Jesus Interruptus
Atheism as a Culture of Life

by Ron Barrier

We constantly hear certain phrases employed by media representatives of organized religion. These phrases or slogans are repeated on a continual basis and are specifically designed to paint a very distinct mental image in the mind of the general public about Atheism and Atheists that is simply not true.

How many of you have heard, in response to your declaration of Atheism, the question, “What do you believe in?” or “Don’t you believe in anything?”

What do those questions mean? What do they mean by believe and what choices are they offering by using the term anything? What this question should indicate to the Atheist, is that the believer, so startled and flustered because you do not hold his or her specific supernatural concept as valid, is willing to settle for a claim of belief in anything. Well, that certainly narrows down the field, doesn’t it?

Actually, what the believer should ask, if the believer is to be truly honest about his inquiry, is “Don’t you believe in anything that is remotely similar to the superstition I believe in, or that is at least invisible and incomprehensible?”

As you can see, believers don’t have a clue. They have no idea what they are asking - yet, they demand an answer, preferably an answer in the affirmative.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There is a conspiracy against the Atheist.

Religious believers, especially those enthralled with the notion of personalized invisible beings that are not only at the helm of all reality, but on occasion step through the ether into physical space to help us with the shopping or do our taxes, will readily and willingly accept into their community believers of other invisible beings and personalities no matter how silly they sound. On the other hand, they will not tolerate the person who agrees with all of them. In other words, the Hindu does not believe in the Christian god, the Christian does not believe in the Shinto gods, Shintoists do not believe in the Native American god, and Native Americans do not believe in the Hindu gods.

As Atheists, we simply agree with each and every one of them. And for that we are ostracized and marginalized. Or as Psalms 14: 1 would hold, Atheists “are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” [KJV]

Apparently, our crime is in not being cooperative in trying to develop a personal relationship with an invisible friend. What is this “personal relationship”? How does this “personal relationship” thing work? Let me explain. I ask those who have heard this before to be patient, but we cannot overemphasize the importance of ridiculing this “personal relationship” thing.

This is how I approach it...

“Jim, I like to introduce you to someone with whom I have developed a deep, abiding, personal relationship. A relationship with a person who loves unrequitedly, forgives my transgressions, comforts me in times of sorrow, and celebrates with me in times of joy. Her name is Priscilla.

“However, there are a few conditions that are attached before you can experience this “personal relationship” with Priscilla. First, you can never meet Priscilla. You see, she’s been dead for over 2, 000 years now. Well, dead, that is, if she really lived - ’cause you see, no one is really sure if she ever lived. But that’s a minor distinction.

“Secondly, we have no sketches, paintings, or photographs of Priscilla. No one knows what she looks like. Oh, I know there have been so-called sight-ings. But those sightings are nothing more than hysteria. After all, how can you claim to have seen something that no one has ever seen? I mean, if you’ve never seen something, how can you claim to have now seen it? No matter.

“Thirdly, Priscilla never wrote anything. But don’t let that be an obstacle, Jim. George W. Bush said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, and we all know that Jesus never wrote a damn thing. As far as I see it, Jim, that makes Priscilla as valid as Jesus and Jesus no better than Priscilla.

“No one who new Priscilla (if she existed at all) ever wrote anything about her either.

“But, hey, no problem. We have some great second and third-hand accounts that people all over the world think are real events. If its good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.

“Lastly, Jim, Priscilla needs cash. Lots of it - and it should be given freely.

“So, are you ready, Jim, to take advantage of this fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop a deep, rewarding, and hopefully profitable relationship with Priscilla?

“Of course you are. Now here’s what you do. Go somewhere quiet and meditate about Priscilla. Open your heart to Priscilla and she will come to you. After you experience Priscilla in your life, get back to me when you’ve fully convinced yourself that she’s real; I have some great real estate you’d be interested in.”

Atheism Negative?

Another phrase I hear repeatedly is that Atheism is a negative position. How can a philosophy be negative that holds our ability to reason, and our freedom to do so, of utmost importance? Negative to what? What’s negative about hard-core thinking? What’s negative about free and unfettered inquiry? What’s negative about saying “No, thank you” to religious ideas? (Actually, my favorite reply is to say, “No thank you, I don’t use it.”)

What’s negative about refusing to submit one’s will to a concept that not only makes no sense, but demands significant subservience on an intellectual, emotional, and financial level? What’s negative about not surrendering your intellectual freedom? What’s negative about not financially supporting an institution of superstition? What’s negative about declining an invitation to participate in a lifestyle that surrounds itself with death?

We hear so many times that anything that stands in opposition to a religious view is categorized as belonging to a “culture of death.” The implication here is that secularism - Atheism - is a “culture of death.” As has always been the case with religion, nothing could be further from the truth. It is religion which is the “culture of death.” The Christians call this week “Holy Week.” It should be called “Death Week 2000.”

This past week Christians agonized over every single violent, gory detail of their so-called savior’s death. In many Catholic churches they have frescos on the walls showing depictions of every lash of the whip, every blow of the hammer. How can this, by any stretch of the imagination, be anything other than a celebration of death?

How could a religious view which holds as the pinnacle of success the wholesale destruction of the human race by a “loving” god be considered anything but a culture of death? I couldn’t think of a better way to counterbalance the celebration of death that is occurring this week in the Christian community than by celebrating life with a group of Atheists.

The believer will cry, “He died to save our souls,” or “He died so that we may have life.” What the hell are they talking about? Did it ever dawn on them that their god, who presumably Was powerful enough that he made all things, had numerous other options available in order to deal with incorrigible humans? Options that were far more rational than simply creating another sentient being to kill? Imagine any parent sacrificing a child if there were other options available! Imagine human parents producing a child for the express purpose of killing it as an act of overt exhibitionism!

This is act of love? The “Holy Week” celebrations are nonsensical. This is the most irrational, depressing, and morbid week of the Christian calendar. Let’s compare it to New Years Eve, December 31, 1999. For years the religious mind has longed for the return of a mythical mangod. That is assuming, of course, that a mythical mangod existed in the first place. After all, how can one return if one had not existed previously? Dec. 31, 2000 was supposed to be that time. The religious were becoming more agitated as the time approached. Visions were all the rage - with divinities appearing on everything from urine stains in a Mexican subway, the backs of roadsigns in Yakima, Washington, melted globs of ice cream in a Texas grocery store, to the sides of buildings in Florida. Governments from a variety of countries had plans for dealing with religious uprisings as well as political plots borne out of religious fear, stupidity, and an inherent lust for violence.

Christians were reserving front row seats to view piles of rocks and natural formations within the topography of Israel, somehow convinced that a legendary life form was going to drop out the sky and give them what they all felt they deserved, or at least what they imagined their god promised them. And you know what? They got exactly what their god promised them. Nothing. Nothing at all.

If there is one absolute truth that religion has given us it is this: any prediction about the end of the world that has been made by a religious individual, cult, group, or book has been wrong. Dead wrong. When it comes to failure, religion has a perfect 100% performance record.

Had the faithful not been swayed by their lustful desire for violence and mayhem, they could have partaken of something human and beautiful. If they would have just opened their eyes briefly and for a moment participate in what Charles Darwin called “this view of life,” instead of placing so much time and effort into being “not of this world,” they would have seen what we all experienced that night.

From the first stroke of midnight, Dec. 31, at the international dateline, and for the next 24 midnights, hour after hour, through the marvels of human thought, ingenuity, and cooperation - through science and technology - overcoming cultural obstacles and language differences, the Human Race on this planet Earth collectively celebrated the year 2000 together.

Through our ever increasing progress in telecommunications and cultural exchange we were able to share celebrations from every country throughout the world, and the television was our common mirror. For the first time in history we actually shared a single event as a united species with the ability to record it for future generations. A thousand years from now, our progeny will be able to directly observe how their ancient ancestors celebrated the first global New Year’s party. For one whole day, Humanity and Nature held center stage. Religion was relegated to lurking in the shadows - an unneeded and unwelcome observer. No messiah came. Those who waited continue to wait. Jesus was interrupted. “Holy Week” is not the end of it though. Images of death and blood sacrifice are integral to the religious maelstrom of what is called morality and ritual. Many churches offer symbolic cannibalism on a weekly basis. Congregants constantly refer to themselves as being awash in the blood of their so-called savior.

Religion glorifies suffering as some sort of much-desired commodity. Somehow, they say, suffering brings one closer to god. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I have summoned the deity when I’ve experienced a sharp pain by hitting my finger with a hammer or stubbing my toe. But I have never found myself any closer to any deity then I was one minute prior to the painful experience. Are people who are born with chronic suffering, or develop a debilitating illness, any closer to a deity? How does the pain of a lost loved one bring one closer to a god? What does the twisted appreciation of suffering have to do with an afterlife where, presumably, there will be no suffering? As an Atheist I find suffering repulsive and tragic - something which should be stamped out - not glorified as some necessary requirement before one can enter “afterlife.”

And what is the “afterlife” other than a mechanism of death? Thus it is religion that is the “culture of death.” Religion has maintained a ruling structure in society primarily through its reliance on fear, especially the fear of death. The language and ceremony of faith is designed to reflect on death and heighten our dread of death. The doctrines of sin and damnation are all centered on death. Much religious art reflects death themes, from the devils and demons of Asian religions to the Christian torments of the damned and depictions of the sufferings of Jesus and the various martyrs.

I do not wish to imply that death is all there is to religion, but I do suggest that the theme of death is so central to religion that without it there conceivably could be no religion.

And yet they fear death. Why? Why do they fear an eternity which has been described as living in a “city with streets of gold”? (Which brings to mind the obviously poor qualities gold would possess for use as pavement material - but then again, nobody will be “walking” in the traditional sense.) They will experience an eternity of being in the presence of their god. Of course, what they will do in the presence of such a being for eternity is still up for grabs. There are hints that there will be lots of singing - presumably the same types of flattering tunes they sing on earth. There are also suggestions that the faithful will derive some pleasure by viewing those that didn’t make the cut. In other words, the level of ecstasy experienced by the believer will be in direct proportion to the suffering experienced by the unbeliever, the heretic, the Atheist.

If the focus of religious belief is concentrated on achieving the limitless joy of an afterlife, then it stands to reason that this current life we are experiencing is merely a petri dish of the gods. This life is second banana. Each of us is living our own personal “Truman Show” to the delight and amusement of a cosmic TV director and his angelic television crew. Instead of our world being a place where real events and real people play themselves out creating a meaningful and irreversible history, religion holds that the events and actions of this world are instead a “testing ground” - where they write the rules for everyone else. In this context, religion becomes more than just an expression of so-called faith — it is a battle for the history of mankind. In other words, history belongs to humanity, or it belongs to a god.

Thus religion is not so much a controlling force for the masses as it is an unrealistic portrayal of reality. This being the case, one can only conclude that religious belief compels the individual to abandon personal responsibility. Instead of being responsible to an ethic that would allow people to deal with each other in a just and rational manner, the faithful become responsible only to those behaviors that guarantee them an afterlife, thus muting their fear of death by camouflaging it with a veil of greed, self-aggrandizement, and personal gain.

I agree with philosopher Kenneth Neill Cameron when he said that “A philosophy that tries to impose ideas upon reality... instead of deriving them from reality is simply creating delusion.”

That, my dear friends, is the art of religion. The imposition of egocentric human concepts upon reality - instead of deriving our values from reality - thereby creating delusion. Delusion breeds confusion. Confusion breeds distrust. Distrust breeds contempt. Contempt breeds violence. Violence breeds delusion. An ugly and vicious cycle.

Death is an integral part of the creation myth also. Anyone versed in the Genesis story of the bible knows that death makes an appearance only as a henchman of God. Death came into being as the result of a philosophical discussion through which a Hebrew-speaking snake outwitted a Hebrew female over the qualities of a particular species of fruit, thus inducing her to fail the “cosmic taste-test.”

Thus, since death is perceived as punishment from a god, an evil presence resulting from man’s disobedience in the Garden of Evil, the Fall of Man and the “death sentence” that followed are all a theological necessity. This is an important distinction if the savior myth of Christian theology is to have any meaning. For if there is no “Fall of Man,” then the Christ myth has no purpose and death merely becomes a function of existence, not something to be irrationally feared.

In the hit sci-fi film The Matrix, the basic plot revolves around humanity developing the ability to create “artificial intelligence.” As things would have it, we quickly lose control of this artificial intelligence and, in our haste to destroy it, destroy ourselves instead. However, our intelligent machines save the species by constructing a new reality for human beings to exist in. The catch is that the human race is unaware of the illusion except for a few rebellious humans who maintain the ability to think freely. They break the hold of the mechanized illusion and vow to exist on Earth as it really is. A planet that is cold, dark, inhospitable, but salvageable. These few brave individuals choose the ugly reality over the delusion, and thus begin a long process of reclaiming the human psyche.

The film clearly illustrates mankind’s puzzling compulsion to prefer delusion over reality. I say that this compulsion is not inherent, not a ‘god module’ in the brain as some scientist would have it, but rather it is the product of relentless and unforgiving religious indoctrination - which is the process of infusing a false reality into the minds of a children and then continuously reinforcing that falsehood through a weekly one-hour intellectual pummeling called a worship service.

As a philosophy, Atheism pays little or no attention to death. Instead it places great emphasis on life, reason, and an ongoing and expanding appreciation of the processes that surround us. But maybe the Atheist philosophy needs more of a balanced blend of life and death to shape a more rounded Atheist view and make Atheism a more viable personal philosophy accessible to more people. For although life and death form part of a whole we really have no terminology to describe the unity of the two. Thus we are left with the word “life.” In the Atheist view, the word “life” is used in two senses: to contrast life and death, and to include life and death as part of a continuing process.

This semantic paradox indicates that we, as Atheists, by virtue of our intellectual choices, place the emphasis on life rather than on death. Religion take the opposite approach. It places its emphasis on death - to the extent of isolating death from the total life process. Religion teaches that life has no meaning except for that supplied by its delusions. That is especially true regarding immortality. The religious doctrines of death, which are central to the thesis of immortality and an afterlife, are not only false but reactionary. They are designed to breed delusion and social apathy.

That is not to say, however, that the Atheist view of death is purely intellectual. We, too, are a complex mixture of thoughts, emotions, reactions, and feelings. Even among Atheists the easing of grief is not brought about mainly by reasoning but through group interactions, religious or secular, family or otherwise. The primary difference should be that we view death as a necessary continuation of life.

Religion also breeds a hypocrisy. By virtue of the undue pressures it exerts on social institutions and social interactions, it creates an environment in which a person who is truly doubtful of religious claims is left with two choices: (1) make your doubts known and risk rejection from the immediate community, and possibly violence, or (2) make-believe you believe.

Since social pressure requires that we show some preference to a superstition, and since it has been demonstrated that religious beliefs are merely relative to one another, an individual can easily slip into hypocrisy by merely stating, “Yeah, I believe,” or “Sure, I believe in god.” Neither phrase has any real meaning, but, for some reason or another, carries tremendous weight within our religion- soaked culture.

No Make-Believe Beliefs

As American Atheists, not only do we not believe, we will not make-believe we believe.

Last year, when Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, in a Playboy magazine interview, called “organized religion a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers,” there was a great hue and cry by the religious. In a subsequent TV appearance, Gov. Ventura then said he accepted Jesus, and everything quieted down. Ventura knew that a quick flash of hypocrisy would calm the din, and it did.

The religious community accepted his shallow claim of belief as something meaningful, something profound, something they could identify with: public hypocrisy.

Religion breeds deceit. A fine example of deceit is the so-called attempts to pass “moments of silence” legislation. Some municipalities and states have succeeded, while many other have not. There are ways of drawing out the deceit behind such legislation. Let me illustrate:

Many times during my workday, even at home, I relish those quiet moments when I can rest my mind. One of my favorite ways to ‘cool down’ after I come home from work is to sit in the living room and listen to some soothing classical or new-age music. We all need “moments of silence” sometimes. Anyhow, if I wanted to be “silent” for a moment, who could stop me? Who could stop you? There is no law, nor could there be a law, that could stop either one of us from enjoying a moment of peace and mental relaxation as we see fit.

If any one of you or your children decided to have a moment of peace, or quiet reflection, in the morning before class, or any time during the day for that matter, what is there to stop you? I’m sure you would agree that you don’t need anyone’s permission to experience sixty seconds of mental relaxation. That even includes meditative prayer. What type of person needs someone else’s permission to do this? Who needs to have someone else “allow” him or her to experience a “moment of silence.” Who am I, for that matter, who is anyone, to tell anyone else they cannot engage in prayer or mental relaxation?

As Atheists, we promote intellectual freedom, not intellectual conformity. You are free to practice any religion you so choose. You can choose to be silent or not, on your own terms, without anyone’s permission - least of all the government. The question is not whether or not “moments of silence” should be allowed, but rather why do we need the government to interfere. I will tell you.

Those who promote “moments of silence” schemes do not care one iota about our religious liberty or the intellectual integrity of our children in the public school classroom. Next time someone asks any of you about “moments of silence” laws or why we are opposed to them, ask them a personal question. Ask them if they personally need such a government policy for themselves and/or their children. And you know what? They will say “no, of course not.” I have asked dozens of individuals that question and not one person will admit that they need the government to provide them this time. The question then becomes, “Well, if no one needs the government to tell them when and how to experience a “moment of silence,” then what is the purpose of supporting legislation in favor of it?”

The purpose is a religious one. The purpose is a Christian one. The purpose is to force others to be silent and to create an environment in which Christians, especially if they are in the majority, can put on an exhibition of god entertainment whereby they are assured that as many of the uninterested and unimpressed are watching, or at least are in attendance - courtesy of the US Government.

Thus it is not the “moment of silence” that is the issue, but rather it’s the government’s involvement that disturbs us. And it is Christianity prodding the government into doing this. It has never dawned on those opponents of big government, that this type of intrusion is simply more big government, and it’s big government at its most dangerous because it involves our deeply held personal convictions.

This is a prime example of government being used by an ideology for the purpose of intellectual conformity through a subtle form of “mob rule.” I’m sure you’ve heard such phrases as “taking God out of the schools” or “checking one’s faith at the door.” Besides granting Atheists powers and abilities far beyond mortal men, these are nonsense phrases designed to elicit hostility towards a specific group - Atheists. They do nothing to address the legal issue and especially the motivation behind such bills. I therefore conclude that any legislation regarding “moments of silence” are violations of the separation of government from religion simply because we can find no other motivation for such legislation other than an attempt to use the government to interfere with our personal intellectual liberties. Through this analysis we can see that religious freedom has nothing to do with this type of dangerous legislation.

When I debated William Lane Craig this past January in Canada, I was not apprehensive at all about the outcome. I assumed, as everyone else who knew that I was debating assumed, that the outcome would be favorable to the theist. That didn’t bother me. I also assumed that the vote would probably be 80%-20% in favor of Dr. Craig, so that didn’t concern me either. So what was it? What could account for the anxiety attack I suffered 45 minutes before the debate?

I sat in the bathroom of my hotel room, fully dressed and waiting for the car that would pick me up in 15 minutes and take me to the university, looking at myself in the mirror - wondering what the hell was I doing up here in the middle of Saskatchewan, all alone, in a hotel bathroom wearing a suit.

While staring into the quiet stillness, it dawned on me that in less than an hour I was going to represent - on an international scale, in front of 1,000 students, most of whom would be religious (after all, the event was sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ), and an Internet audience of about 3,000 - Atheism and every Atheist they had ever known. At that moment I represented American Atheism to a Canadian audience. I became quite literally, the spokesman for millions of nonbelievers, many of whom were unaware of the events unfolding that night.

Now I’m not some established author, or qualified scholar with an alphabet following my name. I just happen to be a guy from New York. But the weight of that awesome responsibility pressed on me for 15 long minutes until I thought back to when I was first selected to represent American Atheists on a New York television program.

I was to appear on program about creationism in the public schools along with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research. So I called Frank Zindler to discuss some ideas with him. It was during that conversation when he passed on to me this little pearl of wisdom that seemed innocuous at the time, but came to full fruition in that bathroom in Saskatchewan. He told me that now as a “professional Atheist” I would find myself literally in the position of having to be an expert on practically everything. His words still ring in my ears every day. They rang especially that night in Canada. Hold that thought for a few moments, while I continue about my Canadian experience.

There was some pre-debate controversy over the claim that Dr. Craig never debated anyone unless they had a Ph. D. He would snub those he deemed unqualified to share the podium within his immediate presence. Well, excuse me. Margie Wait, our Internet representative, as well as a number of others, had heard this and e-mailed me this so-called “Craig pre-qualifier.” I told her what I told everyone else. If Mr. Craig needed a qualifier as to my status as an Atheist, so be it. Tell him I had an H.S.G., an S.C., and I was a T.H.B. - a High School Graduate, Some College, but most of all, a Thinking Human Being.

But I also realized that there was inherent imbalance in the request for a “qualified scholar.” Why only a “qualified scholar?” Why is it that Atheism is considered a suitable topic for discussion only when, so-called scholars are involved? Is Atheism only acceptable when confined to educational discourse? Why can’t Atheism be discussed on the street, in the public marketplace, in the schoolyards? After all, if ten-year-olds can “give themselves to Christ” then they certainly have the intellectual capacity to give themselves to thought.

In fact our entire educational process is upside down. We live in a society that prefers religious indoctrination of the individual beginning at infancy, with critical thinking skills left residing in some college elective menu. We, as Atheists, should turn this completely around. Imagine what would happen to magical thinking if the critical thinking skills of our children were developed from as early an age as possible, with religion being made initially available only at the university level?

That is why I have found that Atheists, in general, are held to a much higher standard than the theist is.

Just keep that in mind next time you read an article about religious youth groups or bible clubs and schools - and consider the amount of mental abuse that is being perpetuated upon our young adults. Additionally, there has always been some discussion within the Atheist Community as to whether or not it was wise to engage the theist in debate.

Jon G. Murray, former president of American Atheists, in his introduction to The Bible Handbook, an American Atheist Press publication, noted, “The officials of the (American Atheist) Center feel that it is usually demeaning to an Atheist to argue with a theist over his ‘holy’ book no matter which idiotic ‘holy’ book is proposed for discussion.”

I imagine that Mr. Murray would express this identical sentiment regarding participation in “god” debates. However, earlier in the same introduction he states, “Atheism’s Weltan-schauung (or ‘world view’) is entirely too positive, too inspiring, to enlightening to be held back in its soaring flight by the need to peck at the entangled web of absurdities know as the ‘Holy Bible’.” But if we don’t engage the theist, then how are we to communicate to them the positive, inspirational, and enlightening aspects of Atheism? My reply, my friends, is “at every opportunity.” And thus I accepted the debate with Dr. Craig that led me to that moment of truth in an empty hotel bathroom in Saskatoon.

My mind went blank, my body became paralyzed, and the weight of the millions of nonbelievers settled heavily on my psyche. And then it hit me. I realized that it was not the reputation of Dr. Craig that concerned me. It wasn’t the overwhelmingly religious audience either. The people I was most concerned about was you, my dear Atheists. Why? Because Atheists are a finicky lot. You are all expert critics to one degree or another. I knew that I would receive critiques from my fellow Atheists The critiques would be more severe if I didn’t follow the path of previous Atheists who have engaged the theist publicly, especially those from those Atheists who regularly attempt to engage the theist in debate.

But what else did I expect from Atheists? Of course they are going to critique me. I welcome that. I want all of you to pour over every word and point out weaknesses and help me develop more strengths. I realized that when one of us speaks it is impossible to represent all Atheists so that the diversity of opinions in the form of criticisms and praise that Atheists offer each other only helps us grow, and learn, and ultimately becomes the sum and substance of the beauty, power, and simplicity of Atheism. Each of us thinks in our own way.

That is what I expect from the Atheist community. I’d like to close with ten words that our President, Ellen Johnson said on the steps of the Supreme Court Building on Saturday, June 12, 1998. Words so profound, and yet so simple, that Pat Robertson featured them on his 700 Club program on Monday, June 15. Ellen said:

“These knees will not bend; this head will not bow.”

---

Ron Barrier is the national spokesman for American Atheists. He is the co-host, with Ellen Johnson, of The Atheist Viewpoint cable television series, and a veteran debater for the cause of reason. He is a sought-after personality for numerous radio and television talk-shows.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.