Dude, where have I been? I only now somehow stumbled upon this whole ‘everybody draw Muhammad thing.’ I mean, of course I’m aware of the situation. Newspapers drawing the prophet, then fundamentalists demanding an apology; Southpark’s spoofs (is this ok? Putting him inside a van, etc.)

But I just found the blog “Everyone Draw Mohammed” and the Facebook pages, both for and against the movement. I wish I’d thought of it first – although that sort of blatant, militant ambition is not my style (atheism or forms of anti-religion can be every bit as rigid and dogmatic as fundamentalist believers… although I agree with them, I’d still prefer a calm reasonable conversation to a bunch of angry hate-mongering.)

At the same time, this whole issue is just freaking retarded. Sure – they aren’t supposed to draw their prophet. That’s fine. Nobody’s making them. Telling everybody else, however, that they also can’t draw him or say bad things about him – that’s unfair, unjust, and undemocratic. How on earth did Muhammad get so special – more special than me, God or Jesus, not to mention Buddha, etc.

Why can’t we draw Muhammad? Obviously because Islam is a violent religion. Now everytime I say something like this, everybody gets all pissed off, and say I’m unfairly stereotyping Islam and Muslims as terrorists and how that’s not true. Seriously? Go fuck yourself. I’m tired of stepping on glass and avoiding the issue and being all politically correct about this. SURE not all Muslims are violent! Of course! And sure Christians or any other religious nut can be every bit as stupid, angry and violent as muslim fundamentalists!

But even so – nothing like this issue, or anything remotely like it, exists in the modern world for any other religion except for Islam. Everybody makes fun of Jesus – he’s so easy to make fun of. And Christians sob and pout and pray, but they don’t blow things up! Islam is the only organized religion who are organized and determined and righteous enough to defend their prophet’s honor through violence. That’s a fact. And giving up our own freedom of speech, because of fear of that violence, is an unreasonable imposition – an imposition which should be rigorously fought against.

Hence, I’m in full support of the movement. That said, there are much better sites where you can actually see the hundreds of cartoons that have been drawn as a statement against this absurd controversy. Also visit the wikipedia page to understand the full history of the movement. Here are a few of my favorites:

This unnerving assumption may sound like I’m just being wicked and picking fights. Not true! The problem of Jesus’ historicity excluding certain races and areas of the world through accidental historical developments is the main reason I gave up being Christian. It is an unresolvable dilemma. I spent years seeking the answer, in an attempt to save my faith. In the end, I chose a personal belief in a god that wouldn’t punish certain races to hell over a God who would – the Christian God.

Celsus said it first, and best. To paraphrase, ‘why send the son of god, salvation, to the Jews at one point in history, instead of making him easily accessible to all?’ Christianity started in Jerusalem and Alexandria before spreading to Rome. As it was incapable of coexisting with other religions, it soon wiped out all others. It came to the Americas via the European expansion. Specifically – the Christian idea that the world was made for Christians and that the Indians were wicked savages who would have to die before the ‘chosen race’ could inherit. (Just as the Jews first practices mass-extermination and genocide of the people that they found living in the land God promised them.) Millions of native Americans were also killed by the European viruses; the rest were easily slaved or converted to Christianity. Although much of America is now Christian, including S. America, that legacy is based on insidious, inglorious historical developments that are very ungodly.

Meanwhile, much of the world has never and continues not to be included in God’s plan of saving grace: does God hate the Chinese? They have absolutely never had the same opportunity to know and accept Jesus Christ. Access to him even today is through Westernized Chinese or Westerners, who have Western ideas and lifestyles. Jesus is a white male; a symbol of white culture. The Chinese who turn to him do so to the exclusion of their own culture and history – and it is a tiny fraction of the general population.

In other countries such as S. Korea, the introduction of Christianity has been successful. In the last 50 years, S. Korea has gone from having virtually no Christians to almost 50% or more. Is this country suddenly more deserving of heaven – unlike its ancestors? This increase is do to 20th century political maneuvering and warfare, which aligned S. Korea and the USA. Is this God’s plan? Does God love S. Korea more than Taiwan – which is also closely tied to the USA but in which Christianity has not taken as firm a root?

If Jesus is historical ‘and’ the true son of god – the fullest/best revelation of god and best/only path to Him, then it is problematic that through historical developments Christianity has taken hold in specific cultures. If Jesus is God’s plan to save – why did he only appear at that fixed geographic location – and why has God not seen fit to push the spread of Christianity? Is salvation just ‘luck’ ? Does God not care about Asia?

These are serious questions, which much be explained theologically before Christianity can be accepted.

As I’ve mentioned in other posts, this website is intended mainly as a forum to post my research into the historical Jesus (or lack thereof) not as an explicit condemnation of Christianity or modern faithful.

However: Obviously, simply by virtue of questioning those sacred beliefs passionately held by a grand majority of the human race, it is inevitable that I will confront opposition from time to time. I was recently asked (on my Facebook page, in response to one of my paintings) “When did you become so angry?” I hadn’t thought I was particularly angry, but I won’t deny it completely. I would argue FRUSTRATED. Frustrated that I cannot speak my truth quietly and simply without being satanized and damned to Hell.  The following is a recent comment I received on this website:

“Your HB website has to be one of the biggest insults ever …. there has to be some curb of speech! It’s not even clever. You’re not even having rational ‘debates’ about the existence of Jesus. Well, as a good Christian who’s supposed to pray for you .. I most certainly will pray that you rot in hell!!!”

I pray you rot in Hell? Not to bring up the obvious contradiction in this statement with absolutely everything good, moral and Christian, I can’t help but wonder how many people out there believe there must be some curb of speech. I’m certainly not opposed to it. I certainly think that anything said in public as a factual claim should be supported by logically sound and empirically proven evidences; that children be thought to reason and think and not believe; that insults and angry outbursts should be silenced, in favor of calm, polite discussion.

I comment in order to diffuse tension and increase understanding. Obviously I must be doing something wrong. I’m really not such a bad guy. I try to do right by my friends and family, I give money to the poor, I always help out a stranger in need…WTF does Jesus want from me that I’m not giving him?

Admitting to Atheism sends a very strong, anti social message to a society where most people who don’t believe in religion still blithely call themselves Christian, or ’spiritual’, without really thinking about their beliefs. Being Atheist is anti-conciliatory; it says “I’m smarter than you, and you are wrong”.

Considering that Atheism as a movement and belief makes more logical/scientific sense than the mythological fables clung on to by organized religions, I can see how Atheists would get sick of being a misunderstood and disliked minority. Why should anyone be ashamed to say they believe in Evolution, Science, or the free use of Reason? Not only do they have the (religious) freedom to believe what they want about God, they also have the logical and very possibly the moral upper ground – what’s wrong with being Atheist? Nothing.

And though it may seem a little ‘In Your Face’ to brand yourself as an Atheist, Dawkins has created an identifiable community where previously there was not one – and this is massively important. I’ve said for years that Christians will be the winners of history, not because they’re right, but because they are a strong community with identifiable beliefs in common. They will support each other, vote with each other, and there are lots of them. Everybody else is kind of wishy washy, or ‘tolerant’ of religion.

Christians gained their power by being fundamentalist and ready to die for their beliefs; they beat out the Gnostics precisely for this reason (Gnostics had no such lust for death or martyrdom). Christianity will continue to thrive without an equally powerful opponent.

That’s why I’m so impressed that Atheism has suddenly become a strong cohesive movement with a direct agenda; bus advertisements and public billboards urging people to use reason instead of religion is helping to change the common preconception that having religion is somehow more moral or righteous than not having one.

Why I’m not an Atheist

Given my praise and support for Dawkins’ movement, you might wonder why you don’t find the following sign on my own website.

There are several reasons. First, although anti-religious, and definitely not believing in the personal God of the Christians, Atheism makes too sharp a cut between spiritualism and reason. There is a common, shared human experience in reaction to certain stimuli that develops in us a reaction. It can be ‘awe’ in the face of the grandness of nature, the appreciation of beauty, or even more mystical events felt during deep meditation, or half way to sleep. It doesn’t matter if these are ‘real’ – I personally believe them to be innate brain conditions, putting them in the realm of biology; however they are powerful experiences and rejecting them outright as tricks of the mind is not a tolerable solution.

If it is natural, or comforting for people to believe in some kind of God, or leave the question open to make room for the unexplained facets of human existence, as long as it doesn’t interfere with progress, reason, science and education, I see no harm.

Moreover, although I know it is possible for Atheists to be more moral than Christians – especially as they are more in control of their passions and thus their actions – I have seen no evidence for this. I think it is true that most people – even very intelligent people – need to find a reason to live a good live, to get better and improve themselves. Modern society is exceptionally lazy. We have nothing like the Greek quest for the well lived, well examined life. Rarely do people fast or meditate for ‘enlightenment’. Few people improve their shortcomings as rigorously as Benjamin Franklin.

Having a very simple conception of a life with meaning, a framework that gives validity to the idea that self-improvement is worthwhile in itself and not just for profit, is crucial for excellence in living. Atheism takes away such purpose. Why should men be good? Why should I become a better person? I don’t need to, Atheism says; I can if I want to and if it benefits me. For me, this isn’t enough. I’m not saying life has purpose or design, but concluding absolutely that it does not, robs me of many facets of life that I wish to hold on to.  (Ok – life is a cold, dark room, and I’m clutching a security blanket that gives me no warmth, but a little bit of comfort. Will you take it away from me because it doesn’t have a functional purpose?

Secondly, Atheism today is mostly a rejection of Christianity and organized religion, and the ridicule of superstition. I see no problem with this – I also don’t believe in Christianity. But the leap Atheists make from “Christianity is dumb” and “The church has done bad things in the name of God” to “therefore God doesn’t exist” is much too swift. People who don’t like Christians are finding refuge in the movement of Atheism as a place to vent their anger and frustration; this turns a community of intelligence into a community of bickering, pride and snide remarks – there is absolutely no dialogue between Atheism and Christianity; it’s a trench war, each side hurling abuse.

Choosing a side and waving a banner effectively kills the possibility of communication or dialogue; and as I’ve mentioned, I’m a mediator. A strategist, not a warrior. Mostly, I can’t see anything to be gained by the argument, whereas there may be something to gain by respectful, informed communication.

Anyway, I’m rambling, it’s raining, and I’m hungry.

In my view – the (increasing) animosity between Christians and Atheists has no where to go but from bad to worse; especially when they aren’t willing to actually talk to each other – and animosity, the creation of us vs. them groups, is never healthy for a society. Moreover, the Christian perspective raised some issues that are not at all addressed by Myers; for the sake of mediation, I’d like to compose a more thoughtful response.

This is the original list as given by http://st-eutychus.com

1. Stop being so smug.
2. Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
3. Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.
4. Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.
5. Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God – and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws. By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.

Here are my responses.

1) Atheists are smug. Sure – their views are based on reason, logic and evidence and from that basis they can be pretty confident. However, rather than trying at all to explain their views humbly, they mostly make pompous, pretentious ‘holier than thou’ statements which create unnecessary conflict. Saying “I don’t believe in God because I can find no evidence for it” is very different from “Everyone who believes in God is a stupid fool.” I have absolutely no problem with Atheism or Atheists – but their attitude of superiority (especially by young kids, with little common sense or intelligence, who are simply puppeting great scientists for shock value) is disconcerting. 

2) If I don’t agree with Christianity, and I don’t want it to take over the world and control politics, laws, and influence my society, then I have the obligation to stop you from converting the ‘undecideds.’ Standing by and letting beliefs spread which I know to be false is the same as watching someone cheat another person. Admittedly; Christians believe the same about their need to convert, but luckily, given equal opportunity, I don’t think the Christian cause is strong enough to convince a rational person (those the need for better education).

3) I’ll admit that belief in God is complex, and I’ll even admit it may be possible for an otherwise intelligent person to conceive of a Deity who writes his laws down in a book for humankind. However – I also know that the Bible is a product of varying religious cults in various episodes of spiritual reform, with little consistency, outdated cultural prohibitions, and some ghastly stories that I wouldn’t let near my kids. I’m also pretty sure it is completely a rehash of older or emerging ideas and that “Jesus” had nothing to do with it. An intelligent or rational person, will be willing to face the historical evidence surrounding the rise to Christianity.

4) I don’t know enough to comment on the scientific method, but I’d say it’s a pretty good system of finding out more about what’s real. I will admit that ‘Atheism’ as a belief, while based on evidence or logical argument, does not warrant the fanaticism shown by modern Atheists. (At the same time, I appreciate that the exasperation is simply a response to the obstinacy of Christians who continue to refuse basic scientific principles).

5) Number Five is the very purpose of this website. We try to investigate the specific claims, the historical traditions, the Biblical support for Christian faith; we treat Christians as intelligent persons who are basing their faith on erroneous ideas about the available evidence, and strive to make the actual evidence as accessible as possible.

The disagreements between Christians and Atheists are wide variations in paradigms. There exists an uneasy truce, but both sides are incapable of communicating in a way that makes the other side hear what they are saying. And so without further ado, in order to help Christians deal with Atheists, here are 5 simple rules to follow.

5 ways for Christians to talk with Atheists

…or as Myers says, “5 ways for Christians to seem more intelligent“

1) The God Atheists don’t believe in is the humanistic God of the old Testament; the one who intervenes in history to make his chosen people prosper (or suffer). Instead of talking about God like a person, talk about Him like a conscience, an inner voice of goodness, or a universal natural principle. The early Greek conception of the One, the Logos (the divine, organizing principle that animates life) is not foreign to scientific minds or basic human experience. Start with this shared notion and agree that “God” may not be the best word to convey it. (Belief or disbelief in ‘God’ is meaningless when both parties have different ideas about God).

2) Understand that there is no ‘proof’ for the existence of God; many great minds have tried and failed to provide an adequate argument for God. Belief in God is a personal choice (or a social institution). Don’t try to prove that God exists to Atheists; they are most likely much more familiar with the logical arguments than you are. Without evidence, either belief may be held as long as it is of benefit to the holder and causes no harm; the best you can do is say “I believe because it consoles me” and move on.

3) Belief in God is very different from belief in Jesus Christ or Belief that Evolution is False: these are historical claims that can be refuted by contrasting physical evidence. And if you ignore evidence with claims that ‘reason is untrustworthy’ or ‘God is a mystery’, you cannot at the same time claim to equal Atheist’s in intelligence or logical ability. (If a genius chooses to disregard his own reason, and instead believes something on faith at a disregard for evidence, his opinions or arguments can hardly hold up against those who have not made such a choice – if this is you, recognize that you cannot participate in honest, intellectual discussion and it is right that your opinions will simple be dismissed.)

4) Educate yourself! How can you hope to support your own beliefs without looking for evidence to support them? The recycled arguments for Jesus Christ or the existence of God have no weight with Atheists; they are platitudes that do little to convince someone familiar with the subject matter. For example, I make a pretty good argument on this website, in many places, that the Jesus Christ of the gospels didn’t exist as a historical person. I can make this claim because of an abundance of historical evidence; much more than the handful of quotes used to justify a historical Jesus. Jesus existed or did not; your faith in him doesn’t sway my opinion, which is based on evidence. However – if you were familiar with all of the evidence I provide, and could put forward a theory that explains it all while being dependent on a historical founder, I’d be fascinated.

5) Understand that Christian history has been long and dark. Most Atheists disbelief in God is supported by the evils done in His name. The Christian church has done very little good for the world in the last 2,000 years, and very many travesties. Although the Christian church may hold some kernels of wisdom, the idea that the church is God’s vessel, his plan for salvation, doesn’t fit with the available facts. Someone has done something very wrong. It is no use to say “Men corrupted the church” or “All those bad things have nothing to do with the Christian message” – there would be no Christianity without the organizing body of leaders who edited and preserved the scriptures, and often drastically reinterpreted them. Explaining how God’s chosen plan was capable of such ‘perversion’ will not be an easy task for you, but it demands an answer.