Inspiring Words from a Christian Convert

I read this article written by Ms. Paula Kirby in the Hibernia Times. It is an incredibly articulate and intimate description of a former believer's path from faith to reason. Thoughtful. Respectful yet pointed. Inspiring to any Atheist, skeptic, or troubled believer. My favourite passages:

"Knowing what kind of god someone believes in tells us a great deal about that person – but nothing whatsoever about the truth or otherwise of the existence of any god at all."

"An atheist life, well lived, leads to the only kind of afterlife there is any evidence for whatsoever: the immortality of living on in the fond memories of those who loved us."

This is a great piece for someone trying to come to terms with the reality that their faith is faltering and the fear of not knowing what exists after the leap of logic.

Thank you Ms. Kirby

A Believer's "Coming Out"

Photo courtesy of http://www.mamamia.com/

I have had a few conversations with believers lately that have brought the concept of blind faith to the fore. I am proud to say that I don't believe in a god. Sure, at times it can be a bit awkward to say when I know I am in the presence of believers whose relationship with me I value. But I am always very proud to declare my non-belief. It is a core element of who I am on par with my gender identity, nationality, sexual orientation, and being a fan of Arsenal FC.

While believers and I will likely never see eye to eye on anything to do with our chosen paths of belief, I would assume we both share one thing in common: a pride in the belief system we have chosen. I have to assume that the sense of identification I have in stating "I cannot believe in a god because I don't believe in blind faith" is mirrored by a believer stating "I have blind faith in God because I think some things are 'bigger' than science." In fact, I will even say that I "get" the latter statement. While I know I could never accept blind faith personally, I do respect that many people feel it.

So where am I going here? Well my aforementioned conversations have revealed several believers who appear to be "in the closet" with their blind faith. While they clearly declare their belief in "God" they become hesitant to base this belief on faith. When I say, "I respect your decision to believe in god I just can't have blind faith in something," they respond with a statement indicating that their belief in "God" is based on something more empirical than faith. It's at this point that my "New Atheist" side is revealed.

I don't claim to know for sure that there is no god. I claim that, based on all of the objective, measurable, falsifiable information available to me, I believe there is a near absolute improbability that a god exists. My lack of belief is based on my need for objective proof and I am proud to say it. When a believer states that: a. They are certain of god's existence and b. That their belief is based on the existence of proof......proof in the form of miracles, I lose my cool.

I'll end this with some semantics. "Faith" refers to the concept of hope and belief in something and it is a word with a broad range of utility. For example, I have faith that my wife and I will do our best to raise our daughter to be a responsible and considerate adult. I have no internal conflict when I make a statement like this. This "faith" is based on observable and reproducible behaviours that my wife and I plan to use in our parenting. What I cannot control are my daughter's genes, what may happen to her parent's health, what happens to the earth during her lifetime etc. I have no faith in those things because they are beyond any one's control and my psychological make up just does not allow me to have faith in these types of things. This is how I would characterize religious faith or "blind faith." It is a trust in the truth of of an unproven deity, the questionable history of a messiah, the future return of this messiah, and the existence of an afterlife. None of which has any objective, reproducible evidence or tangible probability of happening based on trends to date. As such, any one believing this is putting faith in something far different than putting faith in a sports team, family member, or friend. This is what I, and I will confidently predict most people, mean when they use the phrase "blind faith." While I don't have the ability to have blind faith I certainly appreciate its attraction and would fight for people's right to it. I just wish those whose belief depends on blind faith were as proud of it as I am of not having any.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Who's More Crazy? A Post (non) Rapture Reflection.

Photo courtesy of www.finkorswim.com

I know we are all sick of hearing about Harold Camping's rapture predictions. So I will attempt to make my point in as few words as possible.

Here is the question that the rapture media frenzy has left me with: What makes Mr. Camping all that more crazy than all the "normal" believers out there? Over the past three weeks I have observed so many believers, primarily those that we would call "moderate Christians",  exclaiming their opinion that Camping is a nut-job; that predicting the date and time of the rapture and posting it on billboards across the continent gives all Christians a bad name.

It's as if we have all forgotten about the subject of Mr. Camping's prediction and the one thing that his fellow Christian naysayers generally have no problem with: the return of a dead man, said to be the son of God and a virgin ,sent  to bring all of his followers into heaven while leaving us non-believers to suffer and  die in his created earthquakes followed by an eternity of  suffering in hell. Sure Christians of varying sects and degrees of belief may have variations on this story but the essence is the same: that Jesus will return from the dead, rapture his believers, leaving the non-believers to struggle in hell with Satan.

But what element of Mr. Camping's proclamation do believers feel most tarnishes their own Christian beliefs? May 21, 2011. 6pm. A date. A time.

I don't know, call me crazy, I have a harder time with the rapture part.

A pre May 21 Question

Okay, so let's play make-believe and say the predictions of the May 21 rapture are true. How many of you think that Jesus will accept into his eternal kingdom, atheists who have treated their fellow man and planet with deserved respect?

And before you proclaim that I am worried, I leave you with this: send me to hell if you must Jesus, because I still don't believe in your heavenly father.

Come on people, leave some comments on this one. It's not very often you are faced with a rapture.

Keeping It Simple on a Day of Extravagance.

While Will and Kate push this day over the top, I figured it would be a nice foil to go back to basics. This is what being Atheist means to me.

I don't believe there are any supernatural gods. I don't know that there aren't any supernatural gods but my commitment to applying logic to what I believe leads me to a conclusion that there is a much stronger probability of the inexistence of gods than the existence of gods. I am not afraid of being wrong and hence don't feel compelled to close my mind to the possibility (albeit incredibly unlikely) that a god exists. What makes me, and I suggest all non-theists, different than believers is that the foundation of my non-belief is based on that which is objectively probable, while their belief is based on a faith with no objective probability. This is not a judgement statement, just an indisputable observation.

Simple as that. My deeper value set and how I choose to treat the world and its creatures doesn't come from my lack of theism just like a theist's approach to life doesn't stem from his or her non-belief in the thousands of gods outside of their chosen faith. How shallow would that be? My chosen life approach comes from an innate desire to treat my world with deserved respect. An inherent feeling that it is just "right" to do good. Call it humanism if you must label it.

That's it. If this sounds like you, embrace it openly.

Enjoy the wedding and congrats William and Kate. You seem lovely.

Sorry Mr. President, I Still Don't Believe You....But Thanks For The Plug.

President Obama gave a speech today at The National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. For past-presidents this would certainly not rank very high on the press' "sexy" list but with President Obama it certainly does. Many Americans (and at least one Canadian I should add) question his faith. I would be ecstatic to hear that President Obama is, at the very least, doubting. Most Americans on the otherhand view such skepticism in the supernatural  in the same light as "sins" like theft, adultery, and rape (oh the possibilities for a Pope joke here).

While President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to Christianity during his speech to believers today, I still hold that he is far more a wise man than a Christian one. He knows his approval ratings would nose dive at a rate similar to Piers Morgan's viewership  if he were to even hint at questioning his beliefs. Not to mention the fact that he is in his first term with a pack of bible-thumping, gun wielding, tea-baggers cocked, loaded, and awaiting election season. If he decided to be the first modern era President to publicly question his faith he would at least wait until the farewell tour of his second term.

So after reading his speech from this morning I am certainly not any less ardent in my theory (see hope) that President Obama is an atheist. I am, however, happy to have read a portion of his speech where he discusses his parents and upbringing. He describes his father as a "non-believer" and his mother as "growing up with a certain skepticism" (this is his way of saying she was atheist without giving America a collective heart attack). It's what he says he learned from his mother that brought a smile to my face and, I feel, was a subtle message to atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. He said that his mother "was somebody who was instinctively guided by the golden rule and who nagged me constantly about the homespun values of her Kansas upbringing, values like honesty and hard work, and kindness and fair play. And it's because of her that I came to understand the equal worth of all men and all women, and the imperatives of an ethical life, and the necessity to act on your beliefs."

Get ready to soil your gitch America. You have a president that learned his "Christian values" from an atheist. Values on which  many believers feel they hold a monopoly. How many times have we atheists heard the argument that without a belief in God one is unable to live a life of morality? Right-wing believers may hate his politics but look me in the eye (just click on "About Your Bartender") and tell me the guy is amoral. Then again, you can look me in the eye and tell me you believe the story of Noah so forget it.

I'm no conspiracy theorist  but I really think Obama is speaking to the skeptical population when his speeches contain these subtle passages. I think he wants us to know that he has doubts, respects skepticism, and knows we're good people even if we don't believe.

The Semantics of Miracles

Have any of you noticed the frequent references to "miracles" in our media? An example: I was shocked to hear Dr. Michael Lemole, congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's neurosurgeon, state that it would be "wise to believe in miracles" when explaining Mrs. Giffords' remarkable rate of recovery. Are you serious? A man of science crediting divine intervention over his own intelligence, the skills of his team, the rapid response to the shooting, and at the very least, yet to be discovered scientific rationale. I mean, I can't say it was surprising to hear Oprah suggest that it was a miracle that her newly discovered half-sister bears the same name as her deceased sister (it was Patrica by the way). I equate that to another believer confusing miracle with coincidence. But for an esteemed member of the medical community to even consider including "god" as part of his medical team shocks me. I guess he could be playing to his geographic constituents (and by geographic I am referring to his entire country). It was evident to me while watching the ra-ra-sis-boom-ba "memorial service" that it is wise for any public figure speaking to the masses affected by this tragedy to include some god-references. Even Obama (who I still hold is a closeted Atheist) quoted scripture. I really hope this is what was behind Dr. Lemole's "miracle" statement.

Okay, so I wrote the previous paragraph about three weeks ago and then saved it as a draft with plans of revisiting it for a witty closing illustrating my frustration with people who liken the unexplained to divine intervention. However I thought it would be wise to visit Merriam Webster.com and check out the definition of "miracle". To my delight, I discovered that the second definition is terrestrial, stating "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." So why is this a significant finding worthy of your discretionary time? Well, this means that believers don't have a monopoly over such a weighty word. While I don't think that disseminating  the semantic details of the word "miracle" is the best use of the atheist movement's time, it certainly wouldn't  hurt to stake some claim over it during our efforts to take over the world. Think of it as synonymous to the word "marriage" - another word that believers have to learn to share.

It also means that when asked "do you believe in miracles" I can respond "are you referring to definition one or two?"

Of Atom Bombs, Pin Pricks, and Doing Good

It's good to be back. I apologize to anyone who has shown up to the pub over the last month only to find it "closed". I also thank you for making a return visit. Where have I been? To be honest, I have spent the last month in the haze of an anxiety attack. Yep, anxiety is my chronic condition and the last month has been a nightmare. The good news is that 2011 appears to have ushered in a renewed state of reality and calm (at least some more prolonged periods) and I am energized to get back to contributing to the cause of reason, logic, and rational thought (oddly enough, three concepts that I lost sight of personally over the last month).

So what does this all have to do with today's post? Well, I last left you with a hint towards my next rambling: should the atheist movement take an atom bomb or pin prick approach to spreading its word? What's the difference? The atom bomb approach is akin to "The New Atheism" and is an all-out war on all religion aimed at disproving and eliminating all theistic and supernatural belief. A great example of this approach is Richard Dawkins' film, The Root of All Evil . When I say "pin prick" I am referring to an approach that is not  any more tolerant of theistic beliefs but much gentler in its approach to opening the eyes of those believers who are ignoring their own skepticism and disbelief.  My first use of the phrase "atom bombs versus pin pricks" was in response to a post by "Godless Girl" (http://www.godlessgirl.com/2010/11/atheism-isnt-a-big-deal/). Her argument was that atheism is just not a big deal. It simply means that you believe in one less deity than a religious person. I commented that there is place for both the "atom bombs"  and "pin pricks": atom bombs on a macro level, fighting the systemic permeation of religion into our social and political institutions by making atheism a "big deal"; and pin pricks, on a micro level like Godless Girl's blog, spreading the uneventful, normalness of atheism.

So what does this have to do with my recent journey through the abyss of anxiety? Well at some of my lowest points I thought of people who are faced with personal struggles, whether it be poor health, loss, or poverty and how it is natural to look for something positive to grasp onto. I was feeling it at several points. I could see how, when presented with the support of organized religion and the concept of "god", people in the darkest of low points feel compelled to believe and be a part of a greater existence. The concept of community and supernatural saviour that comes with committing to religion is understandably attractive to someone looking to be propelled out of any type of suffering.

The atheist community has an opportunity to reach out to those who are looking to be lifted out of a personal mire. While we cannot offer a supernatural fix I believe we can offer something better. A fix based on the power of the collective human good. A fix that explores the capabilities of our own mind and personal strength. A practical fix that relies on that which already exists within a person rather than that which hypothetically exists "somewhere out there". All of this with the same sense of community that organized religion has perfected.

For too long atheism has carried a negative connotation, and while the noble (and necessary) efforts of Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens, and the like will surely continue to be misinterpreted by those afraid of the possibility of their truth, local atheist organizations  have an opportunity to create positive "pin prick" communities, reaching out to those in need while spreading the message of logic, rational thought, and reason. For every bus sign declaring there is no god we should post another sign advertising our local soup kitchen. For every humanist meeting aimed at debating morality without god there should be another proving that morality through charitable activities. For atheism to lay the roots we so desperately need it to, it must begin to focus equally on what does exist in this world: atheists who care about their communities.

I hate him so much.

Photo courtesy of atheistcartoons.com

A Thought on Children and Belief.....

"It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so"
 - Ernestine Rose






I couldn't agree more with Ms. Rose, the great American atheist, feminist, abolotionist, and suffragist. If children aren't born able to feed themselves, the most primitive of acts, there is no way they have any inate concept of gods (now that's purity). This is why it so imperative that our children are brought up atheist, regardless of the chosen faiths of their parents, to the age where they have the maturity to decide for themselves what they believe. Does this mean that I won't let my daughter attend a religious ceremony with a friend if she asks? Not in the least. In fact, I think exposing children to the range of religious doctrines in the world gives them the opportunity to ask questions and form their mature belief system. The problem arises when the answers to these questions are woven in dogma. My daughter will obviously be exposed to atheist parents but our answers will  not be disrespectful of the other faiths. They will however be accurate: "We don't believe in gods because there is no evidence of them and mommy and daddy base their beliefs on logic and reason. The gods you just heard of are not based on these things and require blind faith - you will have to decide what works for you." What are the chances of believers following a similar path with their children?

If I could design my daughter's future....

• Literal belief in anything supernatural, including the Abrahamic faiths, occupying but the irrelevant fringes of society. People would continue to be free to believe but these believers would exist as an insignificant pocket of society similar to today's readers of palms and tea leaves.
• Today's "super-religions" evolving to become "mythology clubs" with no literal belief. People getting together in churches, temples, and mosques to enjoy the artistic elements of holy books and once-believed myths with open debate on their historical veracity and metaphorical nuances. Similar to a book club but with greater fulfillment, as the members can reminisce over wine about the days where they (and later their ancestors) believed fiction to be non-fiction. "Remember when we thought this was the blood of Christ? hahahahahaha!"
• A society of skeptics. Not in a "don't trust anyone" sense but rather in an intellectually stimulating one. People believing that which has significant sums of measurable evidence; debating and challenging that which does not; and open to being proven wrong.
• A general understanding of the meaning of the word "proven."
• God, Allah, and Mohamed sharing relevance with Zeus, Big Bird, and James Bond.
• A world where wars are not fought because of or behind the guise of religion (because there would  be none). Why not a world with no wars? Because I am an atheist not an idiot. As long as the world has humans it will have wars.
• Schools where science is taught in science class and mythology taught in mythology class.
• Social policy being created by intelligent, democratically elected men and women and shaped by the collective wishes of the skeptical public not by messages from the leader's imaginary friends.
• Men marrying women. Women marrying women. Men marrying men. Men not marrying anyone. Women not marrying anyone. No one really caring about any of these scenarios.
• Mr. Ratzinger and every molester he protected dying in prison.
• The eradication of diseases whose cure or prevention is currently being stifled by dogma.
• People taking control of their lives because they know that only they can control it;  understanding that they are being nice to one another out of pure genetic human volition not because god has given them the morality to do so. Behaviour based on the "pay-it-forward" power of humanity not the fear of divine consequences. 

I've got us started. Post a comment to spread the word of a what a truly secular and free thinking world could look like. Snowballs require snow flakes.

Belief, Tradition, Myth and the Insecure Atheist

I think a lot of people maintain a "belief" in god because they fear the apparent void of not believing. The label "atheist", and to a lesser degree "agnostic", suggests a very cold, dark, and unfulfilled existence. To many, the concept of atheism conveys an illusion (and it is an illusion) of immoral living; of a person wandering selfishly amongst the believers doing as he or she pleases because he or she believes he or she can without any consequences, neither present nor in an afterlife. I am atheist. My life has never felt more meaningful, full of purpose, and replete with morality. I enjoy my  life because I know I am good to the earth and the creatures on it for the right reason: because both deserve it. Not because I am afraid of hell. Not because a voice other than my own has told me to. Nope, I am a good person because I control my life and it is the right choice for me to make. I don't think being a believer is the only path to moral living. In fact, since I have found my place in the Humanist approach to life, I feel a greater need to approach each day by the "Golden Rule." And before you tell me that the "Golden Rule" is a Christian creation do your research....it's not. I could get into all of the scientific evidence out there suggesting that charitable, moral living is a genetic trait with all kinds of evolutionary foundations but this is not the time nor place (although a future post will be). Instead, I'd like to talk about Christmas. Not seeing the connection? You shouldn't......yet.


I love Christmas. Everything about it, I love. It is the one period of winter that I enjoy. The snow is fresh and white and the temperature here in Ottawa  is generally humane. I love the cheesy music, even that which celebrates Jesus.  I love getting gifts - admit it, you do too. I love giving gifts (in fact, I bought my wife's the other day and ended up giving it to her within an hour - I  hate waiting). I love Christmas parties. I love all the food and booze. I love the "free pass" everyone seems to get. Free to eat a lot. Free to drink a lot. Free to spend too much money. Free to tell people how much you appreciate them. Free to visit friends on "school nights". Free to put a tree in your home.  There is just an intrinsic sense of good cheer that makes the holiday season a wonderful time. So how does an atheist justify being a Christmas junkie? If you are Christian, especially an argumentative one, I am sure you wish you were sitting in front of me right now ready to pounce on this crock of hypocrisy. Not so fast.


Let me start my "defense" with one simple historical fact: "Christmas" as we know it (late December celebration of the birth of Christ) was, and I say this respectfully without dramatic intent , hijacked by Christianity. I'm not upset by this. I have no problem with, and in fact quite enjoy, nativity scenes and songs about the birth of Christ. I even miss going to Church on Christmas Eve - one of the best memories of my childhood (maybe I will go this year). In fact, I think Christianity has done some great work with a celebration of the winter solstice that existed long before Christ was thrust  into fame. The difference between how I celebrate Christmas and how believers celebrate Christmas is that I approach it as a celebration of a fictional myth whereas the believer celebrates a literal historical event of supernatural quality. I love the story of Christ in spite of the fact that I don't believe anything more than the idea that he was born to a woman named Mary and that he spent his time on earth spreading a message of love, charity, and good will. The concept of him using the "vehicle" of divinity to spread this message speaks to the fact that he was probably delusional, mentally ill, and alive during a time of limited explanation for mundane, worldly phenomenon. I also consider the idea that maybe he knew exactly what he was doing; not believing in God  at all, but knowing that such an outrageous claim would be the perfect spectacle to bring attention to his noble message. In the end who really knows and, I would argue, care what the truth on Jesus is? The important point here is that I feel comfortable celebrating Christmas because I celebrate the fun, romantic, mythical element of it without believing in it literally. It does not bother me as an atheist to celebrate the fictionally divine birth of a man named Jesus who spread messages of morality even though I know some believe the story literally.  I even enjoy the story of him being considered the son of God. I, of course, don't believe this but think it is a great piece of the story revealing how far science has come bringing us to a point where we no longer need this belief to explain so many elements of our existence. In other words, I enjoy the divine element of the Christmas story much like I enjoy a good Grisham. It's a nice way to escape reality without ceasing my belief in reality.


My comfort level with Christmas is illustrated in my "conservative" thoughts on how  politically correct Canada has become during the Christmas season, often at the hands of insecure Atheists. While I certainly welcome and enjoy displays of other celebrations such as Hanukkah and Kwanza, I find it absolutely ridiculous when people suggest Christmas trees should be referred to as "Holiday Trees" or schools should cancel Christmas parties to avoid insulting non-Christians. The fact is that Canada was founded by believers in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Our history is based on this and we will (and should) always have traditions based on these once-held beliefs. I am secure enough in my non-belief to support the maintenance of national heritage through the celebration of traditions, like Christmas, that originated from that which I don't believe. I challenge other Atheists to quit the insecure attack on the Christmas season and allow this great celebration of tradition, myth, and heritage enhance their already liberating atheist living.

Was thinking last night.....

I can accept others wanting to believe in "something"  although I don't want to believe in that "something" myself.  It's when these people claim to know what  their "something" wants for the rest of the world that we get intolerance, hatred, and ........religion.

Atheism and Why I’m Talking About It – Part Two

IF YOU HAVEN'T READ PART ONE YOU SHOULD.
So, have you thought about it? Have you determined exactly where you reside on the theistic/gnostic axis? It can be complicated, I know – especially if you have been raised to believe. Or maybe you found it simple and just needed to be prodded into being honest (and this applies to those who find themselves to be true believers as well). I will say that after finding my own theistic address my day-to-day has become a much simpler place; almost as if I have finally washed a dirty pair of eye glasses. A fully transparent lens so to speak. Never in my past have I felt so naturally connected with this world and the people in it. Never in my past have I felt so at peace with my future. Never in my past have I so enjoyed my present. Okay, enough sap.

So how do I classify myself? I have diagnosed myself as an agnostic atheist with "Gnostic tendencies". Essentially, I don't believe in any gods or the supernatural but don't claim to have conclusive proof that they don't exist. My "Gnostic tendencies" stem from the fact that, although I can't claim that I am conclusively certain that no god(s) exists, if I had the luxury of being a career scientist (a la Richard Dawkins) I have little doubt I would declare that I have seen enough conclusive evidence to state that I know this non-existence to be true. I would undoubtedly fall into the Gnostic realm of atheism. For the sanity of all my friends and family (and those who actually choose to read my blog without really knowing me – all two of you) it's a good thing that I am not a scientist. An interesting point I will touch on later is the fact that most atheists thrive on the idea of being proven wrong, as this is the foundation of good science. This is also the root of my unwillingness to state that I am absolutely certain of the nonexistence of the supernatural. Can the same be said of believers? I know, I know – that's fate. I think fate is dangerous but again, more on that later.

Before I begin to explain why I believe (or not believe) what I do, let me share a recent change of heart. If you are reading this you likely know that I generally like to take an irreverent approach to challenging that which I don't believe, like, or respect. However, this topic is too important to me to address it with a "shock" slant. There are enough non-believers out there taking the atom bomb approach to atheist conversion (If you are interested in this approach please do watch The Root of All Evil – Dawkins is brilliant). Don't get me wrong, I hope this post persuades doubting, skeptical, liberal, believers to declare their innate disbelief. However, I also want to acknowledge that I do not wish to disrespect those who are willing to truly open their minds to the possibility of there not being a god only to find that their innate response is to believe. I respect your right to religion and appreciate your dedication to faith. I'll be frank: my targets are those "believers" who are lying to themselves; misinformed; apathetic; pretending; hypocritical; unsure; or scared. I have a particular ire for those who "cherry pick" the elements of their chosen religion that they like while declaring the more outlandish, improbable (i.e. impossible), and often offensive claims to be mere elements of the faith that are meant to be allegorical or ignored.

So, here's my personal rationale for being atheist, which I have a sneaking suspicion will be the rationale of a significant number of people who open their minds, look at the facts, allow their doubts to be investigated, and transform their instinctual beliefs to overt expression. My rationale is far from complex in any way because the scientific, historical, and logical evidence presented to me makes it uncomplicated. Simply put I just do not believe in myths in the literal sense. At the risk of sounding arrogant (which I will talk about later), my intelligence, level of education, and I suppose personality, just do not allow me to believe nonsensical (yet I admit romantic and enjoyable) stories of impossible feats and events. I cannot believe that there are any imaginary figures overseeing our lives and well being. The idea that this figure is also monitoring, policing, and taking note of the quality of my behavior for future postmortem consequences is farcical to me, especially when I review some of the downright offensive and immoral messages he allegedly "spoke" to the authors of his holy books. Let yourself think about that with honesty and then ask yourself if that is something you are willing to believe without evidence.

Okay, here are some myths I want you to think about:

1. Icarus: The Greek dude (son of Daedalus) who attempted to escape from Crete using wings his dad constructed out of wax and feathers. Poor bugger flew too close to the sun and his wings melted. Bye bye Icarus.

2. Poseiden: Created the horse (bet "god" has something to say about that) to impress a chick. His weapon, the trident, is capable of shaking the entire Earth.

3. Zeus: Throws lightening at people.

4. Apollo: Roman guy who holds the daily tasks of harnessing his chariot with four horses and literally driving the sun across the sky.

5. Izanagi: Japanese god who got undressed one day and each piece of clothing that hit the ground transformed into another god.

Most people who claim to belong to any of the Abrahamic religions (the "Big Three": Christianity; Islam; Judaism), and those who are pretending to belong to these religions will tell you that they don't believe these myths to be true. This means that YOU don't believe them. Why? Because they just couldn't happen.

Okay, so consider:

1. Noah: An old man (and I mean old, over 900 years) gathers two of every animal, flea, and gnat onto an arc he built of wood. It is a "love boat", as his purpose is to ensure his "passengers" all have sex.
2. Mary: Had a kid without having sex (it is that simple).
3. Jesus: Said kid. Walked on water. Came back from the dead. Turned water into wine (I so want to believe this one and, if I am wrong about all this, hope he will forgive me over a glass of water on his return visit).
4. Jonah: Got swallowed by a whale where he "hung out" safe and sound for three days and nights (similar to Marlin and Dory in Finding Nemo).
5. Moses: Raised his hands and parted a sea. Just like that.

Now tell me, what makes these any more believable? Do you really believe any of this? If so, why? There is no rational reason to believe that these things happened. There is no proof. Suggesting that the proof lies in the bible itself means that we have to hold as fact any historical fictional literature that someone claims to be true. Research the history of the Abrahamic religions and you will learn that they were all well "marketed" at a time when the masses needed something to believe in. In other words the "proof" of these fallacies lies in the sheer magnitude of people who have been indoctrinated into these faiths over thousands of years. "If so many people believe it,  it must be true."  It is self fulfilling but certainly not valid. In the words of Dan Gardner, "Truth is not attained by vote."

I'll be back with more reasons to free your mind and conscience, but I figured I'd use the simplest element of my own disbelief as the foundation for my persuasive journey with you: there is just no reason (neither testable evidence nor just plain common sense) to believe that this stuff happened. I wish there was a more eloquent way to put it but the impossibility of these myths occurring in a literal sense is too primitive to paint in an erudite manner. Is it coincidence that these "truths" only occurred during a time when science had not yet explained the many mysteries of the world (which we continue to strive for)? Why aren't people now splitting oceans, walking on water, being born to virgins, and living in the abdomens of animals? Because they can't. They couldn't then and they can't now. My request of you is this: When your intelligence and sense of logic whisper in your ear that these myths are just that, mythical, pay yourself the credit you deserve and stop believing them. At the very least, doubt them and dig deeper.

See you soon. I want to chat about my love of Jesus Christ. Honest.

 

It’s Just a Building for Christ’s Sake

So some wack-job wrote a letter to the editor today complaining that his polling station was a Catholic School. Apparently he wasn't Catholic. He whines that Elections Canada should be "a little more sensitive to the diversity of our faiths." He also says that he was distracted by the crucifix on the wall. This, I get. It's a half naked dude, dying, nailed to a wooden cross. I've always found the whole image over the top, and quite frankly, terrifying. Its presence distracts me wherever I happen to find it. So the fact that this guy had a hard time making an "x" while being watched by Jesus is understandable to me. But that's where any agreement with this freak ends.

As far as I see it, a church, or in this case Catholic school, is essentially a building that only has theological meaning to those of the faith under which it was built. I am an atheist who was required to vote in a United church. To me it was a polling station that just happened to be a church. I had no problem with the statue of Jesus that greeted me at the door (he was alive and well with his arms outstretched – quite welcoming actually). In fact, I would like to thank the congregation of that church for volunteering their place of worship to democracy's greatest process. They could worship tuna fish and peanut butter on Wednesday afternoons and I really couldn't give a rat's ass. Actually, I love both Tuna and peanut butter and I know they both exist. This is a religion I might just be attracted to. Hmmm. Oops. Tangent.

A move towards ensuring "neutral sites" for polling stations would represent more time and energy unnecessarily allocated to the plague of political correctness in this country. Listen, I don't believe in God. I think Jesus was a really great guy who spread an important message but I am also quite sure Mary and Joseph enjoyed creating him. I could go on. However, I recognize that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. This isn't going to change. So I can tolerate, in fact celebrate, this history while still recognizing that our progress as a civilization has disproved the biblical myths behind these values. You could throw me in a mosque, temple, synagogue, or chapel to vote and I will take in the beauty of the architecture (unless it is one of those new age "airport style" churches – why are they doing this?) and then meet my civic responsibility to choose a candidate.

Mr. Whiner's concerns appear to be one more example of organized religion's growing tide of intolerance and unreasonableness towards one another. The dogma associated with every religion, whether you like it or not, teaches its followers that their faith is the "correct" faith and those that follow others will be punished come judgment day. It's a fact. I learned it in Sunday school when we would do those Bible scripture races. Remember those? I never won a single race. This girl in my class practiced all week and kicked our ass every Sunday. Maybe this is where my disdain originates. Again...tangent.

Anyway, I would like to thank Rideau Park United Church. You have a beautiful polling station, I mean, church.