Nothing Atheist About “Real” Black Atheists

Nothing is wrong with the need to understand about one’s distance past; one’s history. The eagerness to learn about our African past is real and alive in Grenada. Africa’s great past and contributions to civilization are discussed among many young people looking for a new narrative that speaks to their nature. Their Africanness! No educational institution, I know of, on the island, imparts such education. Thus, organizations like Rastafari become an appetizing resource.  Not only that, many of these young people seek to sever themselves from the Euro-centric religions that continue to define their cultural and religious experiences. Consequently, many of these young Grenadians often find themselves part of black organizations framed within an Afro-centered cultural and theistic worldviews, but are organizations as divisive and as irrational as the ones they seek to leave. Take this black organization that caught the attention of a Grenadian friend of mine.

Amazing indeed! There is now a little known “Atheist” organization (group), located in the US state of Atlanta, Georgia, calling themselves the “Real” Black Atheists. I learned of this when speaking to a friend of mine a couple of days ago. My friend was interesting in my atheism. He also described himself as being an Atheist. However, he explained, there are differences between us. You are a Black Atheist, but, I am a “Real” Black Atheist. I was at a loss for words! Black Atheists I get, but what is a “Real” Black Atheist?

My friend went on to enlighten my ignorance. According to him, he would break down the “science” behind the name. The origin of atheism is from the Greeks/Romans, he explained. His contention was the early Greeks philosophers had gone into Africa (Egypt – Khemit) to study, and upon their return to Greece, set up schools where they taught the African Knowledge they had acquired. These African teachings, he explained, did not recognize the Greek gods. He identified Greek philosopher Thales as one such person who journeyed into Egypt and upon his return to Greece refused to reorganize the Greek gods as the center of his knowledge.  Thus, he concluded, Thales went “against the god(s).” Who’s God(s)?  The Greek God(s); thus, he became an “A” (without/not) theos (God). One who rejects the Greek/Roman’s God(s)?

I had to acknowledge my friend was right to some extent. The issue here, of course, is not whether some Greeks or Romans philosophers went into Africa (Egypt) to be educated. The issue is Atheism. And, viewing Atheism through its narrow historical context means it does originate from the Greeks/Romans cultural experience. I doubt, however, being skeptical about the existence of a God was purely a Greek/Roman phenomenon.

Theism was a fundamental aspect that supported the Greek and Roman state. They believe the gods gave the state its divine right. Thus, its citizen was obligated to believe in these gods, and anyone who did not, was designated an “Atheist,” and an enemy of the state.  In fact, the Christians, prior to being designated the state religion by the Roman Emperor Constantine, were named an atheist group because they too did not accept the pagan gods the Roman State reorganized. (Murdock, 2009)

This is the framework that informs my friend’s (and other “Real” Black Atheists) understanding of Atheism. Thus, Atheism to them is limited only to the rejection of the Greek /Roman God(s). Indeed, a faulty and parochial view of Atheism. My friend is not only looking at the word atheist through a narrow historical context, he is also applying atheism within a much closed historical framework. No doubt a willfully chosen position; done for a purpose, and an irrational one at that. Limiting Atheism to such a narrowed historical context is an attempt to exempt the African gods and religions. Black people should certainly reject the white man’s God(s) and religions, but, must accept the African religions and gods as objective truth. This, my friend maintained, underlines the difference between a Black Atheist and a “Real” Black Atheist.

Atheism, however, is more far-reaching than the “Real” Black Atheists’ supposed understanding. In effect, their unique understanding of Atheism means they have missed the real issue. Atheism, as employed, covers all religions and all God(s). Atheism is not simply rejecting a particular God concept, from a particular race or culture, but all concepts. All deities!

Indeed, what I have outlined thus far points to one conclusion, “Real” Black Atheists are not Atheists. In that they do not have, as the word Atheism outline, a “disbelief in the existence of God or any other deities.” They are instead, “Atheists” in the same context Christians are “Atheists” to the Hindu gods, or African God(s). Muslims are “Atheists” to the Christian God or African gods, etc. “Real” Black Atheists are against (or without a belief in) all God(s) except the African Gods.

Not Like the Greek/Roman God(s)

According to my friend, understanding that the African’s God concept(s) is different than the Greek/Roman concept is important to understanding oneself as a “Real” Black Atheist. African gods, he explained, were human beings who ruled as kings and elders. In other words, what he is saying is these "divine" rulers are religio-political leaders who were seen and accepted by their subjects as incarnated gods. To the lay Africans man, women and children these god rulers were mediators and agents to the inaccessible sacred, and after they expired, elevated from human gods to ancestor gods. Incredible!

Every religion makes different truth claims. However, to say this means the African god concepts and religions are not constructed upon unreasonable claims is a deliberate negation of objective facts. As the Greeks and Romans, the African religions have a high God concept, for instance; a being, who sits on high, responsible for the creation of the universe and all within it. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, however, this high God, to the Africans, is normally seen as removed from the regular life of the people. Thus, in the Yoruba religious myth, for example, the pantheon of Orishas is the ones assigned to carry out the work for the high God, Olodumare. Here, the pantheon of Orishas are not unlike the Judaic pantheon of Mal’ak (messengers of Yahweh), the Muslim pantheon of mala’ikak (messengers of Allah), nor the Christian Angels (messengers of God), etc. Another common aspect to these religions are the adherents appealing to these gods or dead relatives to literally affect the condition of the living. The point then becomes not if the African God(s) concepts are different from that of the Greek/Romans God(s) concepts, but whether these concepts are actually objectively true.They are not.

Even if these God(s), in the African concept, were first humans, and were later elevated to ancestors, does not mean we have to accept them in a dogmatic religious sense. Certainly, being a Black Atheist does not mean that one does not appreciate his or her culture and ancestors.  I just don’t accept them as gods. Praying or presenting offerings to these dead relatives in an effort to affect our lives, in a positive way or otherwise, in the real word is as absurd as pleading to Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, and Zeus to the same ends. The Nigerian philosopher Adebowale Ojowuro writes he “used the Christian religion as a pilot to indicate the numerous absurdities that altogether consist in the entire religions of the world. The stacks of these outrageous absurdities are similarly of equal magnitude in every religion, without any exception,” (Ojowuro, 2010). To this truth, however, my friend, and the rest of the “Real” Black Atheists crew, made themselves deliberately blind and deaf.

I agree, we (black people) must “reclaim our history and our identity…,” (Ture & Hamilton, 1992). However, pseudo-science, pseudo-history and superstitions should not be the culture and identity we reclaim. Contrary to what some Afro-centric writers believe, rationality, objectivity and critical thinking should be the cognitive pillars defining us and our culture, and rejecting not only the Greek and Roman God(s) and dogmatic theology, but also the Africans’ God(s) and dogmatic theology are important in eradicating the pseudo-science, superstitions and the many irrational beliefs that for far too long define us.

My friend went on to define the word God, in the African context, as meaning “ownership.” But who are the African gods/ancestors in ownership of? It is the African people. In the words of Afro-centrism, African culture is collective. In other words, one cannot maintain his or her individuality while being a member of her group; her identity must be wrapped up in group identity. Yet my friend went on to explain he is against all non-African god concepts because they are a political concepts designed to keep black people under control. Really! Didn't you just describe the African gods/ancestors once human political leaders, who, as he defined the word God, in ‘ownership’ of the citizen? Cognitive dissidence, indeed!

Everyone being forced or willingly relinquishing his or her body and mind to be molded by those in power. I am not saying community is a bad thing. Humans are social beings and need community, but a community that requires, or expects and/or indoctrinates (educates) its citizens to be conformists to group identity dangerously borders on authoritarianism – thinking of North Korea here (Religious descriptions paint Heaven in similar manner). In fact, in the African context, these authoritarians are placed as the intermediary between the community and the gods/ancestors, who one must go through to be considered.  Sounds like Catholicism to me! Saying no to accepting these authoritarian human beings as gods and negotiator on your behalf to the sacred is not rejecting your ancestors or your culture. It is a rejection of irrationality.

        

Stuck in the Past

“Real” Black Atheists seems to be frozen in time; bound to ideas which haven’t evolved to deal with the new problems facing the black population today. My friend described “Real” Black Atheism as analogous to Black Power. Indeed, my friend’s belief seems to be grounded in the Black Power, Black Nationalist movement worldview. Despite it might seem quaint to ask what is Black Power, many today who chant the slogan has very little understanding of the ideology and of its historical context. No doubt, Black Power is not unknown to Grenada and Grenadians, for the revolutionary leaders (1979 – 1983) were informed by such ideology.

Theodore G. Vincent writes “there are many shades of black power.” He, however, listed these three.

• In the middle of the black power continuum are those who believe that the injustices of discrimination and forced segregation can be successfully challenged if blacks join with disadvantaged whites and reform the system through interracial cooperation.
• At one extreme are those who believe that since racism is endemic to America the black must accommodate himself to the segregated world that has been forced upon him, avoid any challenge to white authority, and build power within the segregated world through a combination of capitalist economics and white philanthropy. 
• At the other extreme are those who believe the system is simple unworkable, so far as the rights of black people are concerned. People who hold this latter view refuse to accept force segregation, but they do seek the right to build a society of their own. Independent black power, on a par with white power, is their goal.  (Vincent, 1970)

Listening to my friend and watching YouTube videos (Real Black Atheists vs. Black Atheist) posted by the “Real” Black Atheists adherents, they, I believe, fall within the context of the third extreme. They appear not to be the Kwame Ture type Black Power movement, where black people are called to work with other marginalized groups and people to achieve social, economic and political justice. They appear to be an organization promoting separation. In fact, they separate themselves from Black Atheists and brand Black Atheists race traitors. “Real” Black Atheists endorse a philosophy of race superiority, and as such, they are akin to Afro-centrism, although they seem to have a problem with the word “Afro” in Afro-centrism.

Of course there is no such thing as ‘Black Atheism’ or ‘White Atheism.’  Simple Atheism! And one can choose to be without all God(s) regardless of the culture, or choose to be without/against only the God(s) outside one’s culture. The differences that can be found between Black Atheists and White Atheists more or less lies in the type of social justice struggles. Each ethnic group has problems that are unique to its people. Black people are still fighting racial discrimination; institutionalized racism, which shows up as socio-economic disparities, educational disparities, police brutality, stop and frisk and the many other faces in which white racism manifests, and these societal ills we must fight.

As I end this polemic, I must agree, my friend is correct. In that, “Real” Black Atheists is different from Black Atheists. They are certainly unalike. Black Atheists promotes and supports moral justice for all of humanity, within a secular humanist framework. Black Atheists are concerned with building a better society for all of humanity. In fact, as a Black Atheist, my world view is informed by this fact, “humanity is one,” (The Human Prospect – V2; p.5).

“Real” Black Atheists, on the other hand, have a theistic philosophy which seeks to separate the world into US vs. Them, just like many religions. Moreover, after listening to my friend and the many “Real” Black Atheists on those YouTube videos, it seemed clear that “Real” Black Atheists are not only stuck in the past, they support bigotry, intolerance, hatred, sexism, homophobia, pseudo-science, irrationality, xenophobia, etc. Interestingly, “Real” Black Atheism is not unlike the very Euro-centric (European) theistic philosophy it claims to eschew.

Note: In the words of the great ancestor Frederick Douglass “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”

Questions Are Not Welcome

I was in a conversation with some of my friends last week, and I was told to remember that the “devil was very knowledgeable.” I was taken aback by this statement as I had no idea what the devil having knowledge had to do with the conversation at hand. As a skeptical person, however, I was curious. How did they know this statement to be true? But understanding that my friends are believers, and were only reiterating their religious beliefs as opposed to stating objective truth, I was more so interested in understanding why did they make this statement, in the first place. Interestingly, and with some level of expectation, my inquiry into the meaning of the statement was not met. As a result, I decided to present an explanation, on this forum, as to what I understand this statement to mean, and why I believe my friends opt for its use.

This proclamation, as I have experienced, seems to be no stranger to the Grenadian thought process. It is an assertion that will most likely raise its ugly head during most discussions on religion and faith. It is normally thrown around with no explanation, which seems to be a tactic used for psychological effect. Of course, the assumption is that the participants, in the conversation, are or were believers and understand the meaning and context.

But, is there a specific time in a discussion one can expect this declaration to surface? The answer is yes. In my experiences, it will suddenly come up when one begins asking probing questions into the religious beliefs of the believers. That's the time when the believers find it difficult to demonstrate their claims to be true, and for this reason, I conclude that the proclamation is designed to do these things:

1. To guilt the person asking the questions into thinking that he or she is somehow morphing into an agent of the devil.
2. It is used in hope to ignite fear into the person asking the probing questions to stop questioning.

The first point is very important because through it the second point can be achieved.. Of course, the assumption here is not that the person is literally becoming the devil. Instead, the belief is that the person, by questioning the belief, he or she is displaying, characteristics normative to the devil’s. This is a concept that appears to have been derived from the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity & Islam – mythic stories. Not unlike where the reasoning behind the concept of “original sin” came from. Eve convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

According to the myth, the devil, known as Haylal (The Cresent/Lucifer) bar Shakhar (Dawn/Morning) – Lucifer Son of the Dawn/Morning – aka Sammay’el (Samuel), was one of the many heavenly angels. He had possessed great levels of knowledge, and because of his vast intellect, he rose to number three in his order, behind Angel Miyka’el (Michael) and Angel Gabriy’el (Gabriel). As a result of acquiring such great knowledge, his ego also bloomed. He became arrogant and wanted to rule the spiritual (Heaven) and earthly realms, and even going as far as to question the authenticity of God (El) himself. According to the myth, Samuel made claims that the existence of a supreme ruler of heaven and earth was a fabrication made up by the top angels to keep their control. With that, he was evicted from heaven, but not before corrupting 200 other angels, who were also cast out with him. Hence the name Sammay’el, which means “poison those of El”.  Another name he was given because of his rebellious nature was Ibliys, which means “rebellious one.” 

This story is without a doubt mythology, which seems to have entered the Judaic (and thus Christianity and Islam) narrative from the ancient Canaanite myth, which tells of a minor god Haylal (Halel) trying to dethrone the supreme god El. Indeed, this story shows that the devil became such not only because of his challenge to ruler, but became of his skepticism and his decision to challenge the status quo. Hence the connection between knowledge and the devil. The smarter you get, the closer to the devil you become because you are more likely to start asking questionings.

This mythical story no doubt also influenced the theology set in motion by  people like Thomas Aquinas, for instance. These are the stories from which their theologies are based. Aquinas argued for the assent to God via faith only. He argued that faith supersedes human reasoning and intellect. Why, because you can become like the devil by employing the intellect and reason. In other words you will be following your own reasoning and not God's will. Aquinas argued that faith (blind faith) is better than reason, and asserted that blind faith – Christian faith – which is to be accepted without question, is a far more virtuous action, than using the intellect or reason. Thus, apart from these two points mentioned above, it is safe to say that another goal of this declaration, which I believe is not deliberate, is its ability to kill intellectual curiosity, and herein my concerns rest.

In looking at Aquinas’ discussion of the ethics of belief, George H. Smith writes that “by attributing unbelief (which is a position attributed to the use of reason and intellect) to a sinful will, Aquinas stacked the cards against reason by assigning to faith a superior moral status.” (Smith, 2000)

“To believe requires choice – an act of will – so to believe in God requires the voluntary assent of faith (blind faith), which is a meritorious act. Christian belief is praise worthy because it requires that we give our voluntary assent to doctrines that we cannot prove and, in some case, that we cannot even comprehend”. (Smith, 2000)

I certainly do not believe my friends were saying that I should kill my intellectual inquisitiveness. I suspect that they too use reason in other aspects of their lives. However, what they were certainly telling me is that when it comes to God, I should blindly accept their position. However, despite their naiveté, by making this declaration, they are unknowingly supporting, and promoting a view that can, and certainly does quell intellectual curiosity.

The statement may have had no effect on me. Imagine, however, the psychological effects on young Grenadians – most who are likely to be from the Christian faith themselves. Young people whose psyches have already been trapped by religious dogmatic teachings of fair. The fear of becoming like the devil. The fear of being thrown into hell by a all powerful God, for asking some lousy questions. How can these young people exercise their natural reasoning, and intellectual abilities in such an atmosphere where bogeymen runs rampant? This fear of questioning, despite being placed in a religious context, will no doubt overlap into all other aspects of their lives, and as a former teacher, the hesitation and/or fear exhibited by many of our students to ask questions, I believe, has a direct relation to this irrational thought process.

No doubt, the Hayal story above, despite being a myth, may speak some truth to reality. In that I mean, some people's egos become enlarged as their education level grows. They become full with pride; our political systems seems to be populated with such individuals. However, we should encourage our people to question any and everything. Not blindly succumb to accepted norms. Questioning is one of the most important steps we can take in our endeavor to acquire knowledge, and in doing so, religion should not be guarded from being placed on the witness stand. Moreover, remember that equating the acquiring of knowledge with that of being evil is an absurd and dangerous declaration that kills the mind. This is an action that will, no doubt, encourage the growth of irrational thinking. Something we don’t need.

Is The Church a Waste Of Time?

My Grenadian Christian friends wanted to know what my thoughts on the Church were. Do I view the “Church” as a waste of time, I was asked, in a recent conversation. Here is my attempt to answer this question. First, however, let’s find out what is a Church.

WHAT IS A CHURCH?

What my friends actually meant by “Church”, I do not know. Thus, my answer will be based upon what I understands the common theological usage of the word Church to be, and, keep in mind, that this also depends. The meaning of the word Church normally depends on the context of use. As a result, this question, I believe, cannot simply be given a yes or no answer. It depends on what my friends meant to denote by the use of this word, and since I have no idea, I will put forth a long answer, but hopefully a lucid one.

Here are some meanings Webster assigns to the word Church.

1. All Christians regarded as a spiritual entity
2. A building for public and esp. Christian worship
3. A congregation
4. A public religious service
5. A Christian denomination

(Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary – Revised Edition).

There are two features to the word Church presented by Webster. Only one, however, I think really speaks to what my friends may have been referring to by posing this question. First, the word Church is sometimes defined as the building where Christians congregate for worship. This common held definition, however, has its opponents amongst the believers. It is normally criticized as not truly capitalizing the accurate essence of what a Church is. The critics argue that a building is not and cannot be the Church, nor can the Church be a location. On the other hand, the definition that all believers appear to affirm as speaking to the true essence of the word Church is embodied in what Webster termed, ‘a congregation’. What then does this means? It means that the believers are speaking about people, human beings; a community of people who share the same faith and/or worship together. This community of people is often described as an assembly of believers called out from the world by God to live under his laws; or simple, the “Body of Christ”, as stated in Ephesians 1:3

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS “BODY OF CHRIST”?

Now that we have an understanding of what I believe my friends meant by the word Church, one must ask, what is the purpose of the Church. Indeed, understanding the Church’s purpose is essential to answering the question posed. We are told that the “Body of Christ”, which I will use interchangeable for the word Church, does have a purpose. One that is twofold. We are told that one aspect of the Church is to bring together people of the same beliefs to experience religious ecstasy. In other words, it brings them together for worship. The other is to spread the teachings of the Church; ministering to the message of the “Body of Christ”, not only to the adherents of the faith, but more so, to nonbelievers. As the Christian God (Jesus) commands them, “follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men”, (in other words, Jesus is sending them into the world to make believers of those who aren't) – Mark 1:17.

This twofold purpose of the Church open up a window into which one can take better look at the Church. The twofold purpose tells us that the Church is made-up of two layers merged together, but are distinct from each other, as will be demonstrated. There is the theistic layer. This is the ideological part of the “Body of Christ”; the dogma. This is the layer that designs the Church’s worldview, and influences how it relates to the wider world. Then there is the community; the societal comradeship experienced by people coming together.  The important factor we must understand concerning these two layers is that, despite making up one body, they both flow from very different sources or stream. Thus, separating and identifying these two sources is another essential aspect to answering this question.

With this in mind, I am arguing that, in the context of community, the social comradeship aspect of the Church is not a waste of time. It certainly help meets the social needs of the people making up that congregation; family, community, and this aspect of Church, contrary to what many believers may think, does not flow from its theistic source. Instead, it most certainly comes from the human being’s own humanity; our natural need to socialize.

On the other hand, it is indeed the theistic aspect of the Church these human beings found common and thus, gather around it. Therefore, the idea that community is an aspect of religion, from which unbelievers should learn, is certainly misleading, I believe. Think about it, if the there is a devil (the concept of a being called a devil is also mythology), and there are people who adhered to its ideology; then the devil and his buddies will certainly have something in common to rally around, thus creating a community; a community of like-minded people, in which they will also be looking out for the benefit of each other. Thus, we will no doubt also see a humanistic layer as a characteristic of this group. This means that we are looking at something natural to the human being. We are social beings and minus the religion, social comradeship will still be part of humanity. Humans will always find something in common to socialize around. Even though we act in our individual interest, humans do have that need to socialize for many reasons – ensuring his/her gens lives on, for instance. In fact, being a part of a larger community enhances the individual odds of surviving. As a consequence, humans tend to be inherently kind to each other, hence, the humanistic aspect of the “Body of Christ”. The question, however, is, can this humanistic aspect of the Church be extended outside of itself?

THE “BODY OF CHRIST” IN THE COMMUNITY

This, I think not. Of course, there are some individuals who normally break the cycle of fear and venture across borders engaging in humanist work. This indeed gives me hope that we can build a better society, inclusive of all. However, I am speaking not of individuals but of the Church, as a whole. You know, the “Body of Christ”. As I have shown, because religion is a human construct, the humanistic aspect of it becomes evident. However, it only serves the clan and most often does not cross cross-pollinate. It remains hedged in within the particular faith. As the “Body of Christ” began to internalize its theistic doctrine, it normally suppress this natural humanist nature. In fact, the believers, operating under the dictates of their God, often recoils at whoever refuses to accept their worldview, typically becoming verbally and/or physically abusive towards them.

The theistic aspect of the Church generates an Us vs. Them environment. Those who refuse to conform to the worldview of “Body of Christ” become the other; the enemy; the devil. Religion creates fallacious competition for space, and other resources, etc. Not unlike politics. It suppresses the innate nature, in most cases, for the human being to be good. It takes otherwise good people and makes them bad. For these reasons, I am arguing the Church to be a waste of time.

In fact, the trouble with the Church doesn’t stop there. The Church stifles the communities of economic growth. For example, the Church operates tax free and normally occupy the best real-estate locations, killing the prospect for start-up business and tax revenue. In the United States, for instance, the house (storefront churches) in which the “Body of Christ” meets, literally litters each block. These storefront churches are everywhere; three or four per block, yet the socioeconomic maladies in these locations are chronic and are becoming ever more so (Read the book, Moral Combat – Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars - by Sikivu Hutchinson). “Some debate whether having so many nonprofit, tax-exempt entities on commercial properties is hurting the tax base and standing in the way of job creation” (Moral Combat: Hutchinson, Sikivu, p. 71). In fact, “some storefront churches adamantly oppose development that would lead to job creation because it might jeopardize their low rent” (Moral Combat: Hutchinson, Sikivu, p. 71). In addition, the power holders, who normally do not live in these dilapidated communities, of the “Body of Christ”, operate much like vacuums, sucking the last cent from the people’s pocket. This is true of both storefront churches and the mega churches that teach the doctrine of prosperity. Only the power structure really prospers. Not the people, nor the community.

As I conclude, I must note that the “Body of Christ” does sometimes have common goals with the larger community. There are indeed shortcomings that affect the society at large, around which the Church and the community both rally. Slavery, for instance, comes to mind. The Civil Rights Movement in the United States is another. However, I must say that these are mere flashes of an aspect of the “Body of Christ” we would all like to be permanently displayed on the surface. However, the Church is normally more interested in its dogmas, and will often suppress its humanistic characteristic in favor for these dogmatic teachings. Doing this then alienates those that is different, but are willing to work together to help build a better community, inclusive of all. In fact, no where else is this alienation pervasive and overt than in the black community. Dr. Pinn writes that, “Humanism has been viewed as a hostile adversary, intent to exterminating religion in general and black Christian’s theism in particular, and it becomes clear why the black church would not be anxious to nurture a potential serpent in its own household.” (By These Hands: Pinn, Anthony, p.33)

The Tim Tebow Saga; an Argument Against God

For some time now the media airways has been swamped with conversations concerning a controversy surrounding the football player Tom Tebow, a quarter back for the Denver Broncos and a highly religious man who publicly displays his religious conviction at every football game. His most famous antic is to engage in sideline prayers before each game, and, as a result of his success in the game, especially during this football season, these prayer antics are magnified and promoted as the casual factor behind his achievement. His supporters have credited his success solely to his God answering the prayers he offers before each game. However, is there a God who is really responsible for Tim Tebow’s success? Is this God a fan of the Denver Broncos? According to Tim Tebow, the answer is yes. As he said, “he’s not doing it—God is doing it through him” (The American), as if he is “highly favored”. Indeed, to Tim Tebow and his evangelical religious fans, God is certainly on his side. Thus, he has become proof of the existence of a living God; a God that listens to prayers, at least, Tim Tebow’s.

Of course, this public display of his religion has not gone unchallenged.  Many critics have commented on Tebow’s use of a secular sport as a means to promote his religion, Christianity, which, they argued, divides the fans that are there just to enjoy the game. On the other hand, others think that Tim Tebow’s action is an act of free speech. He is not praying for anyone but himself. Nor is he asking others to join hand in prayer. To this I agree. He is not stopping the game, to engage in his prayer antics. So, should we care that Tim Tebow engage in sideline prayers before every game? I don’t. The fact is, highly religious sports players always display some form of their religious conviction just before start of a game. Soccer players, for example, are often seen making the sign of the cross and looking up at the sky. God please help be win this game!! Is this public show of faith supposed to better their chances of winning the game? Not by a long shot. Often the team will get its ass thrash, regardless, and Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos is no exception.

Indeed, with all the hype surrounding Tebow and his religious convictions, “the person we're all talking about has faded away”. The focus is now on the supernatural as opposed to the person that is actually responsible for the achievement, Tim Tebow. Atheist David Silverman is correct when he asserts that Tim Tebow is denying himself credit for the hard work and years of practice that he took upon himself in order to become the great football player that he is today. Since this is the case, should we be concerned as to whom Tim Tebow and his fans want to attribute his success to. I do not know about you, but I am not.

Nevertheless, despite believing that Mr. Tebow and his evangelical religious fans are engaged in wishful thinking, let’s, on the other hand, give them the benefit of the doubt.  Thus, here is what I really think about the Tim Tebow issue. If Tim Tebow and these evangelicals’ assertions are correct, in that God (what ever that means to Tim Tebow) is answering his prayer and is responsible for him winnings these football games, then this is a very strong case for why I am an Atheist. What do I mean? My atheism is not only based on one issue, the inability for those who assent to the God claim to prove his existence. The fact is, even if God, as the Christians describe him, exists, then the way they claim he works makes him, in my humble opinion, a candidate not worthy of worshiped. I don’t want God to work in mysterious ways, but instead in sensible practical ways. The question is, since God can and is interested in making a successful football player even more successful, can he fix the suffering conditions for the rest of humanity. Can he or would he change the condition for the many human beings who are being oppress, as we speak. Can he do these things but choose not to. Can he descends from his “loftiness”, create a direct connection so that he can heal the children whose parents faith is so great that they prefer to engage faith healing. Can he, but instead choose no to. Of course, faith healing parents’ display of faith, on the face of it, vastly surpasses that of Tim Tebow’s. Yet God refuse to intervene on their behalf. What about the starving children in Africa and other third world countries. Are they not worthy of God’s “grace”? So tell me, why God takes time out of his busy schedule to help a football player win football games and refuse to take the time out to heal innocent children. Why does he not take time out to help those children who have lost their parents and cannot find food to eat? Yes, you tell me. We can indeed create a never-ending list of important and ethical things God should have been doing with his time, instead of fixing football games. The fact is the Tim Tebow saga proves nothing of a God, and those who insists that it does will have to deal with this dilemma. The Tim Tebow saga is an argument against a kind and loving God. Certainly, if God exist and is indeed working through Tim Tebow, religious people can keep him. If that’s the way God truly operates, he deserves not an iota of worship.