It's time for me to go. I've been putting my thoughts on the bible out into the ether for about five years now. It started out as an antidote to my religious conditioning and an outlet for things I wish I could say out loud. At that time, I was a closeted atheist attending a church of christ. My husband was the only person in the world who knew I was an atheist and he was not happy about it. I was more than a little afraid for my future, having been socialized to believe I would be shunned and abandoned if anyone ever knew what I actually thought about god, the bible, and religion.
I kept this blog anonymous and unfunded, even though it kept me in the no man's land of the Google algorithm, because I didn't want it to affect my personal life in any way. I didn't care how many viewers I got, but have been pleasantly surprised throughout the years. My blog's map shows me I've had readers from every continent. (Hello, to my regular visitors) However, I never received any comments on my actual content. Just a bit of spam now and then. That's okay. It actually made me less self conscious and willing to ramble on.
My life and the world have changed over the last five years. I feel that I have covered everything I needed and wanted to discuss about the bible in this blog. I'm no longer attending church and have no plans to ever go back. I have friends and family members who know I am an atheist and have not abandoned me. However, I still feel the need to exercise caution when speaking about religion. My husband is still not happy about it, but he pretends it is a non-existent issue. My fear is not as great as it once was, but my sorrow has increased a hundred fold. I have lost someone very dear to me.
Because of my loss, I have had to make some monumental life changes and mental shifts. My psyche has been in emotional turmoil for over six months. I really should find a therapist that I can work with, one who won't "bimble off into woo woo land." I've shed a lot of former activities and associations, clearing my way for a future that is still a mystery to me. I have plans to finish my education and do a little travelling. I also want to move away from an area which has not been good for my mental health. In the spirit of trying new things to see what sticks, I bought myself a ukulele.
Existential angst is a powerful thing. I suspect embracing it might be easier and healthier than resisting. We'll see. In the meantime, the earth has been well watered with my tears. Life is strange. I can wake up in the morning and appreciate the beauty of my world, hear the laughter of people I love, and even laugh a little myself. Yet still I walk around with a broken heart and the certain knowledge that we are all but space dust. The universe and time care nothing for my tears.
To my friends and family, should you ever find this blog: I have been as honest in these pages as I know how to be. If anything I have written gives you pain or sorrow, know that it was not my intent. I was writing what I saw as true at the time.
To my children, should you ever find this blog: I love you dearly, more than words can tell.
Rest in peace my dear one.
AG
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Friday, October 4, 2019
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
A Grieving Atheist Book Review: Zen without Zen Masters
Hello, I have briefly mentioned that there has been a terrible tragedy and I have lost someone very near and dear to me about two months ago. My heart is not just broken, it is shattered. I have been trying to navigate daily life through my intense grief, just managing to hold on to my sanity. I apologize for not giving details, but I don't think that is necessary, nor will it serve any purpose to examine the circumstances of the death. It wouldn't change anything. They are still dead. No reiteration of the past can change that.
I am still having crying jags and emotional meltdowns. I've seen a grief counselor twice. She was not very helpful, but I don't blame her, what can she do. What is done can't be undone, what is shattered cannot be fixed, the dead cannot be brought back to life. I was a little frustrated at the counselor though. Both sessions, she asked me about my loved one and if I could feel their presence, what I thought had happened to their essence, and if I was receiving messages from them. I thought this was inappropriate. She was under the impression that I was a "spiritual" person. I had to tell her I was not religious and she said that would make it harder for me to recover. She also attempted to question why I was not a believer.
Does it make it harder to grieve as an atheist, or just different? Is it even different at all? Does the severity of grief depend on the closeness of the relationship more than religious beliefs? What about the personalities, strengths, weaknesses, and life experiences of the griever? What about the circumstances surrounding the death? Does religion help when the death was sudden, unnecessary, and not understandable?
One thing the counselor got right is that I have had a traumatic shock. Apparently I have also entered a stage of what is known as "complicated grief." That seems so obvious as to almost be insulting. Duh.
I'm reluctant to go back to that counselor, or any counselor for that matter. I have tried multiple methods of distraction, action, and reaction. They might help for a time but they quickly become useless as a means to ease the pain. I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs of any kind. I have very few responsibilities to occupy my time. I did get a part time job, but it consists of 4-10 hours a week. For now I have decided to do what comes naturally to me and turn to books. Over at the Roll To Disbelieve blog, I asked for book suggestions to deal with grief as an atheist. I received two. The first was Zen without Zen Masters.
I ordered the book and set about reading it by just opening it to a random page. You can do that with this book because each page is self contained. There is an illustration or mini lesson on each page. I had been pre-warned that it was a bit irreverent. I didn't find it insulting, but it was more flippant than what I needed. Also, there was more about sex than I expected, which was not relevant for me. The most helpful part was near the end, describing various meditations and exercises other than the ones popularly thought of when we hear the words. I would like to examine these more. 1. Breathing meditation 2. Moving meditation. 3. Walking meditation 4. Transcendental meditation. 5. Daily exercise (live in the day) 6. Being exercise (become part of a particular cultural experience) 7. Candle exercise 8.Decisive exercise (using CAN achronism to help decide what to do) Etc.
The book's main message seems to be: Do not take yourself too seriously. Very hard for me right now under the circumstances. However, I do want to explore a buddhist approach to death and grieving. I found help in some Buddhist philosophy as I was deconverting from Christianity. Maybe it will be of some use again. I checked out a book from my library, called The Five Invitations: What Death Can Teach us about Living. I didn't realize at the time that it was also written by a Zen Buddhist. It has already given me much to think about which I will probably discuss later.
I am still having crying jags and emotional meltdowns. I've seen a grief counselor twice. She was not very helpful, but I don't blame her, what can she do. What is done can't be undone, what is shattered cannot be fixed, the dead cannot be brought back to life. I was a little frustrated at the counselor though. Both sessions, she asked me about my loved one and if I could feel their presence, what I thought had happened to their essence, and if I was receiving messages from them. I thought this was inappropriate. She was under the impression that I was a "spiritual" person. I had to tell her I was not religious and she said that would make it harder for me to recover. She also attempted to question why I was not a believer.
Does it make it harder to grieve as an atheist, or just different? Is it even different at all? Does the severity of grief depend on the closeness of the relationship more than religious beliefs? What about the personalities, strengths, weaknesses, and life experiences of the griever? What about the circumstances surrounding the death? Does religion help when the death was sudden, unnecessary, and not understandable?
One thing the counselor got right is that I have had a traumatic shock. Apparently I have also entered a stage of what is known as "complicated grief." That seems so obvious as to almost be insulting. Duh.
I'm reluctant to go back to that counselor, or any counselor for that matter. I have tried multiple methods of distraction, action, and reaction. They might help for a time but they quickly become useless as a means to ease the pain. I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs of any kind. I have very few responsibilities to occupy my time. I did get a part time job, but it consists of 4-10 hours a week. For now I have decided to do what comes naturally to me and turn to books. Over at the Roll To Disbelieve blog, I asked for book suggestions to deal with grief as an atheist. I received two. The first was Zen without Zen Masters.
I ordered the book and set about reading it by just opening it to a random page. You can do that with this book because each page is self contained. There is an illustration or mini lesson on each page. I had been pre-warned that it was a bit irreverent. I didn't find it insulting, but it was more flippant than what I needed. Also, there was more about sex than I expected, which was not relevant for me. The most helpful part was near the end, describing various meditations and exercises other than the ones popularly thought of when we hear the words. I would like to examine these more. 1. Breathing meditation 2. Moving meditation. 3. Walking meditation 4. Transcendental meditation. 5. Daily exercise (live in the day) 6. Being exercise (become part of a particular cultural experience) 7. Candle exercise 8.Decisive exercise (using CAN achronism to help decide what to do) Etc.
The book's main message seems to be: Do not take yourself too seriously. Very hard for me right now under the circumstances. However, I do want to explore a buddhist approach to death and grieving. I found help in some Buddhist philosophy as I was deconverting from Christianity. Maybe it will be of some use again. I checked out a book from my library, called The Five Invitations: What Death Can Teach us about Living. I didn't realize at the time that it was also written by a Zen Buddhist. It has already given me much to think about which I will probably discuss later.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Mark part one
Let us begin reading Mark. Right away I notice there is no virgin birth story. There is no mother Mary and father Joseph. No divine conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. So, if Mark stood alone, we would have to assume Jesus was conceieved and birthed in the normal human way. The first chapter begins by telling us that the gospel of Jesus Christ began in Isaiah with a prophecy about a messenger who will prepare the way for the lord. And that messenger was John the baptizer. Did Mark not know of the supposed prophecy of a virgin giving birth? Wouldn't that have been a pertinent part of Jesus's back story? If Mark was the first gospel writer, did Matthew and Luke each make up their Jesus origin stories? Both of their stories are very different after all.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Refutation of Deism, Book Review
Today I read Refutation of Deism by Percy Bysshe Shelley, found here: (link) it is Shelley's argument against William Paley's Watchmaker/intelligent design hypothesis. It seemed to me that Shelley was trying to use the style of argument found in Plato's dialogues, with two fictional Greek characters having the discussion.
One character, Theosophus, is the deist, the other, Eusebes, argues against deism. However, at first I was confused, because Eusebes starts off rebuking Theosophus for his need for evidence and his rejection of the christianity of faith in miracles and revelation. I think Shelley must have been trying to be ironic or sarcastic. Most of Eusebes's replies to Theosophus's deistic intelligent design argument consisted in dismantling the material necessity for a creator.
The dialog ends with Theosophus conceding that Eusebes gives a good argument for atheism, but since he can not give up his belief in god, he will resort to whatever form and practice of traditional Christianity that he can stomach.
I found the arguments against intelligent design very reasonable and well thought out. They comprised the main body of the dialog. There were many quotable portions, including "To suppose some existence above and beyond (the natural laws) is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what has already been accounted for by the laws of motion and properties of matter. "
This essay is only 30 pages long, but does take some time to decode and digest.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Robert Ingersoll
I recently finished reading volume 1 of the collected works of Robert Ingersoll. I had read that Ingersoll influenced Mark Twain and I had seen Matt Dilahunty talk about reading Ingersoll when he was deconverting from Christianity. This made me curious because I respect the work of both Dilahunty and Twain. Mark Twain has long been one of my favorite authors. You can find the collected works of Ingersoll for free at multiple spots on the web: Gutenberg, the University of Adelaide, and Amazon Kindle.
After reading the first volume, I can definitely see how Ingersoll influenced Twain. The soft sarcasm and deep caring for humanity are shared by both men. While Twain preferred to give his lectures and lessons under the cover of fictional satire. Ingersoll is straightforward and factual about his atheism and disdain for religious prejudice. Ingersoll goes further than Twain in spelling out injustice against women, children, and minorities. He speaks candidly about the science and history scholarship of the day and how it does not agree with the Bible. Of course it is somewhat outdated now, because he wrote and spoke over 100 years ago. However, the main ideas remain valid across time. There were a couple of passages which revealed that in spite of his forward thinking, Ingersoll retained a few prejudices of his time.
I found Robert Ingersoll fairly easy to read and understand. However, by the last lecture in the book, the repetition of themes began to be a little tiring. All in all, I highly recommend reading at least the first volume of his lectures. Especially for any one interested in the history of free thought in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)