If Christians could be trained to to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change. Christians would be seen as thoughtful people to be taken seriously rather than as emotional fanatics or buffoons. The gospel would be a real alternative for people to embrace.

What a beautiful quotation. I have two immediate reactions:

1. Yes, yes, exactly! If Christians could provide solid evidence for what they believe, I would start to take them seriously instead of seeing them as “emotional fanatics or buffoons” — at least when they’re in their religious mindset, not compartmentalizing it. In the absence of that evidence (i.e., in the present world in which we live), the gospel is not a viable “alternative” to reality.
2. Hmm… it’s interesting that (even WLC acknowledges!) there are all these Christians who don’t have evidence for what they believe, and can’t answer others’ questions or objections. Why, one might ask, do they believe it in the first place? It seriously breaks my brain trying to understand how people can believe things without having reason to think they are actually true.

For those of you who used to ritually feast on the flesh of your god take communion, I suppose this might have an added flavor of familiarity….

A better strategy would be: list the facets of our world that are better explained by the truth of your religion than by the truth of any other religion or by a wholly non-supernatural universe. Bonus points for focusing on things that your religion specifically claims should happen. Here are some suggestions:

• Performing our specific rituals before/during a major life event secures the blessing of our god/s and prevents things from going wrong. (e.g. people who are married in our churches never get divorced; the babies we circumcise all live long, happy, and healthy lives; cars that we bless at our temple never get in accidents; etc.)
• Our houses of worship and sacred sites have never been damaged by natural disasters or other destructive weather phenomena.
• Members of our religion always (or, significantly more often) remain unharmed in natural disasters, or man-made ones such as wars and other violent acts.
• Members of our religion are observed to be nicer and kinder, and possess more moral integrity, than members of other religions or non-religious people. (e.g. members of our religion never commit crimes / commit crimes at far lower rates than would be expected from our proportion of the population; no member of our religion has ever resigned in scandal from a public office or other visible position of authority; etc.)
• Members of our religion who pray to our specific god/s always get what they ask for in prayer, even when it seems physically impossible. People who pray to other gods, or who don’t pray, only get the things they’re able to do for themselves anyway.
• Members of our religion never fall ill; -or- members of our religion who fall ill always recover when they pray for recovery; -or- members of our religion who fall ill and pray for recovery do get better at rates that are significantly higher than members of other religions who pray to their gods and non-religious people who do not pray. (If this latter case, I will ask you why not one of the earlier two, but it’d at least be a start.)
• Members of our religion are significantly wealthier than members of other religions and non-religious people.
• Those in our religion who claim to speak directly to our god are able to make predictions about the future that always come true. Meanwhile, prognosticators of other religions make many false predictions.

These are just a few of my ideas. I look forward to seeing what people come up with to add in the comments. And of course, I’d love to hear from any religious people who think that their religion could put forward one or more of these claims … but I won’t be holding my breath.

The question, “Did Jesus really exist?” makes it sound like there are only two answers, yes and no. In reality, I think there are three possibilities:

1. Jesus was a real historical figure whose life went exactly as described in the New Testament;
2. Jesus is a fairy tale character who is completely fictional with no basis in reality; or
3. The story of Jesus is “based on a true story” in the Hollywood sense — there was really a person with a similar name, who did a bit of similar stuff, but many of the details are exaggerations or even complete fabrications.

(Well, there’s sort of a continuum between the extremes of #1 and 2, with #3 representing varying amounts of Biblical details being accurate, but let’s call it three options just for simplicity.)

Now, I’d argue right off the bat that #1 is impossible — the New Testament books don’t even agree with each other about the events of Jesus’ life. The closest we could get to a “yes” answer is #3. And as an atheist, you might well say, “Yes, I think there’s sufficient evidence that Jesus really existed,” and mean that the Bible was “based on a true story.” Perhaps there was a young man in Galilee about 2000 years ago who claimed to be the messiah, preached about the end times, and had a small cult following. In fact, we know that there were a bunch of people claiming to be the Jewish messiah and drumming up followers around that time — and before, and since. He almost certainly didn’t walk on water, heal lepers with his touch, or rise from the dead, but that doesn’t prevent there from being (again, in this Hollywood sense) a “real Jesus” at the root of the stories.

But it’s difficult to explain all of this in casual conversation. Usually, we feel forced to choose between a “yes,” which might be technically correct but which appears to grant the Christian a lot more ground than we intend to, or a “no,” which might be overreaching — and at the very least opens us up to some annoying conversations about random archaeological finds that happened to have the name “Yeshua” inscribed somewhere. Answer #3 is an atheist’s “yes, there probably was a historical Jesus” and at the same time it’s a Christian’s “no, Jesus is a myth.” Plus, there’s the ever-popular bait-and-switch tactic of evangelists on the street, or online — they’ll get you to admit that there were apocalyptic preachers in the right region in the right time, and then they’ll act like you agreed that every line of the Bible is supported by mountains of evidence.

Like so many issues in atheist/theist dialogue, I think this is one that can be addressed by simply asking, “What do you mean?” The way I like to think about it is: if we were to go back in time together and look for “the real, historical Jesus,” what would we have to observe to know that we’d found him? Tell me exactly which Jesus you think is the real one. Only then can I tell you if I believe he was real, too.

As a child, and pretty much up through high school, I was in what I’ll call my “let’s all get along” phase. I thought of religions as traditions that different people followed, and although I didn’t personally find any value in following any of them, I was really bothered by the idea that some people were willing to kill other people simply because their traditions were the “wrong” ones. If you asked me about a particular religion, I’d probably tell you I thought their beliefs were false and rather silly, but some part of me found a kind of poetic beauty in religious practice anyway. I almost wished I was Jewish (I really liked the story about Abraham arguing with God as well as the melodies of Hebrew prayers). Others’ questions about my religious beliefs were usually met first with an explanation of Unitarian Universalism, followed by an admission that I didn’t believe in any gods myself but didn’t begrudge others the opportunity to do so if that was their preference. My primary concern was religious freedom — both in the sense of freedom from religion for myself and other nonbelievers, and in the sense of free exercise of all religious faiths.

I don’t remember exactly when or how the transition happened, but definitely by the time I got to college I was pretty angry about religion. We’ll say this is the “anti-apologist” phase. Somehow, it finally occurred to me that there were people out there who genuinely, truly believed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, that Noah really put two of every animal on his ark and the entire planet was flooded, that women should not be allowed to go to school or even drive a car, that members of slightly more lax sects of their own religions should be spat upon and attacked in the streets. There were people who wanted to make sure that children were not taught about evolutionary biology, despite the mountains of evidence for it, and instead demanded that their Bronze Age superstitions be presented as literal fact. A religion wasn’t just a bunch of pretty traditions anymore; it was actually a set of factual claims that ought to be treated as such. Yes, there were (and are) more liberal religious people, but in this phase they frustrated me more than they reassured me. They were playing along with the whole sham, believing the parts that seemed nice while ignoring the other parts, with no more actual evidence to support the nice bits than the discarded ones … all the while propping up the numbers of their religion, helping the zealots’ case appear stronger. I would go out of my way to ask religious people why they believed what they believed, and I was happy to invest a lot of time and energy debating them on those reasons (provided they could come up with any). My primary concern was helping religious people see that they were mistaken in their beliefs, so they would stop doing all the terrible and stupid things they do in the name of those same beliefs.

The third phase of my atheism comes with being bored and dissatisfied with these debates. It can be incredibly draining arguing with someone who will never, under any circumstances, change their mind or even admit you’ve made a decent point. Even the religious people who are nominally interested in having “challenging” conversations are so entrenched in their mythologies, so insulated by centuries’ worth of carefully crafted excuses, that it’s difficult to get anywhere with them. And it certainly looks more and more appealing to set all that aside, surround myself with atheists and apatheists, and focus on what we as pragmatic, critical thinkers can accomplish together. I’d characterize this by a sort of “what now?” attitude. Now, I don’t think I’m entirely within this mindset (yet?), but rather oscillating between this and the previous one, spending slightly longer here with each swing. It’s this paradigm, though, that leads me to identify with Atheism+. I don’t spend nearly as much time arguing with campus evangelists as I used to; instead, I speak frankly about how religion is irrational (when it comes up in conversation) and I channel that extra energy toward scientific progress (i.e., my degree) and a variety of other efforts to make the world a better place.

That’s a whole lot more navel-gazing than I usually engage in here, but I also have a larger point: there are a lot of different ways to be an atheist. I’ve only named three here, but I’m sure that’s not exhaustive. (Tell me what you’d add, in the comments!) Even when I look back on perspectives I’ve had in the past that I don’t currently identify with, I don’t feel like I was wrong then. It’s just that I had slightly different priorities. And it’s fine for one person at different times, or different people at the same time, to have different priorities. That’s how we, the atheist community, can pursue a wide variety of goals at once. We can work for religious freedom and tolerance, teach critical thinking and debunk superstition, and apply our rationality to other societal issues — all at once!

I wish atheists in one phase would more consistently acknowledge the value of people in other phases. Do your interfaith work, but don’t boost your credibility with your religious friends by distancing yourself from “those angry New Atheists.” Debate religious apologists, but don’t try to silence those atheists who want to talk about something else for a while. Work for broader social justice, but don’t belittle others who are focused on getting society to recognize “just dictionary atheism.” All of these things are worthwhile.

Here’s what’s been really bugging me lately about this story: Pontius Pilate, Judas, the Jewish high priests … all the people who (according to the Bible stories) played a role in Jesus’ crucifixion, they’re all depicted as bad guys. Good Christian children are not supposed to look to Judas as a role model. He is a betrayer, a traitor to Jesus. We’re supposed to be saddened and outraged in when we read about Jesus’ pain and suffering as he died on the cross, crying out in anguish. What a terrible thing to do to the son of God, to the King of Kings, we are supposed to think.

But … if we are to trust the teachings of Christianity … wasn’t the whole point of Jesus coming to Earth so that he could sacrifice himself and atone for our sins? Wouldn’t it have been, like, extremely shitty for humanity — within the framework of the Christian worldview, of course — if we hadn’t crucified Jesus? There’d be basically no way to get to heaven! We’d all be doomed to infinite torment in hell!

So, I don’t get it. Why don’t Christian pastors routinely celebrate and thank Judas in their sermons? Why isn’t there a holiday commemorating the Sanhedrin for the role they played in securing salvation for humanity? Why, instead, have Christians throughout history slandered Jews by calling them “Christ-killers”? For that matter, why is it even a bad thing to be an essential part of what is supposed to be the greatest gift given to humankind since the Garden of Eden?

Terribly inconsistent, isn’t it? I mean, it’s almost like this whole story is a myth cobbled together after the fact by people scrambling to explain why their megalomaniac cult leader got himself killed…

From Religion Facts:

Tara (Sanskrit, “star”) is a Buddhist savior-goddess especially popular in Tibet, Nepal and Mongolia. In Tibet, where Tara is the most important deity, her name is Sgrol-ma, meaning “she who saves.” The mantra of Tara (om tare tuttare ture svaha) is the second most common mantra heard in Tibet, after the mantra of Chenrezi (om mani padme hum).

The goddess of universal compassion, Tara represents virtuous and enlightened action. It is said that her compassion for living beings is stronger than a mother’s love for her children. She also brings about longevity, protects earthly travel, and guards her followers on their spiritual journey to enlightenment.

And from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Tara, Tibetan Sgrol-ma,  Buddhist saviour-goddess with numerous forms, widely popular in Nepal, Tibet, and Mongolia. She is the feminine counterpart of the bodhisattva (“Buddha-to-be”) Avalokiteshvara [link inserted by NFQ]. According to popular belief, she came into existence from a tear of Avalokiteshvara, which fell to the ground and formed a lake. Out of its waters rose up a lotus, which, on opening, revealed the goddess. Like Avalokiteshvara, she is a compassionate, succouring deity who helps men “cross to the other shore.”

As someone pretty well immersed in a Christian culture, I found it particularly interesting to see another deity besides Jesus referred to as a “savior.” Note that it’s not necessary for Tara to be saving people from some sort of infinite torturous afterlife; she’s just (supposedly) protecting people in the usual sense during their lives on earth, and guiding them towards a good afterlife of enlightenment. I actually think this makes more sense for a savior, since it’s pretty twisted to be “saving” someone from a punishment you/one of your incarnations made up.

Tara is also referred to as the “Mother of Mercy and Compassion.” Sound familiar? (And yes, I think any sensible definition of what it means to be a god should include Mary and the saints within Catholic teaching, although I don’t expect them to admit it any time soon because it would compromise their precious “monotheism.”) She’s clearly a major player in the Buddhist pantheon. I’ll feature other gods and goddesses in the future that aren’t the most important in any particular tradition or country (or “autonomous region“), but Tara alone certainly provides a clear counterexample to the assertion that Buddhism is atheistic.

Suppose for a moment that you knew nothing about the universe as it exists. All you know, we’ll assume, is that a god (the one you believe in, or if you don’t, pick one for an example) exists. What do you expect the universe to look like? Why do you expect that? Let’s further assume that Earth exists, and that humans live on it. What do you expect life to be like for humans, in this universe where your god exists?

Now repeat the process, but this time suppose that no gods exist. What would the universe look like then, and why? If there is an Earth and human civilizations on it, what do you predict the human experience to be like?

Of course, whatever side you’re on, that’s the one you’ll likely describe as looking just like the world we live in — no matter how much I try to caveat in a totally blank slate. But I do wonder what religious people think the world would look like without their god/s, especially since so much is well-explained as it is by science alone. And I think religious folks could benefit from hearing what atheists would expect the world to be like with their god existing, because our expectations are generally based on the implications of widely-held beliefs or even specific claims made in scripture. If their god’s existence doesn’t imply those things after all, then … what exactly are we talking about in the first place?

What’dya think? Good advice?

For my atheist readers who have been hiding under a rock, or for my religious readers who have no clue what I am talking about: Atheism+ (pronounce it “atheism plus”) is about being an atheist in the sense of not believing in any gods as well as also promoting and working towards a variety of “making the world a better place” type goals. We are atheists because we value evidence-based, critical thinking as the most effective way to reach correct answers, and we’ve also applied our critical thinking skills to society and culture. We want an end to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination. As atheists we believe this life is all we get, so we support and actively work for social justice so that this life is as good as possible for as many people living it as possible.

One important thing to remember is, we didn’t adopt these values because someone told us to just now. We’ve been atheists and we’ve cared about these sorts of things all along, and “atheist+” is just an adjective we’ve started using for ourselves in order to label ourselves more clearly. It gets tiring after a while, being asked, “But what do you believe in?” as though being an atheist somehow means holding no beliefs about anything at all. It’s also frustrating when we use our blogs or other media to talk about fighting discrimination, helping the needy, or other social justice goals, only to be told, “You’re supposed to be talking about atheism! This isn’t atheism!” Identifying with Atheism+ is a way to announce to the world, relatively quickly and succinctly, “I am an atheist, but (and!) I care about some other things too, and I’ll talk about those things from time to time.”

Are we redefining atheism? No, we are not. If we were trying to do that, we wouldn’t be using a new name to describe ourselves; we would be saying, “This list of causes is what atheism is all about.” Instead, we are specifically pointing out that in addition to being atheists, there are some other things we care about. Those things happen to dovetail nicely with our atheistic perspective, at least given the way we’ve arrived at it.

Is this a perfect name? Eh, probably not. It’s a little gimmicky and awkward, and the social justice aspect isn’t immediately obvious to people who are hearing it for the first time. (Atheism, plus what, exactly?) The fact is, it wasn’t subjected to a focus group. Someone suggested it in a comment thread, and it just sort of took off from there. But now that it has taken off, and that there’s a forum and a subreddit using the term, we’re sort of stuck with it. That’s how language works; you could raise a similar objection to the word “skeptic,” but as a community we’ve just moved on. Words are symbols we use to communicate concepts, and “Atheism+” is now a symbol that’s effective at referring to the sub-demographic of atheists we’re talking about here.

Are we saying you’re a bad person if you’re not “one of us”? No. At least, I’m certainly not. (Since we aren’t a monolithic entity, just like “regular” atheism isn’t, we’ll disagree with each other on some things.) The way I think of it, there are a variety of good causes out there, and each of us only has so much time, energy, and mental fortitude to devote to such things. We also have to work, eat, sleep, and occasionally even have fun with friends — we can’t all be fighting for every cause out there, 24/7. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of goals that I’m fine with in the abstract, but with which I don’t personally identify because they just aren’t high enough on my personal priority list. There are groups I don’t join because I have some quibbles with how that group goes about its activities, even though I’m on board with their mission in principle. I don’t think that makes me a bad person.

At the same time, I have to point out the difference between “refraining from identifying with a cause” and “actively working against a cause.” If you would rather spend your time on something else, go right ahead. But if you want to argue that inequalities within society do not exist, or that discrimination is a-okay, we have a serious problem. I find it almost unimaginably bizarre that there are people out there who are angry at us for trying to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. If it’s really necessary, I can present you with the many reasons why I think it’s bad to treat people differently simply because they have different skin pigmentation and/or different ethnic background, or because they have different genitalia and/or a different gender identity, or whatever other demographic attributes you’d like to talk about. But I hope it doesn’t come to that. And yes, if you want to ignore all the evidence and insist that you be left alone to treat women as inferior to men (etc.),  I am pretty comfortable calling you an asshole.

I’ve noticed that the people who identify as “against” Atheism+ fall into these two main camps. On the one hand, we have the well-intentioned, generally reasonable people who aren’t fond of the name, or think it’s sort of unclear what exactly we’re about, or worry that our goals are overshadowed by some of the drama and baggage that’s come along with the group’s origins. These are the “refraining from identifying” folks. And to you I say: fine, to each hir own. But I really wish you wouldn’t waste your effort being “against” us any longer. You’ve made your points, but we’re not going to change the name, and we’re not going to disown some of the people who’ve really inspired us. We totally get that you think Atheism+ is suboptimal as it stands, but if you don’t think our efforts are seriously detrimental to society at large, please just let us be. (Actually, this is sort of where I’m at with the Foundation Beyond Belief now. I really do get what it’s like to feel this way.)

On the other hand, though, we have the actual racists, sexists, and other bigots who don’t like having their privilege challenged. These are the people who in one sentence claim no problem exists, and in the next sentence offer apologetics for bigotry, or even threaten to assault a woman who’s spoken up about experiencing discrimination. Or maybe they’re even aware that they’re being bigoted, but they’re proud of it. Frankly, I’m kind of glad that Atheism+ has brought these people out into the open, because now it’s completely undeniable: they really do exist. This is what we’re working against.

All right. I hope this post was clear. I feel like the entire conversation surrounding Atheism+ is saturated with misunderstandings, overreactions, and anger … and I don’t want to exacerbate that. I just wanted to put my two cents out there, to be up front about where I stand in all this chaos. I welcome discussion, from whatever perspective, as long as everyone keeps it civil.