Females, Womyn, Dicks, and SERAM

There is a lot of buzz going around in atheist cyberspace right now regarding the South East Regional Atheist Meet (SERAM) and sexism. There was an incident during one of the panel discussions, and attendee Sharon Moss wrote this guest post about it on the Blag Hag. I was also an attendee, and I was present during the incident. I'd like to blog a response to Sharon's post from my point of view (I'm not going to rehash the story here, but rather quote snippets from the aforementioned post; it is not my intention to take anything out of context. Please use the link above and read the entire post, and if you find that I have misrepresented anything, please feel free to mention it in the comments). The subject was women feeling uncomfortable in atheist groups because men incessantly hit on them.

First, the panelists grabbed a theme that had been floating around all weekend: that men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable), making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.

I did not get the impression that the panel had come to this conclusion at all. In fact, one of my favorite quotes came from a young man on the panel who said that men in atheist groups should take Phil Plait's advice and "just don't be a dick." There were other good points that were mentioned aside from male biology, such as the fact that if you meet someone of the opposite sex at an atheist/freethinkers meeting, you know right off the bat that you share one very important point of view (one that is statistically difficult to randomly run into in gen pop). That makes the prospect of finding a date at a meeting enticing. It was also generally agreed upon that men need to dial it back considerably, and stop being so damned creepy. I was enjoying the discussion, and I thought it was on its way to being very productive. Until...

So I wasn’t surprised when the young woman who finally stood up and started challenging the panel snapped.

Okay, now I wouldn't say she snapped. She was frustrated because she felt like her raised hand was being ignored (she was way in the back, but really the panel wasn't paying much attention to the audience in general), but I'd say that claiming that she "snapped" is a little insulting to the woman in question.

Her question focused on the language the panel had been using - “female” instead of “woman,” and pointed out that it made us sound like livestock rather than people.

Okay. Here is where I think I'm going to really piss people off, because I'm going to be honest about what I think of this. First of all, I want to say that I don't feel like the woman should be criticized or shamed for having an emotional response and speaking up. She had every right to raise her hand and let her feelings be known.

But.

The woman's question had nothing to do with the issue being discussed. I honestly was stunned that she even said it, considering that the actual subject of women feeling uncomfortable because of unwanted advances from men in atheist groups is a very real issue that needed to be discussed. Why bring up semantics?

Okay, she was offended. I get that. I'm not angry about that, nor do I think badly of her for being offended. But that does not mean that I have to agree with her, or even respect her reasons for being upset. I should not be expected to automatically respect her views just because she was offended any more than I should be expected to respect a creationist's views because they are offended by evolution in science class.

But did the panel address the question, perhaps looking for the point at which the discussion took on the word “female” so universally? Did they take the opportunity to discuss how things like language can make a group uncomfortable for women, and what we could do to make it better? No!

This is correct; the panel did not dwell on the question. This woman's question was a frivolous semantics issue, and the consensus among the audience was that no one else had an issue with it. It did not need to be given any more time than it was given.

The woman asking the question was viciously torn apart and ridiculed for even bringing it up.

No. No, she wasn't.

First, a combination of panelists and audience members tried to defend themselves by saying that feminists won’t let men use the word “women” off-limits because it has “men” in it. Then a commotion of everyone talking at once, which was cut off by one panelist’s definitive comment: “What do you want us to say, ‘the weaker sex?”

The reality of what happened here was that there was a discussion (yes, the whole "women/womyn" thing was brought up), it became an unorganized murmur among the group, and a guy on the panel made a joke. The words I remember him saying were "Okay, from here on out we'll just say 'the weaker sex.'" It was a joke to point out the fact that people don't refer to us like that anymore, and we needed to move on. I think that moving on with humor was a good tactic; having a sense of humor about potentially caustic subjects helps diffuse the tension. When you can laugh at something, it renders it benign.

She got upset (and who wouldn’t be?)

Me. I wouldn't.

I - a member of the audience, not one of the event organizers - went after her.

This is the only comment in the post that makes me genuinely angry, because it is a lie. Christie Swords, an event organizer, got up and immediately followed the woman to the bathroom to talk to her and see if she was okay. She stayed there with her until the end of the panel discussion. In fact, I had to go in to let her know that she was due to be on stage for her own panel so she would not be late.

...the moderator sort of awkwardly pushed the discussion on to a new topic, with an embarrassed air of “Sorry for the disturbance.”

As he should have. This was not something that needed to derail the conference. The moderator pulled the panel back on topic; that is what moderators are supposed to do.

This is where I stop my commentary because the remainder of Sharon's post is regarding Sean Faircloth's speech on Saturday, and I was not present for that.

There are many people, men and women alike, who were present at the conference and, like me, feel that Sharon's post misrepresents the events and attitude at SERAM. It worries me that the uproar regarding our opinions seems to always come back to the fact that we "didn't respect the offended woman." As a freethinker, I'm quite offended that fellow freethinkers expect me to mindlessly respect someone's actions and emotions when they are directly inverse to my observations and experience.

I want to end this with the statement that I like Jen (the Blag Hag); I don't always agree with her, and that's okay. I like the fact that as skeptics and freethinkers, we are individuals. I won't stop reading her very well written blog just because her stance on feminism is different from mine. The fact that there are differences makes me think, and examine my own opinions and ideas, and that is what I seek. Just because I express a dissenting opinion does not mean that I have lost any respect for her; on the contrary, intellectual debate and discussion helps us grow and learn. That's a positive thing, y'all.

Update: After some conversation with others who were also in attendence and have recently viewed the video from the panel, I feel that I should add that the moderator actually did address the issue, and asked the audience if they felt the use of the term "female" was offensive. Only two women raised their hand. Then he asked the audience if they didn't find it offensive and everyone laughed and agreed that it was not an issue. The woman then asked the moderator whether he was offended when called a "male," to which he replied, "No, because I am a male." That is when the "weaker sex" joke was made and the woman left the room, upset. These things are all clear on the video and audio, which will be released soon.

Update to the update: See new post. My update has some misinformation. Le sigh.

The Error of My Ways

Today I had a conversation with someone who convinced me that I have been wrong. So very, very wrong.

I have re-accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, and from here on out this will be a testament to my thankfulness for His grace and that he could forgive a sinner like me, who so callously turned her back on Him.

I am so ashamed of my falling away. I just pray that my brothers and sisters in Christ will understand and someday forgive me as He has.















































APRIL FOOLS!!!!!!!

Vive la Clichés

There are several cliché questions about atheists, some serious and some not so serious. I have to admit, I have contemplated all of these with some degree of sincerity.

1. What do atheists say when someone sneezes?
   
   This one is a real dilemma for me; the standard response is that we should say "gesundheit" (German for "high health" or "good health"); but have you ever heard a girl with a southern drawl say "gesundheit?" It's quite comical. And by comical I mean horrible and really, really embarrassing. So what do I say? Honestly, it seems really stupid to me that we are expected to respond at all when someone sneezes. I mean, it's no big deal; we don't say anything when someone blows their nose. Lately I've been just staying quiet. It makes people think I'm being an ass, but really, when they say "bless you," do they really think they are preventing a demon from entering the sneezer's body? If so, who is the ass, really?
   
   I've recently decided that whenever someone sneezes, I'm going to start saying, "May the force be with you."
   


2. When atheists are thankful for their good fortune, to whom or what are they thankful?
   
   This is actually a question I've seriously asked myself. I have a lot to be thankful for. I was raised in a comfortable, loving home. I have a family who loves me and each other very much. I have a fantastic, healthy, brilliant, funny, beautiful kid who completes my life. I am healthy. I am intelligent enough to earn a good living. I live in a country where there is plenty of food and clean water. I have many more things to be thankful for; too many to list here. I am thankful every day. But to whom? To what? Honestly, I don't know. I'm just thankful. I'm just thankful in general that my life is so nice. No comedy here; no real answer, either, I suppose.
   
   
3. Where do you get your morals, if not from God?
   
   My vagina.
   
   Seriously, though. Let's list a few people who get/got their morals from their god. Fred Phelps. Osama bin Laden. Tomás de Torquemada. Now let's list a few people who get/got their morals from common sense and reason. Bill Gates. Albert Einstein. Andrew Carnegie.
   
   I know who I'd rather have dinner with.
   
   Now before any christian lurkers jump on me for saying that all religious people are homophobic, hateful, genocidal assholes, let me clarify; I'm not saying that everyone who learns their morals from religion is bad. There are obviously some very good teachings in many religions. What I'm saying is that it is not abnormal for someone who is not religious to be a good, giving, moral person. We get our morals from who we are; from evolutionary brain development; from socialization; from just knowing that it is unpleasant to be hurt, and making a conscious decision to not hurt others.
   
   
4. Why do atheists get married?
   
   Fuck if I know. This one sure as hell is never going to again.
   
   
5. What do atheists call Christmas?
   
   I call it Christmas.
   

Is God Dead?

A question that theists often ask atheists is, "If God does not exist, then why do so many people believe in him? Do you really think that almost everyone else in the whole history of the world is stupid?"

I do not believe that people who historically believed or currently believe in a god or gods are stupid. I believe they are acting on an evolved, basic human need.

I also believe that the basis for this need is diminishing rapidly, and that eventually (though probably not in my lifetime) we will further evolve to lack this need.

The number of people who identify as non-religious, atheist, agnostic, etc., is growing rapidly. This begs the question:

Is God dead? Or dying?

More specifically, has the anthropomorphic theistic god morphed over time into the more ideological pantheistic god, and possibly on to the mostly benign deistic god?

Philosophically speaking, I do believe that this is what is happening.

While I don't believe that the theistic god(s) ever literally existed, I do see where the world once had a need for it/them.

In early human history, there was the perception that everything that was not caused directly by humans was magic. Lightning? Magic. Earthquake? Magic. Solar eclipse? HOLYSHITMAGIC! When people have very little to no understanding of the natural world, they construct their own explanations. Humans have a need to understand why things happen, and history has shown that we will satisfy that need; when presented with a question for which a real answer is not readily available, we will substitute our own artificial reality: the God of the Gaps.

As we have evolved and developed, humans have sought knowledge; we have hypothesized and tested and learned. The god of the gaps has become the answer to fewer and fewer questions.

How do plants grow?
Old answer: God
Current answer: Carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source; otherwise known as photosynthesis.

What makes a rainbow?
Old answer: God
Current answer: The refractive dispersion of sunlight in drops of rain or mist.

What created the Universe?
Old answer: God
Current answer: The Big Bang. Probably. Actually, we're still working on that one.

My point is, the trend is that eventually, science tends to answer the questions. Will we ever have a solid answer for where the Universe came from? Maybe. Will we ever know for sure what happens when we die? Maybe. There's no way of knowing right now what we will and will not discover; but that does not mean that the answer is God.

There are still many today, the majority, in fact, who cling to the idea of the father god, the creator, as the answer to the questions that remain a mystery; but the fact is that with technological advances and easy access to instant worldwide communication, the gaps are closing faster than ever. Someday there will be no need for a supernatural explanation for anything at all. Eventually, people will have no choice but to concede that their religion is no more than superstition, and it has been replaced with knowledge and reality. This is, essentially, the death of God.

Update: This post is essentially a repost of a response I wrote to a forum post by khalis at Nashville Gothic. I initially did not reference the post for the sake of anonymity, since I had not previously mentioned that I am in the Nashville area. But fuck it. If you're here in the first place, you're at least thinking about atheism, right?

And I couldn't possibly come up with musings on Nietzsche's idea on my own.

Praising the Virtues of Ignorance

I decided to go to cbn.com, Pat Robertson's website, and look for the craziest thing I could find on there to ridicule mercilessly. Upon browsing the site, I saw more crazy than I could have ever imagined.

But you know what? It didn't immediately make me feel like mocking them. It actually made me feel sorry for the people who go to that site in earnest, seeking truth. There are so many people who have been deceived so completely, brainwashed so thoroughly, that they will believe anything they read, as long as it comes from a "Man of God." These people go to CBN and make decisions based on what they read there about what charities to support, how to raise their kids, how to handle their money, and even what movies to go watch. It is very sad to know that people so freely hand their life decisions over to a money and power crazed charlatan.

That being said, I did find something to ridicule.

Jackie Overpeck, a CBN contributor, wrote an article entitled The Smudgy Sin of Disbelief. She seems to be a nice enough lady; she even seems very sincere in her desire that her writing will help people. She is, however, an ignorant follower of the religious dogma that she was no doubt taught from childhood. She freely admits that she believes that doubt, skepticism, and knowledge-seeking are by their very nature sinful, and implies that they should be avoided at all costs.

Jackie writes:

A person who doubts is a called a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who hesitates at
the truth, especially religious teachings, including the Bible. Skepticism
has the same effect in our hearts that blotchy makeup has on our eyes.

Au contraire, my dear.

How can one say in good conscience that a skeptic hesitates at the truth? A skeptic is one who seeks the truth, above all else. Religious teachings, especially the Bible, are not truth; they are questionable history at best; fable and myth, most likely; and outright manipulative lies at worst. A skeptic hesitates at the unproven. A skeptic seeks evidence, repeatable outcomes, logical connections. In other words, the truth.

Being a doubter fills the heart with darkness. Why? Doubt divides us from the
truth. The truth is that which is sincere. The truth isn’t always easy, but it
is authentic and real.

Doubt does not divide us from the truth. Doubt causes us to probe further into cause and effect; to seek out the concrete; to execute the scientific method. Doubt leads us to truth. It's true that the truth isn't always easy. But without doubt, we never know what is authentic and real.

The best thing you can do is tell God about it. Disbelief causes us to
stand far away, point and say, “I doubt that.” Instead, get certainty. Get out
your Bible and search the Scriptures. Find out for yourself what God says by
quieting your mind and allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to your heart.

Yeah. That's great advice. I could (and probably will) write and entire blog post about the absurd things one can find in the scriptures. Someone smarter than I said it before, but it's true that the fastest way to atheism is to read the Bible.

And sure. Quiet your mind. Let the Holy Spirit speak to your heart. My guess? It's going to tell you EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN WANTING VALIDATION FOR. The Holy Spirit is your own internal self-justification, numbnuts. You're just giving it an external validity.

Finally, she closes with:

I’m convinced that God has a Maybelline mascara remover bottle in heaven. How do I know? He has washed my darkened eyes from the smudgy sin of disbelief and
doubt many times.

Jesus. Why do christian writers always feel like they have to use a clever and witty analogy to begin and end their work? It's awesome when a writer is randomly inspired by a great analogy (a fantastic example is this entire post on skepticism by my friend Lord Runolfr). But the Maybelline mascara remover bottle in heaven? Really. That's lame. Dude.

I have learned to revel in the "smudgy sin of disbelief and doubt." I used to fear it, just as Ms. Jackie does. I used to sincerely believe that it was the work of the Devil. What opened my eyes? I'm not sure. I know that my realization of the futility of prayer was the first step; but it was a long, slow road to real reason.

I'm glad I travelled it.

Wow. Just Wow.

So, my good friend and fellow skeptic Lord Runolfr sent me this information in my comments via Fundies Say the Darndest Things:

We had been concerned about our much-loved dog being cared for when we
leave in the Rapture. Bailey was only seven and in good health when he just
upped and died on us the other morning. He died quickly and peacefully with the
family surrounding him, but when we started questioning why it happened (as we
all do, even though it all ends with "blessed be the name of the Lord"), we
remembered the rapture connection. Suddenly we felt like the rapture was going
to be very soon and God was sparing us the worry.

It just seems weird that we've been praying for Bailey to have a long
and healthy life and then he just drops dead!! Could be the devil just making us
miserable, but God could've spared him, so since we believe it's God's will that
he died, we don't want to get another dog. Hopefully and just maybe, we'll see
Bailey again someday!! But, hmmm, get ready everyone!!

Wow. Where do I start?

I'm going to focus mostly on the three big contradictions I see in this testimony.

Contradiction 1: Dog will be left behind in the rapture, but they expect to see him again someday.

So. Only the faithful followers of Jesus are going to be taken in the rapture. I get that; but I thought that the rapture-waiting fundamentalists believed that humans were the only creatures made in God's image, meaning we were the only ones who had a soul. How the hell do they expect to see their dead dog again? This truly baffles me. If they think he has a soul and is going to heaven, then why wouldn't he be taken in the rapture like all the other heaven-bound souls? And even if he doesn't qualify for rapture, why worry about his care? After he starves to death, his soul will be reunited with his loving human families, right? Or am I missing something?

I think this is a good example of how people just make shit up in their religion to make themselves feel better about a situation. The Catholics are real pros at this. They really like to mix shit up to increase their profit margins membership levels.

I'm probably missing something. I have heard so many different stories on what exactly the rapture is supposed to be, it's ridiculous. I know one group of people who think it's already happened. AUWTDA.

Contradiction 2: "...we've been praying for Bailey to have a long and healthy life and then he just drops dead!!" and "...when we started questioning why it happened (as we all do, even though it all ends with 'blessed be the name of the Lord')"

This goes back to my issue with prayer. These people were praying for their dog (who they claim was perfectly healthy, so why the daily prayers, anyway?), and when God does exactly the opposite of what they were praying for, they question for a moment, then jump straight to BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD!!1!1!! I have never understood this, not even when I was a christian. What good is prayer if you have to turn right around and kiss ass when it didn't do a fucksworth of good? Either God knows what is best for you and you need to just shut the fuck up, or your prayers are valid pleas that God takes into consideration and sometimes answers them, and sometimes takes them and tells you to shove them right up your ass. Seriously, people, you can't have it both ways.

Contradiction 3: "Could be the devil just making us miserable, but God could've spared him..."

I don't even know where to begin with this. It is so simple in its ludicrousness. Either the Devil has the power to make you miserable, or God has the power to stop him. If God "could've spared him," then it was not the Devil making you miserable, it was God. If this god is omnipotent, then he can STOP ANYTHING THAT IS NOT HIS WILL. That means the Devil can't do anything to make you miserable, honey. Unless he can. Which means God isn't all-powerful. Which means that your dog's death may not necessarily have been his plan. My head hurts.

Of course, if these people had only known about Eternal Earthbound Pets, they wouldn't have been worried about their dog's post-rapture status in the first place, and he'd still be alive. So basically they killed their dog with their ignorance. Way to go, dog killers.

My Beliefs Should Make You Happy!

So. My daughter, her best friend, and I were at a hibachi-type restaraunt recently. The man sitting directly across from us had on a motorcyclists-for-Jesus type tee shirt. Awesome.

The table was full. There was Jesus motorcycle guy, a family of a husband and wife and two little girls (toddlers), and the three in my party. Jesus motorcycle guy (let's call him JMG) asked whether everyone was local or from out of town. The other family was local; we were traveling.

I have a point. Be patient.

The next question JMG asked was where the family next to him went to church. Not whether they went to church; where they went to church. Of course, as the odds would have it, they belonged to a big local church and so that was cool with JMG. I started to sweat. "Oh, dear fuck. I hope he doesn't ask us about church" kept going through my head over and over and over. I am not one for public debate, but I'm also not a liar. So if he asked, I was screwed.

He didn't ask. What he did ask was where my "other half" is. He assumed, since I'm eating with two preteen girls, I must be married.

Well, I am married, but I'm in the process of a divorce. Kind of. It's complicated. But I had an out.

I told him that he was on his way to Iraq. Which is true. JMG immediately asked for his name and said that he would pray for him, and that he would put him on their church's prayer list.

*sigh*

Well, 1) I'm a wimp and I hate confrontation, and 2) my husband/soon ex husband is a christian, so I suppose he would be happy that he's on the prayer list of a group of total strangers. So I just say thank you.

Then, JMG starts talking about his motorcycle evangelist group and how they are mostly veterans. I just really want him to stop. Please, just stop.

I nod politely. I thank him for his service to our country. I don't mention that I don't believe in prayer, Jesus, or his (or any) god. My daughter and her friend are just as sweet as they can be, and don't say anything either (they are both nonbelievers as well).

So, as we left, we were all three just very happy to be out of there.

So. What if I had been the vocal one? What if I had openly discussed how proud I am to be an atheist, and how the atheists in the military suffer gross discrimination, and what a wonderful thing science is and how much it has improved our daily life, and how ignorant and damaging it is for people to deny science and try to defer its progress because of silly superstitions and ancient books filled with vile stories and gross inconsistencies? All of those things are true; all of those things are valid. Would I have been treated with as much respect?

I can tell you. NO. No, I would not. And that makes me angry. It does not make me angry enough (yet) to cause a scene during my vacation; but it does make me very, very angry.

I'm sure many of you have read Greta Christina's blog post on why atheists are angry, but I am just now starting to get it. Really get it.

Sad and New

Yesterday, I attended funeral home visitation for a friend who passed away on Saturday. It was my first loss of this nature since becoming an atheist. It was a very different experience for me, and besides being very painful and sad, it made me reflect on a few things.

First of all, it made me realize just how strongly I used to believe in God and the afterlife. Yesterday, that belief was noticeably absent, and its absence had a strong effect on my emotions. I realized that my friend was gone; not waiting for me in Heaven, not finally reunited with his father and his grandfather. Gone. It hurt a lot. I remembered what it was like to have that small solace in saying “He’s in a better place” or “We’ll see him again someday.” Although those things did not take away the pain of missing a departed loved one, they did offer some comfort, however fantastical.

It made me realize that I will always be, for the most part, silent about my atheism. The time I spent with his family and friends at the funeral home was a combination of sadness over missing him and happiness over remembering his life. We all reflected on what a wonderful man he was. We laughed about joys remembered, and we cried about the years ahead without him. I cried for his mother, his sister, his wife, his daughter, and his son, whom he left behind, and who loved him very, very much. Their pain just rips me up inside. There is no way I am going to tell them that I do not believe, as they do, that he is in Heaven. Just because I no longer believe it doesn’t mean I have to take that comfort from others. Some may disagree with me on this point; I assure you that I give less than a fuck whether you disagree. I don’t tell small children that there is no Santa Claus, either.

It also made me stop to think of how precious life is, and how very important it is to take care of ourselves while we have it. My friend who died was only 53 years old. Cancer is a beast that doesn’t give a shit whether you’ve had time to live a full life, or how much your wife loves you, or whether you get to see your grandbaby born in just a few months (Yeah. That completely breaks my heart. He was so close to seeing his beautiful daughter have her baby). Get your cancer screenings, folks. Take advantage of the wonderful thing we have called medical science, and catch it early. Early means before you feel sick. Check everything on schedule.

Finally, I realized that as an atheist, I feel much, much more connected to my fellow human beings. Many religious people would expect that to be just the opposite, I know, but I truly feel a love and a desire for the well-being of others that I never had before. Not this strongly, anyway. I suppose that could be a result of my new world view, or it could possibly be that I’m just getting sappier and soft as I get older. Either way, it’s nice.

Love on someone who is important to you today.

The Power of Prayer

I may be accused of baiting for Christian readers with that post title; but it is legitimately what this post is about.

Disclaimer to Christian readers: it is not my intent to offend you, but I have some very strong emotions and opinions regarding this subject. It makes me say fuck a lot. So if the word fuck bothers you, you may want to stop reading now. You've already seen it twice, and I assure you it will appear again. Several times. The word shit, too. (I told you to stop reading...)

My first husband was/is an atheist. He and I had many, many discussions and disagreements about the existence and sovereignty of God. His reason and logic were excellent, and a fair call of the debate would always judge him as the winner; but discussions with him never caused me to question the existence of God, or his absolute omniscience.

No. The first thing that ever caused me to question God was the true story of a little girl who had a terrible illness. I don't remember the details anymore. What I remember is that the little girl was in the hospital, and several doctors were working day and night to diagnose and try to find a cure for her before it was too late. The little girl's family issued a plea for everyone to pray for the child to be healed; for God's mercy and loving healing.

The doctors figured out what was wrong, administered the proper treatments, and the girl got better. Do you know where the family gave the credit for the healing? I'll bet you can guess.

They thanked all the people who prayed. Without those prayers, they were convinced that their daughter would have died.

What. The. Fuck.

So. You are telling me that God imposed a life threatening illness upon an innocent little girl, and would have let her die, except that lots of people begged him not to? And if enough people had not begged him to spare her, then too fucking bad! You guys are not groveling enough! The child dies!

Dude. Fuck that shit.

Honestly. Does that even make any sense, when you think about it? I remember always being told to pray for what I wanted/needed, but then add "but your will be done." I guess so God didn't think I was barking orders at him or something. I can understand that; I don't like people barking orders at me, either. But seriously, what good does it do to pray if you can't even say "I really want this; even if it wasn't what you originally intended?" What good is prayer at all, if this God of yours is going to do whateverthefuck he wanted to do in the first place? And how loving and gracious is this God if the single prayer of a frightened mother isn't enough to save her child? What kind of sadistic maniac requires a megachurchfull of people begging for the life of one little girl? WHAT KIND OF GOD KILLS LITTLE GIRLS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

FUCK.

I know what you are going to say. "We are God's children. Do you give your child everything she asks for?"

The first thing I will say to you is don't end a sentence with a preposition.

The next thing I will say to you is no, of course I don't. Sometimes I can't (an excuse God can't use, right?), and sometimes she wants something that is not good for her. Either way, I always take the time to explain to her why I can't or won't let her have what she wants. If she doesn't understand, then I try to explain it another way. If she still doesn't understand, I lock her in the cellar.

I kid. I haven't locked her in the cellar since we had to replace the door from all the clawing damage.

JESUS, PEOPLE! CALM DOWN! IT'S A JOKE! I DON'T EVEN HAVE A CELLAR!

Seriously, though. Even if I did lock her in the cellar, it's still not as bad as being cast into a lake of fire to burn for all eternity. Which is what we get if we piss off God.

But he loves us.


UPDATE: The difference in opinion regarding the existence of God was not what broke up my first marriage. Just so you know.

ANOTHER UPDATE: If I did have a cellar, I would keep wine in it. Not kids.

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends; we're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside...

I'm not starting this blog with an explanation of what this blog is about; because this blog is about whatever is on my mind at the time of my writing. This blog will be about atheism. It will be about sexuality. It will be about family. It will be about funny shit that happened on the way to the gynecologist's office. Just whatever.

Okay, so I lied. I did start the blog with an explanation of what the blog is about. But not really; because it was by no means comprehensive. So there.

I have recently come to terms with two very big things.

1. There is probably no God; and


2. I'm okay with that.

A year ago I would have never admitted that I had doubts about God's existence. Oh, the doubts have been there for much more than a year; but a human who needs comfort and solace can cling fiercely to denial. See, my dad died when I was 10 years old. I needed to believe I would see him again. In heaven. But now I wonder whether I really needed to believe that, or if I only clung to that hope because I was taught to do so.

Rather than go into a manifesto about how I came to disbelieve (don't worry; I'm sure that will come later), tonight I want to write about an incident that happened to me yesterday.

My 12 year old daughter (also atheist) and I were returning from a trip to the grocery, and I needed to make a stop at the liquor store to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner. It started to rain pretty hard for a while, but slacked off as we pulled into the parking lot. As I turned off the car, I glanced out the windsheild to see an obviously injured, soaking wet little gray mouse, hobbling and struggling to get off the pavement, onto the grassy median beside the parking space. It was heartbreaking to watch him climb the little concrete slope, only to slide backward because he had no use of one of his back legs. My daughter asked if we should help him, and I told her that there was really nothing we could do; even if he got onto the grass, that leg of his was not going to heal. She decided to wait in the car and listen to her iPod while I ran in and quickly picked up the wine.

When I returned to the car, there was an SUV parked in front of me. I could tell by the look on my daughter's face what had happened.

I asked her whether what I thought had happened, had happened. She said yes, with a tear rolling down her cheek. I explained to her that it was really for the best; that the little mouse was not going to get any better. He was going to be in pain and struggling until a predatory bird, or a cat, or some other carnivorous animal got him. Or else he would starve to death, because he could not move around well enough to get food. Being hit by the SUV was the quickest, most humane death the little guy could have asked for. Now he isn't in pain anymore.

My point here is that I did not have to make up a story about the mouse being in mousey heaven, or in "a better place," or "with Jesus" to give my child some comfort about the situation. Sure, she was still sad about the mouse getting squished, but she was able to accept that it is part of the life cycle; it is the way the world works. And she accepted it within the bounds of reality; not based on some superstition that she would later grow to doubt and feel deceived about.

I have now accepted the idea that I will never see my father again. He is not waiting in heaven for me. He is gone. All I have are my memories, which are wonderful and beautiful. He was a funny, talented, brilliant, kind, loving man. And that will have to be enough.