My wife came across this site today, and I just wanted to pass it along. It’s called Godless Grief, and she found a really cool entry here:

Those who knew and loved my dad knew full well that he was a lifelong atheist and were not in the least offended. Those who were offended were actually grieving the least, yet were most upset.

Dad died unexpectedly in his sleep at the age of 64. He was my best friend and closest confidant. I’ve lived with him (either in his home or mine) for 30 of my 33 years. He was my children’s daytime care giver while I worked. He was a third parent to them. He adored them and they him.

I walked into his room, worried because he didn’t get up with his alarm. I found him dead. And even in my very acute pain, I can’t and don’t believe in a God no matter how much I would like to find some solace in the idea that he is waiting for me somewhere.

My older daughter is almost 5. She has grieved immensely. I have not taught her anything about religion yet, but I found myself using science to console her. I talked about how the atoms in our bodies were once part of stars and would likely be again, so she could look at the stars and feel closer to her Grandpa. We talked about her connection to Grandpa through genetics – DNA and heredity at an extremely basic level in words she would understand. She liked the star analogy best.

Given our recent experiences, I found this particular story to be quite moving…

Anyway, if you’re interested, take a look.

I can’t vouch for everything posted there, but you might find something that hits home…

This guest post is a sermon from our dear friend, The Rev. Jenner J. Hull, and will tick off reverends everywhere…

Before we begin, “Greetings and Salutations” to my fellow heathens and, in a conciliatory gesture, a discreet head-nod to the religious lurkers as well. But, foremost, a hearty “Huzzah and Kudos” to the moderators and contributors for keeping everything immensely entertaining and informative. GifS is, and has been for quite some time, one of my favorite “Dens of Relative Iniquity.”

I’ve been an atheist (or a very reluctant agnostic) for almost thirteen years now and, despite what the Bleevers think, it was a slow, methodical process of observation, assimilation, and comparison which took place entirely on the part of one person; the young Rev. Jenner J. Hull. When I was coming up in the metaphorical atheist ghetto, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens would’ve been a law firm in a Grisham novel and Penn and Teller were just the hippest magicians around. A meager handful of my friends professed atheism but, like me, they were very candid about their (lack of) beliefs. Everyone else was Christian or stopped just short of atheism/agnosticism at a kind of vague, distant deism, where any concept of god is so far out on the periphery of existence that it becomes about as useful to the real world as Marv Albert’s hairpiece.

I, like a majority of (I’d hazard a guess and say close to all) atheists, came to every one of my base conclusions about the existence of god and the validity of religion by myself, with little to no external prompting. Hm… Wait… I feel a little tangent coming on…

It’s sadly hilarious, the propensity of the devout to put great value on the fact that religion is ubiquitous in every culture. Of course, if you teach every generation to believe in something, it’ll pass on, especially if the carrots are tasty and the sticks are thick and knobbly. Atheists, on the other hand, aren’t taught anything about atheism (not much to teach, really), yet we all come to the same conclusions through various logical avenues that, though they may diverge and intersect in odd places, always reach the same destination. In that respect, atheism seems much more natural and meaningful than oogie-boogie superstitions which flourish by demanding blind obedience.

Anyway, one of the first weird thoughts I had about the nature of god came at a fairly early age, around ten or eleven. I had questions about certain bible stories, sure, like “He lived to be 900-some-odd-years-old, you say?” Or “Living inside a whale? Really? A living whale?” I was also savvy enough to have questions about certain religious leaders, like “Why does Benny Hinn slap people on the forehead and beg for money?” Even at that level of critical thinking, I still never questioned the actual existence of god. Until…

The first thing that made me question Big-G god Big-H himself was the realization that, no matter how you read the bible, god is exactly like a human in disposition, faculties, and manner.
In every paragraph, every parable, every page, god is rendered as some random guy with vast and incomprehensible powers, more like a comic book super-hero/super-villain (in the Marvel Universe, Yahweh = Apocalypse) than a divinely righteous being. Despite these vast and incomprehensible powers, this god always, always acts as a human would. Though, granted, oftentimes as a psychologically unbalanced, quick-tempered, and mean-spirited human.

The most damning evidence is contained in one version of the First Commandment, the “Big Thou Shalt.” When I first read the “for I am a jealous God” bit, I gave the bible a weird look and read it again. Sure enough, it says, in plain, re-re-re-re-re-translated English, “a jealous God.”

Jealous? How is that even possible? Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and… Jealous? What in the Holy Name of Blind Lemon Jefferson does a god have to be jealous of? Except other gods? But there are no other gods, right? So when, where, and how does jealousy enter into the realm of an almighty god?

It’s just as ridiculous as the concept of god giving us free will but still intending for us to love him. Why does god want or need our love? What’s the point? Why should such a being entertain the idea of “wanting” or “needing” anything, much less “loving” or “being loved?”

Why would anyone assume that any god, be it “The One True” or “Of Creekside Ferns,” have any characteristics even remotely analogous with humans? Wouldn’t that be a grievous insult to the majesty of such a god?

The most vexing question of all, however, is, “Why don’t people envision gods who play mini-golf, go to jazz bars for cocktails, host Trivial Pursuit tournaments, and follow the local Major League Baseball farm team for the sheer Hell of it?”

I mean, seriously: I would so turn gay for this guy…

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

By the way, if anyone’s interested in the Pat Hall of Fame, you can find a little group of cool stuff here or here.

Rock on, dude…

I know several people who believe ghosts exist, and that they make “appearances” as orbs sometimes in their photographs and videos. What is it with humans that makes them want to believe in supernatural stuff so badly?

Does anyone know the explanations given for this “orb” phenomena? Magician tricks would be my rational explanation. Laser pens? Flashlights? Recently I took photos at the home of Edgar Allan Poe and my daughter’s friend pointed out these orbs in a couple of the basement photos. I rationalized that it had to be light reflection on the lens of my camera somehow.

There has to be a logical, scientific explanation for this. However, like with those who hold fast to their sky daddy beliefs, many people simply want to believe.

I apologize for the Casey Kasem reference, but I couldn’t resist…

With all the crap that God has been giving us, I thought I’d just pass along something funny…

And what’s funnier than Elvis…

…The King…

…drunk on stage…

…mutilating one of his most romantic and sensitive songs?…

And now he’s dead.

[Hi Ron!]

Link: DALLAS (Reuters) – Texas will almost certainly hit the grim total of 400 executions this month, far ahead of any other state, testament to the influence of the state’s conservative evangelical Christians and its cultural mix of Old South and Wild West.

*snip*

“A lot of evangelical Protestants not only believe that capital punishment is permissible but that it is demanded by God. And they see sanction for that in the Old Testament especially,” said Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Now, why would an all-powerful god not just take care of the nasty job of executing these people himself instead of having humans break his laws and kill another person for breaking his laws and killing another person? (So many vicious circles in this god belief!)

Better question yet, if this god is all-powerful, omniscient, and omnipresent, knowing past, present and future, then why allow these humans to be born and live in the first place if they are only going to cause trouble for society anyway???

But I am sure that believers in all of their creativeness will make up whatever answers they want that supports their barbaric desires to see someone die (and the more violent the better), and revenge will make them feel good. It’s not much different than the stoning that goes on in the Middle East that is justified via the Qur’an. The mentality of the crowds that cheer and praise god for his “almighty justice” is just as twisted as the person who is being put to death for their premeditated murderous acts.

It seems that for too many people, religion makes them more revengeful and driven to support violence and back it all up with their ancient mythology books. I am not saying that murderers, serial killers and psychopaths should walk around free, but the way these delusional people believe that their imaginary friend wants them to do his dirty work is almost as crazy or terrible as the murderer themselves.

Nothing new, I guess…

Just God killing lots and lots of people He loves in slow and painful ways — again…

North Korea: Hundreds Dead, Missing in Rain

SEOUL, South Korea – Heavy rains spawned flooding that left “hundreds” dead or missing in North Korea and destroyed more than 30,000 homes, the country’s state media reported Tuesday. [...] It said the rain also flooded tens of thousands of acres of farmland in the impoverished country that suffers from regular food shortages. “The heavy rain destroyed at least 800 public buildings, over 540 bridges, 70 sections of railroads and at least 1,100 vehicles, pumps and electric motors,” KCNA said. [...] Damage from storms is often worsened in North Korea because its citizens denude vast hillsides to create more arable land to grow food, meaning natural vegetation that can stop erosion and landslides is no longer present.

But remember kids: God loves you…

I have been visiting Talk2Action for a year now. It’s been a fascinating place to find the alarming but accurate information on what the RaptureRight is doing, who the players are and what their motivation and goals are. Especially the players! From the late RJ Rushdoony (and his son-in-law) and Paul Weyrich straight through to Dobson and Robertson, Perkins and Land, Donovan and the Pope-who-wears-Prada.

I’ve learned about Reconstruction and Dominionism, the IRD and their mission to destroy mainline religions by infiltrating and fomenting disorder and discord. It provides the most up-to-date information on Christian Embassy and the Pentagon, OSU and the Pentagon, Weinstein versus the Air Force Academy, and more. And the books! Did you know that christians write books that expose all of these problems and many others? But only Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens get on the best-seller lists. Not quite fair, somehow…

In short, I’ve gained from my visits. I receive an email every day, listing the opening paragraphs of the posts from the previous 24-hours. Then I usually read one or more of the posts, to stay current on the issues. It has been a very important part of my day, for lo these many weeks.

But I’ve gotten on the wrong side of the blog proprietor, Frederick Clarkson. He hasn’t said these exact words: Atheists will be seen and not heard; do you understand? But yesterday was the third time that my words brought the “hand of the almighty proprietor” down on my head.

It unfolded thusly, on Author Mansfield Envisions a “Better Society…Less Open to Non-Christian Religions”:

Paging Chris Rodda, indeed! (none / 0)

Although you didn’t mention it specifically, I feel that my atheism has a huge target on its back. So much so, there is tingling between my shoulder blades.

If Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims are unacceptable, can atheism be tolerated? Not likely.

Even if his moves were to kill the odious Scientology, I still couldn’t support it. His agenda is likely to give his personal faith “ultimate primacy”. You can bet on that!

by Naomi on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:58:55 PM CST

you’re right, naomi (none / 0)

I should have mentioned that Mansfield’s goals certainly bode ill for non-religious Americans as well. It is a sad commentary for the theocratic position that discrimination against atheists is understood…

by DonByrd on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:41:30 PM CST

Don Byrd was the author of the piece. He was sympathetic, it seems, and quite liberal.

FWIW (none / 0)

Brent Walker’s response, which I linked to in the post, was originally submitted to USAToday as a letter to the editor, but they declined to publish it.

by DonByrd on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:35:41 PM CST

Aha! (none / 0)

Another one bits the dust…they’ve managed to burrow into nearly every news outlet that was liberal (PBS/CPB) or even just neutral.

On another blog, I posted this:

As my title referenced, getting a foot in the door leads to trouble. This is especially true, in my opinion, with religion. Once in (your home, your family, your office, your business, your school, your hospital, your government), it will not settle for less than complete dominance. It seeks to replace opinions, practices and other-beliefs. It shows no gratitude for your forebearance and tolerance. It will not stop with “more” – it wants ALL of you and yours.

There’s an old warning: give `em an inch and they’ll take a mile. But I’ve said many times: Give religion an inch and it takes the entire Interstate Highway system.

It will NEVER settle for just “a mile”…

A gross exaggeration? Perhaps I should have confined my statement to just SBC. But I think I’m pointing at any group actively working toward Theocracy – of which there are so many that I am truly terrified!

FYI: the post was about the Pentagon Chaplain, Christian Embassy and the DoD/IG report…oh, my!

by Naomi on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:19:49 PM CST

It appears that I have crossed a line. Again.

religion and theocracy (none / 0)
are not synonyms.

Conflating the two is a way of raising once again, the argument of atheism vs. theism, which is off topic here.

Conflating religion with theocracy is also insulting to the many religious people who oppose theocracy and support the separation of church and state; notably many contributors to this site.

While we understand that there are those who do not see a difference between theocracy and religion, we do. And this site begins with the premise of mutual respect among believers and non-believers; Christians and non-Christians — and this is not up for discussion and debate.

As I have mentioned in a recent comment thread, we recognize that people have strong views on the things we write about here and often even stronger feelings. Coming to grips with them is not always easy.

But that said, people who are unable to get their minds around the simple principles of the site rules eventually find themselves no longer able to post.

by Frederick Clarkson on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:17:12 PM CST

Before you lower the boom (none / 0)

Please consider this, Mr. Clarkson. You and I are on the same page, with respect to what is being done to our country. You and I seem to love it, in fairly equal measure. You and I seem to be devoted to fighting FOR it.

So, our disagreement is over the concept of “religion”. Here is my take on it. Faith can stay; religion should go.

Belief in god should be private and personal. Having a “personal relationship” with a particular deity should be private and personal. Faith should be private and personal. To make it public cheapens the act; so it is written in the NT. To “sell” it takes it to the marketplace, where it is threatened by knock-offs.

If you are saying that I am conflating religion and theocratic movements, I would remind you that without religion, there would be no “theocratic movement”. That without the group-think that is religion, our Constitution wouldn’t be threatened. That the group-think that exists within religion fosters dangerous ideas that lead to ever-growing inroads into all parts of our lives. Whether it’s science, medicine, education, media, publishing – it is slowly metastasizing and threatening to kill our culture.

Please remind me why going to church is necessary. Is it a club, where one get’s a fix for the next week? Is it a weekly meeting of faith-warriors who don’t understand what peace is? Is it one more way to spread the word to our children? Religion, above all else, is tribal, territorial and generational.

Faith in the mysterious is not. If is requires re-dosing, it’s not faith. If it requires reinforcing, it’s not faith.

We’ve agreed that the bible was written by men. Perhaps by fallible, opportunistic men. Men who may have inserted language that was not there in the original. I see the “Great Commission” or “whenever two or more meet in my name” as just two of the most dangerous concepts unleashed on mankind. Both (along with Revelation and tax-laws that allow free-rein to predatory pastors) have led us to where we are today: fighting for America’s future.

Would that everyone was only a deist…

You may ban me, if you like. It is your blog. But in doing so, please tell me what is false in my statement above.

by Naomi on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 02:38:46 PM CST

Yes, it is quite clear that Mr. Clarkson is not as open-minded, nor as liberal as Don Byrd.

It really very simple, Naomi (none / 0)

This is part of the very debate that is off topic on this site. You either abide by the site guidelines or you don’t. It ain’t rocket science.

There are lots of places to discuss such things. This is not one of them.

Many people — women and men, gay and strait, and right here on this site — are part of what you call “organized religion” and find such social institutions perfectly compatible, even essential to their faith. I guess you cannot accept them as allies, let alone friends, because they do not share your particular approach to faith; an approach that you treat as The Truth.

Consider this: You would rather get banned from a site where peole share many of your deepst values and concerns and where there is much that interests you, than deign to treat others who participate here with the same respect that they extend to you.

We don’t get up in the morning looking to find reasons to ban people. When something comes up that causes us concern, we are usually looking for reasons not to ban someone.

But when there is good reason and clearly necessary, we do it without hesitation and not necessarily with any notice. There are only so many hours in a day, and we don’t let trolls take up our time or divert this site for their purposes.

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 07:33:49 PM CST

I don’t believe he read a word I wrote! He may be a devout christian who hates what’s going on. But, if that is true, he has no use for atheists and will not tolerate atheists saying anything bad about religion. All that is just “surmise”, on my part. His writing career, since at least 1991, has been devoted to writing books and magazine articles on “bad religion”, receiving awards and other recognition for exposing, among others, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition; and a strange “alliance” between Louis Farrakhan and Sun Myung Moon.

Then I must ban myself (none / 0)

Mr. Clarkson, I have tried to tell you what I believe. I won’t resort to claims to freedom of speech. This is, after all, your blog and you do make the rules. I bow to your rules.

There are atheist blogs and there are christian blogs. I had thought that this was a hybrid, where we could meet and discuss those that would steal our government and bury our Constitution. And how to stop them.

My mistake.

by Naomi on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:01:49 PM CST

I may stay on top of the issues, via this site. It’s too valuable a resource, to cut off my nose for. But I don’t think I’ll link to it, nor will I continue to recommend it.

And I will bear some measure of the responsibility. But I will not bear it all. Clarkson is, in my opinion, predisposed to over-react to an atheist, and doesn’t like religion to be questioned – unless the questioner is a believer. They do a very good job of exposing the predators. But the policing, they seem to maintain, must remain in their hands.

But can religion police itself? I think that that is the real question.

Visit it, by all means, but watch your language…