It’s been one of those days…the kind where everything seems to go wrong. I was so frustrated with everything by the time I got home from work that I just went straight into my room, shut off the lights, and fell asleep until about 1:30 AM. Now I’m wide awake.

Time has passed and thinking back upon it, the “everything is going wrong” feeling is probably nothing more than bad pattern recognition. There are thousands of events that make up our lives each day. The number of things that “go wrong” from day to day is minuscule and doesn’t really change all that much. And they are usually spaced out pretty evenly.

But every so often the wrong events will happen in a short timespan and we feel that a pattern is emerging when it’s really not. That false pattern leads us to believe that the day is ruined or that the universe is conspiring against us. Once in this mindset, we start looking for evidence to support it and see bad things happening all day. A slippery slope.

Of course, understanding this now in no way helps my mood when these situations happen. Which brings me to a realization: it really doesn’t take much to throw my day out of whack. Three or four bad events and the day is lost. Why am I so close to the edge? Why is it so easy for me to fall into this trap?

Perhaps I’m just not as happy of a person as I think I am. I like to believe I am happy, but if that were the case, it should take more than a dropped coffee cup and bad traffic to change my outlook.

I guess I’m not really happy. But I’m not sad or angry or perplexed either. I’m just here. Going along each day because that’s what you do. Excepting suicide, there is no alternative.

This brings me to a basic flaw I see with religion. Most people, it seems, would like to live forever…despite literature and film being filled with examples of why this is a bad idea. The idea of life everlasting, that is advertised by most religions, is appealing to nearly everyone. A good hook, I think.

But if you’re not interested in living forever, if the one you have now is more than sufficient, what appeal does religion offer? I can’t imagine going on and on and on. I can barely imagine getting through this life. Why would I want more? There’s only so much that we humans can experience, learn, understand, and retain. One normal lifespan seems adequate to me. Two lifespans is almost unthinkable. But forever?

I understand the idea of transcending the human experience and limitations through spiritual awakening. But honestly that seems more like a CYA gimmick to me. When you look at the fine print, there’s no way to validate or define that notion. It’s added on to assure people it’s a good thing.

SELLER: Buy my service and you’ll receive unlimited widgets.

BUYER: Why do I want unlimited widgets?
SELLER: Because you do. Everyone does. More is better.

BUYER: But I’m not sure I need unlimited widgets. I can barely use the ones I have now.
SELLER: With my service you’ll be a changed man…one who can appreciate unlimited widgets.

BUYER: So I have to agree to let you change me into someone who can appreciate unlimited widgets just so that you can sell me a service that provides unlimited widgets?
SELLER: … Heretic!

I have heard it said, more than once, that the reason so many people throughout history are religious is because it is a universal truth that most people eventually discover. I would counter by claiming that most people believe because religions are based on humanity’s weaknesses and desires. Most people experience the same hardships, so most people find religion comforting.

Person: Life sucks.

Church: We’ll make it better.
Person: My loved one died.

Church: We’ll let you see them again.
Person: I’m scared.

Church: There, there.
Person: Am I a good person?

Church: No, but you can be.
Person: Does anyone truly know me?

Church: We do.
Person: Does nobody see what I sacrifice for others?

Church: We do.
Person: How can you do all this?

Church: We can’t explain it. Just trust us.
Person: When will all of these things happen?

Church: After you’re dead.
Person: So you have nothing to offer me now while I’m living?

Church: Look at all the good we do for people in need.

Person: So does the Red Cross.
Church: … (insert random scriptural passage)

When you find a person who does not need the comforts of religion, who does not seek life everlasting, you will find someone who has an external eye on the subject. This person sees that religion is not a universal truth, not some ubiquitous echo of a divine creator, but a social institution created to fill the needs shared by humanity. That person is more often than not an atheist. This is what I am.

I’m not stating that religion doesn’t have it’s place in our world. Religions do a lot of good for a lot of people. But they also polarize our world and have grave consequences for how we interact with each other. I haven’t made up my mind on whether religion is net positive or negative.

Either way, I don’t believe in any religion’s underlying assumptions. I do believe that (1) most people need religion to make it through life, (2) they rationalize it however they can, and (3) it is futile to argue against someone’s beliefs.

So I respect it, I just don’t believe it.

Okay, this one’s a little mean.

I know I said that I would approach religious topics with respect, but this one is worded too perfectly to pass up. Someone posted this in a comment list and I find almost all of these points to be true. I get slammed all the time for being an atheist. So every once in a while, it’s nice to fire a shot back.

TOP 10 SIGNS YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN…

1. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
2. You feel insulted and de-humanized when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
3. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
4. Your face turns purple when you hear of the atrocities attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in Exodus and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in Joshua including women, children, and trees.
5. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who was killed, came back to life, and then ascended into the sky.
6. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes to discredit the scientifically established age of Earth (4.7 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is only a few generations old.
7. You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the exception of those who share your denomination’s beliefs, will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering, but you consider your religion to be the most tolerant and loving.
8. While modern chemistry, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in tongues may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.
9. You define a 0.01% success rate to be evidence that prayer works and believe that the remaining 99.99% of the time they go unanswered because it is the will of God.
10. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

I have re-written this post many times. This is a tricky topic to discuss because of people’s misunderstanding of these labels and the subtlety of their definitions. It is commonly held that there are three approaches to religion:

• Theism – the belief in a god(s)
• Atheism – the disbelief in a god(s)
• Agnosticism – the uncertainty of a god(s)

However, this is not the case. While theism and atheism are about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge, or more specifically, the lack of knowledge. Both theists and atheists can be agnostic.

The word ‘agnostic’ simply means that a person’s belief is not based on knowledge. It is possible that a person may not know something to be true, yet believe it just the same. Let me provide a completely fictitious example.

Suppose your dishonest wife dies in a bus crash and a friend tells you at the funeral that your wife had an affair with someone else on that bus. Although you may never know the truth, you would likely believe it to be the case. You knew her well and could easily imagine that she would have done that. This would be a case of agnostic belief. Her mother, on the other hand, who always thinks the best of her child, refuses to believe this story. This would be a case of agnostic disbelief.

Neither you nor her mother knows the truth, but you both have beliefs about it just the same. That is agnosticism.

Concerning religion, everyone is agnostic. There is no proof, one way or another, yet theists believe and atheists disbelieve. If proof existed, the discussions would end. Verification would eventually turn even the hardest skeptic.

And therein lies the dilemma. For theists, finding proof may be just around the corner. Proof of existence, proof of life, is possible if you believe God exists. You just have to look hard enough. This is the reason we continually see shows about people finding the nails that were used to crucify Jesus or secret societies that continue to look for the Holy Grail. If you believe, then proof is ever possible.

For atheists, however, there is no way to play that game. You cannot find proof of non-existence. Let me state that again, because it is the very crux of the argument for atheists — you cannot prove non-existence.

How do you prove something doesn’t exist? Do you find a footprint that isn’t there? Or a fossil from a creature that was never born? Perhaps a missing document that doesn’t contain a name? It’s a logical impossibility. It’s like the old joke, “Raise your hand if you’re not here.”

There’s no such thing as non-existent proof. As such, atheists cannot take up this debate. How do you argue a non-issue?

Keep in mind, though, that lack of non-evidence isn’t proof of existence. Just because atheists are not able to disprove God doesn’t mean that theists are correct. If that were the case, then everything imaginary would necessarily exist for the same reason, such as the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, chupacabras, jackalopes, etc. Just because I can’t prove leprechauns don’t exist doesn’t mean they do.

The burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who don’t. If you want to convince me that there is a god, then you need to provide evidence. So far, I haven’t seen any…and neither has any other atheist.

I watched a three-part series on CNN this past week called God’s Warriors. Each two-hour episode focused on one of the three main religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

What really stood out was the insight it offered it’s viewers into the mindset of the mainstream religions. Mainly, it focused on religious fanatics and their causes. Here they are in a nutshell:

• Jewish fanatics: promote Zionism
• Christian fanatics: take over the Western world to restore morality
• Muslim fanatics: take over the Western world to restore morality

It is interesting that the Christian and Muslim fanatics share the same goal, just with different methods. Both groups believe that the Western world, chiefly Americans, have lost their moral centers and spread licentious and sinful lifestyles to all parts of the world. I think it’s interesting that morality and religion always get paired up so tightly.

I want to point out that these are the goals of the fanatics, not the mainstream adherents. Most people in the world are content to affecting changes in their own personal lives.

I am an atheist. But that does not mean that I am not moral. One can acquire moral values from a variety of sources, the Bible being only one. Just because I do not have the weight of God and the churches against me, does not mean that I don’t place emphasis on my moral behavior. I do what I do for a number of reasons:

• My parents taught me to act this way
• School taught me to act this way
• The law states I should act this way
• Most importantly, I believe this is the right way to act

With all this in place, I don’t need the Bible to tell me what I already feel and know. Let’s go one step futher. Religious belief and church attendance have remained constant throughout history, yet morality and social customs have degenerated despite the religious constancy. How can you reconcile the two?

It’s my belief that people have to believe in morality to affect morality. But the church is a moral support system, not the ultimate source. Certainly people will say that Biblical morality predates civilian and criminal laws, as well as modern social conventions. I do not dispute this. But precedence does not establish cause.

I agree with most Biblical teachings. I support many church doctrines on lifestyle. But I do not believe that the churches created right and wrong. I do not think that a god established black and white divisions. I believe that morality is more fundamental, more biological than that.

Organisms instinctively know that communities survive better than individuals. Community requires compassion. Compassion instills in each organism the biological equivalent of the Golden Rule. Don’t kill each other, don’t steal from each other, don’t harm each other. Doing so weakens the community, which diminishes survival odds.

It’s that basic.

     “Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.” -Kevin Spacey as Prot, K-Pax (2001)

I saw a mini-series on TV the other day called ‘The Fallen’. It was a story about heaven and earth, angels and nephilim. The nephilim, religious lore tells us, are the offspring of angels and humans. The story went like this: when some of the malcontent angels in heaven rose up against the creator, there was a war the likes of which has never been seen on earth. Eventually the good angels, with help of the ‘powers’, cast the rebellious angels out of heaven and down into hell. After a time, Lucifer, leader of the fallen, was able to find a gateway out of hell, not back to heaven, but to earth. There they lived, and still live, among the humans. Over the years, some of the fallen angels have had children with the mortal women. The children are called nephilim and have some of the powers of angels, as well as an immortal soul, unlike pure angels.

A prophecy was told that one day a nephilim, called the ‘redeemer’, would be born who would have the power to forgive the sins of the fallen angels and send them back to heaven. This was an abomination in the eyes of the creator, or so we’re told, and thus the powers were sent to destroy all nephilim. The redeemer, therefore, had to travel the world, forgiving all the fallen before the powers could track down and kill him. The story begins there.

It was fairly well done and the plot kept you interested the whole time. When the movie was finally over, my brother and I tried to figure out how this fit in with the Bible. And there we were stumped. Because what we temporarily forgot is that almost all of this is made up. It doesn’t fit with Christian doctrine.

Now I do not pretend to be an expert on the Bible, but one feature that seems to contradict the very nature of the show is that angels are not interacting with and altering the lives of humans, en masse. I believe that in the Bible angels are mentioned only a few times and rarely make appearances to us mortals. So the story, while it is just a story, is fabricated from the get go.

It’s not unlike the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, or even much further back, Paradise Lost by John Milton. These are stories that, right from the start, come across so authoritatively, so convincingly filled with back story, that the watcher/reader mistakes the story details for real-life facts. I think most people do not actually know which is supposed to be a story and which is supposed to be real.

An example: where does the following quote come from? “Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.”

While many people might mistake this for a Biblical passage, it has literary origins, and can be found in such works as Milton’s Paradise Lost, C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and in the poetry of John Davidson.

This is not the only case of misplaced references. “God helps those who help themselves,” is not a phrase from the Bible, but from Aesop’s Fables, and runs counter to the New Testament teachings. “Money is the root of all evil,” is not the whole phrase. “For the love of money is the root of all evil,” is what was said and that definitely changes the meaning. “Early to bed, early to rise…” Nope. Benjamin Franklin, there.

I guess my point here is that the religious world and the literary world often blend in our minds, resulting in a religion that is based as much on literary invention as divine inspiration.

I think what bothers me most about religions is that although they are mostly historical texts that document the life and times of real people, they are also fantastic tales full of magic and miracles that have no supporting evidence…and no one seems to give it any thought. Yet scientific concepts like evolution and a round Earth, which are supported by mounds of real-life data and experience, often come into question. How does that make sense?

Harry Potter is a fictitious story. I have never heard anyone ever claim otherwise. Yet many profound passages in the Bible have as little validity as the Potter books. Since there is no external data to back up the well-known religious anecdotes, arguing for their credibility falls under the guise of what philosophers call ‘circular logic.’ It goes like this:

• Everything in the Bible is true.
• How do you know?
• Beacuse God said so.
• Who is God?
• A character in the book.

It’s the equivalent of saying that the Harry Potter books are real-life stories because Harry Potter told me they were true. To believe this is an existential fallacy. There are levels of reality that cannot be breached. Writers often take literary license to traverse these layers in attempts to make their stories seem more real. A good example is ‘The Never-Ending Story’ by Michael Ende. But this is nothing more than fanciful imagination. Nothing real exists at that level.

I believe what people are doing is substituting the unknown reasons for mystical, emotional, or otherwise salient experiences in their life for religion. People see a newborn baby for the first time and are overcome with emotion. That’s human nature. It’s a reaffirmation of life, a subconscious assurance of the continuation of the community, species, genes, family line, and so on. It’s not God, even though people have a tendency to say, “How can you not see God in the face a newborn baby?”

Sure you feel that when it’s your baby, because your emotions are running high. But do you feel the same way when it’s less personal, say if it’s your sister’s baby, or your second cousin’s baby, or a co-worker’s baby, or a total stranger’s baby? No. Because you have less interest and attachment as you’re further removed from kinship. My point is that the sense of God is nothing more than a desire to express indescribable feelings or situations.