HEATHEN OF THE CORN
Why Are Atheists Organizing?
I think its important to focus on why atheists are out here organizing and why there is an attraction to atheist organizations in the first place and to explore why there are secular groups. It isn’t that someone reads the Bible, disagrees with a piece because of some kind of internal conflict and then becomes an atheist agitator. It isn’t even the case that a lot of folks find social messages within the Bible to be things they disagree with and then try to find a way around them. Another big misconception by many Christians is they believe that folks just hear Christianity and immediately roll their eyes because they think Christians are dumb or that all organized religion is inherently bad.
It is isn’t necessarily those, but because at the most basic level, the claims in religious texts are simply not true.
While those can be true for SOME people that consider themselves atheists, it isn’t necessarily true of many or even most of them. Even if it were, that wouldn’t be a motivating factor to be outspoken about such things. I think a lot of motivation is that non-religious people care to a higher degree on which things are true.
The key driver is that regardless of how good or how bad one may consider the words in the Bible to be its problematic to adopt them as an ethical or scientific basis because the claims and words aren’t supported. If the many claims in the Bible were true or had evidence or could even be considered verifiable, we would approach them differently. Atheists look at the body of evidence and come away with the general idea that “this stuff simply isn’t true or real”. It isn’t some pre-determined goal to “sin” or nay-say religious folks, its because we’ve looked under the hood and found little worth adopting.
Lets start with what isn’t true by digging down to the very basic level on the Biblical claims: the death and resurrection of Jesus and why its important. Remember, a basic foundational claim for Christianity is that Jesus died for your sins and then was resurrected after 3 days and ascended to heaven. The key part is the original sin part; there are a lot of folks dying for religious causes across many different faiths, but they aren’t dying with the authority to forgive the entire world for their past grievances. If there is no original sin, then Jesus’ death is nothing more than another one of many martyrs dying for their faith. Sad perhaps, but not a foundation upon which to give Christianity any kind of authority.
There is the rub though: If you don’t think original sin is real, then Jesus’ death means nothing for you theologically. It undermines all the authority of the Bible as any kind of ethical, sociological, logical, or philosophical text. Not accepting the initial claims in the Bible about original sin leaves a critical reader without any other reason to really take it seriously. Jesus may say some nice things, he may not. There may be nice passages and some not so nice passages, sure. But if you don’t think it has the weight of the universe, and that it isn’t something that some unproven god says, then you just don’t think its inherently true. You put it up with any other historical text and weigh it on the merits and find it severely lacking.
The tough thing for Christians to hear is that there are good reasons not to think original sin is real. Evolution and genetic study disprove original sin as it came from Adam and Eve, a population of two; a population far too small to explain the vast genetic differences across humanity. Then we also run into many logical and philosophical problems with original sin: how can someone be guilty of something before they are born? Is this a justified thing to do? How do we tell who is and is not forgiven? What evidence do we have for all of these claims in the Bible from the garden of Eden to Noah’s Ark to even anyone else who talked about Jesus outside of the Bible? Why are some folks split into different denominations with different understandings of what sin even is?
The evidence simply isn’t there.
In short, if you don’t think its true, it isn’t anti-Christian bias; its simply treating the book like you would any other.
So, if it isn’t true on a factual level then we run into the problem with justification of the actions religious folks use, especially when they hurt people. If the Christian god were in fact real and the edicts laid out in the Bible were verifiable, then there is almost nothing that can’t be justified on Biblical grounds. If the creator of the entire universe said to have pancakes on every 3rd day, then having a law that said to have pancakes on every 3rd day would make a lot of sense. However, if we run that up against the truth claims of the Bible we run into a problem, especially since the claims being made by modern Christians aren’t as benign as breakfast choices. These are big deals like who gets legal protection, who counts as a person, and even the existence of democracy as a concept.
If the justification to hurt or diminish people because the Creator of the Universe said so, you’re going to need a lot heftier piece of evidence than the scant things provided in the Bible. This is what primarily pushes people to organize against these ideas, not because they necessarily inherently want to oppose the Bible, but because the justifications provided do not rest on solid foundations. Who amongst us would take pleasure or pride in doing things that have no justification? When is “because I want to” ever a good excuse when you cause harm to others?
As a people, as a species, we find this to be the worst response when questioned on an action, but for atheists this often is the response we perceive from Christian when they say “the Bible says” or “Jesus says so”. This may seem strange to a Christian reading this but imagine it the other way around: imagine your local government did an event that caused a substantial part of your community to feel they are excluded and couldn’t participate, like say a mandatory prayer to Allah or a local ordinance banning certain fabrics for underwear. The official response from the council response to you was “Well the Qur’an says to” or “we are simply honoring the memory of Joseph Smith” when they excoriate Christians at city council meeting. That seems like they are first wanting to do the bad event or their own hobbies, then are using a religious justification for it.
This is how Christians sound every day to non-religious folks. Whether its holding a prayer before a session, banning people from using certain bathrooms, or taking money from public coffers to push them into private religious ones; all responses sound a lot like “because I want to” instead of any kind of justification with a strong basis. If the justification is the Bible, that isn’t a justification at all- as pointed out earlier, it isn’t true and thus it isn’t justified. The next question to ask, then, is if it isn’t justified and it isn’t true, then wouldn’t that mean we’re doing unjustified things based on untrue claims?
Isn’t that an inherently bad thing to do?
Atheists, and particularly organized atheists would say YES! It is an inherently bad thing to do things that are both unjustified and based on untrue things. This is no way to learn more things about our world nor a good way to ensure the well-being of our fellow human beings. If we allow untrue and unjustified ideas to drive our behaviors, then we are always going to run into conflicts with things like science, logic, ethics, and even agreed upon epistemology.
Think about building a house or structure and we have to collaborate together to get it done. We can’t find common ground if one person uses a tape measure to measure the length of wood, and the other consults a book their uncle gave them on building practices in the 1800s and refuses to hand over the saw until we all studied the book. That would be a disaster for building and while you might eventually get something built, it’ll be ramshackle, unstable, and untrustworthy for years to come. Later, when the 1800s person wasn’t involved, the tape measure engineers likely want to tear down and rebuild it WITHOUT their particular “assistance” if it was bad enough.
You may think this is a silly analogy but apply that same logic to many of the laws we see being pushed by Christians. Instead of measuring the well-being and outcome of laws, we have a group of leaders consulting a book - a book that makes unjustified and untrue claims – and demands everyone else carve out exceptions to them. Based on this bad epistemology we have folks welcoming back preventable diseases like Measles (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HF2171), encouraging public dollars to be spent on sectarian religious projects (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=HF2366&emci=88999451-1309-f111-832e-0022482a9733&emdi=bd28a002-1609-f111-832e-0022482a9733&ceid=34643822), demanding medical professionals lie to their patients(https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SSB3115), pushing for the official state sanctioned subjugation of women(https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF2172), and even put untrained religious advocates into schools using public tax dollars (https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=HF%20884).
Is it no wonder that atheists find these reasons to organize against these religious ideals – they have bad outcomes and diminish groups of people! One need not be anti-religious or anti-Christian to be opposed to religiously based laws and ideas that have bad results for the population at large. It is one thing to have a small religious community engage in their own private affairs, its another when it bleeds out into the rest of the population that doesn’t hold to the same beliefs nor agree to the same unjustified religious texts.
This is why we are here and this is why secular groups will likely always exist: to find out what is true about the world and to discard bad and old ideas that don’t work anymore. Secular and atheist groups aren’t about persecution of Christians, they are just more interested in a better world using our reason and science instead of reliance on old contradictory and unjustifiable texts. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once famously quipped:
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted".
I think that quote should be taken directly to heart when Christians are approached by secular groups and individuals. We just want to know why they think the way they do and why religious folks believe in unjustified and untrue textual interpretations. Why do they think their interpretation of ancient texts justifies harming the rest of us by undermining science, undermining democracy, and eroding the trust in our public institutions.
They aren’t justified in their actions or beliefs and they are actively harmful to society in many ways.
We just want to know what their good reasons are for it and if they can simply point to the Bible or talk about their faith, that is just “because I want to” with extra steps and that is absolutely something worth organizing against.
Modern Morality exists in-spite of Biblical theology - Guest Post by Jesse Parker
Biblical influence is a widely attributed source of morality in the United States. Scripture
is often cited as foundational to the origins of morality, ethics and ‘good’ behavior. Yet,
much of the Christian community fails to recognize society deviates from the ideals and
principles dictated by the Christian Bible. The abandonment of Old Testament law is
perhaps one of the most significant secular church developments. Confusion in the
pews arises when evaluating the importance of the Ten Commandments, all the while
rejecting other archaic beliefs such as the sins of wearing mixed fabrics or cutting off
hands for the crime of theft. So how did the Christian church decide which biblical ideals
to reject and which to keep?
Society has moved on from many of the Biblical moralistic ideals, as they would result in
an extremely violent, unequitable and repressive world. Numerous denominations make
the claim that the Old Testament can be set aside and not adhered while also dictating
that the ten commandments are central to the moral framework of humanity. Cherry-
picking Old Testament concepts and rejecting others speaks to even the Christian
community’s gravitation towards a secular world. Rejecting biblical doctrine to reflect
modern humanitarian ideals is a secular development within the Christian community.
Stating modern morality is directly linked to biblical scripture would be like stating that
modern medicine is directly linked to medieval bloodletting. Arguably, secular humanist
principles are having a significantly greater impact on Christianity than Christianity is
having on secular America. Jesus makes at least 5 explicit statements in the New
Testament commanding the Old Testament laws be followed. The New Testament and
the words of Jesus have been reinterpreted and even abandoned in recognition that
society can no longer accept these ideas as the morality we know today continues to
transform beyond a religious framework.
Christian dissociation from both Old and New Testament commands is evidenced by the
nearly 45,000 denominations that constitute the modern church. The Christian
community is unable to agree on what parts of the Bible matter, which should be
adhered or which to reject. There are a few basic ideals in which they agree, however,
denominations wildly divert from one another and often result in highly conflicting
theological interpretations. Some congregations support and affirm LGBTQ members,
while other denominations consider the Old Testament command to kill gay people as
reasonable to their theology. Not once is slavery explicitly discouraged in the Bible. In
fact, many Civil War era congregations and political leaders cited scripture to justify the
continued enslavement of African Americans. Abolitionists struggled to find anything in
scripture that blatantly denounced slavery and was unable to find an explicit theological
rebuttal. Yet, their southern counterparts have a wide array of Biblical theology that
reinforced their desire to maintain ownership of African Americans. We have a variety of
biblical examples that show the texts can be very direct and concise; “Do not kill, Do not
covet, Do not have other gods, Do not steal.” If only there had been an 11 th
commandment, to not own slaves.
The New Testament creates additional wrinkles in the idea that modern morality is a
Biblical development. A wide number of congregations view the Old Testament as
superseded or transformed by Jesus and the New Testament. This belief is often used
as justification for the acceptance of God’s murderous and violent character in the Old
Testament, that Jesus has transformed morality into a more accepting and loving
foundation. Yet- many of the teachings of Jesus have become relegated to the past.
There are a surprising number of teachings by Jesus that now do not present as active
values in modern conservative Christianity.
1.) Nonviolence
(Matthew 5, Luke 6)
“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… turn the other cheek.”
A strong majority of the Christian community gravitates towards the Republican
party. Modern republican ideals, beginning during the Cold War, have repeatedly
demonstrated the value of war and U.S Interventionism across the globe.
Eisenhower oversaw coups and interventions. Nixon escalated the Vietnam War.
Reagan revived the hawkish stance on the 1980s in places like Grenada,
Lebanon and the proxy wars in Latin America. But perhaps the Global War on
Terror is a more recent reflection of Christian propensity to gravitate towards
violence and war. In 2025, violence and force appear to be an acceptable means
to control minorities and immigrants under the Trump administration. Modern ties
of American Exceptionalism with Christianity have been a powerful ideological
comingling resulting in the desire and willingness to continue foreign wars,
intervene militarily, and militarize police forces.
2.) Wealth Sharing
(Mathew 19:21, Luke 6: 30, Matthew 5:42, Luke 12:16, Luke 10:25)
“If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you
will have treasure in heaven.” “ For I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..”
I can’t decide which is a better example of the abandonment of scripture relating
to wealth. Is it the prosperity gospel evidenced by people like Jesse Duplantis,
Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, or Joel Osteen? Perhaps the rejection of social
programs to feed the poor, house the homeless and provide free healthcare are a
more accurate representation of conservative Christian values. Christians may
apply such principles in anecdotal ways in their own life that satiate their desire to
fulfill these Biblical concepts. Volunteering at the soup kitchen, donating $100 to
the homeless shelter, or giving canned goods to the food bank seem to be about
the extent of wealth sharing the Christian Church is interested. Localized efforts
by the church to provide social services are inept and incapable of providing a
much more robust system in which people in need are truly taken care of and
given resources to succeed. Modern conservatives reject the idea that feeding
the hungry, housing the homeless and providing free healthcare are suitable
efforts of federal or state governments. Personal responsibility and economic
conservatism appear to be primary staples of reasoning among Christians to
justify denying social programs that would fulfill the very commands of Jesus. I’m
not sure why helping larger groups of people through social programs would not
be a desirable effort, given the red words. But again, much of the Christian
community is not interested in giving up their wealth in any meaningful way to
make a long-term impact on those in need. The most robust tools society
possesses (government programs) to fulfill these New Testament commands are
rejected as a feasible option by much of the conservative church. As time goes
on, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how modern conservative
Christianity is in any way a reflection of the words of Jesus.
3.) Divorce and Remarriage
( Matthew 5:31)
“It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of
divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.”
This makes me ponder the county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who became
known for rejecting same-sex marriage certificates due to her religious beliefs
regarding the sanctity of marriage. She stated, “to issue a marriage license which
conflicts with God’s definition of marriage… would violate my conscience.” Let’s
not overlook that Kim Davis has been married 4 different times, became pregnant
before her first divorce was finalized, and her twins were fathered by her third
husband but were then adopted by her second/fourth husband.
The greater reality of divorce in the Christian community is far more
representative of modern society and reflects the secular movement within
modern Christianity. Christians are divorcing for a variety of reasons; abuse,
infidelity, abandonment, child-rearing disagreements, financial strains and
general marital dissatisfaction. Perhaps a few denominations remain steadfast to
the non-negotiable dynamics of marriage, but most of the Christian community
ignore Jesus’ command in this instance. This secular development recognizes
the implications of marital failure on one’s future and accepts this deviation from
scripture which reflects social progress.
4.) Renouncing Family Ties/ Family Division
(Matthew 10:34)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to
bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a
daughter against her mother, A man’s enemies will be the members of his own
household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy
of me.”
In this chapter, Jesus warns that following him will sometimes divide families and
highlights that allegiance to him takes precedence over family harmony. Yet, what
is the modern outcome for religious families with secular members? Are the
secular family members rejected and denied? Generally, no. While some families
do reject gay, transgender and atheist members- keeping the peace and allowing
the family unit to remain intact takes priority over abandonment in many
households. There are a variety of examples of Jesus demanding that family
never come before god, but in modern society, and in function, families can and
do remain intact despite religious differences.
5.) Sabath Observance
(Matthew 24)
I can only presume the number of Christians working on the Sabath is quite high.
Outdated or not, a large swathe of the church doesn’t seem to mind rejecting this
instruction by Jesus and it is certainly not a reflection of modern morality.
6.) Sermon on the Mount Teachings
(Matthew 5-7)
The sermon on the mount may indeed be Jesus’ dissertation for morality and
spiritual principles. Which of those is reflected as the originating source of human
morality? Are the socially marginalized being accepted by the Christian church?
Or are they being welcomed by the progressive and secular communities? Does
Jesus’ command to forgive and be generous to those in need reflect societal
values of the Christian community or progressive groups? Is the Christian
church adhering to the Golden rule, “Do to others what you would have them do
to you?” Are Christian communities encouraging broad programs to support the
homeless, the hungry and the poor? Jesus’ call for radical love and mercy does
not seem to be of importance to conservative religious groups regarding
immigrants, homelessness or the LGBTQ community or groups deemed as
outsiders to the Christian tradition.
The Christian community may scoff at the idea that many of these principles are being
brought into light to exemplify the modern deviation from original scripture. But these
examples are the point in question. These concepts such as wearing mixed fabrics, not
working on the Sabbath, or plucking one’s own eyes out exemplify modern Christianity’s
reinterpretation, and in many cases, abandonment of basic Biblical principles. There is a
recognition by the Christian community that these beliefs are outdated, dangerous and
would be extraordinarily detrimental to society. The idea that the Bible is the
foundational source of morality while the Christian church simultaneously rejects or
ignores large quantities of its teachings doesn’t persuade me that it is morality’s source
of truth. Claiming the Bible is the ultimate source and foundation of modern morality
does not hold up to scrutiny. The claim is absent of evidence. We do not need a god or
holy book to know that murder, rape, theft, abuse or other wrongdoings are harmful.
Considering the U.S prison population is predominately theistic, some studies estimate
a nearly 98% rate of inmates believing in a god or holding religious beliefs. Estimates
conclude that 82% of prison inmates will be arrested once again within 10 years of their
release. Clearly, belief in a god, or adhering to religious principles is not much of a
bulwark against crime.
The claim that morality is a direct reflection of scripture appears to be an idiom or
punchline that is used to validate the belief system. This approach is highly problematic
and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Social morality and ethics are a far deviation from
Biblical principles. It’s also reasonable to suggest that modern Christian congregations
hardly adhere to the fundamental dynamics in the Old or New Testaments. Current
Christian trends seem to reflect a drive-through like approach to Biblical beliefs. Show
up on Sunday, pick a few items that sound nice, pick up at the second window and head
home to watch football. If they can’t find a palatable option from their local
congregations, they are then able to create the 45,0001 st denomination that is the one,
true, interpretation of god.
Why I Am An Atheist (Activist)
I am often asked “Why are you an atheist” or “How can you be an atheist” when engaging with members of the public. Here in Iowa, being an atheist, humanist, secular person is still seen as an anomaly by a lot of folks, especially well-meaning folks that are struggling with many of the actions of our state and federal government. They have grown up with this idea of religiosity being synonymous with morality and while that is so demonstrably not true upon any short reflection, it remains a social burden non-religious folks must bear and this is deeply unfair as well as being untrue: most human beings do not share the faith of the people here.
This is one of the many reasons that I’m motivated to be an atheist activist.
Showing folks what Being Good Without God looks like. Reminding the public that we are all human beings with the same needs, wants, fears, concerns, and all the rest of what it means to be a human being. Like the folks that belong to religious groups, I want to raise my kids to be smart and healthy and strong. That means marshaling our resources to support clean water, well-funded science-based education, democracy, and safe public spaces. It also means embracing science, rational thinking, and considering the consequences of our actions in our civic and social decisions – not assuming what we’re doing is automatically correct because we make faith claims. Living in a red state that is dominated by Christian ideologues, embracing these things becomes difficult since, all too often, religious doctrine finds itself at odds with the virtues of science, democracy, and equal protection under the law.
So, I do what I can to act because the legacy of the organized secular community has been and should continue to be one of justice, equality, democracy, and science. I believe the future is too important to be left in the hands of faith based, divine command theory, regressive church organizations that undermine many of the things that make our society thrive: secular governance. We know what societies look like when the faithful hold all the levers of power, we see how it harms the fabric of our society and create divisions, we know how the treatment of women and minority faiths shake out. Stopping that fracturing and degradation of society starts with us because when equality is under attack, atheists show up! To me that is more than just a catchphrase, it’s something I want to back up with action!
For an example of action, in June we held our annual Iowa Secular Summit, an event that spanned a day with talks from evolution experts like Aron Ra and communicators like American Atheists’ Melina Cohen. We invited lobbyists from a wide swath of groups like One Iowa, Progress Iowa, the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, and the bi-partisan dialogue group Braver Angels. We discussed the importance of church state separation and showed the public what it means to have secular values. The event energized hundreds of people and encouraged them to reengage their political leaders and to participate in the democratic process explicitly as secular people. After all, we ARE the largest consistent voting block, and that group size is only getting larger - lets act like it, right?
Another way I take action is by holding my government accountable. This year the group I lead, the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, filed a suit in conjunction with the ACLU against the governor’s office in the state of Iowa. This suit aims to challenge the claims of indefinite executive privilege by the governor to discriminate against religious groups and withhold potential discriminatory language and actions from the public to avoid accountability. Notably, religious groups have refused to engage in transparency, instead adopting a stance of “hands off” while others’ rights are eroded. As an atheist, a humanist, and a citizen, I can’t sit idly by while this kind of behavior becomes normalized, and if the purported “moral authorities” in the churches cannot find a way to use their resources to help others, then I will. We are hopeful that this kind of lawsuit and public hearing will result in a more transparent and responsible government, something that is truly necessary to protect the rights of all citizens.
Lastly, what I do as an atheist activist is live my life publicly as an atheist. When I interact with others, I make no secret about it: I am a father, a husband, a taxpayer, a homeowner, a combat veteran, but I’m also an atheist. Because I am not shackled to faith-based claims, I’m free to make better and more rational decisions for myself and for my family. I am unafraid to call out unsubstantiated bad ideas or to challenge faith claims as equal to scientific ones. I work to normalize conversation about atheism and being willing to break away from the routine deference to faith in favor of reason. It really does start with us in everyday conversation and being willing to cause a little discomfort in favor of a lot of truth. Even running as a city council candidate in the largest city in my state, I never shied away from being non-religious because being so makes me a better person, thinker, and citizen.
Hopefully in sharing my experiences and my stance on atheism it encourages you to get out there and normalize atheism. Show the world that there are far more folks that don’t share their faith than agree with their faith claims. Build that secular community, join those events, attend that rally, get to that protest, wear that shirt, and embody the virtues of being Good Without God, no matter the headwinds you may face.
Alone we are a free thinker, but together, we are the future of reason, democracy, and humanity.
Jason Benell
President, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers
This post first appeared in the 2025 Second Issue of American Atheist Magazine
Guest Post -The Bible is Such An Obvious Myth; Why Do We Take It Seriously?
INTRODUCTION
At the outset, I should make clear that I am not a biblical scholar. What I’m writing below is based entirely on my observations of the plain text of the first few chapters in the biblical book of Genesis. I am writing about the creation myth and the myth of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Scholars, professional philosophers, theologians, rabbis, priests, ministers, and preachers may have different things to say. For this essay, I’m taking the text at face value. I assume that the text is a myth, written down by human beings. My goal is to nitpick and point to contradictions and/or inconsistencies that appear to my untrained eye.
After watching a video in which Alex O’Connor pointed out a few things about the creation myth I decided to reread it to confirm what Alex had to say an draw som conclusions of my own. I was actually surprised by what I saw in the text itself, things I had never considered before. Keep in mind that as far as I’m concerned the text is a creation myth and nothing more.
There are many versions and editions off the Bible. For that reason, I’m not going to cite chapter and verse like a preacher. Nor will I give citations which would elevate this essay to the status of scholarship. Nevertheless you can look it up, as they say, if you have any doubt about the details I provide here.
I find some of the elements of the story humorous and ironic, but as I point out in the conclusion, there is really nothing funny about people waisting their lives chasing a false promise — a myth.
We can do better.
THE STORY
In Genesis, it’s written that after creating the world, there were no plants or herb because 1) the god had not caused it to rain, and 2) there was no one to till the ground. After a stream appeared and watered the ground, the god added some water to the dust of the earth, formed a man and breathed life into him. By the way, making some clay, sculpting a man, breathing life into it — that’s a good trick, but the god wasn’t the only one who could do it. A couple thousand years later, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel did the same thing in Prague. I first heard that story while walking with a guide through the Prague Jewish cemetery — The guide wouldn’t lie, would he? Oh, but that’s another story.
Then, the god planted the garden with every tree that was pleasant to look at and good for food. The god also planted a tree of knowledge (of good and evil) and a tree of (eternal) life. First the man was made and only then the garden was planted. When the man put into the garden to till it — there was no mention of a John Deere tractor. The god told the man that he could eat anything in the garden EXCEPT the fruit from the tree of knowledge, because if you do, on that day, you will die. I want to emphasize that the man was told he would die on the day he learned the difference between good and evil — on that day.
After the man was ensconced in the garden, the god put the man to sleep, extracted a rib an made a woman. It’s interesting that before performing the costectomy the god used an anesthetic.
Later, the serpent showed up to have a word with the woman, Eve. The first thing to notice was that the serpent was an animal. More crafty than the other animals, but an animal — not the devil disguised as an animal. And the story tells us that all the animals were made by the god. “The serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the lord god HAD MADE.” (My emphasis). I just want it to be clear that the serpent was a wild animal.
When the woman told the serpent they were forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, or even touch it — in other words, look but don’t touch or eat, because if you do, you’ll die. The serpent said: “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The woman saw this tree that looked good, the fruit was good to eat, and it “would make one wise.” After she at it, Adam took some too. They didn’t die, but they saw that they were naked. Being naked caused shame so they grabbed some fig leaves and sewed some loincloths.
That night when there was a nice breeze, the god walked through the garden (the story doesn’t say what the god was doing during the day). The god didn’t see the people so it called “where are you.” When the man told the god that they were hiding because they were ashamed of being naked, the god knew right away what had happened. The man blamed the woman and the woman claimed the serpent had tricked her.
As a result: 1) The serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly; 2) The woman was cursed with increased pain in childbirth and subjection to her husband; 3) The man was condemned to toil and sweat to grow food — cursed is the ground, thorns and thistles it shall bring forth, “until you return to the ground, for out if it you were taken. You are dust and to dust you shall return.”
Then the god made them clothes and banished them from the garden, lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever. To make sure they didn’t return and eat the fruit that would let them live forever, the god put “the cherubim” with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Verbum Domini — I kid you not. Can we talk?
THE OMNISCIENT AND ALMIGHTY GOD
Christians teach that god is omniscient, i.e. the god knows everything, even what is in a persons brain — I know people like to say that god knows what’s in their hearts. I know what’s in your heart too — blood. Our thoughts are in our brain, are they not? But if god is all knowing, why did it not know where Adam was. Adam was hiding and it was only when he told the god he was naked that the god knew he had dated the forbidden fruit. Seems strange, does it not? Also if the god is omniscient, why didn’t it know Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit — it wasn’t until Adam said he was ashamed of being naked that god figured out what had happened.
Likewise, if this almighty god didn’t want the people to eat something that would let them know good and evil — the essence of being a god, why did the god plant the tree of knowledge in a place to which the humans had access? If the answer is so that the god could test the humans, recall that the humans didn’t know good and evil, right and wrong. Knowledge of good and evil came with the fruit of the tree. Well, maybe the trees of knowledge and life were already there. No, the myth is explicit, first the god caused a stream to rise and water the ground, from that water and some dust the god made a man, then the god planted the garden that had all the trees, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.
“We learn from the forbidden fruit, for brains there is no substitute.” (Robert Frost, Quandary). There were about ten then that caught my eye as I reread the myth.
First: The god lied. The god said the humans would die that day. The god didn’t say that if they ate the fruit, eventually they would get sick or suffer an injury, or just die of old age. No, on the very day you eat it, you will die. Instead, they lived for hundreds of years. Eventually the life span of humans was set at 120 years. It was the serpent who told the truth. “You will not die” — and they didn’t.
Second: The humans had access to a tree that granted eternal life, but that didn’t interest them. They chose the one that made them like the god with knowledge of good and evil. On one hand it would seem like knowledge was more attractive than life, but we have to remember that until they ate the fruit, they didn’t know what was better, they didn’t know good from evil.
Third: If the essence of a god is the ability to know good from evil and only gods, and those like gods, have that ability, why did this almighty god create evil and introduced into the world in the first place? Is it even possible to have good without the opposite? The god knew that evil exists, it just didn’t want to let the humans in on the plot. Perhaps good and evil are just facts of life. As Robert Frost wrote about bad, “It was by having been contrasted that good and bad so long had lasted.” You can’t have good unless it’s opposite is there too, so how is it that we are told that evil entered the world because of original sin?
Fourth: None of the punishments introduced anything new, the consequence was that the serpent and the people would be aware of the status quo.
The serpent was condemned to crawl on it’s belly, but the story doesn’t mention that the serpent had legs, or wings, or any other means of locomotion.
The woman would have an increase of pain during childbirth and would be number two on the totem pole.
The man had already been charged with tilling the garden, it was the very reason the god mixed some mud - water and dust, and made him. Now he would be aware how much work it was to grow food on ground full of thorns and thistles. Evil was not a consequence of becoming like a god, it was knowledge of how evil their life was that was their punishment. The lying god didn’t want the humans to know how evil it (the god) was, but the serpent blurted out the truth.
Fifth: It was the man who was punished with laborious farming cursed soil. The irony is that in early human societies, it was the women who did the farming, while the men went off to “hunt and fish” — a likely story. Like Ulysses, the men were probably off swapping stories about one eyed monsters and mermaids singing irresistible songs. So the woman got the short end of both sticks: pain, painful childbirth and subservience, and still got stuck doing the farming. The real transgression wasn’t eating the fruit — it was being female.
Sixth: If the god feared that humans would become like gods, why place the means within their reach? Remember the god planted the garden with the trees after he made the man. Did the evil god set them up to be punished? It sounds evil on its face.
Seventh: What makes a being godlike is the ability to learn and discriminate twixt what to love and what to hate, to paraphrase Frost again. The irony is, the more knowledge we gain the fewer gods and demons we are haunted by. In the few thousand years since the story was first told, we have gone form living in a world without fire or wheels to world of atomic energy and the ability to fly to other planets — some of our space craft are now traveling through deep space beyond the reach of our sun. We know why the sun rises in the east, we know why the planets rotate around the sun, and we know that the stars are not just little lights to make the night sky a little brighter. We know how the universe was formed and we know how life evolved. And we know that all these things work without any divine intervention.
Eighth: Christianity teaches that eating the forbidden fruit was a sin so heinous that only crucifixion and resurrection could fix it. But if we follow the story, it wasn’t the humans who sinned — it was the god who lied. The god placed the temptation, allowed the crafty serpent into the garden. Before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, the humans lacked the capacity to know right from wrong. So where was the sin? Perhaps the Christian story should be revised showing that it was the god who required the forgiveness of the humans.
Ninth: If the god lied from the beginning, why believe anything else it says? This same god later promises eternal life after a life of suffering. Okay, …fool me twice, shame on me.
Tenth: Once the man and woman knew good from evil, the first thing they did was to make clothes from fig leaves. Apparently, the knowledge of good and evil doesn’t extend to fashion. Before banishing them, the god made them proper clothes from animal skins. “You’re not leaving my garden in fig leaves. Here—this will do until you find Dolce & Gabbana,” said the god doing its best imitation of Bruno.
CONCLUSION
Today we know this story is a myth. We know that humans, like every other living plant or animal evolved. There never was a “first” human. There could have been no original sin which required redemption. The ultimate end of the myth, at the other end of the Bible, no makes no sense — No god, no original sin, no virgin birth, no death and resurrection. The whole kit and caboodle is a myth, much like the other myths that were common in that part of the world.
Whether we examine the original creation myth or modern religions, one thing clear: religion of any kind is irrational. Gods, demons, serpents — these no longer belong to the world in which we live. Whether the myth is preached from a pulpit—or echoed while walking through a cemetery—it remains just that: a pie in the sky lie.
Why does all this make a bit of difference? Because there are still millions, if not billions, of people around the world that still believe it and waste their lives chasing a myth rather than learning how the world really works. People find comfort and meaning from a story that has no basis in reality. Any feelings of personal comfort or feelings of morality are meaningless when grounded in a falsehood. And the fact that it makes people comfortable or like they want to do the right thing or somehow provides a purpose to live, does not make it any less false. Religion makes claims about the world that are not true. It’s cruel to make false promises and false claims.
Can’t we do better? What’s the alternative? Rational secular humanism grounded in Enlightenment values.
Mike Messina
IAF Opposes HSB 242 - Gender Identity Should Remain In The Iowa Civil Rights Code
Recently a bill, House Study Bill 242, was introduced in the Iowa House with the specific goal of removing gender identity from civil rights protections. This would make Iowa the first state to remove a protected class from such a law and would push transgender citizens out of nearly all legal protections that are based on gender identity. Furthermore, this bill would disallow changing sex on government documents, push transgender women out of domestic violence shelters, crisis centers, and healthcare locations, and allow transgender Iowans to be discriminated against when seeking housing or financial assistance. Lastly, it uses unscientific language that replaces rigorous definitions of gender, gender expression, and sex with partisan language that obfuscates and precludes any citizen from expressing their gender by striking “gender identity” from any form of civil rights protections.
Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers strongly oppose this pernicious and harmful bill.
IAF advocates for a secular government that protects and respects ALL citizens, regardless of their gender, sex, religion, age, ethnicity, race, national origin, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. A bill like this does nothing to advance the interests and rights of citizens of Iowa and everything to advance the interests of unscientific fearmongering religious groups that seek to harm some of the most vulnerable Iowans. Civil rights legislation is designed to protect the rights of citizens, not provide additional rights or status to certain groups. This bill seeks to undermine equality under the law and carve out a special path to discriminate against transgender citizens.
This does not represent equality under the law, rather it seeks specifically to undermine it. Equality under the law, free from discrimination based on inherent individual characteristics, is a requirement that we citizens should demand in a democratic society. This bill and the advocates for it stand in stark contrast to humanistic ideals and values of a free and pluralistic society based on reason, science, and a government interested in the common good.
It is also immensely immoral and unethical to target a group of Iowans to undermine their rights and protections, especially if it is based on a religious moral panic. These are not the values that are represented in the Iowa Constitution nor are they values that IAF and their members represent. IAF is deeply saddened that political leaders in this state have decided attacking a minority group is of greater value than standing for secular values and democratic governance.
IAF, alongside scores of scientists, activists, healthcare experts, and civil rights leaders oppose this legislation and other bills like HSB 242. We are hopeful that assaults on Iowa’s civil rights cease and that the legislature embraces science and secular governance over sectarian misinformation and pernicious ostracization of our fellow citizens.
Do not pass HSB 242.
Jason Benell
President
Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers