Q: If Jehovah did not hand down the Bible from the Mount, how could three million Jews have converted all at once, on that same day?

A: What day was the book "handed out?" It was handed down, generation after generation, with additions, deletions, interpolations and all the other errors that creep into books that have to be hand copied over centuries. If the last 30 generations of Muslims had asked their grandparents, they would have been assured that yes, Mohammed was inspired by Allah to write the Koran. So?

If a cult grows, generation after generation, the "truth" will be apparent to all in the religion. Whatever the Tribe Elders said was truth. Shamans, priests—they all spoke "truths."

Q: What do I tell my children about God and religion since I am a nonbeliever but my friend and family members keep after them to "convert and be saved?"

A: I understand your family dilemma. I receive more mail than you would believe about just your problem. It is more common than people think. I agree wholeheartedly with the maxim, "Religion is divisive."

While I am certainly no Ann Landers, I have heard from others that the most effective way to handle such delicate problems is to let the child do the talking. That is, when they begin to ask about religion, which they undoubtedly will, you can bite your tongue if you must, but don't say anything until they ASK something. It might be, "Mommy, did Jesus really die on a cross?" And then, in as nonjudgmental a tone as possible, you can offer a gentle opinion that of course some people believe that, but not all. Then shut up and bite your tongue again if you can. Their natural curiosity will be aroused by your answer, and even if they don't pursue it right then and there, they will. They will. They will begin testing you to find out what you are thinking that is different from what others are thinking. When they do, you can again answer, honestly and briefly, and then wait for the next question. I've been told it's like explaining sex. When Junior asks where babies come from, you don't need to present the Kama Sutra.

Children are bright. They catch on to more than we realize. If you doubt, they'll surely want to know why. So, without haranguing, and without belittling anyone, just answer the questions as simply as possible. You will be planting the tiniest seed of doubt and sometimes that's all it takes to encourage critical thinking. This can be especially effective if you mention other religions, which is always a good idea, so they won't think there's only one. They will probably not have been aware that this is a multiple-choice problem, so to speak. That alone is an eye-opener for most children, especially when Mommy or Daddy seem to be one of the "others." If the child knows anyone who is, say, Jewish, ask the child if that person believes in Jesus. It's a good way to make the child realize that there is more than one religion out there. Even young children will think this through and, hopefully, ask, "But then which one is right?"

This is where you can open up that cornucopia of conflicting beliefs, and spread them out for youngsters to contemplate. Sadly, confusion is a goal here. But confusion causes thinking and questioning, which is exactly what you want. And the most important answer, for any question, is, "Well, some people believe whatever. But other people do not." Most children are unhappy with such a vague answer. They want a firm yes or no. Not being able to provide such an answer will begin the questioning in those little minds….and you just keep answering, and answering and answering.

I hope this is of some help. I'm only passing on what I've heard from others. But the main message seems to be don't press. Most religions are so restrictive that children learn early to dislike them anyway, and if they see a reasonable, Parent-approved way out…….

Q: What about older children?

A: Say that you wish you could still believe, but your intellect simply will not let you. and you are convinced that all religions are no more than wishful thinking. If they were anything else, why are there so many of them, all contradicting each other? They can't all be right. So which one is the right one? Any and all arguments that can be put forward defending Christianity can be countered with as much sincerity and conviction by Muslims praising Islam. This multiplicity of religions, all contradictory, is your strongest argument.

They will probably not have been aware that this is a multiple-choice problem, so to speak. That alone is an eye-opener for most children, especially when Mom or Dad seem to be one of the "others." If your children know anyone who is, say, Jewish, ask if that person believes in Jesus. It's a good way to make children realize that there is more than one religion out there. Even young children will think this through and, hopefully, ask, "But then which one is right?"

This is where you can open up that cornucopia of conflicting beliefs, and spread them out for youngsters to contemplate. Sadly, confusion is a goal here. But confusion causes thinking and questioning, which is exactly what you want. And the most important answer, for any question, is, "Well, some people believe whatever. But other people do not." Most children are unhappy with such a vague answer. They want a firm yes or no. Not being able to provide such an answer will begin the questioning in those little minds….and you just keep answering, and answering and answering.

You might suggest that your children begin studying other religions, and then discussing what their studies will reveal. You could make it a family project. You would probably learn a lot as well. And the more you know, the better equipped you will be for what will undoubtedly be some stressful conversations. The scores of Hindu gods are dizzying. But are all those Hindus wrong? And the Jews? And Muslims? And Buddhists? And so on.

Don't insist that your children leave their secure social connections. Heck, I managed to enjoy church and its activities for a long time, even after I knew I was an atheist. So try to make the transition easier for your children by allowing it to take its own sweet time to happen. And as the saying goes, some of my best friends are Christians!

Let your children do the talking now. Whatever they ask, try to answer simply, clearly and briefly. Bite your tongue if you must, but don't say anything until they ask something. don't press. Their natural curiosity will be aroused by your change, and even if they don't pursue it right then and there, they will. They will. They will begin testing you to find out what you are thinking that is different from what others are thinking. When they do, you can again answer, honestly and briefly, and then wait for the next question. I've been told it's like explaining sex. When Junior asks where babies come from, you don't need to present the Kama Sutra.

Children are bright. They catch on to more than we realize. If you doubt, they'll surely want to know why. So, without haranguing, and without belittling anyone, just answer the questions as simply as possible. You will be planting the tiniest seed of doubt and sometimes that's all it takes to encourage critical thinking.

I imagine that your marriage will only grow stronger if you share the worthy goal of helping your children to learn the art of critical thinking. It opens up the whole world. This life, here and now, is precious. This is all there is. We must enjoy our lives now, and do all we can to enrich ourselves and our loved ones. If you work to help bring (slowly!) your children into this realm of thinking, your love for each other should grow by leaps and bounds. What a worthy goal!

Morality needs no magical deities to exist. Don't forget, and do point out, that your children had learned morality long before they understood any theology. At seven most children still believe in flying reindeer, but if they have had good examples set for them they will already have developed a sturdy foundation for moral behavior. No Gods are need to coerce moral behavior. Common sense and love are all that are needed.

Q: Do you believe in astrology? After all, it is an ancient belief system.

A: Antiquity dos not mean validity. The Flat-Earthers were wrong. Pre-Columbian perspectives are no more accurate than today's Millenium Watchers who expect Jesus Christ to emerge from a comet or something.

Wishful thinking is wishful thinking, no matter what era. There is nothing that five hundred million other people have in common with me that we don't have in common with you—in other words, with everyone else on Earth. Astrology is a simplistic, and rather childish, attempt to understand human nature. And it fails.

Q: What is the definition of atheism?

A: I have yet to meet or correspond with any atheist who claims to know for a fact that there is no god. Maybe there is. I haven't a clue. There may be a big blue God with feathers out there somewhere. But I haven't seen anything yet that is even remotely persuading.

What ought to be a fairly simple, straightforward task—defining the word "atheist"—has turned into a philosophical nightmare requiring postgraduate courses and a thesis adviser. And it isn't just the religionists who have screwed things up so royally by heaping undeserved, malicious baggage onto that little word. (Atheist = immoral, communist scumbag.) No, we nonbelievers are wrangling over it ourselves, and the whole thing is just plain silly.

The word "agnostic" means literally "without knowledge" or, more simply, "I don't know." But it is really just a cop-out word for atheist. It is a word that society has not yet blackened with foul adjectives. It's safer to utter in mixed company. However, it's impossible not to "know" whether or not you acknowledge a deity. If you do, you know it. If you don't, you know that too. And if you don't, you are an atheist—a person without theistic beliefs.

To say, "I am an agnostic" is to say, "I don't know whether I believe in God or not." Which is nonsense. Even my hero, the late Carl Sagan, spoke of atheism as a position that couldn't be justified because no one can provide any "compelling evidence," as he put it, that a God does not exist. Neither I nor any atheists I know make the claim of having "compelling evidence against the existence of God." Nor are we required to have such evidence! The burden of proof lies squarely with those who claim knowledge of the existence of God. If you so claim, you must prove. I do not believe in a God. That position requires no demonstration or "proof." If you claim there is a God, you are making a claim that absolutely requires demonstration.

No one can provide any "compelling evidence" that leprechauns do not exist. So what? Does that mean then that we have a-leprechaunists and agnosti-leprechaunists, with the former claiming leprechauns don't exist and the latter withholding judgment until all the evidence is in? No. You either do or you do not believe in leprechauns. So it is with gods.

But the problem lies in the hair-splitting that goes on about whether or not someone simply does not acknowledge a god, or goes further and actually claims there is no god. Atheists do not make this claim. When we atheists emphatically state that we do not believe in a god we will sometimes say, "Oh, bull! There is no god!" But what we're talking about are the human creations such as Jupiter, Thor, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, Allah and so on—the gods we've been spoon-fed since childhood but still find thoroughly unconvincing. So we lump them all together and pronounce them all nonexistent, and here is where the confusion comes in. When we claim nonexistence for a god we mean of those so far offered as candidates.

No one can claim a god absolutely does not exist unless he can claim infinite knowledge of the universe. I have never heard any atheist make this claim either. In fact, if any atheist reading this can make the certain claim that no god does or could exist, and can back it up, I would like to hear about it. It would be fun to meet someone who possesses infinite knowledge of the universe.

Q: What can an atheist do when asked to go to religious weddings, funerals and so on? How do you act?

A: I understand how difficult these things can be. I've been there. But try looking at it from another perspective. Let's say you were asked to attend the funeral (or wedding) of a dearly loved friend, who happened to be Buddhist. Would you refuse to got because of the incense and chanting? Or would you pay your respects, let the others do the chanting, and just be your non-observant self?

I think if you replace Christian Evangelical with Buddhist, a clear focus should appear. At least I hope so. It's the rule I live by. When they say, "Let's bow our heads in prayer" I don't bow. I barely tilt my head four degrees and look at the floor, out of respect for their beliefs—not out of belief in their beliefs.

I hope you don't cut off your nose to spite their faces. If someone asks you about your belief, or lack thereof, play it by ear. If it seems too confrontational for the moment, I'd answer, "Now is not a good time to talk about that." And put a period at the end of that statement. If you feel like answering, I'd say, "Are you sure you really want to hear the answer?!"

Anyway, that's how I handle such things. And what I've found is that when you are sure of your ground, people sense that and stay back. It's only when they see that you're uncomfortable and unsure, that they feel confident is closing in for the kill, so to speak. Sad, but true.

Q: I feel so lonely, like I'm the only atheist in the world. How do you overcome that?

A: You'd be amazed at how many closet atheists have contacted me about their loneliness. It's easily in the thousands by now. Atheist loneliness is a common problem, but the Internet is a wonderful help. Why don't you try getting on a couple of discussion lists—not chat rooms, they're too wild and wooly—but regular lists. They are a great way to "meet" like-minded people. You can post messages on the list that all subscribers will see, or you can begin personal correspondences off-list with other members. Or you can just "lurk" and read what others say without saying anything at all. I loved it, but I just don't have the time any more. Go up on the Net and look for the humanist/atheist groups. There are, fortunately, plenty of them, all filled with people like you. Gook luck and happy hunting!

Q: Why do you constantly criticize the Bible? It is recognized worldwide for its inspiring words.

A: The Bible also says:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (1 Samuel 18:27)

"And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning." (2 Kings 10:7,8)

"And there was a great famine in Samaria . . . ." (2 Kings 6:25) "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son." (2 Kings 6:28,29)

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)

". . . and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children." (Isaiah 13:18)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

King Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines, clearly sending the message that females are property. (1 Kings 11:3)

A wife is referred to as a man's property. (Exodus 20:17)

Non-virginal brides must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

Females slaves can be used sexually. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Homosexuals must be murdered. (Leviticus 20:13) and (Romans 1:24-32)

Old King David uses a virgin for a "warm-up." (1 Kings 1:1-3)

Drunkard sons must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Wartime booty, virgins, are to be saved and raped. (Numbers 31:17, 18)

You should beat your children with rods. (Proverbs 23:13,14)

Jesus says you must hate your whole family. (Luke 14:26)

Jesus tells a parable about 10 virgins marrying the same groom on the same night. He utters not one word of condemnation about such an obscene situation, but merely goes on about the lamps and the oil. (Matthew 25)

Women must keep silent, learn only from husbands. (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Women must submit to husbands. (1 Timothy 2:11,12)

Women must speak to husbands in fear. (1 Peter 3:1-7)

**********************************************************************************

This is all obscene. The "context" argument does not hold. There is no moral context into which murdering babies may be inserted. It is not a matter of willfully overlooking anything positive. It is a matter of being forced to overlook a great deal of horrific violence. Why must that be a pre-condition to reading the so-called "holy" Bible?

Analogy: Imagine a 100-page book of photos. 50 of them are hard core pornography including bestiality, S & M, and child pornography. The other 50 pages are exquisite—photos of sunsets, hummingbirds, waterfalls and daffodils. Now. Would you keep that book on your coffee table?

This is what I call the Pearl-In-The-Dung Syndrome. And the Bible suffers from it. If I must plow through piles of dung to uncover a pearl here and there, I refuse to do it. There is too much real beauty in literature (Emily Dickinson, John Keats, Shakespeare, Percy Shelley) to bother trying to pry out the Bible's rare pearls. What isn't boring in that book is sadistically cruel, rabidly misogynic and just plain primitively stupid.

But even more important, the Bible is supposedly the guide to morality, inspired by a deity. Why is any of that awful stuff included in such a supposedly wonderful document? Why does anyone have to make excuses for the filth in it?

Q: What do you do when Believers won't stay out of your face?

A: I've found that the best approach is not to challenge in the usual sense, but rather to ask, calmly, some simple questions. And only when they start in with their proselytizing. When they begin talking about God, quietly ask, "Which God?" This usually stumps people. When they tell you there's only one God, ask, calmly, "Which God is that one God? Are you referring to the God who inspired Joseph Smith of Mormon fame?" Wait for an answer. "Or to the Jehovah of the Jews who has not yet sent a Savior?" Wait for an answer. "Or to Allah, the God of Islam? Or to the God who speaks through the Pope in Rome? Or to Brahma the main God of the Hindus? These are all different Gods, and they all 'exist' today. Which God are you talking about? Whichever one you're referring to, what makes your answer correct and everyone else in the world incorrect?"

Do not allow them to get away with saying there is only one God and we just call him by different names. Wrong. The gods just described have different, mutually exclusive attributes and deeds assigned to them. They cannot all be the same God.

If you're not confrontational, but just asking rational questions, you'll see the wheels turning in the minds of some of those ardent believers. I find questioning far more effective than disputing. Just keep asking logical questions and let them get befuddled. The burden of proof is of course on their shoulders. They claim, they must prove.

And here's a good way to discourage intense proselytizers. When they start in on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and try to draw you in, ask the Christian:

"Do you believe in the Muslim Allah?" You'll get a no, of course not.

"Do you believe in the Buddha?" No.

"Do you believe in Vishnu, one of the Hindu Gods?" No.

"Do you believe in the God of the Jews, who sent no savior yet?" No.

"Do you believe in the ancient Egyptian Goddess, Isis?" No.

"Do you believe in Mithra, the ancient Persian Savior? No.

"Well, I just believe in one less God than you do."

Q: How do you explain death to a child?

A: The child/death thing is quite complicated. But I strongly disagree with building a house of cards that, when it ultimately topples, may possibly devastate a child. I'm certainly no expert, but I've heard from others that the way they deal with the problem is this: They gently say that when Someone dies, he/she is gone forever from the earth. however, they will live on in our hearts and minds, and as long as we keep their memories alive, they will never really be dead.

At this point, projects should be presented. The more, the better. Keep the child busy doing loving things. Round up all photographs of the deceased; make pretty photo albums for them; draw pictures of them and include them in the album(s); write stories and/or poems about the person; frame and prominently display those writings; and so on.

Encourage family discussions, urging all the children to try to remember this or that fond remembrance. Quote the person as often as possible. Keep the feeling alive that the person's presence is not gone at all, even though the body is.

Anyway, this is what I've been told by many readers, and it seems to really help children cope with death. All agree that the most important part of the campaign is to keep the children busy. For little ones, positive, constructive activity is far better than mourning—although, naturally, tears will occur and should not be criticized. Crying together can be comforting too—as long as each crying session is followed up with a positive project of some kind, even if it's just baking, say, Grandma's favorite cookies, and talking about her the whole time.

If a child has already been told that Someone is now "in heaven," you can still gently say that when people are so sad, they sometimes make up happy stories to stop feeling so sad; but sometimes the stories are just not true. The story about heaven isn't really true—it's Just Pretend, even though some people really do believe it. Depending on the age of the child, comparisons can be drawn—Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Jack and the Beanstalk, and so on.

Q: Who created our masterfully designed universe if not God?

I haven't a clue. Is it up to me to explain it? I would also disagree rather strongly with the "masterfully designed" argument. 99% of all species on earth have gone extinct, stars are constantly blowing themselves up, there are volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, the polio virus, tuberculosis, bubonic plague….and so on.

In addition, the "Master Designer" argument itself is flawed. Why? Because the argument states that anything as "wondrously" complex as the universe must require a designer. If true, then that means that anything as "wondrously" complex as a "Master Designer" also requires a designer! Think about it. And that regresses into infinity.

In your search for answers (and I've been there) you may have to settle for the fact that there are some things, quite a few actually, that the human brain will never comprehend. But does that make puppies less cute? Flowers less beautiful? Human love less wonderful? I say no, and I've made my peace with it.

Q: How could evolution "just get started" without a God of Creation?

A: Here's a point that is surprisingly ignored by evolutionists and creationists alike. And that is, even if, for the sake of argument, you took the position that evolution never happened, it still would not prove that the creation story in the Hebrew Bible is true!!! Too many of us overlook that all-important point. It is not creationism vs. evolution; it is biblical creationism vs. every other creation myth in the history of the world—Egyptian, Mayan, Hindu, Native American, and on and on and on. Food for thought.

Q: Why do you insist that the Bible says homosexuals must be killed? The New Testament changed all that when Jesus came to earth.

A: Wrong. First:

Leviticus 20:13—

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) [Emphasis mine.]

However, Jesus came to uphold this law, not change it.

Matt 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)

Jesus is unambiguously talking about OT Law.

Romans 1:24-32—

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 for this cause god gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 who knowing the judgment of god, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (KJV) [Emphasis mine.]

Q: How can you have morals without God?

A: The morals-without-God question itself has several major flaws. First, it makes the totally unwarranted assumption that without gods we humans just can't think or act rationally. On the face of it, that's preposterous. Do we need an invisible spirit, threatening us with hellfire, to understand that life is more pleasant when we are not ripping each other to shreds? Evolution sees to it that human groups who are uncontrollably vicious among themselves will die out (this may possibly have contributed to the downfall of the Aztec civilization), while peaceful groups will thrive. The only enemies of peaceful, cooperating groups are Mother Nature or Other Clans, meaning warfare for territory and so on. But within your own clan, cooperation is essential, not an option, if you are to survive.

If you slap someone in the face he will more than likely slap you right back. You learn this when you're about two. Learning to "get along," which is all morality is when you think about it, is the natural extension of this slap/slap back realization. Life is better when we get along. Think about it this way. Why do lions get along with each other? Or wolf packs? Or any other animal group? Why are they so gentle and loving to their young? Is it because they have some god telling them what to do? No. It's because if they did not behave that way they would go extinct in no time. Humans are no different in that respect, especially since our children require such a long period of nurturing before they can fend for themselves.

Second, anyone asking the morality question must first define morality. Which code of ethics qualifies? The Bible does not condemn polygamy, slavery, rape or child abuse, so they must be, according to that Bible, moral practices; but the eating of pork chops is absolutely forbidden. Now what kind of moral code is that? Every different religion has different moral standards, making them precisely as arbitrary as any nontheistic code of ethics. And if you study the Old Testament carefully, there are literally hundreds of commandments, most of them frivolous, referring to just how to worship and pray; how much money to give to the priests (!); what you can and cannot eat; and why you shouldn't ever wear wool and linen at the same time. (True story! Deut 22:11—Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. KJV) Now what does all that have to do with morality?

Third, such questions imply that religions are always good and moral. If you know your history, you know that religion has been the cause of most large scale human violence: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the Arab/Israeli wars, the Muslim "holy" wars with other Muslims, the Protestants and Catholics still killing each other, the Aztecs, the witch trials, the Nazis slaughtering the Jews and on and on and on. Religion is by no means a guarantee of peace. Both the Bible and the Koran actively encourage killing.

Fourth, the much praised so-called Ten Commandments is one of the worst possible moral codes I've ever read. Concerned mainly with humans prostrating themselves correctly in front of this egomaniacal God, there is not one word forbidding rape, slavery, child beating, child sexual abuse, abortion, torture, cannibalism or kidnapping. But lying and envying made the list. How can you explain to a rape victim why rape is not forbidden, but envying your neighbor's Corvette is? No one has ever, nor can they, explain that. Any atheist could come up with a better list of rules.

Further, have you ever met a well-behaved 7-year-old? I've known scores of them. They are polite, often very kind, especially to smaller children, and do not try to kill everyone who pisses them off. How can this be? If you insist that the fear of God is all that can encourage morality, how can you explain these sweet 7-year-olds? They are certainly displaying moral behavior. But the God argument can't be the answer. Children that age have no concept, none whatsoever, of blood-atonement and hell and damnation. They still believe in flying reindeer. So while they may be mimicking their parents' religious rituals (such as prayer) they don't know what the heck it's all about. To them it's like asking Santa Claus for a present; and, indeed, many young children (mine definitely included!) confused Santa Claus with God at that age.

Children have acquired around 90% of their moral foundation by the age of seven. How? They learn from their elders, just as their elders learned from theirs. Only much later, around ten or eleven, do children begin to understand the supposed supernatural, God-directed reasons for their kindness and compassionate behavior. But that behavior is already in place. Morality precedes religious understandings. Naturally everything is filtered through our various genetic makeups. But if parents behave compassionately toward others, the children will imitate this behavior. Just like table manners. Or saying thank-you and please. And everything else. And aside from a few psychopaths here and there, this is how we all learn morality. By example. Not from religious doctrine that young minds can't begin to comprehend. The so-called Golden Rule is the basis for all moral behavior in all cultures. And Jesus did not originate it. In fact, I think Confucius' version was better: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.

No one expects much in the way of "moral" behavior from an 18-month-old baby, although hitting and screaming have already been addressed at that point. But we do indeed expect "moral" behavior from five, six and seven year old children. And by this time generosity, helping others, apologizing, stealing, lying, name-calling, fighting and so on, in other words "morality," has been dealt with in varying degrees, depending on the parents' own moral codes. But by the time children begin to understand the intricacies of heaven/reward and hell/punishment theology, they have already learned how they are expected to treat their fellow humans. No God required.

So, in an evolutionary way, morality is selfish. It serves us in our quest for survival, but it also makes life more pleasant. It is its own reward in most cases. And if you want to understand how "holy" books are unnecessary in teaching morality, take the time to really study the Bible, especially the Old Testament. It is so horror-filled, so drenched in awful violence, that the word morality never crosses your mind. And those who say that Jesus came to do away with all that are simply wrong. Remember, Jesus said:

Matt 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV) So I guess it's polygamy all around!

Q: What should I tell my children about Santa Claus?

A: The reactions to my comments about Santa Claus a while ago are completely polarized, though I guess this makes sense when you think about it. Those who were really shocked or hurt to learn the truth about Santa, or whose children were shocked and hurt, agreed totally with my assessment. Those who had no such experiences disagreed—logical. A couple of people told me I didn't go far enough in criticizing the Santa Claus Fraud! But I don't like to see any children hurt, for any reason, and even if only 25% of our youngsters are traumatized by a social custom (though judging by my mail it's more than that over the Santa thing) I'd rather see the custom end. I certainly don't consider the Santa Lie on a par with murder and mayhem! I just think we can have very happy Christmases without him.

Q: Why do you insist on observing Christmas when you don't believe in it?

A: Because I believe in gingerbread cookies and giving and receiving presents and singing and visiting friends you haven't seen in a while and …..

Q: Why did you stop believing in God?

A: My Christian faith was wavering, so I decided to read the entire Bible to shore up my faith. It had the opposite effect. By the time I finished that violent, primitive, cruel book, my Christian faith was gone. So I began reading other books about other religions. They were no more convincing than the Bible. In the end I realized that the world's contradictory, mutually exclusive religions were just humanity's futile attempts at defeating death, either with some sort of Paradise or reincarnation.

I'm ending with a question for all you would-be proselytizers. Why are you always trying to contact me? I'm always curious when True Believers try to convince me of anything at all. Why don't you first contact the pope, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus and all other religious leaders; and after you've convinced them, I'll give your points further thought. I am not the one you should be interested in. They are!