever posting or commenting and concluded that she was one of these people who signed up for the service but didn't really use it.

Then I got the email for my birthday. I have posted it below. You may wonder whether I have done some editing because after the subject heading of 'birthday blessings' the word birthday, never actually appears in the email. No, it's not an edit, that's just the way I got it. I can only surmise that the atheistic shock after finally visiting my wall, blasted the birthday thoughts straight out of the brain. Anyway, I am still glad she took the time to write me and share her concerns.

The only part I haven't included here is the link she sent me. She went to youtube  and put in a search for 'testimonies of atheist conversions,' copied the link of the page showing the search results and put it at the beginning of the email. I watched a few of the videos there and soon I found myself laughing. Of the first four search results, two were by atheists giving an idea of what it would take to convert them to Christianity and saying why the religion has fallen so woefully short of meeting this mark. There were arguments that could not have explained my present position regarding faith any better. The next video was this hilarious parody shown below, where an atheist, ironically named David, talks of his 'conversion' to Christianity. He talks about how he traded in his thinking for belief in the bible and now he has all the answers he needs, including the knowledge that slavery is OK.

I was in stitches when I watched this video, the irony in the fact that my Christian Auntie had inadvertently sent me videos that were anti Christian was thick. But after I got over the comedy of the whole thing, I had to accept that this was typical of a Christian fundamentalist's reaction when finding herself in a situation where someone's soul was at risk. It was quite clear that my Auntie had not watched any of these videos before she pressed 'send.' This was not any systematic argument being built to convince me to come back, this was just her pelting widely at the dartboard hoping that something, ANYTHING would stick.

" See these atheists in this video, they came to Christ, so can you!" That was the simple message.

This is not a new approach by people trying to reach us that are atheists. It is how they operate, but they just don't get that this is not what will work with us. They always think that if we could just hear one more testimony, we would be right back inside the house of the Lord, but they really don't understand. We don't make decisions on what is true based on that which makes our heart bleed or moves us to tears. Indeed, when we find ourselves emotionally reacting to something, that that's when we become more skeptical of the message of 'truth' that is wrapped inside, I have said it many times that truth is truth no matter what we think about it. Emotional pleas just don't cut it.

Well, no matter how many times I said it before, I had to put my head down and prepare to bring the message one more time. This time specially for my Auntie. Some of you may be surprised to hear that I thought long and hard before crafting the reply. After all, I have quite a bit of experience now in dealing with fundamentalists, I also have gone through the experience of discussing my deconversion from faith with close family members. However, this was the first time I was dealing with both individuals within the same person.

Talk to family members who are not quite bible thumpers and you know that in spite of their shock you can get at least a modicum of empathy from them by knowing that they have their doubts as well. When you deal with a fundamentalist that is not your relative, at least you can take heart from the fact that even if they fear for your soul, they will breathe easier that it is not their family in the fire.

With fundamentalist and family mixed together, you have to be able to handle the situation with double the care. Hopefully I was able to do that. In my email, I tried to emphasize that I wanted to build on the good relationship I have with my Auntie but at the same time made it clear that I was comfortable with the decision I had made and was happy with no regrets.

I have posted both her email and my reply so you can tell me how you think I did. So far I have not got a reply back from her, but I now know from experience that one has to have patience when it comes to these faith and family matters.


Subject: Birthday Blessings

Hi David,

Truth, David, I do not know what it is not to believe in God. I don't even want to know. He is too good to me.; He is very real to me; He is my best friend.  He has "rescued" me time and again.

I know my story- I may have been insane if He was not there for me and saved me.  I owe my life to Him.

 I thought it best to let some of those who have walked the path you have now chosen speak to you.

Above is a whole web page for you.  Listen to the converted atheists.   L-I-S-T-E-N!!

I love you,

Auntie

P.S---  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "  I agree.  This is true.

Re: Birthday Blessings

Hi Auntie!

Great hearing from you and thanks for your greetings and birthday blessings. I enjoyed the day.

I recognize and understand the concern that you expressed in your email. Admitting to myself and others around me that I no longer believed in God was not an easy thing for me to do and I gave it considerable thought before telling others about it.

One of the main reasons why I thought so long and hard about speaking out, is because of persons such as yourself. Indeed, you were often in my thoughts as I went through this transition. I know that for you, faith is the centre of your being and as you said in your email, you couldn't imagine and don't even what to imagine a life without it. I figured that  knowing that  a close family member like me had openly declared that he no longer follows this faith, would likely cause you some distress. However, at the end of the day I felt that it was more important that I be honest and express who I really am and what I really feel, rather than what I thought others would like that I feel. So, I hope that you will understand and accept this, even though I am not expecting that you will ever see things my way.

Amazing as it may seem to you, I have actually found a level of joy and 'new life' in becoming an atheist and have found a great deal of fulfilment in encouraging people to challenge and critically assess the beliefs that they hold. Not specifically in order to prove or disprove the existence of a God, but to get a better understanding of reality, whatever that reality may turn out to be. I think that a better understanding of reality will lead to better decision making by people and we will all benefit in the long run. I believe that if God is part of reality, applying reason and critical thinking to that which we experience within this reality, will eventually point us in the direction of him, her or it. 

One of the main ways in which I have tried to reach out to others, is through a blog that I have been posting articles to over the last two years. The link is below you can check it out if you want to.

http://www.caribatheist.blogspot.ca

I appreciate that you sent me some links to videos that you want me to see. I have watched a few of them.  All of the perspectives presented there are ones which I considered before I came to my position and some of them are actually produced by atheists who are expressing a view similar to that which I now hold. 

Auntie, I respect that you have always believed in God and see him as working daily in your life and I have no intention or desire to take from you that which you hold dear. Likewise, I hope that you will understand that I also have principles which I hold dear. I no longer hold to faith as one of those principles, but I am as committed as I ever was in trying to live a life based on honesty, treating others as I would like to be treated and being tolerant of persons who may have opinions and perspectives different from my own. 

The way I see it, that means we have far more that unites us than separates us. I love you as much as a friend as I do as  an auntie and I hope with all my heart that the fact that we have a difference in what we consider reality to be will never change that.

Best Regards,

David

When the cross came crashing down: The impact of bringing logic to Easter

I am not sure whether it counts as a miracle, but the passage of Easter  last week managed to resurrect some memories within me which had been dead from my consciousness for many a year. What shocked me as I reflected during the week, formerly known to me as "Holy Week,"  was how Easter had fallen from being one of those pinnacle days to a point where I scarcely remembered that it was coming. There was a time when Easter had a meaning to me that was about as large as life itself. I was never a fundamentalist, nor was I ever one who felt that I had to be sitting in a pew every Sunday morning but Easter was a day that I always made a point of finding myself inside a place of worship.

I think it all went back to one experience I had on the evening of Maundy Thursday, (the day before Good Friday) about 20 years ago in Barbados . That evening I came down with a severe case of gastro-enteritis and ended up having to spend the night in the hospital. While I lay in the bed writhing in pain on  Friday morning  I remembered Jesus. I was able to reassure myself by thinking that my present anguish was nothing compared to what my saviour had to bear more than 2000 years before. I think that helped me to get through it. I even managed to convince myself that  Jesus was bringing me through this agony on the anniversary of his death, in order that I may understand his own pain. After a while, I almost felt honoured to be chosen to carry Christ's cross with him that morning. It's crazy to recollect this way of thinking now, but it is amazing what mental gymnastics your mind can do in situations of immense pain, especially when you have the love of Jesus in your heart.

However, I  think I was  being quite rational when I smiled with relief  realising I was missing Good Friday morning service. As many people in the Anglican church will tell you, Good Friday is by far the most boring service in the liturgical  year. It's long, very long, the prayers themselves are everlasting.  The music is deliberately set to be dead and dreary. There's no communion to give you a little nourishment to help you endure to the end. No procession to break the monotony and give your legs a stretch. To add to the dirge, everyone comes dressed in their most drab black outfits. There was just no take away from Good Friday that could  help you get through what was an equally dour rest of the day. They call it Good Friday, but the only thing good about it, is knowing that when you walk out at the end, it will be another full year before it comes back. Recognising that the Lord had delivered me from Good Friday mass was enough evidence to convince me then that he was worthy of my praise.

Thankfully, by early afternoon I was fine to go home and on Sunday I was fighting fit again and ready for Easter morning church. I was in no way  prepared for what greeted me. Apparently, it had been announced during service on Good Friday  that I was sick and had to go to hospital. I arrived to people treating me as though I myself was the one who emerged from the empty tomb. All sorts of people in the congregation, some I barely knew, came up giving me huge hugs telling me how much  they were praying for me and how amazing it was that God had delivered me that Easter morn. I was a bit taken aback. Yes, I had to spent a night in a hospital but it wasn't as though I had a life threatening condition. Still, it was an uplifting feeling to know that if I ever did have a real emergency that there was a community there to support me. I also had to remember that compared to two days earlier, I was in remarkably good shape. I had bounced back from a challenging experience and there was a lot I had to be thankful for.

After that year, Easter grew in significance to me. I even found a greater appreciation for Good Friday. I came to love Palm Sunday too. Palm Sunday was the day of the big procession on the  Sunday before Easter. We would walk from the surrounding villages carrying palms in hand to symbolise Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. It was great from a personal perspective becomes many years I led the procession playing clarinet or saxophone and that provided me with a sense of worth. I began to see Holy Week as telling a story not so much about Jesus himself, but about the human experience. You have the Palm Sundays where everything seems to be going well, experience a setback on a Good Friday, but you overcome and celebrate your Easters at the end. That's the story of life. When you are up you have to remember that obstacles can come and you can trip or fall, but you can also take hope from the fact that however low you go you always have the hope of finding a way back up. So that's what the Easter story meant to me, the power of the 'comeback.'

So, it didn't matter to me whether Jesus actually rose from the dead bodily or not. It wasn't important. To argue over these things was to miss the point. " No Cross, No Crown" was the common phrase we would say and I firmly bought in to that. You had to experience the weight of the cross if you ever wanted to wear the crown of glory. Little did I know then, that the cross was soon going to buckle  under its own weight and that the entire structure would come crashing down.

What if Jesus didn't bother?

The first sign that the cross's centre of gravity was shifting came one Christmas. It was one of those plays that we used to put on every year. As usual, I had my designated role of music leader, which inevitably meant standing at the ready to fill in with instrumental interludes as scripted, or in emergency if somebody forgot a line or didn't arrive on stage on time.  In this year in question, the drama playing out on stage featured a typical family scene; children running around playing while putting up decorations on a tree, Daddy stumbling home slightly intoxicated after being out with 'the boys' somewhere and Mummy frantically trying to get the house prepared for the big day, sweeping vigorously and shooing everybody out of her way. At one point Mum says, " Man, I am so tired of all this Christmas work, I want to sleep, I don't think I'll bother to go to church for midnight mass." There was a dramatic pause of shock and horror and then the narrator's voice broke through, " Can't be bothered? You can't be bothered? Just imagine if Jesus couldn't be bothered to die on the cross!"

That line hit me with a jolt. "Yes, what would have happened if  Jesus didn't bother to die on the cross?" It occurred to me at that moment that it would pretty much be nothing. Not a single thing in the world that we can observe would be different without a Jesus crucifixion. That's one of the main reasons why we can't determine whether the event even happened. I mean, what changed when Jesus died or came back in his new body? The laws of physics were not altered to make natural disasters less likely. The human body continued to be susceptible to the same diseases as it was before the divine bleeding. Men and women continued to be just as prone to do evil as they ever were. No technological breakthroughs or game changing inventions came after the veil was torn in two. No social  norms shifted after Jesus was caught in the cross nails. Slaves were still slaves, women were still second class citizens. So what if Jesus didn't bother?

I had no more time to reflect on  this because it was  time to get back to playing, but I kept that thought in my mind for future reference. Something seemed a bit wrong with the cross now. It looked like it was leaning, the lines didn't seem straight but perhaps it was because I wasn't looking at things from the right angle.I would have to scrutinise it more closely later to see if anything was really askew with the doctrine.

Physical pain for spiritual gain

I pondered on this some more in coming weeks. If there was no physical impact that death on the cross made, what really had this all been for?  I recognised that if I put my thoughts beyond  the physical dimension, the cross could be seen to have achieved many things. Salvation from hell, eternal life in heaven, forgiveness of sin. These things were all well and good but we have  no way of testing  whether we actually  have any of these. Furthermore, if we do have them, we have no way of knowing whether we wouldn't have had them if Jesus didn't do his death and resurrection thing. Everything that the cross is said to have done for us is conveniently outside the realm of testability. Things were not looking good for the Jesus character now and  his cross was beginning to look more and more shaky.

Apart from the unfalsifiability problem, it didn't seem logical that an action in the physical realm would be needed in order to achieve something in the spiritual world. It would stand to reason that a physical sacrifice would lead to physical redemption, a spiritual sacrifice would lead to spiritual redemption. That would be logical wouldn't it? If I want to get an apple tree, why would I plant cherry seeds? The cross was definitely in  trouble now that I was analysing the material it consisted of in such great detail. It didn't take me long to realise that the cross was not only old and rugged as the song says, but brittle and breaking up along the edges. It  seemed it would have little chance of standing up in the face of unrelenting  logic.

I became by this time concerned about why a human sacrifice of any kind was necessary. As I said before, I knew that the resurrection itself may not have taken place as explained in the bible, but by now my issue was with whether the storyline itself made sense. It's like going to watch a movie at the cinema. You know it's fiction, but that doesn't stop you from going over the plot in your head as you leave the theatre to see if all the threads of the story hang together. If they don't, you have to conclude it was a second rate film and you certainly won't be going out of your way to recommend it to your friends.

Looking at it, the only context in which this sacrifice of Jesus could make any sense was in the Old Testament way of looking at things. In that world, shedding of innocent blood atoned for the sins of the community. In order for the story  to  hold together we would have to mentally transport ourselves back into the days we read of  in the Torah, where humans walked side by side with a temperamental  Yahweh who had a serious  burnt offering addiction. Ok, maybe that could work, I thought. No, even if I made that concession, the tale of the cross wasn't hanging together.

The problem with going on Old Testament thinking is that it went counter to the idea of the new covenant that Jesus himself is supposed to have brought. How often have we heard Christians tell us that we should ignore all of the strange rituals and practices recorded in the Old Testament because Jesus brought a new covenant? But this new covenant only makes sense if viewed from the perspective of the outdated old covenant. Now the two lines of the cross  were clearly tugging against each other, this could only lead to more disequilibrium, I thought. I was right.

If Jesus didn't die on the cross we would have to become vegetarians.

Once I put myself into Old Testament mindset, I realised the true horror of  what we would need to do if we were to ever find out that Jesus Christ didn't die on the cross. We would have to get the knives out quick and start slaughtering like crazy. Without Christ's blood that has a 'sin compensation equivalent' of infinity we would have to kill  animals from here to eternity in order to make up for what would be now more than two millennia of deficit Whether there would be a single animal left for us to eat would be doubtful. So, maybe that's the answer to the question in the Christmas play.  If Jesus didn't die on the cross, we would have to become vegetarians.  How I would love to wear that on a T- shirt and explain it to bewildered passers by.

I know this sounds like absurdity but it is what happens when you carry a ridiculous doctrine to it's logical conclusion. It is one of the most bizarre things that human beings have come up with, the idea that gods need to smell blood to be happy. I have too much respect for gods, even imaginary ones, to think that they would come up with a system like that. If you are going to insist that a physical sacrifice is needed why go to the extent of a gory death. Jesus could have just stumped his toe on a rock, and declared that through this all mankind is saved. This would be no less logical a connection to salvation than what we have from the stories in the gospels. If Jesus's blood has infinite saving power, a watch glass sample from the graze of a foot, should do the job just as well.  No need for the several pints oozing out on the cross from every conceivable orifice. The more I thought about this thing the less sense it made. The cross looked like it was really ready to topple now. How much longer could it hold up?

Sacrificing himself to himself in order to save mankind from himself

Around this time I had taken to the internet to see whether others out there found what I was beginning to see in Christianity equally illogical. This turned out to be another big blow to the cross. I came across the description of Christianity that I have now heard or seen written countless times."God sacrificed himself on to himself in order to save mankind from himself."

When I first read this I laughed. Surely this was a caricature. You can't sum up the Christian doctrine like that. But, when I deconstructed it, I found the description to be bang on. Jesus, we are taught, is God. God made the rules for salvation and created the very hell he is supposedly saving us from. The cracks in the cross were very visible now, I could see a break coming, the final crash was not far off.

By now it was becoming very hard for me to feel any pride about the cross as I saw it in its weakened state, deteriorating before my eyes. It was obvious to me now that the entire Easter story was about  God contriving a situation where he could appear to be the hero. This was not a 'comeback story.' This was the story of a man deliberately mutilating himself, then healing the wounds and making himself well again. Where  is the power in that story?  Where is the sacrifice? What had we been saved from? I was just left with a hollow feeling. I had long dismissed the story as not being literal, but where was the value in it? What was the metaphor? What was the moral within the pages of this allegory that I could take away?

Moral foundation giving way

Morals, morals, morals. That was the last thing that could perhaps save my cross. The logical threads had come apart  in  many places but surely there was a good message in the story overall, wasn't there? But I knew even as I asked this question out loud that there was no real message of love here. The God in this Christianity story was looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. I was definitely seeing a crooked cross. The more I thought about this story the more I realised that this doctrine is not about us at all, it was all about Him. Everything is set up to make Jesus look like 'the man'. It starts with the horror of the crucifixion. We have already established it was not necessary to the plot, but it's the major part of the story. Why is it there? It's all about reeling us in emotionally. It's about gaining our sympathy not our salvation. It's a sentiment that's played on unashamedly  by movie makers like Mel Gibson who make sure they let us witness every strike of the whip on his back, every drop of blood from his sweaty brow as he struggles to carry  his cross. That's right, we are supposed to feel sorry for Jesus. But it doesn't end there, we are supposed to feel guilty too. It's our fault. We are the ones that should be going through this brutalisation. Look at what we made Jesus go through all because we are wicked, worthless people, an abomination in the eyes of God just for being  human.

Then Jesus returns two days later, raises himself, and conquers death, and we are supposed to say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you to the end of our days and then for eternity after that.  Jesus conquering death?  He is God, all he was doing on that resurrection day was turning back on his super powers. Returning to God 'business as usual.' He could easily have stopped the slaughter. What does he want after all this? He wants our worship. That just didn't make sense to me, that's not what a real hero does. The moral thing to do is not to demand gratitude, just accept it if it is offered, graciously. The satisfaction of knowing that the people you helped have benefited personally or collectively should be reward in itself. Who can forget Captain Sully the pilot on the Hudson river saving those passengers. Some came back to thank him, but he was almost embarrassed about it. After that thanking, people moved on to make the most of their second chance in life without harping back too much on that day. Sully saved them from a danger we could all recognise. Still, there are no Sully churches by the river, no Sully pilgrimages being embarked on, no Sully prayers being offered up.

Jesus, on the other hand, isn't that forgiving about being left out of the "Vote of Thanks." Recognising him is more important than anything that we can do for ourselves or our fellow human beings. He will not let us move on from focusing on this cross and what HE did.

The inevitable crash

Bang!! That was it, with the moral foundation now giving way under the cross, there was nothing left to keep it standing. It came crashing down and their was simply nothing I could do. I would be lying if I said I wasn't sad to see it go. I had hung on to that Old Rugged Cross for a long time.

I have to say that losing the cross in no way means that I think everything to do with Christianity, Christians or the church is evil or immoral. I recognise that for many Christians the doctrinal things don't matter much. It has often been said that many believers treat religious doctrine and creeds as they treat computer software licenses. They just scroll down to the bottom of the page and click, " I Agree."

Most Christians are in church to have fellowship, find ways to help others in their communities and try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have recognised on numerous occasions  the contributions of churches in the arts, music, poetry and architecture. At Christmas I wrote here about how much I enjoyed embracing the myth of Christ's birth. It really and truly is just the cross that I can no longer support.

So, this year at Easter as I reflected on the once lofty cross now shattered on the ground it was hard to feel the joy that used to come with that day. Easter is no longer that great 'comeback story.' It's not to say that I am miserable  now as a result. I just go to other places for inspirational 'comeback stories.' Preferably drawing on accounts in the non fictional section.

Since my cross has fallen, I have had lots of offers from Christians to help me put it back up again. Shattered it may be, but they assure me I can still put it back together from memory. With the right people supporting me, my cross can stand up proudly once more. They might be right. I could probably reconstruct my cross if I wanted to. However, I am afraid it will topple again once the winds of logic hit it and I just don't want to waste my time or theirs.

The atheist's fight for survival: Can't let them define us out of existence

I can't believe that 'A' week has come back around so quickly. It seems like just the other day that I was tentatively putting my little 'A' on my facebook profile to tell the world that I no longer believe. There were many other events that went along with that which you can read about here. One year later and things have changed quite a bit. Definitely, I am more settled in my own skin but there are still times where there are remnants of guilt that I feel for speaking up against a worldview I once readily embraced. However, with every passing day things get easier.

I have to say that as much as I had anxiety when I made the decision to 'out' myself last year, I have never for one moment regretted it. I had put myself out in the open having heard many different stories of difficulties, particularly with close friends and family members. I braced myself for what I imagined would have been an onslaught of emails, messages and phone calls from friends, families and acquaintances of people expressing shock, horror, disappointment or dismay. I had practiced in front of the mirror, how I would react to the different types of responses, what I would say and how I would say it. Incredibly, no such responses ever came. No one telling me the friendship is over, no one even telling me I am going to hell. The most widespread response has been 'no response.'

It's strange, I wasn't really prepared for the silence. It's eerie, rather unsettling, because you are not quite sure what it means. Maybe, they don't care. Perhaps they are too shocked to talk. They might even agree but are too afraid to be seen doing that. Who knows? I sometimes wish they would just come right out and say something. It is interesting to me that those theists who have been engaging with me are in the main, people who I have met recently. Those for whom, I  have always been an atheist. They disagree of course but are happy to challenge and that is what I want. That is one of the big differences between living based on faith and living based on evidence. When you post something for God, you don't do it with any intention of starting a debate or discussion. You are quite happy if people just read and move on without comment. A 'click' of the 'like' button or an 'Amen' along the way and you are happy. As an evidence based person you put things up hoping that it will spark interest and you want comments, particularly dissenting comments. You want  people to disagree with you. That is how you know whether your views and arguments are sound and you help others who are on the opposite side see flaws in their argument (at least that's what's supposed to happen). However, I think our culture in the Caribbean takes over and people feel they don't want to 'rock the boat.' It's a pity.

When I look back at it, I feel as if I should have known this would happen. I blame my lack of foresight  on  spending too much time listening to religious discussions. When you immerse yourself in these, it's easy to think that everybody out there is keen to represent their beliefs and show why they think as they do. However, in reality the type of theist who will call in to 'Atheist Experience' or go out and study William Lane Craig style apologetics is rare. It's a bit of a shame. I had done all my background research, listened to online debates  with all types of theists; from the raging fundamentalists, to the mildest of agnostics. I was ready for the cosmological, ontological, teleological and other 'logical' arguments that I was sure I would have to be handling. It was like I completely over prepared for my exam. Staying up all night to study for something and then getting a super basic 15 minute multiple choice quiz in the morning. If I could understand not having a 'big deal' response here in Canada, the Caribbean was supposed to be so different, but not really. Perhaps I wasn't in Barbados long enough but the people I talked to about it, apart from this big exception here, haven't had much to say. When you think about it, it is somewhat strange. You have people strong in their convictions about their Lord and saviour, adamant that following him is crucial to the salvation of every individual on the planet. You tell them that you think they are fundamentally mistaken in this belief and that none of this stuff is true and their reply is the equivalent of, "Whatever."

When considering my  family, I have to pay special tribute to my parents. My mother in particular has come around remarkably since I first told her I was an atheist and I wrote this. While I was in Barbados I got a lot of time to explain to her how my beliefs had changed and why I made the switch. She was happy to engage in discussions and has actually now become one of my biggest fans on this blog. Dad has also enjoyed the writing  and thinks my approach to religion is healthy and is happy that I don't come across as too angry. I am glad to hear that, I want that theists can read what I write here without fear. Dad and I  share a lot in terms of our skepticism of religion, even though he remains very involved in the church. We had some very long into the night debates while I was in Barbados which I wish I had taped and could share to a wider audience. Dad tries to keep me to high standards, never afraid to point out the occasional grammatical error that may crop up in my writing here and their. I suppose dads will always be dads. I always promise him I will aim to do better with every effort and as he always tells me, when I write he is more in my corner than against me.

An atheist to us is not an atheist to them

Perhaps more than anything during the last year, I have learnt that there is quite a difference between how people define the word 'atheist.' Those who identify as agnostics I find especially interesting. Often when I get down to the nitty gritty of what they and I believe or disbelieve there is little difference if any at all. It has become quite clear to me that there is a major difference between what an atheist thinks an atheist is and what people who are not atheists think an atheist is. Essentially, it seems we atheists are defining our word in a way that nobody else in the world does.

"How can you be so sure?"
" I don't see how you can know that there isn't a God, so I call myself an agnostic."
" I can't become an atheist like you, the universe is too vast for me not to hold on to the slight possibility that there might be a God."

The first few times I got these types of  responses, I just treated them as one of those textbook atheist 'strawman' fallacies. I simply explained the usual; atheism is not a position of certainty it is just a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence, I am an agnostic as well, bla-bla-bla. I never thought it was anything major pointing this out. After all, any definition in a dictionary would tell you this. Not only that, but it is trivial to point out that  everyday in life we say that we 'know' something when in fact we don't have absolute certainty. I say that my car is parked in my garage now, because I left it there. But I really don't know that, it could have been towed, stolen or moved without my knowledge. Still, in spite of all this I don't think that people draw the parallel from this analogy  to how we define  'atheist.' They will nod and give us an " Oh I see what you mean," then go on their merry way.

You see, I don't think it matters what we say and how we explain it and how many dictionaries we show them. Theists have determined their own definition of what an atheist is and they will go with that. I have found people who have told me they are not atheists because they have no problem with religion and think that we all should be able to believe what we like and no one should be forcing belief on others. Again this is a curious response, atheism has nothing to do with attitude to religion.  I have said on numerous occasions, I still have a great fondness for many of the cultural artefacts relating to religion. The music, the art, the poetry and architecture, I still have an appreciation for those things. I find people still sometimes don't get this. They will go to great lengths to point out churches to me, hoping to rile me up. It's as if  they expect steam will start coming out of  my ears from the sight of a spire on a  tower or a cross on top off a roof. They are so disappointed when I say, " Yes, I see it and it's very beautiful."

It is clear that we have a long way to go to make atheism palatable and there are many things that need to be addressed. The first one is  this definition issue. I have heard lots of people in the secular/atheist movement claim that too much time is spent quibbling over names and what people choose to call themselves. Why do we have to make such a big deal about calling ourselves atheists? I think it is very important that we do, we have to claim the term and  more than that, define it on our own terms. It strikes me that we as atheists can become complacent in this definition game. Once the official dictionary term is in agreement with how we look at it, we feel that the battle is won, the evidence is on our side and we are on intellectually solid ground. No! Usage is what ultimately determines what words mean. Psychiatrists cringe, when people talk about schizophrenics in terms of people with a split personality. The medical books will say something quite different. It doesn't matter, meanings of words depend on  how people use them. That's why the ' just a theory' argument works so well against evolution when creationists are speaking to lay audiences. Doesn't matter what textbooks might say, it's the definition in the mind that matters. Definitions of the word 'atheist' are no different. In the minds of much of  the general public, an atheist is someone who is certain that no Gods exist.

Sometimes it is fine to let words, meanings and usages evolve naturally, but we have to be careful. In the case of atheism, I see a clear strategy at play in defining atheists as persons who are certain about the non existence of God. That categorisation virtually makes every atheist not REALLY an atheist. And that's the whole point, to wipe atheists off the map, not by some kind of coup or military operation but on a technicality, simply by defining  us out of existence. It is a subtle ploy but very effective. So successful, that even many in the secular world play into it. Non believers will regularly reject the atheist title because they are accepting the theist's definition of the word. This confusion of definitions even within our ranks creates a wedge between us, and theists often pick up our fragments that break off. It's the old adage of divide and conquer.We need to push against this, explain not only what the word means to us and what the dictionary meaning us but why the definition that they commonly use marginalises us and therefore why our definition is better. Their belief is that if they find a way to make the group called  'Atheists' an empty set, they can create the illusion that there really is no one that  believes there is no God. It creates the impression that we are all just different shades of theists with some more agnostic than others. We have to show them that to ask for certainty in order to justify the statement ' I don't believe' in a God context is an unfair double standard.  The bar is miles lower than that  for all other non beliefs in the universe. There is a song popular in Caribbean churches called " Cast your burden onto Jesus, for he cares for you." Jesus apparently cares so much that he performed a miracle on the rules of logic on behalf of his followers. He has made it permissible for believers to cast their burdens of proof unto atheists. We can't let them do it.

Not surprisingly, the faithful smile when we talk about putting away the demonic 'atheist' label and identify ourselves as humanists, freethinkers, secularists, brights, rationalists, skeptics or some other nebulous title. This is great, they would always support that.Their message is that you are free to not believe in God just as long as you don't tell us that. This allows the people in the faith world to continue living in their bubbles, convincing themselves that there is no opposing worldview. Once they can keep atheism as a fringe movement,  with the perception that we are a few angry voices yelling on the church step spitting on little old ladies as they walk in the door, their job is done.

Of course, what we hear also is that it is the word 'atheist' that is the problem. It's a harsh word that grates on the ear. It brings thoughts of communism, socialism and massacres by Hitler and Stalin. Even if we have the best intentions in our use of the word, better  for the sake of strategy to avoid it. This is an argument that I take seriously. From a personal perspective I like the word and find it empowering, however I recognise the importance of employing strategies that work and if atheist is a boulder in the road towards a secular world, I am all for tossing the 'A' word aside. This week in the US a bus ad was rejected as 'too controversial' for simply having the word " Atheists"on it. Still, I am not convinced that it is the word  itself that is the problem.

The problem I believe is the " I don't believe in God." Any word that means that is going to be rejected by the religious. So, it doesn't matter if we drop 'atheist' tomorrow and start calling ourselves 'pineapples' to show we don't believe in God. In a few years time, it would be almost impossible to get a picture of the tropical fruit on to the side of  a bus without  the vehicle being vandalised. The truth is that when people want us to change the word they mean they want a new word with a different definition. They want that there be no word in the english language that means ' a person who doesn't believe in gods.'   If  that happens, the God opposition  movement will disappear from the public square, there will be nothing left to hold the Almighty at bay. With no weapon of resistance against faith, we will be rendered impotent in the theistic battle and the Holy train will continue to steam-roll us.

If we want to have any chance of achieving the utopia of a world where people need to justify their beliefs, attitudes and decisions with evidence, logic and reasoning we have to keep fighting. Fighting for the survival of our group and OUR word.  People have told me that this is not necessary. God and evidence based living can coexist and reason can flow from faith. Some even argue that reason could not exist unless a God made it. Sorry, I can't see it. How can a foundational unchangeable belief in an entity which has no evidence to justify it give rise to a society where the need for evidence to justify ones position is at the core of all decision making? The house that results is bound to collapse on itself sooner or later.

So,  that's why I will continue to support efforts like 'A' Week. For me this year it's not an individual desire to 'come out'  to society, it's a desire to get a specific societal outcome. One where religion gets to be challenged rationally  like everything else. It seems fitting this year that 'A' Week will morph right into the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24th. It's almost like belonging to a church, going through Advent waiting for the big Christmas morning or reflecting during Lent in anticipation of that glorious Easter morn.

It makes me chuckle, I am right in the thick of it again. It's so great to know that this time reason is the reason for the season.

Atheists have emotions too!

Last week I came across the video above by ReligiousFiction. It includes a live phone conversation between herself and a theist. The theist is learning for the first time that ReligiousFiction no longer believes in God. I thought the video was very moving and powerful. While I am not familiar with the Emmaus program that is being discussed here, the video immediately resonated with me. I felt so much as though I had this conversation before and I am sure that it is one that I will have many more times in the future. What caught my attention most in this video, were the changes in emotions on both ends of  the line as the call progressed. I must say all in all, ReligiousFiction does a great job here although her commentary on the conversation doesn't seem to suggest that she thinks so. If every future conversation I had with a believer followed this script, I would be extremely happy.

"I don't have any supernatural beliefs"

One thing I learnt from listening to this exchange, was a new way to break the news to a friend in faith that I no longer believe in God. ReligiousFiction says that she, " No longer has any supernatural beliefs." I like this statement. It serves two important purposes. Firstly, it diverts attention from disbelief in THEIR God. It makes the point that you have made a judgement on an entire category of beings and it just happened that Yahweh and Jesus got swept away in the tide. It also emphasises that belief in God is a belief in the supernatural. To many people this may appear obvious, but I can assure you that this is not how it is seen by a lot of believers. I have come across quite a few Christians in Barbados who have told me that they don't believe in the supernatural. They go on to give a laundry list of phenomena that they consider fake. Ghosts, spirits, vampires, werewolves, mediums, haunted houses, psychics, telepaths and other spooks. It never occurs to them that their God is a supernatural entity too.They also don't realise that spirits and ghosts  haunt their own religion. Somehow the mere action of putting the word 'Holy' in front, makes these entities part of the natural world order.

When they talk about their dismissal of things supernatural, they also seem to forget this popular song we sing in many Caribbean churches. Part of it goes like this:

" Super, super, super, super, super ,super, super, super, supernatural power, power."

I taught this song to a Christian friend in Canada. He laughed uncontrollably at this line, probably conjuring up images in his head of a Jesus with a cape and a big 'S' on his chest leaping over buildings. It was only then I realised that it was indeed a pretty ridiculous idea. Little did that friend know that he was laughing at his own belief system. In due course, I learned there was much more to laugh at within the faith, that of course is another story. The point is that going the 'rejection of the supernatural' route forces theists to see how God fits with the other super heroes, without resorting to the belittling strategy of telling them their saviour is no different from a leprechaun.



Apart from recognising the super piece of advice, I considered the video important in that it showed an atheist being emotionally torn about  whether or not to take part in a religious activity. Atheist videos on youtube  tend to be filled with rants on how destructive faith is and how religious people just need to wake up and use their  brain. Other videos that take a softer approach, go through the logic step by step to demonstrate where the fallacies are and show how faith just doesn't add up in the end. In  these cases, atheists can come across as persons that only care about logic, reason and evidence while viewing emotion as anathema. Any suggestion that there is emotional value in religion  is dismissed as being a poor reason for belief.  While I appreciate the strength of such arguments made by atheists, this approach  often leads to some unfortunate consequences. We get put into a category of having no heart; at least not one beyond the organ that pumps blood. This is because we often make every effort to maintain the idea that we are the thinkers while they are the feelers and dreamers.

Keeping the two searches separate

The truth is that atheists are driven by emotions just as much as theists. The difference is that we tend to apply the logic and evidence first to try to determine what is real. Afterwards, we search for meaning in life and causes that we think are worth fighting for or promoting within the context of that reality.So, for us there are two clear cut steps. For religious people the search for reality and the search for meaning in reality tend to be taken together and this is where everything becomes muddled. So, scientific theories are accepted partly on the basis of evidence but also on the basis of whether they give satisfactory answers to the ultimate questions of meaning. For them, finding reality is a compromise between two very different searches. Consequently, emotionally unsatisfactory theories such as the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution often take a hit.

It has been suggested that logic is like the steering wheel of a car and emotion the gas pedal. Step on the gas without the steering and you are likely to have a cataclysmic crash very early. Steer without pushing the gas and you are not likely to move very far. In life you need to have both in order to get to where you want. Indeed, we in the atheist movement that are activists are fueled by emotion, wanting to correct issues that we see as social injustices that either anger or sadden us deeply.
The phone conversation in this video shows  that emotions can also be like a brake pedal. There are times when the emotions cause us to feel awkward and uncertain about saying how we feel. The position of the atheist in the conversation in the video is one such situation. In spite of our recognition that the logic of our former belief system does not hold water, many of us still feel an emotional attachment having been involved in it for many years. In my case, the time I spent in church was a training ground for me in a number of ways. It was the first place I got the opportunity to speak in public before a large audience as I performed recitations from the time I was six years old and became a lay reader in later years. One of my proudest moments was memorising a lesson for one Sunday and stunning the entire congregation by delivering the entire passage without once looking down at the book opened in front of me.

Similarly memorable moments are there regarding my music. My skills as a performer honed in that environment, playing at many a harvest and church supper. I learnt aspects relating to teaching from leading Sunday School,Vacation Bible School and even adult bible study. I  learnt how to be a manager and negotiator as I led a church instrumental ensemble and once coached the church athletics team. All of these activities have shaped how I approach my professional and personal life. I  therefore feel a heaviness in my heart at times when I have to turn my back on church and say 'No more!'

Perhaps the most similar experience I had to ReligiousFiction was an email exchange I had with a  friend I used to play music with. This friend and I played for more than 15 years in Barbados as a duo. We played at churches all over the island and frequently entertained as we ministered to congregations with our lively Caribbean rhythms. People would come up afterwards and speak of how they could 'feel the spirit' while we were playing. That 'spirit' sometimes caused them to dance in pews and wave arms in the air. This year when I was in Barbados, I played in partnership with my friend again, back at one of the same churches. Things were different for me now, but I couldn't bring myself to speak to him of my change.  I just thought it might kill the vibe and I didn't want to risk that. I remember feeling the guilt minutes before I started playing. An excited lady from the congregation came up to me, hugged me and said, " So great to have you back in the land, we going to to have a great party in the house of the Lord tonight, we going to enjoy weself in Jesus name right David?" I just could not bring myself to say a word in reply and it left me with a hollow feeling.

I left Barbados days after that performance and although I successfully got through it, I  had an uneasy feeling about it all. I did not feel guilty about having played. I was glad to share my talents with old friends. My problem was that I did that without them knowing about the change in my life. I took the decision to send an email to the friend I had played with and give him the heads up. The gist of the correspondence was similar to how ReligiousFiction put it, except that I did not say that I was averse to performing in church again. Still, I remember feeling a tinge of nausea in my stomach as I sent that email. Even five minutes after, I wondered if it was worth it. Things got worse as weeks went by and I got no reply from him. I  had no idea what that silence meant. He eventually contacted me after more than a month telling me it was "only now beginning to sink in." It was great to hear him, but the fact that it took so long for him to even bring himself to say anything spoke volumes.

Stumbling across this youtube video brought back many of the feelings that I went through earlier this year. It reminded me that as far as my atheism is concerned I still had unfinished business. There are still good friends who I have not yet told personally that I am an atheist. So, on my facebook page yesterday I put this video up as a link. Perhaps it was my way of having vicariously, this same conversation with them. I must admit it helped me a lot and I feel as though I am now just about completely free. Since the posting, I have got some responses both from atheists and theists. Some have been surprised that I could have written so many blogposts on atheism and still have difficulty at times in telling people I don't believe.  If I am relying on logic, evidence and reason, I should just tell people how I  feel and not be worried about whether they like it or not. Some feel it is a  lack of conviction not to speak out boldly on every occasion.

I even get a hint from a few theists that these internal emotional conflicts mean that deep down, I DO believe in God. Of course they are way off the mark on that. What some  believers see as a lack of conviction, really reflects a desire on my part to spare their feelings as much as I can. However, I have to remember that most of these people will never know what it is like to be isolated in terms of religious belief and from that perspective it is hard to expect empathy.  All I can tell them at the end of it all, is that atheists have emotions too.

My Call to a Christian TV Show

A week ago I had to make a 9-11 call. No, thankfully it was not a domestic emergency. I made a call to the nightly, Canada wide CTS Christian Call- In Show " It's your Call. " The subject on that night was ' The Atheist Perspective' and they were discussing  9-11, inquiring where God was on September 11th, 2001 when the terrorist attacks in the US were taking place. It all stemmed from an email the station received from an atheist wondering where the Christian God was on that day, and suggesting that believers just made excuses for their God's lack of action.

I know some atheists  will be asking how I managed to be watching this program , maybe thinking that I just happened to be flicking through channels and stumbled across it. Well, it didn't exactly happen like that. I actually do spend some time listening to various forms of Christian programming, call-ins and discussions. Some of my atheist friends consider that doing this is a strange form of self torture, but I actually find it entertaining and it helps to get an eye into what persons espousing the various flavours of Christianity believe. When I went to channel CTS on the night in question and saw a picture of an atheist logo on the screen next to the host Robert Melnichuk, I dropped what I was doing. I immediately started recording the show on my PVR,  because I knew this was one I couldn't afford to miss.

I have to give credit to  Rob, for accurately interpreting the arguments of the atheist when dealing with issues regarding the problem of evil, which on this night in question referred to events of 9-11.

 "Do we as Christians make excuses for God when  tragedies happen? Are we just making up rationalisations to account for the things we don't understand ?"

Yes yes, yes!! I couldn't believe the host had summed up things so beautifully. No atheist could have done a better job. I thought it was a bold question to put out there. Still, I realised Rob was speaking to his choir. This was 'It's Your Call' not 'Ask an Atheist.' Things were well set up up for his audience to call and declare in chorus that nothing could be further from  the truth. Of course, that's exactly what happened.

" Free will, free will, it's all about free will!" was the cry.

One lady made a statement that had a layer of irony thicker than the rubble left behind when the towers fell in 2001. " God wants us to be free to decide whether we want to choose him or not. If God had intervened to stop the attacks of 9-11 where would our freedoms be?" she exclaimed.

I hadn't during all this time intended to call the program, I just wanted to listen. In typical fashion, although they were looking at the ' Atheist Perspective' it was more a case of considering the atheist perspective from the christian perspective. Jeez, how many times have we heard this? Then something did break the ice, an atheist called in to explain how religion is where people turn to for comfort and that is why so many people turned to religion after 9-11. It was important to make this point as the host had begun to imply that the increase in numbers of people turning to Christianity after 9-11 was testimony to the fact that Jesus was real and had the power to deliver people from their distress. As the call finished Rob asked why the caller didn't believe in God and  the caller mentioned how seeing his son circumcised before his eyes was so horrific that he questioned the overall sanity of religion, he studied and began to look more closely at  the claims religions were making and eventually came to the conclusion that God was not real. The call unfortunately finished soon after.

I thought it was a shame the call ended there because I know enough about Christians to be sure that many would boil down his entire conversation into the statement, "I stopped believing in God because I don't like  circumcision." They would then dismiss the caller by saying that his point doesn't make sense since they as Christians don't believe in circumcision either. The believers would  then go on  to say that the atheist caller obviously doesn't understand that we are now under the new covenant and Jesus has changed all that and it is now about a relationship with God not a religion bla-bla bla, bla- bla bla. At that point I decided I would go for it. I would make the call at least to try to leave something more with the viewers. With any luck it  would portray  more fairly the 'atheistic perspective' and why we don't believe in the  God that they do.

My decision  to  call was late in the show and I knew I would probably have to be on hold behind all the callers in front of me in the line. When I eventually put the call, I received a very enthusiastic call screener . I told him I wanted to get on the show and he asked me if I was aware of what tonight's topic was.

" Yes" I replied calmly." In fact I am an atheist."

" You're an atheist? That's great!!!"  he responded.

I had this image of everyone in  the room where he was punching the air. At that moment I felt as if I knew exactly how the 'Atheist Experience' crew feel when a theist calls in. I realised that I was now 'that  theist caller' in this alternative evangelical universe. Then the phone seem to go dead, no sound of callers talking on the live show, no elevator music, just dead silence. On the tv screen it seemed they were showing a special that lasted about five minutes about a family from 9-11, so I would probably have a long wait sitting through that and then whoever else was waiting from earlier . Then I got a jolt that broke the silence like a thunder bolt.

" And we've got David from Calgary!"

That's when I got the lump in my throat, this was it. Wow, they didn't take any other calls while I was on the line. Maybe they ushered me straight to the top of the queue because I was an atheist. Well, there was no more time to reflect, I had to start talking and get on with it. I had no idea how much time I would have or if and when I would be interrupted. I had written out a few key points I had hoped to hit, I just took a deep breath and got going. The moment was made a bit more awkward because  this was not only the first time I was calling into a Christian show. This was actually the first time I had called in to any call-in program. I had been a frequent listener to shows like 'Tell it Like it Is' and 'Getting Down to Brass Tacks' in Barbados and have done my fair share of radio and TV interviews in my time but for some reason I just never thought that calling in to a live program was my thing. My lack of experience showed when I realised that although the TV was turned down very low it wasn't muted, so I could hear a faint echo of myself in the background. I frantically tried to mute the TV as I was speaking and as a result I paused as I gave  my opening statement, where I was making the point that I was an atheist. I wondered if  viewers would interpret those pauses as being scared of calling the 'A' word. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

I found myself after thanking the host for taking my call,  getting straight into the story of my deconversion. How I was once where he was but had since changed. In spite of having my talking points to hit, I think sub- consciously I wanted to take this public moment to tell the world, well in this case Canada, why I no longer believed.  I felt I just needed to get it all out and to be honest I really felt better having done it. I spoke of how easy it is to see a God in everything  once you believed in him. A sunrise or sunset the sound of a baby laughing, all those things testify to a God once you believe. I went on to say that when things like 9-11 happen ,that seem not in keeping with a loving God, you still accept them as part of a plan, they must be a reason for these things even if you can't understand. It is this type of conclusion that I think leads to the excuses and rationalisations that I thought the atheist writer was alluding to in his letter. I went on to say that I also used to see God in everything when I was a believer but that one time after observing a tragedy unfold in Barbados, I asked  myself for the very first time, " What if God really doesn't exist?" I told him that once I removed that 'faith lens' and started to look at the world without assuming that a God existed it became more and more apparent that God wasn't there.

As I finished these thoughts I heard the host's voice cutting in  and I apologised because I felt I had spoken for a long time uninterrupted. That was a bit of a surprise to me too. But it did seemed the host was listening very carefully trying to take in all I was saying. I wondered how it all went down with viewers though, I was thinking that maybe it just went totally over the people's head. Then the host asked what was a very odd question.

" So David, do you believe in God now?" The only words that could come out of my mouth were " Pardon me?"

Don't get me wrong, I heard his question clear as day, I just couldn't believe that he had actually asked that . Had he not understood anything I said?  After he repeated his question, I followed by saying, " NO I don't!" with as much emphasis as I could without raising my voice.  I added the following,

" I just think that if you want to find truth it is far better to look at the evidence and let that lead you, rather than start by believing something on faith and  investigating from there, because if you have faith then you don't need evidence."

Well,  I am not sure what happened after that because as soon as I got that statement out all I heard was dial tone. I had a nagging feeling that this would be it for my night's contribution. I was right. As I could see the hosts mouth moving on my now muted television set, I figured he was making some comment on the call.He might even be still carrying on the conversation  without me. I felt a bit disappointed because I didn't get to say what I was planning to end of with. A simple question of why God didn't care about the 'free will' thing when he intervened in the lives of the callers who phone the show every night speaking of their personal 'miracles'. Alas, my 'free will' moment  was denied.

I actually had to play over the recording a few minutes later to here what had actually occurred after I was off the line. To my surprise. Rob's  response to my statement that it is better to follow evidence than faith in order to find truth, was met with the answer, " That's a  fair point."

I was taken aback, that's a pretty big concession for a christian TV host to make to an atheist . Maybe he just didn't have a response to give me right there and then and that was the easiest thing to say. Either way I hoped that the viewers would reflect on what the implications of their faith based beliefs would be if I indeed had  made a ' fair point.' I guess I will never know what the results of any such reflection will be. Anyway I thank Rob and CTS for allowing me to make my points and giving me a fair hearing. I don't think one could say that for every christian show.

After acknowledging my point, Rob said that unfortunately it was time to wrap up. Wow, I had just got in before the bell. I smiled to myself as he finished off because the whole scenario seemed so familiar to me. I used to attend a bible discussion here in Calgary where whenever I brought up arguments to challenge the group leader's arguments for God's existence, he would look at his watch and lament the fact that time was running out and we would have to wrap up right away. Curiously, there were other group discussions that took place alongside ours, but the group I was in always seemed to finish first. I know that this time it had to be station schedules, but it still brought back memories of old.

As Rob was signing off the program he held out his hand and pretended that he was holding something round in it. " This is the fruit." he said. "You just have to come and taste it. This is what God  is asking us all to do just come and try it and you will see how sweet it is."

Apart from remembering the devastating consequences that followed  the last time that God was part of a story involving eating a fruit, there were other  things that bothered me about his invitation, presumably aimed at us atheists. It is the assumption that we atheists actually have these spiritual fruits but just refuse to eat them. They think we are well aware that their God is real but we are just stubborn deniers,many Christians really don't believe that we are atheists. It follows, because I have been often called thinks like a "self acclaimed atheist," and a "person who calls myself an  atheist" by believers I have interacted with.

Christians tell us to 'try Jesus' as if he is some exotic dish on a menu at a fancy restaurant. A culinary delight that we are too scared to order because we think it will be too spicy or tangy for our palates to handle.They don't realise that we can't try what we can't see. We have looked over the menu back, front, inside and outside many times and we have not seen the " Blood of Jesus Special."

When we ask why we can't see this divine tasting treat, they tell us it's because we don't bring faith to the table. But how can an atheist bring faith ?  If we had faith to bring, we would not be atheists.  How can we acquire belief, if in order to do that we have to believe to begin with? It's the perfect circle.  It makes it logically impossible for any sincere atheist to ever find God. Faith is needed to find God, and the only way to get it is to have it. So, if you don't start out with it you are eternally screwed. Well, in that case, I can only hope that I am an insincere atheist , because only the pretenders among us non believers have even the faintest hope of finding the God of the faithful.

Engaging with theists online: Trying to be direct without causing offence

I wasn't expecting it to be so impactful, but engaging in online discussions with theists has been quite a learning experience for me.  I am finding out everyday, that it is rather different from both blogging and face to face interaction and it requires a different set of skills. Online discussions are similar to  blogging in that you have time to sit down and craft what you want to say in the way you want to say it. This is something you don't have the luxury of doing in a face to face chat. In online discussions you have to however be even more careful than you are when blogging. A blog is something you throw out to the online world and people are free to take it or ignore it. It is speaking to the general populace rather than a specific individual and  people  can decide 'if the cap fits' as they read. When you are in a discussion with a single person or group online it is a different story. You are speaking more directly to the individual and it makes me feel as though I am speaking personally about his or her God and a related set of beliefs which is often held very dear.

So, as a result I am regularly bending over backwards to not be offensive in tone to a greater extent than on the blog. (Although I try to be sensitive in blogposts too). I therefore try to avoid the humour and sarcasm I would use to get my point across in blog writing, lest it make the person I am talking with feel uncomfortable. In practice, this effort of trying not to upset people makes writing responses online almost as challenging as writing a blog post. Yes, sometimes you feel like a West Indies batsman being fed an 'easy to hit' ball, short and wide outside the off stump. The sort of delivery that you have seen and played many times in your career. But you have to be careful. If you try to hit it too hard the result could be disastrous. A shot hit too ferociously and the opposition will claim you are taking unfair advantage and the game could be over before it's begun. So you have to try and caress the ball delicately between the fielders like Brian Lara used to do rather than go for a savage pull over mid-wicket in the vain of a Chris Gayle. It is so critical to get that balance right.

For the reasons stated above, it is sometimes takes me a few days to respond to a point a believer raises in a discussion. I am sure that they think the delay is because I am just stumped by the great arguments they come up with. Oh well, I am sorry to disappoint the theists out there. It's often that I am trying to decide on the appropriate stroke to play, thinking of the right response that will encourage more engagement and understanding of my point of view. I also take the additional time to try to understand the position of the person I am talking to and put myself in their shoes. This is actually more of a challenge than you might think. It is easy when you become an atheist to forget what it is like to think like a believer. When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, for me it's an obvious fact. However, for most Christians the statement is plain nonsense.  Of course there is evidence for God, it's all around us, every living thing including you yourself testifies to his greatness and power. To say there is no God is to turn a blind eye to the whole universe and even deny your own existence. It is not easy to explain to a person who has always taken God for granted why nothing in 'creation' counts as evidence. I am not sure I have always been successful making this point.

In attempting to be respectful, I have especially tried to stay away from comparing their God with leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I know that equating their God with such characters will tend to come across as demeaning. Yet, there are just times when I have to resort to this because there is simply no other way to make the point that the burden of proof for God's existence lies with them.

Photo from www.nationnews.com

Sno- cone with milk or without?

One of the main sticking points I have in these discussions is the idea of belief being a choice. It is often expressed to me how sad it is that the atheists ' choose' not to believe in God. They make it sound as if a decision about reality is like considering whether you prefer to have your sno-cone on a hot day in the Caribbean with our without  condensed milk at the top. They reason that it is irrational to choose a plain sno cone when you can get something  much sweeter without paying anything extra. I am sorry, you don't get to buy your own personal reality from a vendor pushing a cart.

Photo from bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately in this game of exchanging ideas, this playing field is about as level as the slope of the Pitons Mountains in St. Lucia. Whereas I am required to play carefully and watchfully, the opposition players are allowed to treat me as they like. There are no arguments that are not allowed for them, no limits to the number of bouncers they can bowl at me in one over. I recognise the double standard but I must admit that I am not unduly bothered. I am cognisant of the reality of holding an unpopular minority view, in a part of the world where God belief is almost as natural as breathing. However, I have to say that there is one ball which is being thrown at me often in these debates which I think should be deemed illegal. It's the famous quote from Psalm 14:1.

"The fool has said in his heart. There is no God."

I have refrained in discussions from calling believers on this tactic, but I want to say here that this is a definite  'no-ball' and does not represent an argument made in good faith (irony intended). It is basically just 'name calling.' I know the argument will be made that these are God's words and we shouldn't blaming the believers who are simply the messengers. But this doesn't really cut it because  they always make it clear from the outset that there are making their judgements based purely on what the ' holy book' says. So the words, " You are a fool!" are by default coming from their own mouths. This is in no form or fashion  an appropriate statement to say to someone that you want to have a respectful conversation with. I wouldn't dream of saying or implying that anyone was a fool at the outset of a debate , I wouldn't even want to suggest the person I am speaking with is by any means intellectually inferior. Level of intelligence is irrelevant in any case, because the only thing that matters in a discussion is the strength of the argument that is being put on the table. The quoting of Psalm 14:1 is a further insult due to the line that follows that is almost never quoted but would have to be equally applicable if the first line of the verse is to carry any weight.  Here is a little bit more of what God says about those fools who don't believe.

" They are corrupt, they have abominable works, there is none that does good."

Now I can't believe that the persons I have had conversations with actually think that way. If they did I don't see why they  would want to talk to me at all. You see, that is the conundrum you put yourself in when you go to the bible to argue your position. If you want the first part of the verse to apply you have to be comfortable with the second part as well. It's in the same verse of the same chapter of the same book in the same Book. Therefore you can't yell " Context!" So, my advice to the theists who are reading this is to try to refrain from using the Psalm 14:1 line of attack.

Having got that all out of the way, I thought I would leave you with a sample of an ongoing online discussion that I am having with Rachel (not her real name), a Christian living in the Caribbean. The dialogue has been respectful so far and I look forward to further interactions with her and others.I try to be firm and direct in stating my areas of disagreement while at the same time seeking not to disrespect her cherished beliefs. Have I got the balance right? I don't know. You can be the judge.


Hi David,

Let's use some reasoning from mere observation. If there is such a thing as an invention then one can readily conclude there must be an inventor.If there is a creature there must be a creator. The bible has so many truths. Man has questioned its validity because God allowed man to record His account of life. If the bible was strictly man's concoction we would have excluded all the failures and flaws and presented this perfect account to try to convince people to believe in the bible. We would exclude Abraham's lying, David's adultery, Jesus asking him for the cup to pass from him etc, but God has allowed man to see that sin and salvation are very real.

A lot of scientific discoveries were long time mentioned in the bible but the revelation of God's word is with those who seek Him. Even some of us Christians do not fully understand all that is revealed. There are some things God has chosen to remain silent on, but the things he has revealed are enough to keep us in this life. Many of you who claim to be atheists sooner or later call on the same one you say doesn't exist, that's why there are signs up saying " God doesn't believe in  atheists." One writer said " A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I choose to believe in God rather than man. I think it is sad that (you) the creature are now denying the creator. David, God loves you and I pray that you will one day be drawn to God through that love.

Hi Rachel,

You have raised a number of things which I will try to go through one by one. Firstly, you make the argument that just as every invention needs an inventor, every creature needs a creator. This does not necessarily follow. We know having observed human beings , exactly how man creates. We can see the templates, equations, architectural and engineering drawings. We have seen builders and technicians take these concepts from mind and paper to implementation and we can visit the factories and see these transformations take place.

For things that occur in nature we have no such evidence. That is how we are able to distinguish between the natural and the man made; how we know that a skyscraper was built and an underground cave was not. If we posit that a special creator made all the things in nature that man did not, then we are left with the question of where the creator came from and who made him, her or it. This just creates a bigger mystery, because we need an explanation for the creator too.

I don't see how the portrayal of man's failures in the bible counts as evidence that the bible came from God and how we can surmise that man if he made it up would have left out these failings. Indeed, I think those failings help to make the stories more compelling. It shows how the characters in the bible have triumphed in spite of their own personal limitations. Such stories often move us emotionally, as we may even see aspects of ourselves as we read. Why would biblical writers not want to include these things? I consider that the essential point of showing the human failures is to emphasize how much God is needed to make us whole. That idea is what leads people to think that they need God's salvation and that's exactly what anyone that has the objective to spread that belief system would want.

I have heard it said that many scientific discoveries were mentioned in the bible. Yet, so many things in the bible directly contradict what we have discovered through science. Things like a seven day creation, plants created before the sun they would need for photosynthesis, illnesses caused as a result of demon possession. There is nothing in the bible about microbes, DNA,electrons or black holes. Knowledge of these things 2000 years ago would have saved millions of lives and put our development light years ahead. I just can't see how the bible has served as a benefit to science.

I know that many Christians will say that we atheists when we find our backs against the wall will cry out to the same God that we claim doesn't exist today. I have strong doubts about that, but since I have not yet been in that situation as an atheist, I cannot tell you for certain what I would do. So, maybe I would call out to God. But that would make him no more real or unreal than he is now. You consider that my not believing does make God not real and I agree. But the opposite must hold as well. Me believing tomorrow would not be proof there is a God.

Arguments must stand on their own logic. I think that the decision I come to when I have the chance to consider the evidence carefully without pressure is likely to be better than the one I come to when I am under intense stress or in a highly emotional state. It is one of the reasons why psychologists advise us not to make major life decisions when we are angry.

Rachel, I know that your desire to reach out to me to show me God's love is sincere. I know you consider  you have found something precious and you want to share it, that's great. I hope you understand that I have considered all the things you said. I had years of wrestling with these issues and there are even moments that I wish I could believe again just to be at one with many friends and family. However, I just can't. My heart cannot accept what my mind does not.

What I want to let you know is that I am not sad and you don't have to feel sorry for me. Life without my old beliefs is far from unhappy, indeed it is very fulfilling. Since I have left faith I too have found something precious. a sense of being free, not to do whatever I feel like, but to think without fear.