My cube-neighbor is a devout christian, but the type of religious person that's a good example for others: She doesn't preach or advertise her beliefs, but will discuss it when it comes up. I enjoy working with her and like her as a person.

She did irritate me a few weeks ago by saying, "I know you might not like what I have to say, but I think someday, in the distant future, you and your husband will be saved." I just said that I know that's how all christians feel and it doesn't surprise me, but not to hold her breath!

The topic came up again yesterday, and we were discussing our families, what their beliefs are and so on. She said her parents are both religious- her father is a devout catholic and her mother is a christian "but laid back and cool about it," words to that effect. Meaning, not rabidly insane like my mother-in-law that I often complain about.

Then she told me how, once when her cousin and his friend were over the house, the friend ("a man of science, very smart guy") said that he didn't believe in god. So her mom politely asked him to leave.

I was incredulous. "She kicked him out on account of stating his non-belief?!" I asked.

"Well, NO, she didn't [motioning with her leg] KICK him out, she just asked him to leave," she responded.

"That's kicking somebody out, you don't have to do it literally! She showed him the door. Wow. And on what basis?" I didn't get any impression that the guy was being obnoxious or rude. He merely stated his position.

"Well, what would you do if a man came into your house, and turned out to be a thief, or a rapist?"

"WAIT. You are comparing an atheist to a rapist and a thief??"

Cue the backpedaling. She seemed confused and started mumbling something about humanism vs atheism. I didn't let go, and she denied thinking that. "But you just made a comparison of non-believers to criminals!"

"I didn't say that. That's not what I'm saying. You must've been very scarred to think that's what I meant," she replied with that creepy calmness so typical of christians. I was floored.

"You have to understand," I explained, "atheism just means 'non-belief.' That's IT. It makes no statement about a person's morals or character. That's ALL it means, non-belief."

She didn't apologize, and won't, but I hope a small seed was planted in her brain. She's been spoon-fed information about atheists her entire life, and I'm sure she had no idea about the proper definition. I hope she begins to see some of the hypocricy.

In any case, I purchase and am almost done reading "A Manual for Creating Atheists." While I hate carrying this book around and reading it in public on the train due to the provocative title (because people will automatically assume that's what I'm trying to do all the time, which I'm not), it's an excellent book.

Also, I should add: I get the impression that she's one of those that's uncomfortable with "atheist" and prefers to think of me as a "secular humanist." Because every now and then, she asks me to clarify my position. "Are you an atheist or a humanist?"

I tell her that I agree with humanist principles, but I don't consider myself a humanist except by default. I'm an atheist. It's weird, like she keeps asking the question as if to give me a chance to redeem myself and choose the "correct" answer. Wow, so there really are people out there who think it's a world of difference between the two, and obviously one cannot really have morals without subscribing to some prescribed "religion."

Views: 523

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Christine, you responded beautifully and powerfully. I would not have been so nice, but then, I am not known for my peaceful nature. My goal, when facing a person such as you describe, is to make them feel so intimidated that they wouldn't bring up the subject again. I know! That is not the "right" way to do it. I agree with Peter Boghossian and know he has a far superior process than mine. I consider such people as a virus and treat them as such. My daughter tells me that is why I am so rude and crude. She is right. I have things to do and don't want to be around toxic people. 

If my goal were to convince them of other values I would spend the time and energy to make it happen. That, however, is not my goal. An individual who believes in superhuman powers, who puts his or her trust in being protected by that unseen, unheard, unknowable power, who seeks victory over another, who judges others based on a set of values that produce no validity for me, who is capable of doing anything to fulfil his or her delusional values, and who believes there is one right way and all others are wrong, has too much baggage and it crosses over into how they see the world and others, how they think and how they act. 

What I do is to be honest, clear, specific,and  concrete about my ideas, express them with competence and confidence, enjoy all that is healthy and brings happiness to myself and others, and listen to others as they express their ideas. I don't listen to dogma. I've heard it all before and don't need to hear it again. 

I also seek to see reality in its true form. When I hear a religious person condone spanking a child and call it discipline, I perceive it as an assault and intervene. Or hear a religious person agree with a husband hitting his wife, there is no question to me that is assault. He wouldn't do that to the queen of England, why should he feel he has the right to do it to wife or children. The notion of entitlement runs rampant in religious circles. No taxes on property or income, is outrageous. Why should taxpayers pay for people to be supplicants to a delusion?

When I observe a football team or player praying for victory in a public display of their faith, I interpret that is exhibitionism. They can make fools of themselves if they want to and I can express my opinion. After all, doesn't the bible say to pray in private? Public displays of devotion obviously violate that imperative. 

My workplace is very diverse.  We have workplace goals to achieve, performance measures, surveys, and other stuff. 

In general, I fee that religion has no place in the workplace.  People are only human, and it comes up, but when people discuss religion, my normal response is "I try not to discuss religion at work" and leave it at that.  When people - not coworkers - bring it up, I don't respond, or I say something to the effect of "It's good to have community" or "people who you can depend on".  If they press me, I respond "It's important for people to know that I treat everyone with full respect regardless of their beliefs.  So I don't discuss mine".

That usually does it.  Of course, in most things, I think of the best thing to say a day, a week, or a year later.

I still maintain that the money was begged, borrowed, or stolen, to build the places of worship, & THOSE ARE THE PLACES where the religion belongs!

Thanks for all the feedback! It's definitely tricky discussing these things in the workplace, but let's face it, I spend more time with these people (or about as much) as with my friends and family. Plus, there are a lot of smart and interesting people from a variety of cultures, so it's hard NOT to talk.

If anything, I spend all day with my earbuds in (listening to The Athiest Experience, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Penn Jillette etc. etc.) trying to avoid conversations. Cube Neighbor asks a lot of questions, I suspect as a polite conversation tactic (you know, show an interest in others) and it's hard to stop the momentum once we get to talking! We do seem to have a lot in common personality-wise.

I don't normally bring up religion, but it finds its way in. I'm at fault for mentioning my MIL last time, but she will ask me stuff.

Another funny note: She told me about a week ago how some kids from her sunday school class brought in The Satanic Bible and asked her if they should read it, or something. They didn't mention it to their parents, and she said she wouldn't tell them either.

She was wondering how to handle the situation; I suggested she look it over and ensure it wasn't anything over-the-top, and not make a big deal out of it- take away the mystery.

She hasn't mentioned it since, but this morning, out of curiosity, I looked it up on Amazon. Turns out it averages 4 out of 5 stars, and that it doesn't involve midnight blood sacrifices in the nude (as one reviewer put it!) Basically, it endorses each of the "seven deadly sins" and explains how they are actually virtues. I thought it sounded like an interesting take on the concept, actually. Like a fun philosophical exercise- how could those 7 "sins" be virtuous? Pride, for example, is motivation for people to take care of themselves, look good, etc.

Basically, it's just a BOOK. It was written fairly recently, and if it were published under the title "The George Costanza Approach to Success- Just Do the Opposite," it would probably sell like hotcakes with zero stigma. But OMFG, it's got "Satanic" on the cover!! Jeepers!!!

So I mentioned it to her this afternoon, and she sounded curious, but then didn't say anything when I told her it was no big deal. I bet she never gives it back to the kids, and would prefer to believe that it's indeed a threat to the world at large.

She probably can't tell her fellow cult members that she's friendly with an atheist, so she needs me to re-label myself. Or something. Pretty sad.

Christine, I live your George Costanza reference! Lol.

I respect your way of handling the situations that arise at your workplace. You use good sense and don't react out of anger, as I do.

Some people seem surprised that 796 children listed as having died at the home run by the Sisters of Bon Secours. Some reports state the bodies were found in a septic tank; that report is being refuted. Whether found in a mass grave or in a septic tank is not the point. The point is newborn babies and older children were found there with signs of malnourishment. Just imagine the circumstances that placed pregnant women with babies while not wed in such a situation. It is a moral corruption of the first order.  Who says religion teaches morals? Here is the evidence; a stark contrast from reality. 

Anger grows over reported mass grave of children from Irish unwed m...

It is not only the Roman Catholic church that violates human rights. The Puritan were a cruel bunch and used extreme measures beyond believing. They were persecuted for their beliefs in England, and they persecuted others for not believing as they did. 


"In 1656 two Quaker women, Ann Austin and Mary Fisher, landed in the Bay Colony. Quakers believed in the equality of men and women, and they believed that women had a right to preach. Fisher and Austin were arrested as "blasphemous heretics" and their books were burned. They would have died of starvation in jail if sympathetic people bearing food had not bribed the guards. Later the same year eight Quakers were arrested on a ship arriving in Boston Harbor. Their leader, Christopher Holder, stumped the Puritan magistrates when he pointed out that they had no law proscribing Quaker belief.

"Laws were quickly passed with increasing severity: the first offense would be to have one ear cut off, and offending a second time would cost Quaker males the other ear. Quaker women were to be whipped instead. If Quakers, male and female, had not their lesson by the fourth time, "their tongues would be bored through with a hot iron." Christopher Holder kept coming back to Boston to preach and to debate Puritan leaders, so on July 17, 1658 Holder and two other Quakers had their ears cut off, whipped twice a week for nine weeks before they agreed to return to England."

My own ancestors were involved with charging women of being witches in Salem, Mass. They sat on the jury, they convicted and 19 died. A 20th, a man, was pressed to death. I stood on the spot and read the account of the process of pressing. It is a horrid way to die. 

Salem Witchcraft Trials The Convicted and Executed: 19 Victims Who ...

"When hysteria mixed with family rivalries fomented the infamous Salem witch trials of 1692-93, more than 200 people were accused unjustly of practicing witchcraft."

I read the transcripts of the trials, the pleadings of the accused, and was able to read original documents, not secondary sources. 

These are just a few of the atrocities committed by people using religion as an excuse. Read the story of Hypatia, Hypatia, Ancient Alexandria’s Great Female Scholar.

Read Drunk with Blood: God Killings In the Bible.

Killing in the Name of God: The Problem of Holy War

"In spite of the many differences among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, they share a fundamental belief in God as compassionate and just. As a result, those communities have often nurtured people of extraordinary kindness and courageous commitment to justice. In contrast to the deep hatred that obviously inspired the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the vast majority of Muslims, like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, are appalled and sickened by terrorism, and utterly repudiate the mass murder of innocent people.

"Why then do some members of those same communities believe that it is their moral obligation to wage aggressive holy war, even to annihilate innocent people in God's name? What aspects of their scriptures and traditions tend to support violence against "infidels"? What ethical principles--religious and non-religious--can we affirm in response to those ideas and the atrocities that they sometimes engender?"

It is as easy to find descriptions of immoral behaviors of religious written by those who do not have evidence of the existence of god, even religious apologetics attempt to explain away their history. They fail to recognize the role religion plays in domination of its people, infantilizing them, and even condoning outrageous beliefs.  

Just two or three of these reminders of recorded abuses in the name of god and even the dullest person should begin to question his or her faith. 

Should begin to, but almost never will.

Much more often they will simply respond, "well the people who did those things weren't true Christians."  Or some similarly bad excuse.

I know! and the more the pity!

And every sect, every individual within a sect, has a different definition of what "true christian" is supposed to mean.  Probably because the buybull is so totally unclear on the subject.

A "true christian" is very hard to define. There are several reasons for this. The Buybull is constantly being re-written with no surviving true texts of any original manuscripts. One group prefers a certain translation, possibly even to the extent of baseing their doctrine on the wording of that translation. Now look at all the translations that we have. You get an idea of how many doctrines. That's right folks. They are simply making this shit up to produce new versions again and again for the "best selling book of all time."

Next we have certain ones who have the "full gospel." They gibber and roll around in the floor like Curley from the  Three Stooges. Others are more restrained. Some even have the balls enough to believe their sacred book has the "words of Jesus in red." How in the hell would that be possible? Who was actually there recording this man's words? If he existed how would you ever know exactly what he said?

It goes on and on. These are but a few ideas influencing the "true christian."

I was in a discussion once with a "true christian" (protestant evangelical) who made a comment about how members of the Westboro Baptists Church weren't really christians. I stated that it must be hard for him to sleep at night with all that responsibility. He asked what responsibility I was talking about. I responded that apparently he was the one responsible for deciding who is and who is not a christian. He changed the subject to baseball.

Brilliant.  Excuse me while I steal your line.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service