Wow! What a fabulous essay by that little girl. IWhat a f*cknut that teacher is, though, speaking of "atheist traits." Christians are brainwashed into thinking all atheists are just out for themselves. I think that's why James prefers to say he's a "secular humanist," or "bright," or whatever term might get across the idea that you are defined by what you believe, not by what you don't believe. Her teacher is an a-inivisible pink unicornist, and an a-russel's teapotist, but we don't define her that way. Argh.

(Still waiting for the rapture. Free clothes. Fewer assholes.)

Yes - an amazingly precocious article.

not all christians are brainwashed into thinking all atheists are just out for themselves... just the christians that are just out for themselves...

Understood, Jay. I agree with you that many religious people are tolerant and humble. And while I can't agree with Christianity's supernatural components, I agree with much of its morality. Although Dawkins would doubtless use the term brainwashed to describe religious folks, I cannot. I know too many intelligent and thoughtful people who are believers.

This is something I've recently been thinking about.

When you say you agree with Christianity's morality, consider that the bible doesn't agree within itself on whatever "Christianity's morality" is, and neither do the various Christian sects.

We often hear people say, "whatever happened to peace on earth," or "whatever happened to love thy brother," or some other teaching from the bible that is humanistic.

But one can also say, "whatever happened to giving your virgin daughters to an angry mob because it's better than committing sodomy?"

The bible is inconsistent, and many parts are ultra-violent and sick, and those parts of the bible appeal greatly to a certain Christian element. (Mel Gibson, whose favorite part of the Jesus story is the passion, leaps immediately to mind, although there are probably less extreme examples.) Hey, something for everybody there, the gracious and good and humanistic, and the sick twists as well.

There are Christians with humanist values just as there are Christians without humanist values (one of my friends is extremely active in her church -- she's also pro-gun and downright uncharitable). There are non-Christians with humanist values and non-Christians without humanist values. But I will never again accept a discussion about "Christian values," or "Christian morals," because there is no such thing. Christians pick and choose just like the rest of us simply because it's impossible to have a consistent set of values taken from the bible because the bible itself is inconsistent. And sadly, some of our worst vices can be supported by the bible. That makes it a very poor choice as a book of "morals."

I would like James' idea of a "secular [Jesusist]," (let's get rid of that Christ word if we're just talking about an historical figure and his teachings), except that:
1) We're learning his teachings from a crowd of self-promoting men with their own agendas (and again, there is great inconsistency);
2) Some of the stuff he taught was downright shitty. Here's a quote: "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Yeah, and then you get to drink the kool-aid, I hear.
3) Don't worry... there's a reward in heaven. This guy was made to keep people poor and "in their place." It's no wonder the religion was elevated by a Roman emperor. Or our current emporer, the little shit. Look at all of his charitable works.

I know this probably sounds harsh if your brain hasn't been through the same machinations that my brain has been through in the last few years. I think about religion a lot. My grandfather was an Episcopalian minister; my parents are Quakers, but through a very long period they have given up their belief in the supernatural. I have friends who are ultra religious, and friends who, as I said, seem to rely on the less savory parts of the bible to justify their lazy and non-humanistic tendencies. I live in a very Catholic town. I am constantly assaulted with their provincial beliefs. I think about this a lot.

If people are humanistic and good, it's because they evolved as human beings. We evolved that way, because it has helped the species survive. Christianity, written by a bunch of different humans, has many of these good values written in, by no virtue of Christianity. They're there because they were written by humans. But there's so much bullshit and evil in that religion that it does not deserve the tip-toeing mealy-mouthed wishy-washy respect that it gets. (And when I say "evil," allow me to point to our latest holy war, and all the disgraces of the past that preceded it.)

If you haven't read The God Delusion, please read it. Maybe you'll get to where I am, and we can start liberating other non-Christians from their fear of teling the emperor that he has no clothes.

Well by "much of its morality" I refer mainly to the teachings of Jesus, and only those that appeal to me personally. I find that generally puts me in agreement with the local Catholic crowd here in Massachusetts.

Of course the bible is contradictory and largely (IMHO) useless as a guide to living. I posited on this very blog not long ago that I think humanistic mores are a product of social evolution, a necessity for a successful society. I readily agree that much of Christ's teachings (but not all) are simply humanism, coopted common-sense morality that predate Jesus of Nazareth by millenia. In a sense they are not Christian values at all.

But by the same token many of my values predate me by millenia, and yet I lay claim to them all the time by calling them "my values". If I may do so, why can't the Christians?

Though I am no longer a Christian, I was raised a Christian by Christians, and the majority of my friends are religious people. They are my friends because our value systems are closely aligned. I wouldn't be joining my Catholic friend for lunch tomorrow if he thought it was okay to burn women suspected of witchcraft, for example. The religious folk I choose to spend my time with are forward thinking, progressive types who don't try to convert me or force their religion on me. They largely agree with me that religion doesn't belong in politics, and so forth. If they are going to show my philosophy that level of respect, as a humanist, I can't do otherwise to them. And this is where Dawkins and I part ways.

I have not read the God delusion, but I have seen videos of Dawkins presenting sections of it, video interviews with him, and radio talk shows in which he was a guest on NPR. I agree with him essentially that belief in a supreme being is an act of delusion, but I do not like the manner in which he chooses to conduct himself when addressing believers--many of my good friends are believers, and he does not show them the respect they show me. Therefore though I am an atheist of the strong variety, I am not of the evangelical variety. I don't think all religion needs to be stamped out.

I believe that religion is a natural outcome of evolution, and if our species ever evolves to a point where religion is completely unnecessary, then it will disappear over time.

In the meantime, though I will speak out about intolerance and injustice in the name of religion, I will not call for its extermination. I cannot do so and simultaneously consider myself a humanist.

That said, I have every intention of reading The God Delusion. I love Dawkins' ideas... he is brilliant and always challenging and interesting. And I've no doubt I will learn much.

My understanding of the word "evangelize" specifically relates to the Gospel and Christianity. As far as I understood, "evangelism" is preaching the Gospel to people. I don't think there's a straight analogy to Dawkins, since there is no atheist Gospel.

You seem to be using a different meaning of the word, or maybe you think there is a straight analogy to Christian evangelism. Could you explain your usage for me?

Perhaps evangelist is the wrong word. The manner in which I meant it, purely and simply, was that an evangelist atheist tries to convert everyone to atheism and wants to stamp out religion. I think respecting the philosophies of others (to a point) is a core part of humanism. And since my good religious friends don't spend their hours trying to turn me into a theist, I in turn show them the same respect by not trying to turn them into atheists.

I've heard Dawkins insult people who may be ignorant of science, but who are no less human than he. You don't win people to your side by insulting them. Although I love his ideas and his passion, I can't get behind the proselytizing. Therefore I will watch, listen to, and read Dawkins, because he's got an important message and speaks truth, but he has not convinced me that religion harms my religious friends, or that religion needs to be extirpated.

Religion is not the root of all evil. Intolerance is the root of all evil. Religion just makes a great (if not the best) excuse for intolerance if you are an intolerant person.

My goodness, who said religion is the root of all evil? Certainly it is not in Dawkins' books.

Religion is the root of a HUGE amount of non-humanistic behavior, and I believe the humanistic behavior will exist whether there is religion or not.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

Segment #1 of Dawkins "God Delusion" video documentary is entitled "The Root of All Evil" and places that epithet squarely upon religion.

And I stand by my assertion that intolerance is the root of all evil and religion is just an excuse for intolerance.

Incorrect. It was entitled "The Root of All Evil?"

And according to Wikipedia:

"Dawkins has said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy. His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous."

So it's the case of the producers of the show trying to get more people to watch it, which Dawkins had very little control over. Although he did get them to add the question mark.

I think the distorted public perception of Dawkins is another tired attack on atheism, and I hope people aren't buying into it.

Okay, I haven't seen that. It's not in his book, and if you're going to personally say things like "the root of all evil," then I feel you must define evil and explain how it can have only one root.

I am not Dawkins, and it's fine with me if you want to argue with him on your own blog, but I need a little more explanation if you want me to know what you're talking about. Maybe you don't. ;-)

I don't think there's "evil." I've gotten in trouble for saying that before, but I personally think it's a religious word that we probably shouldn't use because of those religious connotations. It's a word dragging so much history around with it, that it's difficult to say it and mean anything but a snake in a tree.

I don't think there's some amorphous Trekkian entity that floats around like a cloud and causes people to engage in anti-humanistic behavior, which is sort of what pops into my head when somebody says "evil." (The other thing that pops into my head is a quote from my senior yearbook (Catholic school) "Evil is 'live' spelled backwards." Not my quote, of course. Good Catholic girl.)

Okay, but what does it really mean? My dictionary says "morally wrong or bad: wicked." Hmmm, moral. Don't like that. Moral means "of or concerned with the principles of right and wrong in relation to human action and character."

Now again, I'm not happy, because "right and wrong" is a gray area, not the black and white that Christianity teaches us.

To me, "evil" is something that the evangelical minister blows out of your soul after you've paid him a lot of money.

We are humans. Our actions are complicated and not easy to understand, but they're based on a long period of evolution in this particular environment. Primarily, our DNA wants to survive. Sometimes, we engage in behavior which hurts other people because of that need, and sometimes we engage in behavior that helps other people because of that need (e.g. feeding our children).

"Evil" is a word that inspires both self-righteousness and shame.

Please think seriously about the word, and whether the behavior you're talking about has a single root.

It's possible that Dawkins meant exactly what I mean when I say it -- we wouldn't have the word "evil" if we didn' t have religion.

Okay, finally... sorry to post so darn much on this topic on your blog, but like I said, I think about it a lot. My dad sent me a really interesting and incredibly frightening article today. It directly addresses the idea that religion is hurting you or your friends. It is called Christianists on the March, by Chris Hedges.

Aha - religion as the root of the word evil. Yes.

It sounds like what you mean is "rudeness" not "evangelism." Fair enough.

Of course, actually equating rudeness to evangelism would itself be quite rude to all the evangelical Christians out there. ;-)

I think that it's your responsibility to be respectful of the people around you. But I am very grateful for all the people around me who have shared their view of the world. Otherwise, I would be pretty dim; I don't presume I could arrive where I am on my own.

Part of that respect is honesty. Part of it is to not insult them. Part of that respect is to allow them room to practice their beliefs as part of a free society. But it is not part of respect to buy into an elevation of their beliefs, to necessarily agree that their beliefs are good, or to keep your mouth closed.

I don't know any one person who hasn't been rude now and again. The perception of what is rude is a very subjective one. Is Dawkins perpetually rude in an attempt to stamp out religion? I doubt it. Has he offended some people? I don't doubt it. Are some people easily offended when it comes to their beliefs? Absolutely.

I'll worry about Dawkins when I hear that he's trying to codify persecution of non-atheists. Persecution of non-believers has, in western history, is largely a religiously-driven phenomenon, not a hallmark of atheism.

I haven't read enough Dawkins to form a complete opinion yet, but I have some disdain for the rush to condemn Dawkins so as not to offend religious friends. As if by exploring the ideas of atheism is, in and of itself, rude.

Even Jesus trashed a marketplace in his day; people have bad days. Christians need to be understanding that we atheists are often trying to figure out our way without a book or an organization to tell us how to think. And there are bumps along the way.

And people I am friendly with do seem to understand that, and understand that it is the person I respect. A person defined by his heart as evidenced by his conduct, and not his supernatural beliefs or lack thereof.

Beautifully said.

One of the definitions of evangelism is simply "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause". Not all uses of the word need be identified with religion or religiousity. Take a guy who thinks the PS2 is the best game system ever, who is ever extolling it, and constantly trying to convince you that you should buy one and ditch your game system of choice. AFAIC, that guy is an evangelist. Not a Christian Evangelist, but a PS2 Evangelist. This is one of the proper meanings of evangelical/evangelism/evangelist... an ardent enthusiasm (and to my mind coupled with a desire to make everyone else feel the same way.) I don't think evangelism necessary = rude. But being evangelically in support of some idea or another can lend itself to rudeness rather quickly.

On the matter of rudeness, here's a bit I recall from a recent radio interview with Dawkins:

Theist: I just can't believe that we came from monkeys. How can you expect me to believe that?
Dawkins: I expect you to believe it because there is overwhelming evidence for it. Do read a book, I implore you, they're marvellous, you'll love them.

Dawkins is clearly condescending to this person, implying that they have never opened a book before. If he was hoping in any way to convince this person or open this person's eyes, he just accomplished the exact opposite, and probably pissed off thousands of theists listening to the conversation. Dawkins is brilliant, and I agree with most of his ideas that I've heard him speak on, but I have the same problem with him that I have with the evangelical atheist blog "God is for Suckers". Atheists do themselves (and humanity) no good by alienating theists and treating them like idiots.

I cannot identify with that behavior and call myself a humanist.

My religious friends know, clearly, and without a doubt, that I think their religion is so much hokum and bunk, but I imagine they appreciate the fact that I don't talk down to them, or pester them about their faith. Faith is belief without or in spite of evidence. I can't operate in that manner--if someone is going to believe in something without evidence, it doesn't seem to me that providing evidence to the contrary is of any benefit. I don't respect their religion, I respect their right to believe it, unmolested by people who believe in other religions or no religions at all.

And I appreciate that they don't pester me about how I'm going to hell and dooming my child to hell and whatever other claptrap they buy into. I'm sure they can't respect my atheism, but they respect my right to live with an atheist worldview and raise my child as I see fit.

I've listened to quite a bit of Dawkins. I watched his speech and Q&A at Lynchberg, I watched his speech in Kansas, I've watched a number of his interviews, and heard him interviewed on NPR. I may not be as much in the know as you are on the man, but I neither do I think I am "rushing" to condemn him, nor do I even think I am condemning him. I vastly admire and respect his mind, and I think he has a formidable intellect. I am only critical of his desire to end religion because I think it denies a basic human right, the right to believe in whatever creed you choose as long as it does no harm to you or others around you, and I am critical of how he chooses to speak to theists. I don't think I am off the mark in these criticisms, and I'm certainly not making those criticisms to avoid offending religious friends.

Ha! I think that's funny. I mean, really, "I just can't believe we came from monkeys." Okay, next? I wouldn't bother arguing with that either. We're not in the position Dawkins is in. Dawkins, like it or not, is a celebrity. Dawkins is a celebrity atheist, and he is repeatedly put in the position of arguing with evangelicals. It must become very tiresome. The person said, in effect, "I choose to ignore the evidence and remain in ignorance."

I'm certainly not suggesting you act in a way that makes you uncomfortable. I'm trying to change the way you think. You're not all the way there yet, as far as I'm concerned, because you're still harboring this "respect" that I disagree with.

Atheists, in general, are more intelligent than the general population. So maybe Dawkins is doing humanity some good by making witty put-downs, because he's appealing to the people who are the closest to coming over to our side. I'm quite certain he has no idea that he's going to convert that religious ding-dong. He's trying to move people from x to y, not from a to y. And many people at x are tired of being insulted, stolen from, and governed by the idiots at a.

"Dawkins is clearly condescending to this person, implying that they have never opened a book before."

He's responding to a question that is put to him in a condescending way, equating evolution with an incorrect belief about monkeys. Either the person is lying or is ignorant. I agree, Dawkins doesn't handle the question gently... he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

We were talking about respecting people, and their ideas. Do you respect the theist's question?

But the person he's talking to isn't the average Christian I know. And I don't think this example is the same thing as talking down to people because of their beliefs. If the theist had said "bless you" and Dawkins had jumped down his throat, then I would have to agree with you.

I'm sorry, though, if I have mischaracterized your opinion of Dawkins. When I said "rush to condemn" I was not referring to you personally, but the number of blog posts that appeared on the 'net around the time God Delusion hit the bookstores.

You're a close friend who I highly respect, so often I feel the need to know how you think, and why you think how you do. And I know you are a charitable and gracious person in your dealings with others. I assumed that at least part of your motivation is against offending your religious friends. I'm sorry I gave the impression this was your only motivation. I didn't mean it that way.

In any case, I don't want to be Dawkins, but I do appreciate that there has been a barrier to understanding between atheists and non atheists. I'm glad he's not held back, mainly because I want to hear what he has to say. And if he gives courage to others who have felt like it was impolite for them to talk about their atheism, we're the better for it. Even (and maybe especially) if those people are able to make their cases more diplomatically.

You're right - rudeness doesn't get you converts. As Maggie pointed out, though, he is not trying to convert Christians. He's not trying to build bridges. He's trying to get his opinion heard by those who may be like minded, but don't have strength of conviction because they haven't heard these arguments made effectively.

Those people will be the people to make new arguments, and perhaps, with stronger footing, will be able to argue more gently yet effectively.

He's not evangelizing. Yet he may be informing a generation of quasi-evangelists.

You can be ardent without being rude. But sometimes you have to be blunt to be heard.

Your friends should respect your opinions. You think very deeply about everything, you research things, you read extensively, and you don't believe things without evidence. That is a method to respect.

Your friends, if they believe something "just because," do not deserve any respect whatsoever for that particular belief. I'm not saying you shouldn't respect your friends. I'm saying that their religious beliefs do not deserve your respect.

If your friend came running up to you and told you she'd joined a cult, would you respect that? If she told you she'd had her palm read, and now she must burn $600, would you respect that? If she told you that ghostbusters had found a ghost in her house and she was going to spend $1000 on a contraption to keep her safe, would you respect that?

You might love her, you might want to help her, you might respect her in general, but would you respect her new belief?

I have friends who are thus deluded, you have friends who are thus deluded. I don't respect their delusions. I respect my friends, I like or love my friends, I care for them, I help them whenever I can, I have even volunteered in humanistic endeavors in their churches. But I don't respect their belief in the supernatural, because there is nothing to respect there.

Why is that particular crazy idea immune to disrespect? Why is that particular crazy idea immune to thought and reason? "I believe in God, JUST BECAUSE, and you must respect that."

Are we so fragile, that we must believe we will live forever? Are we so lonely, that we must believe somebody in the sky is listening to our every thought and gives a shit? Do we actually believe this creature is changing life here on earth, and if so, after seeing the pain and evil and filth on this earth, do we actually consider this god to be a good thing?? Is this what we're protecting when we "respect" our friends' religious belief?

No, I don't, and I mustn't. We must agree to disagree.

Is it because you're afraid to insult them? I don't like to insult people, but if my religious friends bring it up (they do, I never do), if they throw it in my face, then I'm going to say what I honestly think to them. I can try to say it nicely, but I'm never going to say, "I respect your belief in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, simply because you were taught to believe in it by other people who were taught to believe in it, ad infinitum back through the darkest, most dangerous, and most frightening of times." How insane is that?

I don't try to convert my Christian friends. But I also don't pull my punches. You believe in God? Okay. I don't believe in anything supernatural.

I think people need to be exposed to the ideas that:
1) Atheists can be decent people you want around your children;
2) It's okay to be an atheist;
3) It's okay (or even GOOD) to question authority;
4) It's especially good to question something for which there is no evidence.

Do you really want this world run by people who will believe things JUST BECAUSE? Where does that end? Most religious people I know are also taken in by belief in ghosts, fortune telling, and other charlatans and scams. That kind of weakness of mental faculty dribbles into other facets of their lives.

This world is increasingly technological. We increasingly rely on science and mathematics to get us through the day. (Unless we aspire to intone the words, "welcome to Wal*Mart, do you want a sticker?") Do we really want to encourage the idea that we should believe something JUST BECAUSE, or because it's easier to understand than science?

I'm also not sure what you mean by evangelical. I'm an educator. I aspire to educate people to reason intelligently about decisions they have to make that affect themselves, and ultimately, us all. I aspire to educate people about the scientific method and about mathematics. I want my students to question authority and to know that there is a valid way to find answers.

I don't try to "convert" people to atheism, I am simply openly atheistic. I am also openly humanistic. And I do not respect opinions founded without evidence, and I will not behave as if "being religious" is a virtue. The most religious people I can imagine flew airplanes into the world trade center on 9/11. They believed so strongly in their religion, they gave up their lives. I think we all agree there is no virtue there.

I wrote a long argument about why religion is bad, but I actually think it's obvious. I will just add that if anything, the Christian religion has probably stunted its practitioners' ethical growth by telling them what to think and by instilling a simple black and white picture of "right" and "wrong."

Dawkins' book is far more eloquent than I am, and provides far more evidence, and holds the authority of an evolutionary biologist. The book is a much easier and more pleasant read than his other books. He states clearly in his preface who the audience of his book is. It is not religious people, it is people who are teetering on the brink of atheism. Nobody else has to read it. But if you enjoy Dawkins, I think you will really enjoy that book.

Well said! Especially the part about respecting your friends vs. respecting a belief.

In fact, it is surely a form of disrespect (specifically, it is patronizing) to not tell your friend when you disagree. I don't think we've had that sort of relationship with our friends, even when we disagreed on fundamentals like religion.

This leads into a question that I have been considering for a while. Eventually, I'll have time to blog it.

Well, for the record I never said you are an evangelical atheist, I said Dawkins was. :-)

If I tried to muscle atheism onto my religious friends, they would simply choose not to be my friends anymore.

Regarding the questions about cults and palm reading, etc., as I said I think respecting the philosophies of others (to a point) is a core tenet of humanism. The important phrase being to a point--if I think someone's faith is doing them harm instead of bringing them comfort, then yes, I'll speak up unbidden, but the chance of success is fairly nonexistent.

I think you can't reason a person out of a place that they didn't reason themselves into.

I have direct experience with this as someone I care for turned into a religious zealot recently and blew a bunch of money on psychics and other nonsense. As a cautionary measure I loaned her a copy of Randi's "Flim Flam", which she returned to me, largely unread, some month's later with the observation "Thanks for loaning this book to me--of course none of it is true." I simply retorted that the same could be said of the bible, and left it at that. You can't make people change their beliefs through reason. They really need to get there on their own.

Like you, if someone brings it up with me, I don't hold back about what I believe, but I also don't try to make them feel bad about what they believe. That smacks to familiarly off guilting people into faith.

That just ain't me.

I don't need faith, but some people do. So I will respect their choices, even if I disagree.

I wish I could add more but I have a luncheon date. Take care Mags, it's been very nice to hear you speak so passionately about something which is important to us both. I promise I will read The God Delusion, in fact I look forward to it. Maybe it will convince me that religion needs to be stamped out. We'll see.

In the meantime, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, and far more eloquently than you will admit.

I'm enjoying the conversation as well, I'll only add that if the evidence isn't in front of people that there is another way, that there are other ways to think and live, and that there is direct criticism of the way they think, then they are less likely to come to those conclusions on their own.

That "comfort," of which you speak, however. That comfort can be found through the possession of a strong and healthy mind, and if you aren't there already, then you can get there with psychological help and the help of other people in possession of strong, healthy minds. That "comfort," the comfort of the idea of a life after death and all its associated magic, directly led that person from her unenviable hell to belief in psychics and other nonsense. I don't agree with that comfort. I don't agree that it's the only comfort, and I certainly don't think it's a good comfort. I'm sure I'd be a much happier person if drugged or lobotomized, but I choose knowledge and self-reliance.

People who are religious, in most cases, have not made a choice. They have been indoctrinated from a time when they are very vulnerable and open to believing what they're told. All I'm saying is let them know there's a choice, let them understand the choice, and don't pretend that respecting your well-founded opinions is in any way the same as respecting their superstitious ones. The only reason they respect other religions is because it's the only way they can justify their own.

You can't change somebody's mind. But you can help them get one step closer to reason. Eventually they might cross the line. Some people are only afraid not to believe. Show them that it's okay.

I'd say a majority of Christians in this country don't understand Humanism at all, and choose to define everyone in terms of their non-Christian-ness.

Only recently have Christians embraced Jews, largely because of the part they believe they will play in the end of the world. The media has followed suit with this, and you're always hearing about "Judeo-Christian" this and that, as if it's one thing. Wonderfully wishy-washy.

In any case, it is not a minority of Christians who are wrong-headed about "Atheism." It is, perhaps, sad that the reputation extends to all Christians. About as sad as it is that more of these reported progressive Christian aren't more vocal or active about suppressing the crazier ideas of their philosophical cousins.

That said, I'm all for the efforts of progressive Christians in emphasizing their Humanistic beliefs over the spiritualistic ones. I encourage and support them.

Heck, I briefly called myself a secular Christian because of my interest in Jesus' teachings. I didn't consider that a contradiction, but many Christians thought I was nuts. Today I wouldn't call myself that because I have changed my mind about whether it makes sense; I don't believe Jesus was the Christ, so it makes little sense to call myself any sort of Christian.

I have been asked, on occasion, why I would want to follow Jesus' teachings and remain atheist. The question is equally valid when put to certain religionists. Why not call yourself a Humanist who also believes in God (there are such Humanists, of course).

The difficulty is in the focus of how people define themselves. We traditionally have a god-centered definition. Religionists would rather define themselves by their god-flavor. Atheism is the no-flavor.

Better to define oneself by one's crazy beliefs (be they crazy atheist beliefs or crazy theist beliefs) in some informative and meaningful way than by trying to join the Christian club by naming yourself some or other brand of Christianity. Thus, confusion.

Ultimately, that's where this trouble finds itself rooted. Everyone wants to be some sort of Christian or other. It's a battle for who owns Christ. It seems senseless.

On the use of "brainwashed" -- It's not a polite term to use, which is why I don't use it. But whether it is meaningful or not is a different discussion.

I'm sorry, that was a quick and thoughtless comment. Let's try this: "some people are influenced by the media, religious wingnuts, and other sources into believing that all atheists are just out for themselves."