I went and saw the movie version of a terrible internet meme, God Is Not Dead I'll touch mainly on the message it tries to convey. (a synopsis of the film is here)
This movie is to philosophy what Religulous is to theology (except it isn't funny at all). Both movies are only concerned about winning over people already on their side, by using bad arguments that score "quick points".
God Is Not Dead is set in a world where the News Boys can sell out the Staples Center, but where Christianity is also somehow a minority. This is a common theme amongst evangelical Christians in general, and the film hits that point hard. The Evangelical Christians that see this film will eat up the messages portrayed even (maybe especially) the one's they didn't know where there. The not so hidden themes include racism, sexism, anti-intellectualism and fear/mistrust of anyone not like them.
Every non white character is the epitome of a stereotype. The Chinese student is an emotionless (until he finds Jesus) math major who's father is an uncaring, unloving, demanding figure. The Muslim family is ruled by a violent father. The African missionary is a happy go lucky fella that apparently has magic powers (he diagnoses a dying man by just being near him). Of course it isn't just non whites that get this stereotype characterization, every seemingly smart and attractive female is also a manipulative bitch that must have her way. Every non christian is either morally bankrupt or living an empty hopeless life. These are the (not so) subtle themes of the film the main points might be even more flawed.
The main character is Josh Wheaton who takes a philosophy course given by a (his words) "committed atheist" Professor Raddison. On the first day of class Raddison misinterprets a famous Nietzsche quote "God is dead" (full quote here) because he is apparently the worst philosophy professor ever (but good enough to be considered for chairman). Then like all bad professors do he demanded the students sign a paper that said "God is dead" so they can move on to more important things. Because the one thing you never do in philosophy courses is actual philosophy (I hope the sarcasm is evident). Of course our plucky hero Josh just can't compel himself to sign the paper so instead he is forced to defend his faith in a series of "debates". In which (spoiler alert) HE WINS! (because really Radisson is just mad at God for killing his mom) because again Radisson has never actually learned philosophy (theme here is professors are liars and are not as smart as they say they are). All while this is going on other side plots are being shown like the ministers that can't get to Disney World, a blogger gets cancer and Dean Cain doesn't care, secret christian Muslim girl gets disowned by her family, and Radisson's girlfriend dumbs down for Christ. This all culminates with the characters ending up at a News Boys concert. The now visibly shaken Radisson is also headed there to try and win back his girlfriend when suddenly he is hit by a car (then magically diagnosed as mentioned earlier). Of course like all atheists Radisson converts on his deathbed and everyone is happy!!!
What did we learn? We learned that traumatic life events are a bad reason to become an atheists, but are really good reasons to believe in God. We learned that Christians, especially the white male variety, are the most persecuted people in America. That converting atheists is super easy just yell at them for a bit then either give them cancer or hit them with a car. That beliefs are choice so why won't you just believe in God it's super easy. Lastly that the only people in the world that are truly happy are Christians.
I can't imagine anyone with any sort of knowledge of philosophy has many good things to say about this film regardless of their beliefs about God (as I was writing this I did a search for Christian philosophers reviews)
Chris Attaway
God of evolution (guest post)
This film will probably do more harm then good for the evangelical community because now they are equipped with really really poor arguments for God, but you may be annoyed by the number of texts you start to receive saying "God's Not Dead"
I have a lot more to say about this movie and will probably continue to tweet about it
follow me on twitter
@UnicornOnMoon
or my new public FB account
Kyle MWU
Thanks for reading this now go read some real philosophy!
Monday, April 7, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Why Would God Lie?
In this post I'm going to borrow some from people I admire greatly Justin Schieber and Dan Carlin, for the sake of this post I will also be assuming a monotheistic god of some kind exists and (hopefully) give reasons for why that god would want to lie to us
If we adopt skeptical theism, that is that god has reasons to allow suffering to happen. Then we must also adopt that god could have reasons to lie to us even if those reasons are unknown. I'm not convinced that those reasons are necessarily unknown or at least I can conceive of good reasons for a god to lie to us.
Why would a god allow books like the Bible and Qur'an be written about him if those books are not true? IF the believers of those religions think that their religions have helped mankind more than they have hurt AND that the good would not have happened without the influence of those books. Just like god allowing suffering to happen because some greater good only he would know about came from it, god could very well have lied to the authors of the holy books for very similar reasons.
A second but just as valid reason for god to lie to us would be very similar to reasons the Catholic Church did not want to Bible translated into languages the common person could read. That is god does not want to give us information that is beyond our current level of reasoning. Imagine an alien race coming down with superior technology and the "correct" version of god's word. The catch is that it's written in an alien language that no one on earth can read. We must rely on the word of the alien priests to tell us, until one rogue alien decides to translate this new holy book. What are the consequences to the religious here on earth? If you believe that they could be very detrimental than you have accepted a viable reason for god to lie to us. We are only given what he knows we can absorb even knowing we can, at times, only absorb a lie.
If you would like to listen to the audio files that helped inspire this go here for Divine lies and here for Common Language Problem
questions or comments welcome
@UnicornOnMoon
If we adopt skeptical theism, that is that god has reasons to allow suffering to happen. Then we must also adopt that god could have reasons to lie to us even if those reasons are unknown. I'm not convinced that those reasons are necessarily unknown or at least I can conceive of good reasons for a god to lie to us.
Why would a god allow books like the Bible and Qur'an be written about him if those books are not true? IF the believers of those religions think that their religions have helped mankind more than they have hurt AND that the good would not have happened without the influence of those books. Just like god allowing suffering to happen because some greater good only he would know about came from it, god could very well have lied to the authors of the holy books for very similar reasons.
A second but just as valid reason for god to lie to us would be very similar to reasons the Catholic Church did not want to Bible translated into languages the common person could read. That is god does not want to give us information that is beyond our current level of reasoning. Imagine an alien race coming down with superior technology and the "correct" version of god's word. The catch is that it's written in an alien language that no one on earth can read. We must rely on the word of the alien priests to tell us, until one rogue alien decides to translate this new holy book. What are the consequences to the religious here on earth? If you believe that they could be very detrimental than you have accepted a viable reason for god to lie to us. We are only given what he knows we can absorb even knowing we can, at times, only absorb a lie.
If you would like to listen to the audio files that helped inspire this go here for Divine lies and here for Common Language Problem
questions or comments welcome
@UnicornOnMoon
Saturday, November 16, 2013
untitled
For whatever reason I'm sitting here inspired by the memories of loss
inspired to tell you a story of pain.
The holiday season is coming near and it brings about a time that I fear.
The pain of loss doesn't go away but we move on
away from the pain but also away from the memories we hold so dear.
Like an old picture that has faded.
The corners are frayed the memories are strained
and I'm trying to remember just what I had lost.
One moment in time changed so many lives, I think of the moments now lost.
One moment took three but three carry on in memories and tears
sometimes joy sometimes fear but it's never enough
Their winter came too soon
we sit here with pain in our hearts
amongst family and friends that know
just how hard it is to alone in a crowd surrounded by love
engulfed in guilt we put memories on skin with pain
for the last memory to be a wreck that's now trees
it isn't enough it isn't enough
inspired to tell you a story of pain.
The holiday season is coming near and it brings about a time that I fear.
The pain of loss doesn't go away but we move on
away from the pain but also away from the memories we hold so dear.
Like an old picture that has faded.
The corners are frayed the memories are strained
and I'm trying to remember just what I had lost.
One moment in time changed so many lives, I think of the moments now lost.
One moment took three but three carry on in memories and tears
sometimes joy sometimes fear but it's never enough
Their winter came too soon
we sit here with pain in our hearts
amongst family and friends that know
just how hard it is to alone in a crowd surrounded by love
engulfed in guilt we put memories on skin with pain
for the last memory to be a wreck that's now trees
it isn't enough it isn't enough
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Bible Study Q&A
I'm currently on vacation and out visiting my Mom, she asked if I would be interested in doing a little Q&A with her bible study group and I agreed. I figured I would write down my experience and share with you lovely people.
The night started off with a prayer that was obviously meant to induce a sense of guilt in me.
"We pray for our brother Kyle that he may know to come the Truth (capital T) we know his mother prays for him daily...." etc.. etc..
The night was based around a potluck dinner and just a general night of friendship. The people were mostly very nice (except for an older gentleman I will call "D") D was the one that led the opening prayer and was very passive aggressive all night, but more on that later.
After dinner we went around the room and everyone shared their high point and low point of the past week. As you can imagine most were centered around church/or blessings from God. If you're curious my high was being on a 10 day vacation and my low was only having 6 more days.
And then the Q&A started
Most of the group seemed a little nervous at first in what to ask me (whether that was from not wanting to hear an answer or just never have spoken to a "real life atheist" I don't know)
The first question asked was
"what was the one thing that changed your view on Christianity and how old were you?" To which I replied "I was about 23 when I really started to investigate the claims of Christianity and no there wasn't one thing, but many. Maybe the biggest being the history of the church"
This is when D stepped in and started talking and talking and talking and talking. He would start with a point then trail off into who I should read. "X was a former atheist and a smart kid like you, and so was Y you should really read Y, and Z have you heard of Z, well what about ......"
I tried to explain that just because one isn't a christian that doesn't necessarily make them an atheist which then led to another long rant by D talking about Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses
Honestly the night would have been a lot better if D wasn't there (for all of us as I wasn't trying to debate people but he kinda forced my hand)
One Lady asked me if the death of my brother had anything to do with my deconversion. I emphatically stated NO and was going to talk about my thoughts on heaven but she then informed me about the recent death of her brother in Iraq and I didn't feel it necessary to take that comfort away.
* Another long rant by D*
Another gentleman interrupted D to explain that this isn't why we are here and then asked me what I thought was the best question of the night
"What do you believe in?"
"Humanity" I said "I believe that we are a force for great things in and for the world and that generally speaking people are good, we help each other. We may not always get it right and we can also cause much damage, but generally speaking and especially within small communities we are great for each other"
The night ended with another prayer, but not before D came up to me and said "If I was younger I would beat the Truth into you"
ah there is that good ol christian love!
wish the night would have been a little more informative but it was mostly me trying to explain this isn't a phase and I'm not rebelling
maybe I can convince them to do another one next time I'm out but one that is a little more structured so it doesn't trail off into empty threats and nonsensical tangents
Thanks for reading
-Kyle
The night started off with a prayer that was obviously meant to induce a sense of guilt in me.
"We pray for our brother Kyle that he may know to come the Truth (capital T) we know his mother prays for him daily...." etc.. etc..
The night was based around a potluck dinner and just a general night of friendship. The people were mostly very nice (except for an older gentleman I will call "D") D was the one that led the opening prayer and was very passive aggressive all night, but more on that later.
After dinner we went around the room and everyone shared their high point and low point of the past week. As you can imagine most were centered around church/or blessings from God. If you're curious my high was being on a 10 day vacation and my low was only having 6 more days.
And then the Q&A started
Most of the group seemed a little nervous at first in what to ask me (whether that was from not wanting to hear an answer or just never have spoken to a "real life atheist" I don't know)
The first question asked was
"what was the one thing that changed your view on Christianity and how old were you?" To which I replied "I was about 23 when I really started to investigate the claims of Christianity and no there wasn't one thing, but many. Maybe the biggest being the history of the church"
This is when D stepped in and started talking and talking and talking and talking. He would start with a point then trail off into who I should read. "X was a former atheist and a smart kid like you, and so was Y you should really read Y, and Z have you heard of Z, well what about ......"
I tried to explain that just because one isn't a christian that doesn't necessarily make them an atheist which then led to another long rant by D talking about Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses
Honestly the night would have been a lot better if D wasn't there (for all of us as I wasn't trying to debate people but he kinda forced my hand)
One Lady asked me if the death of my brother had anything to do with my deconversion. I emphatically stated NO and was going to talk about my thoughts on heaven but she then informed me about the recent death of her brother in Iraq and I didn't feel it necessary to take that comfort away.
* Another long rant by D*
Another gentleman interrupted D to explain that this isn't why we are here and then asked me what I thought was the best question of the night
"What do you believe in?"
"Humanity" I said "I believe that we are a force for great things in and for the world and that generally speaking people are good, we help each other. We may not always get it right and we can also cause much damage, but generally speaking and especially within small communities we are great for each other"
The night ended with another prayer, but not before D came up to me and said "If I was younger I would beat the Truth into you"
ah there is that good ol christian love!
wish the night would have been a little more informative but it was mostly me trying to explain this isn't a phase and I'm not rebelling
maybe I can convince them to do another one next time I'm out but one that is a little more structured so it doesn't trail off into empty threats and nonsensical tangents
Thanks for reading
-Kyle
Monday, October 21, 2013
Oprah and Atheism - my take
I'm going to go ahead and be the nine thousandth internet atheist that comments on the recent Oprah interview of Diana Nyad, hopefully my take is just a little bit different than others.
The reaction of the atheist I'm in contact through twitter seem to fall in to two categories "Who cares what Oprah thinks" and the "Oprah is a ignorant bigot" crowd. I firmly fall into the former (with the obvious glaring exception of me writing this blog, yay hypocrisy!)
Let's look at the exchange that seems to have caused all the "outrage"
“I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity. All the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity.” Nyad said
“Well, I don’t call you an atheist then,” Winfrey said. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is. That is what God is. It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.”
A majority of the outrage I've seen towards Oprah quotes her as saying "You're not an atheist" when this isn't what she said. What she did say I can almost agree with based on Nyad's definition of "god". When Nyad says "my definition of god is humanity..." that does come across as quite similar to that of a pandeist. Now I'm not trying to say or imply that Diana is a pandiest, but when she describes her definition of god I could see how one (in this case Oprah) could be confused.
Oprah's reply almost mimics what Nyad says. If Nyad's definition of god is "humanity and the love of humanity" and Oprah's is "awe and wonder" really what is the difference? They are both using a slippery version of the term "god". When Oprah goes on to say "God isn't a bearded man in the sky" she kind of outs her self as a non theist. Both women identify with some sort of spirituality the only difference is how they define it. Diana seems to not have a belief in any sort of supernatural element, but Oprah (who has had psychics and the like on her show) does.
So what is the outrage about? Because Oprah has a different definition of atheism (one commonly held)? Or are we just looking to be "offended"? If it's just about the latter we could surely find a more obvious offender, if it's the former then lets take the opportunity to educate not belittle.
Without trying to sound too authoritarian we shouldn't be so wrapped up in a label that we have to be offended anytime someone disagrees with what that label means.
comments welcome
thanks for reading
The reaction of the atheist I'm in contact through twitter seem to fall in to two categories "Who cares what Oprah thinks" and the "Oprah is a ignorant bigot" crowd. I firmly fall into the former (with the obvious glaring exception of me writing this blog, yay hypocrisy!)
Let's look at the exchange that seems to have caused all the "outrage"
“I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity. All the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt and suffered. So to me, my definition of God is humanity and is the love of humanity.” Nyad said
“Well, I don’t call you an atheist then,” Winfrey said. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is. That is what God is. It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.”
A majority of the outrage I've seen towards Oprah quotes her as saying "You're not an atheist" when this isn't what she said. What she did say I can almost agree with based on Nyad's definition of "god". When Nyad says "my definition of god is humanity..." that does come across as quite similar to that of a pandeist. Now I'm not trying to say or imply that Diana is a pandiest, but when she describes her definition of god I could see how one (in this case Oprah) could be confused.
Oprah's reply almost mimics what Nyad says. If Nyad's definition of god is "humanity and the love of humanity" and Oprah's is "awe and wonder" really what is the difference? They are both using a slippery version of the term "god". When Oprah goes on to say "God isn't a bearded man in the sky" she kind of outs her self as a non theist. Both women identify with some sort of spirituality the only difference is how they define it. Diana seems to not have a belief in any sort of supernatural element, but Oprah (who has had psychics and the like on her show) does.
So what is the outrage about? Because Oprah has a different definition of atheism (one commonly held)? Or are we just looking to be "offended"? If it's just about the latter we could surely find a more obvious offender, if it's the former then lets take the opportunity to educate not belittle.
Without trying to sound too authoritarian we shouldn't be so wrapped up in a label that we have to be offended anytime someone disagrees with what that label means.
comments welcome
thanks for reading
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Debate Review!!! (and my thoughts)
I recently listened to the debate "Does the God of Christianity Exist" by Justin Schieber and Max Andrews. If you would like to listen it can be found here and transcript is here
Before I start my review I do want it to be known that I am not a philosopher or have any formal debate training. I will try my hardest to be as objective as I can, but since I do not have a belief in the Christian God I'm sure my bias will show.
Max Andrews opens the debate with three points, two for the existence of a god (The Thomistic Cosmological Argument and The Fine-Tuning Argument) the third for the existence of the christian God The Resurrection of Jesus.
I will only comment on the third point because in my opinion the first two do not matter as the debate topic is specific to the existence of the Christian God only. We can grant the existence of a god (deistic model) and that gets us no closer the existence of the God as described in the Bible.
Max's argument for the resurrection quickly turns into the "Who would die for a lie" argument and although I think Justin does a good job explaining why that is a bad argument he could have done better (and has). The empty tomb seems to be the crux of this argument and granting that said tomb was in fact proven to be empty that is only proof of an empty tomb not resurrection. There are a few other possibilities that should be considered. 1) The body was stolen/moved (this would fall under the rebuttal to "who would die for a lie"), 2) The guard(s) were paid off by Joseph of the Sanhedrin (who is the owner of the tomb Jesus was buried in) effectively faking Jesus' death.
The best argument Justin Schieber makes is his "God World" argument and although I do think Max makes a fairly decent rebuttal. My question to both Justin and Max regarding the "God World" argument is how does heaven factor into the point? Could God have just created heaven and would that erode the "God World"? If it doesn't then why is this temporal life necessary? If it does erode "God World" then Justin's argument stands solid.
Max takes great issue with Justin's Hell argument and I think that issue would be justified if the topic of debate was "Does God exist" but it wasn't. The Christian God is given very specific qualities in the Bible and by Christians if the god they describe also created hell than it is an issue. Specifically Max takes issue with the phrase "God sends people to hell" and I'd like to address why that is a valid statement (which I think Justin could have done a better job addressing). If God is omniscient and the creator of the universe then he created a universe knowing that only about 2 in 7 people would believe in the Jesus story. He could have created a universe where the evidence was overwhelmingly accessible and undeniable. He could have created a universe where blood sacrifice was not needed at all. He chose to create this one and therefore knows who would and would not accept the Jesus story and created this universe anyway. It is a valid statement that "God sends people to hell".
I do have one question for Max (assuming he reads this) regarding his belief in hell and judgement. How does God judge those that are never given the opportunity to accept or reject the Jesus claim past/present/future? Many Christians I have come across say they will be judged based on the "knowledge they have" which sounds an awful lot like being judged on actions and not beliefs to me. If this is the case than the resurrection is not necessary for salvation, which begs the question as to why the resurrection was necessary at all. If these people are punished for their non belief in something that they were never given the opportunity to accept or reject than God has most definitely sent them to hell.
I am not usually a fan of the formal (especially live) debates because generally speaking participants are forced to anticipate their opponents points and responses and don't actually address what is said. I enjoyed this one because both Max and Justin were given ample time to dissect and respond to the arguments made. My main criticism of each debater is they allowed (or steered) the debate to go from "Does the Christian God exist" to "Does a god exist"
Please listen to or read the debate and tell me where I am wrong
I want to thank both Justin Schieber and Max Andrews for a job well done (I also hope you don't mind that I addressed you both by your first names) this was one of the finer debates I have ever listened to
- MoonWalking Unicorn
Before I start my review I do want it to be known that I am not a philosopher or have any formal debate training. I will try my hardest to be as objective as I can, but since I do not have a belief in the Christian God I'm sure my bias will show.
Max Andrews opens the debate with three points, two for the existence of a god (The Thomistic Cosmological Argument and The Fine-Tuning Argument) the third for the existence of the christian God The Resurrection of Jesus.
I will only comment on the third point because in my opinion the first two do not matter as the debate topic is specific to the existence of the Christian God only. We can grant the existence of a god (deistic model) and that gets us no closer the existence of the God as described in the Bible.
Max's argument for the resurrection quickly turns into the "Who would die for a lie" argument and although I think Justin does a good job explaining why that is a bad argument he could have done better (and has). The empty tomb seems to be the crux of this argument and granting that said tomb was in fact proven to be empty that is only proof of an empty tomb not resurrection. There are a few other possibilities that should be considered. 1) The body was stolen/moved (this would fall under the rebuttal to "who would die for a lie"), 2) The guard(s) were paid off by Joseph of the Sanhedrin (who is the owner of the tomb Jesus was buried in) effectively faking Jesus' death.
The best argument Justin Schieber makes is his "God World" argument and although I do think Max makes a fairly decent rebuttal. My question to both Justin and Max regarding the "God World" argument is how does heaven factor into the point? Could God have just created heaven and would that erode the "God World"? If it doesn't then why is this temporal life necessary? If it does erode "God World" then Justin's argument stands solid.
Max takes great issue with Justin's Hell argument and I think that issue would be justified if the topic of debate was "Does God exist" but it wasn't. The Christian God is given very specific qualities in the Bible and by Christians if the god they describe also created hell than it is an issue. Specifically Max takes issue with the phrase "God sends people to hell" and I'd like to address why that is a valid statement (which I think Justin could have done a better job addressing). If God is omniscient and the creator of the universe then he created a universe knowing that only about 2 in 7 people would believe in the Jesus story. He could have created a universe where the evidence was overwhelmingly accessible and undeniable. He could have created a universe where blood sacrifice was not needed at all. He chose to create this one and therefore knows who would and would not accept the Jesus story and created this universe anyway. It is a valid statement that "God sends people to hell".
I do have one question for Max (assuming he reads this) regarding his belief in hell and judgement. How does God judge those that are never given the opportunity to accept or reject the Jesus claim past/present/future? Many Christians I have come across say they will be judged based on the "knowledge they have" which sounds an awful lot like being judged on actions and not beliefs to me. If this is the case than the resurrection is not necessary for salvation, which begs the question as to why the resurrection was necessary at all. If these people are punished for their non belief in something that they were never given the opportunity to accept or reject than God has most definitely sent them to hell.
I am not usually a fan of the formal (especially live) debates because generally speaking participants are forced to anticipate their opponents points and responses and don't actually address what is said. I enjoyed this one because both Max and Justin were given ample time to dissect and respond to the arguments made. My main criticism of each debater is they allowed (or steered) the debate to go from "Does the Christian God exist" to "Does a god exist"
Please listen to or read the debate and tell me where I am wrong
I want to thank both Justin Schieber and Max Andrews for a job well done (I also hope you don't mind that I addressed you both by your first names) this was one of the finer debates I have ever listened to
- MoonWalking Unicorn
Monday, June 24, 2013
The Deconversion of a Unicorn
This is my second (maybe third) attempt at writing my "deconversion" story fully. I find it difficult because as I start writing I remember more and more things that helped "awaken" my critical thinking skills which led me to doubt. The other reason it has been so difficult is I am having a hard time remembering which events came first or if they were simultaneous. I think instead of agonizing over this I'm just going to write it as if this were a diary (but public because I'm crazy). If you would rather read a very compressed version of my story go here otherwise keep reading.
I was raised in a very conservative and religious household. We went to church every Sunday and either every Tuesday or Wednesday depending on age. I first accepted Jesus at the age of seven, I still remember this event today (and I have a terrible memory). I remember being in the living room at my Dad's house and sitting on the couch looking out the window when I prayed the "sinners prayer". I never questioned my beliefs until after high school. Ironically ever since high school I have always felt "called" to challenge peoples belief systems. Again I struggle to remember the correct order of events but these are a few of the things that spurred my quest for additional knowledge. The following events happened between the ages of 20-25
These things all contributed in awakening my critical thinking skills, but none of them "made" me an atheist. For a few years I was what I can best now describe as a Christian Deist. I believed Jesus was the son of God and came to "save" us. I just no longer believed that God really interacted with the world and I accepted the Bible had many historical and contextual inaccuracies. It was around this time a friend with similar worldview handed me a copy of Dawkins' "God Delusion". Even after reading it I still didn't identify as an atheist but I did slowly migrate into what is best described as a pantheist or as I identified Jedi.
It probably took another year or two of reading various things that I finally realized and accepted that I no longer believed in any sort of deities or supernatural entities. Even then I wasn't immediately open about it, but I had a twitter account and through Ricky Gervais I found @MrOZAtheist and @gspellchecker. For months I lurked and read their tweets/posts and finally felt ready to "come out" to friends and family. I lost a few friends and have become the black sheep of my family (I'm not shunned, but things are different) It was probably close to another year before I decided I wanted to try and help others through their own transition and created the @UnicornOnMoon account you all know me as now, but that story will come another time.
Again sorry for the weird format of this post, but I really struggled with the timeline and this was a way to get out a few of the "reasons"
I may post my rough, unfinished, draft in the comments if anyone cares to read that
Thanks for reading
I was raised in a very conservative and religious household. We went to church every Sunday and either every Tuesday or Wednesday depending on age. I first accepted Jesus at the age of seven, I still remember this event today (and I have a terrible memory). I remember being in the living room at my Dad's house and sitting on the couch looking out the window when I prayed the "sinners prayer". I never questioned my beliefs until after high school. Ironically ever since high school I have always felt "called" to challenge peoples belief systems. Again I struggle to remember the correct order of events but these are a few of the things that spurred my quest for additional knowledge. The following events happened between the ages of 20-25
- The Daily Show - I watched The Daily show since its inception, back when Craig Kilborn was the host and it wasn't political at all. Had I tried to watch after Stewart took over I think my cognitive dissonance would have kicked in and I would have tuned out. The one episode that led me to start questioning my conservative values was with Jim Wallis as guest. He was on to promote his book God's Politics. I found it very interesting so I had to pick it up.
- God's Politics - Reading this book challenged many of the things I thought I believed. It was more of a liberal christian viewpoint of the bible. Challenging my notion of capital punishment, war, poverty/charity etc... This was my first real exposure to differing Christian views.
- Christian music/P.O.D.- I was very into the Christian rock scene (don't judge me) P.O.D. being at the forefront of this movement (to me at least) as such I was a frequent visitor to their forum boards where I would lurk onto the religious discussion thread. This was the first time I had ever encountered non believers and the dreaded atheists
- Small group part 1- I was a member of a small group at church called College and Career, a group for 18-26 year old "young adults". In this group we discussed many issues of the day. In one meeting the question came up "If a friend gave you a book on eastern religions, would you read it?" I was the only one that answered yes (apparently the correct answer was no) My reply then was "If my faith can be shaken by a book, then I don't have strong enough faith"
- College - I had decided as part of my "calling" to convert those of other religions, I needed to have at least a basic understanding of other religions. I took a World Religions course where I learned the basics about the major world religions and most importantly more about my own.
- Small group part 2 - My parents also had their own small group meeting at our house and I don't remember exactly the topic but I know during the discussion I asked one of the associate pastors " If tomorrow a study came out undeniably refuting the God of the Bible as being true, would you still believe" the answer was "Of course I would!" This is when I realized that these people were not interested in truth.
These things all contributed in awakening my critical thinking skills, but none of them "made" me an atheist. For a few years I was what I can best now describe as a Christian Deist. I believed Jesus was the son of God and came to "save" us. I just no longer believed that God really interacted with the world and I accepted the Bible had many historical and contextual inaccuracies. It was around this time a friend with similar worldview handed me a copy of Dawkins' "God Delusion". Even after reading it I still didn't identify as an atheist but I did slowly migrate into what is best described as a pantheist or as I identified Jedi.
It probably took another year or two of reading various things that I finally realized and accepted that I no longer believed in any sort of deities or supernatural entities. Even then I wasn't immediately open about it, but I had a twitter account and through Ricky Gervais I found @MrOZAtheist and @gspellchecker. For months I lurked and read their tweets/posts and finally felt ready to "come out" to friends and family. I lost a few friends and have become the black sheep of my family (I'm not shunned, but things are different) It was probably close to another year before I decided I wanted to try and help others through their own transition and created the @UnicornOnMoon account you all know me as now, but that story will come another time.
Again sorry for the weird format of this post, but I really struggled with the timeline and this was a way to get out a few of the "reasons"
I may post my rough, unfinished, draft in the comments if anyone cares to read that
Thanks for reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)