Brenda's 30 Days
Earlier this month, I blogged about the 30 Days: Atheist/Christian episode which a fellow SOMA member, Brenda Frei, was the atheist living in a fundamentalist Christian household for 30 days. She wasn’t able to tell us all the juicy details earlier, due to a non-disclosure agreement that reportedly said she wasn’t allowed to talk to anyone in the universe about it.
But now that the episode aired, she was able to tell us about what went on behind the scenes.
To start off, Brenda introduced the family with whom she was staying: Tracy & Michael Shores. She also then reminded us that, as the show had noted, she had grown up Christian. What the show didn’t say what just how Christian.
Brenda grew up in an evangelical Methodist church, and was an active member in Youth For Christ. She frequently witnessed to just about everyone, including her teachers, and also went to Bolivia to witness to people living in the forests there.
But her life changed when she went to college and started learning about alternate views. She’s now been an atheist for about 25 years and as she put it, “It’s been great.”
From there, she pointed out her motivations in doing the show, saying they were to dispel the negative stereotypes about atheists and promote understanding.
She then mentioned a conversation she’d heard the previous day while picking her son up from school, between two girls. The conversation went like this:
Girl 1: …You talk about God.
Girl 2: It’s a spirit.
Girl 1: God, God, God. It’s all you talk about.
Girl 2: If you don’t, you’re going to be with the Devil.
She referred to Dawkins recent talk in which he said that it was ridiculous to label Children as “Christian” or anything else because it means about as much to them as being called a Democrat or a Republican.
Brenda’s point was that she wonders at what age Children’s minds are fully wrapped around the concept, given that the same sorts of arguments that she heard the young girl using is of the exact same sort that many Christian adults use.
Thus, it seems prudent to assume that either children understand what it means, or adults are just as clueless as the kids, and they’re just indoctrinated very early with all sorts of things.
And that includes the hostility towards atheists.
From there, Brenda began talking about her experiences with the episode.
Before the filming even started, she had to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to make sure she would be able to handle the stresses. She passed and was assigned the role.
But shortly before she was to leave for Texas, the stress started building. To top things off, she got a flat tire. But it wasn’t just any nail, the nail looked like the image to the left.Once on the set, she had the 30 Days film crew constantly in her face. Of them, the field producer was reportedly the hardest to deal with. Towards the end of the filming, the field producer revealed that she was a Christian “because she liked opening presents at Christmas.”
For those that haven’t seen the episode, in the first few days, Michael takes Brenda to his local mega-church. Brenda comments that there’s an awful lot of money tied up in such a thing. Michael immediately gets rather testy.
In response, the field producer told Brenda that she was “ruining the relationship.” Every time Brenda tried to correct things or hold her tongue, she said that the field producer would tell her to do the opposite and was constantly contradicting herself. Brenda says that the field producer was more difficult to deal with than the actual family.
Towards the end of filming, Brenda admits that she started to break down. She felt that she had to always be vigilant, never knowing what was being filmed, and making sure that nothing she said could be taken out of context at a time when she was bearing the public face of atheists everywhere.
And the field producer wasn’t helping. When Brenda went to church with the Shores, she graciously put an offering in the till, but with a note attached requiring that the money only go to charities that did not proselytize. Since the camera crew was off getting something else, the field producer wanted Brenda to reenact the scene as was frequently done. But fearing that footage of her rooting around in the till would be used out of context, she refused.
Another time Brenda had to endure something while watching her public appearance was at the Christian rock concert. She says the concert was extremely loud, but she was afraid to put in earplugs lest it look wrong. The woman standing next to her developed a headache and Brenda gave her some Tylenol, but worried that that footage too, could be used against her as the evil atheist giving drugs away.
Aside from constantly having to endure the stresses of watching every word she said, Brenda also had to record a video diary, which segments of, are shown in the final cut whenever Brenda is in a room by herself.
During the filming of these, it took a large toll as Brenda would be expressing powerful emotions and as soon as she would be told to do it again.
The next segment of Brenda’s talk addressed the family with which she was living. She first noted Michael, had been called “thick” by someone interviewing her from the Institute for Humanist Studies. She admitted this wasn’t too far off the mark, and having seen the show, I’d have to agree given that he’d show he hadn’t gotten points that had been made days earlier.
On one of the many blogs discussing the show that Brenda looked at, one person commented that he recognized Michael from the late 90’s as a bit of a drunk, likely to frequent bars. While Brenda couldn’t confirm this, she did say she wouldn’t be surprised because Michael didn’t really talk about the time before he became Christian.
This habit of exchanging one addiction for another is actually quite common so it wouldn’t surprise me either. Before finding Christ, Brother Jed was a heavy user of narcotics.
But regardless of what led Michael to his Jesus kick, Brenda described him as being obsessed with morals. This is quite apparent from the show in which he refuses to understand how someone without God can possibly be a moral person.
His devotional at church enthusiastically supported corporal punishment for disobedient children, the result of which was the Stokes using paddles, inscribed with scripture to spank their daughter.
Michael was also very big on the biblical principle that women be subservient to men. The way he put it was that he should be a “Loving leader. Not a lording leader.” Brenda comments that she found this ironic given that being a Lord is God’s title and is the foundation of the authority and religion itself. She says this, “sets humans backwards in a moral sense.”
His wife, Tracy, on the other hand, Brenda says made the largest change of anyone in the show, saying rather early in that they would have to “agree to disagree.”
After seeing a previous of the show, Tracy and Brenda discussed it over the phone and Tracy said she was afraid of the Christian community thinking that she may not have witnessed to Brenda strongly enough. She said that, early on, she’d said that Brenda and her family were “good people”, but then quoted biblical passages saying that the only good people were ones that followed God.
Brenda said she felt that Tracy was being torn by this, which was really saddening, that Tracy be denied these warm feelings because of the Bible.
Her next topic was that of the Bible Study sessions.
During one of them, she asked what happens when God doesn’t answer prayers. One woman responded testily with “Well, it’s God’s will.” Brenda then asked if God, having his own will would do whatever he wanted, to which the leader of the Bible study group replied “So what’s the point of praying?”
This was met by a refreshingly quite moment of introspection.
After the show aired, one blogger commented that he couldn’t understand how Brenda could have been stressed out given that all the show had her doing was going to Chruch, a concert, and some Bible Study. But Brenda pointed out that there was much more she did.
The first Church she attended with the family had a very militaristic theme, saying Christians “must have a wartime mentality,” and that a “Christian’s life is a life of warfare,” or that the three forms of prayer were “strategic, logistic, and tactical.” That church was also extremely anti-Muslim as well as anti-atheist. And people wonder why atheists are scared of Christians having their finger on nuclear triggers?
Brenda also attended another Church which, instead of focusing on military language, was obsessed with Blood to the point of nauseousness. She also visited the daughter’s Christian school. She also visited with Michael’s business, as well as his friend Greg’s.
She also met Cathie Adams, a lobbyist who is trying to get laws passed banning single parents as well as gays from being able to adopt. Brenda speculated at what was next: Only brown haired, green-eyed families? Brenda pointed that this is not America. America is “a rainbow of colors and attitudes.”
Another place she visited was an outreach center, which “exists to show God’s love to people in need by building relationships that draw people to trust in Jesus and grow to spiritual maturity and economic self-sufficiency.”
Meeting the founders, she said that she got the strong impression that the female founder was genuinely interested in helping people, whereas the male founder very clearly give the impression that his only mission was to proselytize.
During the time of filming, Tracy was also pregnant, and Brenda visited a Christian birthing center with the family. While there, Brenda and Tracy discussed Tracy’s varicose veins and ways to get rid of them. As they were, a nurse entered, proclaiming “God makes our bodies perfect.” Gee. What an intelligent thing to say during that conversation…
To illustrated just how utterly unable to bring their minds to anything except religion, one woman referred to cutting the “biblical cord” when the child was born.
Brenda also visited the American Tract Society and met one of the cartoonists. The cartoonist happened to be a former drug user. Are we surprised? Not really. When Brenda pointed out that there were rehab programs that didn’t focus on God, he seemed genuinely surprised.
At one of her stops, Brenda picked up a cute, colorful teddy bear. She used this as an example of what she found most disgusting about Christianity. Each color on the teddy bear represented something from the Bible. Most notably, Brenda objected to the meanings of the black and red parts, which represented the evil of sin and the blood Christ shed respectively. Brenda objected to this because the teddy bear is meant to be given to children, and she finds the dark messages portrayed to be extremely unsuitable for children. If you want to see the full sized image so you can read what each color stands for, click here.Another visit she made was to a guy named Rhome. Brenda didn’t expound on his status or position, but of all people she met, Brenda seemed to be the most livid about his comments. Specifically, Rhome follows the long tradition of people like Phelps and Robbertson, who blame every ill of the world on the actions of people, whether it be wars, or natural disasters. In this case, Rhome blamed Hurricane Katrina on original sin.
Brenda’s response? “So because some lady popped out of some guy’s rib and ate an apple, people suffered and died on rooftops in Katrina?”
Although the footage wasn’t used, Brenda said she recorded a segment where she expressed her distaste for Bush’s “National Day of Prayer” in response to Katrina, saying that the intelligent people weren’t wasting their time praying, they were actually down in New Orleans helping.
Overall, Brenda told us, the reaction has been extremely positive on all sides. The only major exception was an anonymous letter from Nebraska trying to witness to her.
An upcoming issue of American Atheist will be featuring an interview with Brenda. She said one of the questions she was asked was whether or not anything during the 30 days made her question her dismissal of God. Her response was simply put: No.
The most motivational thing she got from the whole experience was a slogan from one of the megachurches: “Now is the time to speak up.” Of course, Brenda took this in her own way. I suspect it was a reassurance that as hard as the experience was, it was an important thing to do.
That pretty much ended her talk. A few short questions ensued.
The first one was, given that Brenda had a psychiatric evaluation before going in, did she get one going out? Brenda responded that she didn’t, although he’s quite aware that she suffered from PTSD, with which she is quite familiar, having worked on a response team.
This was followed by a short discussion on evolution in which her husband, Mark, pointed out that while he visited, he was given a pamphlet of the standard creationist arguments. Among them was a quote from a scientist that sounded rather absurd. Searching for his name on Google, Mark didn’t turn anything up, until he omitted the first name, at which point he discovered the first name given was incorrect. So much for the academic standards of the creationists.
But Mark has much higher standards. He then contacted the scientist and upon doing so, the scientist told him that the quote had been taken completely out of context and had been hounding him for the past 46 years!
While we were on the topic of taking things out of context, Brenda mentioned that there was a segment in the show that was spliced together. It was towards the beginning when Brenda described the harassment her daughter faced for not reciting the pledge. The show had her saying “Gee whiz. What a terrible thing to do.” It turns out that that closing comment came from an entirely different topic and was actually used sarcastically to describe atheists actually using their brains and analyzing the world around them.
But, Brenda said, she had no problem with the quote being used this way.
Labels: atheism, Brenda Frei, TV
posted by Jon Voisey at 12:42 AM
23 Comments:
Characterizing all members of a group by the actions of some members of the group is called bigotry.
Coming applied in a racial, sexist, or relgious sense, although sometimes to political or philosophical positions.
Brenda was a guinea pig in an experiment designed to take a person out of their usual sub-culture and put them for a time in the midst of another, utterly different and somewhat hostile sub-culture, to see what would transpire. This is the premise (gimmick?) of the "30 Days" program.
But what was perhaps not so apparent at the outset is that anyone who enters the media maw, the industry of filling commercial space and feeding public mass-produced broadcast demands, is entering a very bizarre and controlling sub-culture in itself, with its own brand of strange, disconnected people pulling the levers. Brenda was dropped not just into one unfamiliar cult-like context, but wedged between two. One would be disorienting and stressful enough - the two working on her together would leave anybody feeling sliced and diced.
This is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks that when they flip on their media, they are getting something like "reality". Real people are simply raw material for the insatiable infotainment monster we have evolved. What we gain from such vegamatic "conversation" is worthy of careful, skeptical consideration.
Thanks, Jon. Just a couple of clarifications and expansions...I wonder at what developmental stage we hold people responsible for (in this case) their religious views and rhetoric. As nonbelievers we understandably get frustrated that in adulthood many (still) cannot analyze and conclude truths about reality from scientific data. Dawkins spoke much about this need to ameliorate scientific ignorance. I agree we need to address that issue with energy and full exposure. But for the masses, I think the problem most needing to be addressed is the psychological ignorance. The psychological results of brain washing or the more politically correct term, indoctrination, is likely underestimated by many of us. When 65 year olds have the same language and concepts as 5 year olds... If you don't have God, you're going to be with the Devil...learning a scientific fact is not likely to have an effect (create a breakthrough). Dawkins described an example of this at the Hall Center. I agree that it is not helpful to pin the label of a Christian on a 5 year old, but to carry the labeling logic further, can we responsibly or accurately call this elder a Christian man/woman or are they just an "individual with (in most cases) a Christian background" who has still perhaps not learned to think for him/herself. It is interesting that students are required to take biology and math, etc., but psychology is only an elective. The second grader I spoke of has a science and math curriculum, but has no psychology curriculum to draw from. Learning about imprinting, conformity, etc., in grade school instead of in college just might be helpful. It's time for the enlightened psychologists to get on the band wagon (books and the speaking circuit) like other scientists are doing and focus on this psycholigical ignorance.
Small correction: the woman who cut the "biblical cord" was not related to the host family.
To atheist cowboy: I agree with most of your comments and you astutely point out the need to be cautious about drawing conclusions from T.V. and any media. However, I don't won't to go away from this experience thinking I was a guinea pig. There certainly were risks involved, but it was a choice we made. Despite the less than perfect media environment, it is a current way - whether we like it or not - that many people are reached. Whoops, I'm out of space. Thank you.
The medium is the message. This episode seems to illustrate that principle rather well as the message is cobbled together from disparate unconnected parts.
It might be interesting to look at the recidivism rate of these born again drug addicts/alcoholics, I'll bet it's pretty high. Mel Gibson is a good example.
The disturbing fact that this experience seems to highlight is how fundamentalist christian organizations behave exactly like cults. First embrace, then isolate and indoctrinate members. Get their money and get them to bring more people into the fold to be brainwashed.
Small correction: the woman who cut the "biblical cord" was not related to the host family.
I could have sworn you called referred to her as "the grandmother." I'll go ahead and change that though.
No biggie, Jon. Not your fault. I probably said "the grandmother" to Mark in recalling the story... she was "a" grandmother, but not the grandmother of the host family. (I did meet Michael's mother, though.) I just didn't know if the host family might ever catch your site (I know highly unlikely :).) I pretty much knew when I was being filmed, I just didn't know what was going to make the cut. The corporal punishment came from the host's morning devotional, I don't know if their church supports corporal punishment directly (well, of course they do, through the bible!). Rhome was the "theologist" they set up for met to meet with... masters degree from a religious college, worked as a minister, kids education I think... nice, but the same religious silliness in the statements. Ask me about the history of the word "silly" sometime. Right, it didn't end up to be too much of a problem how the editors cut and pasted, but it could have been horrible in a different situation. I think in general, that tactic is unethical.
Jon, I think you did a fantastic job of taking notes. I could never have been that successful at doing that. We are all impressed and I think it was Bruce that earlier said something about you should consider journalism. Anyway, I'm confident wherever your journey leads, you'll keep working for peace.
I would warn anyone with a serious message to get out that most of the media today are geared towards viewers with a very short attention span, and thus place a heavy premium on not being long, didactic, or "boring". There is very little place in today's media for the kind of thoughtful, earnest reflections that Brenda saw ignored in her efforts.
There was a time in the early days of television when guys like Fred Friendly (yes, that was a real person) would get panels of prominent thinkers and public leaders to sit around a table and, under his moderation, try to talk with some depth about broad social or ethical issues in the most penetrating way they could - presenting them with difficult hypothetical situations and letting them flesh out how each of them thought about the hard topics that came before them. People used to watch that stuff on TV willingly, in large numbners and in prime time.
More recently, Bill Maher briefly gave us a glib, smirky parody of that format, but even that poor deteriorated step couldn't last in the current culture. So people with serious things to say like Brenda have to settle for what we have to speak through - expository cartoons, voyeurism, set-up battles between crudely stereotyped groups, heavy editing, disjointed splicing, being badgered into dramatic emotional states, tidy little pre-conceived morals at the end. The frustration she describes is simply the frustration of someone who wants a fuller, more mature discussion, and had to settle for getting some positive visibility in a one-off show.
Similarly, guys like Richard Dawkins feel the need to keep an audience focussed with PowerPoint effects and visual jokes, or to appear on shows like The Colbert Report where if you simply avoid being made to look like a fool, and get some laughs the host didn't get, you are counted a big success.
By contrast, in the days of Robert Ingersoll - the Great Agnostic - huge audiences would stand outdoors, in damp or in blistering heat, and listen intently for hours to someone who used just the power of his voice, language and ideas to hold focus. The laughs were filled with subtle irony, literary allusions that most knew, and the arguments he made are as up to today's religious challenges as they were then.
Have we progressed? Could we get back our ability to focus on a conversation or dry public lecture for more than a few, smart-alecky minutes? I wonder.
WHat bothers me is the biased and deliberate attempt by the programme producer to fix the result, even before the thing started.
Nasty, but what do you expect of believers?
Love?
All religions are blackmail.
You know what Brenda, regarding you statements about what went on behind the scenes?
I "lack belief in your claims".
And look at tingey remark, "what do you expect of believers".
Why don't you throw in a few remarks about blacks, Catholics, and Jews while you are at it.
You are practicing bigotry and you don't even realize it.
(My worst experience with an atheist was when an atheist doctor would not treat my grandmother because her medicare would not cover the the surgery fees he asked for. This same jerkoff had been at a meeting where a professor had invited him and said that his atheism "freed him". Yeah, freed him to turn down an old lady who needed help who in turn had helped people all her life.
Am I to conclude all atheists are like that? If I did, would that make me a bigot, tingey?)
Diane: Did you then find a nice Christian doctor who was willing to do surgery for free?
Your reason for disliking atheists is pathetic and has nothing to do with religion, but rather the capitolistic nature of our society.
Hi Diane,
Nice to meet you. Do you have some questions about my experiences? I would be happy to answer them. I am an honest person. My two best friends are Christian. I'm wondering if you have any ahtheist friends. (?) We have had "bad" and "good" things "done to us" by both atheists and Christians. People's behavior is not the primary reason that my husband and I are not Christian anymore. It's more cognitive than experiential. I would be happy to explain and hear your thoughts over lunch (in Lawrence). I can't do it on Thursdays as I volunteer at the school then. What times might work for you? Take Care, Brenda
To anonymous troll:
Faith is DEFINED as belief without evidence.
All religions are either or both moral and/or physical blackmail.
Catholics and other christians and religious jews and muslims are all unthinling beleivers in their own brand of fairy-stories - but really nasty Grimm stories ......
And I haven't seen any atheists flying planes into buildings, or bombing clinics, or ensuring that there is no birth-control or AIDS-prevention in poor countries.
Whereas religious beleivers are doing or have done all of these things, and recently.
While it seems that Christianity was compared to atheism, what was really compared was Fundamentalism and Atheism.
The word 'prejudice' has the prefix 'pre' meaning 'before', and the word 'judge', meaning to think. That suggests that it is something done before thinking. Other words that mean that are 'thoughtless', 'careless'.
A real Christian would note that Jesus encouraged people to think. Also, Jesus was, if anything, a liberal. Really, he was a radical. So the ultra right wing Fundamentalists have this wrong as well. Fundamentalism is basically embarrassing to the Christian.
It is pointless, totally, to make any rational "points" with a Christian but.....
Reality, Stephen, is that the Gospels are not about any of "Jesus'" teachings or sayings--why are there not any authenticated writings of a "Jehu/Jesus(Greek)"? The Synoptic Gospels were written by unknown Christian evangelicals preaching the "Word" to their particular congregations to either indoctrinate or convert them into their Christianity?
Where, exactly, is "Jesus" now?
And, what is a "real Christian"?
Sorry for the typo--Galactic Chet.
What you have recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are the Teachings of the Jesus movements condensed, evolved.
REF: "Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth" by Burton L. Mack, 1995, Harper Collins, ISBN 0-06-065517-8.
G. Tingey said:
"Nasty, but what do you expect of believers?
Love?
All religions are blackmail."
Does anyone else notice the irony of this statement? :)
Mike, I hope you find this of some relief and not an insult but I don't consider you the typical believer. You, your wife, Fran, Bob and others are outside the realm of what we mostly perceive and deal with in concern with Christians. I'm grateful for that but I also don't consider you the norm in Christianity.
o whomever it may concern:
My interest is non-superstitious intellectual pursuit.
In my persunal spellings I prefer to avoid the subliminal programming of
the male-gender-biasedness in certain words such as femael, womun,
womin, etcetera, due to its subliminal affect upon the humun psyche.
Although I was so-called born, so-called baptized, and so-called raised as a so-called catholic I still persunally never had any interest in superstition and I've learned to avoid getting into the verbiage trappings of superstitious societal norms, for example, I make sure I avoid speaking in terms of a so-called invisible ghost, or invisible ghosts, or goblins, or a so-called god or so-called gods as though it or they supposingly exist, for instance, I'll make sure I'll state that I'm sane to know there is no such thing as an invisible ghost or an invisible god or gods, that is, I avoid speaking of it in the first person as if it supposably could be real or else the syntax would imply that I'm talking, and thus promoting, the superstitious concept of which I prefer not-to promote in the first place, whether outwardly or subliminally. In other words, I still find too many non-superstitious minds in the habit of speaking in superstitious terminologies which only promotes superstitious mentality albeit not deliberately but certainly subliminally. The classic example was the tv program that Madeline Murray O'Hare used to have. I used to find it so disturbing to watch because the majority of the content spent time on either speaking in a syntax as though an invisible ghost was supposably real or spent way too much time quoting superstitious context as though it were supposably real. Of course she meant well but the majority of the time was spent promoting superstition through subliminal programming, that is, I envisioned that if a group of toddlers were hypothetically led to watch her program at the time, that practically every single toddler would automatically conclude that she was a very religious person who preached a lot of religion. One problem was that she and her family addressed much of their speech towards those who are prone towards superstition to begin with and yet in such ways that couldn't and would never work towards convincing superstitious people into giving up superstitious mentality, that is, it seemed as though perhaps 90% or more of the words that were spoken on her tv show were identical to the same words spoken on superstitious tv programming.
As for Brends Frei's observation that mandatory education tends to exclude psychology, I'd like to mention my own rationale behind that. I used to wonder about such things including how come the first book to be mass produced and mass distributed among our global masses was a superstitious book instead of human anatomy & physiology? The more I looked at the reality of our family species being the top predatory species during this era of evolution the more it started to make sense and the more I looked at the dark side of humin frailty the more it all made perfectly good sense. I've found that practically all of the seemingly illogical thinking induced upon our family species stems from the common denominator that we tend to breed too easily, too fast, too early, and too much without giving much individual thought to the global consequences. Our earlier ancestors bred to the point of creating descendants with a libido that occurs practically every day of the year even though I'm sure our pre-hominid and/or pre-primate ancestors used to have occasional phases of libido like the other animals in our animal kingdom, that is, the so-called original sin we are now born with. Something drastic needed to be done in order to contain the breeding rate of our own family species, hence, to paraphrase, if any superstitious book did not yet exist towards helping to control our family species then it would be necessary to invent it or else we'd automatically face the recurring cycle of massive global famine from out breeding our own global food supply. I've long come to accept the reality that insanity has been obviously induced upon our family species but I've also accepted it as a matter of the lesser of two inevitable evils, so-to-speak. The more insanity induced upon any given population, then the more easier it is to control the behavior and hence contain the breeding rate of said population.
Lastly, it's good thing Brenda avoided using the word superstition during the 30-day experiment or else she'd have gotten a lot more flak than what she had received. Really, superstitious people can have the tendency get more upset when one calls a superstitious belief system for what it really is, and then even more upset when it's pointed out they have a psychosis, that is, the honest belief in a thing or things that don't exist. As least Brenda did have the realization of entering a social situation where the insane grossly outnumbers the sane and she managed to keep her sanity about her. May I add that I don't envision the odds to always be this way in the distant future. I anticipate our family species will eventually evolve to a point in time when it'll be common sense and common knowledge to all individuals that voluntarily striving to have two offspring per individual will stabilize our global breeding rate thus no longer making such various global restraints a necessity but that's still a lot of future generations from now. Until then, current induced insanity is a crucial necessity for the overall well-being and welfare for our family species as a whole or else we'd have surely suffered massive global famine a number of times by now because of being the current top predatory species with a relatively early stage of puberty between 8 to 12 years of age. Without all the various constraints then 6 billion could easily multiply towards 60 billion or global mass famine, which ever might've come first. I say thank goodness for what our ancestors invented and induced upon us or else things would've surely been worse than what it already is. Superstition is not for everybody but likewise at this time of evolution sanity is not for everybody either, that is, not everyone will accept being sane, it's just not going to happen but there's a good sane reason for it, period. Go figure?
Brendas anecdoctal evidence is, of course, not evidence.
But I think she gives the game away when she remarks how "disgusting" she find Christianity.
That may be, but given that, how objective an observer can she be?
There is nothing here of philosophical or scientific value...Brenda obviously has an ax to grind and is stuggling with personal issues.
Perhaps you should watch the actual episode before making yourself look like an idiot. Before de-converting, Brenda was an evangelical Christian. She's been on both sides of the fence. Thus, she's far more objective than people like you who simply dismiss.
So instead of trying to psychoanalyze and claim she has an axe to grind, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and see what your problem is with atheism that makes you feel it necessary to troll.
Ah I heard of this show, but I dont have FX either.
Thank you, Brenda, for putting such a great face on atheism for a lot of people :) I know you were really stressed out about that, but honestly, as long as you were yourself and defended your views the best you knew how, I will be happy!
My only disappointment with this episode... is that it doesnt make any sense... Atheists living alone in a sea of militant True Believers happens every day. Now, taking a True Believer and having them live 30 days with an atheist family-- I think THAT would have been a fun show, showing that atheists families are like every other family on the planet. We just sleep in on Sundays.
Brenda,
I watched the 30-days show and, like you, have a background in Christian beliefs. Growing up Catholic, converting to one of the myriad of fundamentalist Christian beliefs, gracefully moving toward Non-Denominational (AKA non-committal), and now a very pleased, astute, and comfortable-in-my-skin atheist, I absolutely applaud you for your determination and even-handed presentation of what atheists are about.
As a "Christian child", I was insecure in myself, my beliefs, and mostly wanted to know how I too could get a leg-up on life or at least some kind of help from something greater or smarter than I. As a 39 year old, today I know better and know what religion is about. The vast majority of structured religion results in mind and money control. Most organized religions are such vast wasters of our planet's resources, too. Thank you for the comment about the size of the church's buildings and allusion to waste.
My beliefs are simple in essence. I am limited by the thoughts, motivations, deeds, and impact I have on myself, my family, and those I meet. All of which are defined by my personal morals, attitude, direction, and work. Of this heady stuff, I know my success undoubtedly depends on those I surround myself with and how much I take in from those who have done better than I. Geez, if you insert a Christ or Amen somewhere in here, I might have a basis for my own watered down religion. Ha!
Why does life have to be based in religion? Well, it doesn't and surely isn't for me. Clearly, it is man's insatiable appetite to explain the scientifically unexplainable (for today). Sort of like the snake-oil salesman saying, "This tonic will cure all that ails you". Don’t the bible and many other books and religious scripts remind of you something you hear about every day on the news? These texts seem to be the basis for the largest clinical placebo trials in existence. George Carlin said it best when he said, “I believe in Joe Pesci. Half the time I pray to him it comes true”
Surely, it is no surprise to you that none of my personal evolvement has been as a result of Christianity, except knowing that I've been there, done that, and would not want to go back to such a lemming existence. Sadder to say that in all my dealings with people, the most successful and the most criminal minds I've met have been faith driven individuals. They are just people and I love that you showed that about the Shore family. It makes me wonder how much I could achieve if I put that much thought and determination towards myself and my own destiny. What an eye-opener free thinking can be! Best of luck in messaging a new era of enlightenment. I'm on-board in my own way and see atheism as the way to clear up a very confusing world. If you (and family) are ever in Southern California, lunch is on me.
Respectfully,
John the Atheist
I'd really like to meet this lady.
I'm a Christian, but frankly, some of the worst people I've ever known have been Christians. And, some of the best friends I've ever had, including my best friend now, have been atheists.
One of these days I'd like to do a documentary on former Christians who have become atheist. I want to hear their story.
I can tell you one of the chief causes, though, from firsthand experience: Hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. People who act the opposite of what they claim to believe, who directly contradict what the bible clearly teaches, who use God's name to increase their power and social status.
Case in point, this lady's little girl was assaulted on the playground because she didn't believe in God.
It would be wonderful if Christians were really any "better", but they're not. I've met atheists far more mature and accepting than many Christians I've encountered.
Post a Comment
<< Home