I keep forgetting to post this cartoon I created a while ago. This ends all debate.

Religion: A source of hate

It's generally accepted by many non-religious people around the world that religion is a source of hate; however, many mainstream religions will counter that claim by demonstrating that their religion only preaches love. Indeed, to suggest that any mainstream religion causes hate in its followers has become politically incorrect, and has even been compared to racism. Having spent a good portion of my life as a god-fearing bible believing church going Christian, I have identified the source of this hate from reflecting upon that experience.

The hate starts with our fundamental sense of fairness. Studies with monkeys demonstrate that a desire for fairness is a fundamental element for any highly social, co-operative species.

When we see something that's unfair, the emotion we feel is that of hate. We see it all the time in everyday life; when someone cuts into line, when someone cuts you off in traffic while trying to push their way ahead of everyone else, or when we discover that someone hasn't been paying the taxes the rest of us have been paying, we as a species generally have a feeling of hate towards that individual. Those of us who do not express hatred need to train ourselves to subdue this emotion by considering alternative trains of thought, though there's no denying the instinctive response of hate.

When I was a child, I was told that God was real and we had to go to church every Sunday. When the plate of money came around, I thought it was God paying us for our worship and praise; when I found out I had to put money into that plate, I didn't think it was fair that a God that created everything would need my money. I focused my attention to where it belonged, but that wasn't always the case.

Before I got to join the congregation upstairs, I had to spend many Sundays in the basement of the church in Sunday School with some other kids. Every Sunday, I had to get up early, dress up in tacky clothes, and go to Sunday School to learn about God. This meant that I couldn't stay up late Saturday night. The only night I could stay up late was Friday night, but I was usually pretty tired by the end of Friday, because I had to get up early for school Friday morning, which meant that I didn't get to stay up late on any night of the week. When I went to school the following Monday, the kids were talking about how funny Saturday Night Live was. I hated them for getting to skip out on church Sunday morning and enjoying that bit of comedy, and then sharing the experience.

When I learned that there were kids who didn't have to go to church on Sunday, who got to sleep in after staying up late Saturday night and who got to ride dirt bikes or lounged by the pool on Sunday, dirt bikes and swimming pools we couldn't afford because in part the church took 10% of the family income, it wasn't fair. The only way I could square that in my mind was to hate the non-religious heathens, and the only way I could cope with that hatred was to believe I was somehow better than them. God was real and He loved me and I was going to go to heaven, a place they wouldn't get to go to. Fortunately for me, my mind couldn't work that way for very long, as it was always wondering. There were kids who knew that Santa Claus wasn't real, and they still got great gifts for Christmas, maybe they had some knowledge that I didn't have? When I considered this, the thought of them not sharing this knowledge really made me hate them.

This is why I believe atheism is important, because atheism is the least hateful position to be in. By calling myself an atheist, I'm being open and honest with people who still believe. I'm not holding anything back from them about how I've made my life so great. I can understand why someone who earns his or her living from the collection plate would want to preach hatred of atheists, because once people realize how much better life is without religion, they've just lost a source of labour-free income. I can understand how those putting their money in the collection plate for a very long time would want to agree with this sentiment; the thought of missed opportunities must be unbearable, just like the thought of leaving a slot machine that will pay out sometime must be unbearable to the adult diaper-wearing gambler. http://www.aproundtable.org/news/newsindividual.cfm?ID=1798&issuecode=casino

Religion not only creates hate, it is the cause of many of the problems of society because of this hate. Any good the mainstream religions may do is mitigated by the inherent hate they create in their congregation by generating a demonstrably false world view in its congregation. If religions truly wanted to make the world a better place, they would refund the tithes that were given to them and re-establish themselves as charities that serve a cause, such as world hunger, climate change, and clean drinking water for everyone, and then ask for that 10%.

Of course, this will never happen, because actually fixing the problems of the world requires real actual work, and those who rise to the pulpit tend to shun doing any real work, preferring to cherry-pick the bible and telling people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear.

Evidence that Gods do not exist.

In my last post, I illustrated, by use of analogy, why I consider being agnostic is an absurd, intellectually lazy position. One person accused me of presenting a "Straw man" argument, so I decided to support my last post with this post, which addresses some gods I know.

Roman Gods

Saturn

Prior to the invention of telescopes, many gazed into the night sky and concluded that celestial bodies were gods. Saturn was so important, a day of the week was named after this god (hence, Saturday). Here's a close-up of Saturn:

Turns out that Saturn is a ringed gas giant planet, and not a god after all.

Mars

Mars, the god of war, second only to Jupiter. We sent our robots to Mars to investigate.

Nope, just another planet, this one actually fairly similar to earth.

Jupiter

According to Romans at one time, this was the god of sky and thunder and king of the gods until Christianity became dominant. Let's see Jupiter up close:

Turns out this is just another gas giant, similar in some respects to Saturn, but without the rings.

Sol Invictus

Makes sense to worship what turns out to be the provider of all the energy needed for all life on this planet, and probably why we observe Sunday as an important day of the week. Turns out it's nothing special, it's just another sun in the galaxy. It is special to us, however, so feel free to worship it. Just don't expect any special favours (unless you consider skin cancer a favour).

I could go on, but so far, I've demonstrated that gods were observable phenomena that, while not understood at the time, were not things outside the human concept of understanding. You should also understand that I have seen all of these gods through my own telescope, so I am not taking anyone's word for granted (yes, I also have a filter so I can also observe Sol - our sun.)

Now, the next argument usually follows that these are ancient Roman gods, and don't count, because nobody worships those gods today. So, where does the concept of a modern Christian god come from? Ask a believer today, and you'd think you're asking them to nail jello to the wall. However, the scriptures do not lie, and the effects of religion on modern day culture has left its mark.

In this case, I think Aron Ra made the best case for what the modern Christian god really is:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2012/12/18/air/

Yes, air. When I sneeze and you say, "Bless you," you are citing an age-old tradition in ensuring that, as my air spirit escapes in the form of a sneeze, demon spirits will not enter my body due to your blessing. When we pour a glass of hard alcohol, we see vapours rising from the top, which is why they became known as "Spirits."

The current god that is observed by western culture is an air god, but we have come to learn what air is made of and why we need to breathe it. This collection of molecules is clearly not god.

The agnostic will insist to push the concept of god beyond our understanding, but this is because god has traditionally been beyond our understanding. Before the invention of telescopes, we did not know what Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn were, but they were things within our understanding because they were observable phenomenon. Even air, although invisible, is observable in its effects and through powerful microscopes.

To postulate that a god could exist outside of our understanding is in contradiction to what we can currently observe about known gods. Every single god has existed through some observable and knowable phenomenon, and therefore can eventually be understood. Whenever somebody postulates that something could exist outside of our observable and knowable knowledge, that thing cannot be a god by any reasonable understanding of what constitutes "God." While the agnostic may postulate that things beyond our ability to observe and understand could be god, they fail to understand that, if something cannot be observed and understood, it is not a god in the sense that the intellectual have come to understand what gods really are. In fact, it becomes something completely different. A lie, perhaps; or maybe just a delusion.

I'm certain we'll discover many more things that were previously unseen to us. Science has done that; it has shown us germs, ultraviolet and infrared light, radio waves, and X-rays, just to name a few. None of these turned out to be gods either, but if they were observable without instruments, I'm certain they would have been considered gods and given their own names as well, because that is what gods have always been: Those observable phenomenon which we did not understand. This is why I am absolutely certain that gods do not exist.

How we know things

This showed up in my news feed today, which caused a bit of an argument between those who considered themselves a 3 and those who considered themselves a 4. I decided to clear this up.

First, let's get 1 and 2 out of the way. The majority of religious people would consider themselves a #1, and this is a perfectly logical, sane thing to say. A person raised to believe in god, in absence of any other information (including not actually reading the bible) will consider this to be their position. #2 is the product of an irrational mind; such a person may actually be suffering from a mental illness, or they are completely ignorant and incapable of rational thought, just as certain that God exists as a four year old is certain that Santa Claus exists.

The people who consider themselves #3 consider their position to be the most intellectually honest. Often, they will become armchair philosophers, citing that we cannot really know anything. According to this philosophy, I cannot know, for example, that my car will start tomorrow morning. I believe it will start because it started this morning and yesterday morning, but all I know from that is that it had started, not that it will start. An agnostic believes that the existence of a god is not knowable, because it's possible that god is outside our human understanding.

This seems logical enough to the armchair philosopher, but it misses one critical element: If the existence of a god could be outside our understanding, how is it that certain people have made the claim of the existence of a god? If it's outside of human understanding, then these people should have no knowledge of the existence of a god. However, this is not the case; entire religions have been built around this knowledge of the unknowable. How can someone have knowledge of something unknowable, when everything we know is clearly within the realm of our understanding?

Consider a favorite magic trick of mine. Suppose I make a red handkerchief disappear in the palm of my hand, right before your eyes. You have seen something that had clearly existed vanish into thin air, contrary to the law of conservation of matter. When you ask me how I did that, I tell you, "It's magic." In other words, it's something beyond your understanding and supernatural. Except it isn't beyond anyone's understanding, and is clearly not supernatural, I just wanted to fool you into thinking I had magical, mystical powers that make me special. I know that there was no magic, but, at the very least, you must remain agnostic about the possibility of my magical powers if you cannot figure out how I performed this simple trick.

Of course, the more rational among you will realize that all magic tricks are really just illusions performed by some sleight-of-hand, mirrors, or some other trickery, and cannot be agnostic on this topic. You realize that, even though you don't understand how the trick was done, it was just a trick. You don't remain agnostic about magic if you are truly intellectually honest, because you can go to the library, read about magic and how it's performed and learn how these tricks are done.

A person who knows there are no gods has arrived at this conclusion the same way a person might arrive at the conclusion that there's no such thing as magic, while the intellectually lazy, who might consider that a stage magician may actually be performing real magic, suggests that it's possible that a god might exist outside of our knowledge. Those of us who investigated and know how and why the god trick is done cannot be agnostic about it; we know that no gods exist the same way we know there is no magic, because, in spite of what the lazy armchair philosopher might think, things really are knowable.

This showed up in my Facebook news feed today; I could not resist the temptation to blaspheme.

Atheist Zealots

I was raised and indoctrinated with common Christian beliefs, so I came into my current state of non-belief in a god through a process of reasoning and questioning. Once I realized the true nature of our existence, I came to regard all who did not believe in a god or gods as highly intelligent, rational peers. I now understand that I've probably given some who have never believed much more credit than they're due.

I have learned that simply being an atheist does not automatically mean a person is intelligent, rational, or compassionate, because there are atheists who never had to go through a process of rationalizing, reasoning, and questioning what they understand to be true. Non-belief in a god is a default position; the belief in god needs to be taught, and especially at a young age before a child is old enough to reason. While it can be argued that religious teachings may stunt or delay learning about things like science and history, it does not inherently turn people into ignorant, bigoted, hateful zealots. In fact, there exists in this world atheists who are ignorant, bigoted, hateful zealots, in spite of the fact that some of the most intelligent people are those who have never held a religious belief.

One such demonstration of this can be found in a Facebook group known as "Atheist Republic." After accepting their invitation to the private group earlier this year, I noticed the group devolving from oppressing religion to becoming bigoted and hateful of people who hold religious belief. I wrote blog posts such as the Niqab debate in hopes to temper people's bigotry of Muslim women, but the vitriol continued. I decided to ignore their bloodless ideology until I got caught in the cross hairs of their witch hunt.

It started with a joke. I posted a picture of a baptism cake, with the caption, "The cake is a lie." This is a long-running joke with players of the original Portal video game, and in case you don't get this joke, "The cake is a lie" was a hidden message in the game used to convey the message that a promised gift is being used to motivate without any intent of delivering. In religion, there is a promised gift being used to motivate without any intent of delivering, but it isn't cake. This was an example of satire combined with irony that I enjoy.

The first comment appeared to be from a crank questioning my belief. I followed up with what I thought was sufficient clarification without ruining the joke, and even went so far as to stick with the religious-themed satire of the original while posting a picture from the game, in case this person sincerely didn't understand.

I thought that ought to be sufficient for anyone to figure the joke out, but this zealot was clearly on an anti-religious witch hunt, because instead of bothering to even look at my profile or google "The cake is a lie," he chose to insult me by calling me a troll.

Reasoning that he was a one-off crank,  I pointed out the simple fact that he just may be, in fact, a humorless twit; hardly even an insult, given the circumstances. That's when he called out the admins of the group by tagging them in his reply.

He had lobbed the first insult by calling me a troll for all to see, rather than questioning me or sending his concerns to the admins in private. As I soon discovered, he wasn't a one-off crank in this group; he was rallying fellow zealots in his anti-religious witch hunt. It was a mob mentality as they set their rifle sights on me: One of their own, and, as this blog demonstrates, one of the most outspoken atheists.

While certain atheists accuse religion for terrible things such as the Salem witch hunts, it turns out that this is simply an ugly, cancerous side of human culture, fostered by ignorance and bigotry, that can affect atheists equally as it does the religious. It's no wonder that, with behaviour like this, people believe atheism to be just another religion.

I have decided that, after being banned from Atheist Republic, to consider abandoning my atheism, and start a new religion. My religion will be cake. The cake is not a lie, even if it is written. Anyone wish to join me?

The Niqab debate

I've seen a considerable amount of hateful opinions regarding the Niqab in Canada come across my Facebook news feed as of late, and while some concerns seem legitimate on the surface, every single one of them neglects a very critical question: Why do Muslim women wear the Niqab?

If we read the opinions of liberal Canadian hipsters who choose to wear the Niqab as a fashion statement, we would learn that they find it empowering, which is something I would not disagree with. Every year on October 31, many people, myself included, find it empowering to cover our faces as we dress up as Ninjas or Batman. In fact, it's a lot of fun, and Islam would seem, on its surface, to provide a legitimate excuse to enjoy this Halloween type fun all year round. However, I doubt very much that these fun-loving hipster bloggers do not constitute the majority of Niqab-wearing women in Canada.

Others have expressed the opinion that the niqab protects them from the prying eyes of Joe public, so that only someone very special gets to see their beauty. Often, they regard themselves as a "Wrapped Candy" or some equivalent. It is a little disconcerting to me, as a supporter of the feminist movement, that a woman would relegate herself to a position of subservience to a man, to reduce herself to little more than chattel to be unwrapped only by her owner. Such a woman cannot expect to be treated as an equal in such a culture, and it saddens me to think that a woman would put such value on something as superficial as their appearance. Once again, I doubt that these women represent the majority of niqab-wearing women. If the majority do believe in this, I don't believe it's the primary reason.

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and1.0 Generic license.

I believe the majority of niqab wearing women wear their niqabs out of fear. Whether their fear is based in tradition, superstition, or from a real threat is irrelevant. This fear is real for them.

Consider a person who has left their culture where they were surrounded by like-minded people to come to Canada. By and large, these women are not educated by no choice of their own, and are forced to come here with their husbands because they really don't have any say or choice in these matters. Quite often, they look forward to the promise of a better life for their children, something all of us would want. They already wore the Niqab in their culture because they feared what might have happened if they didn't, and it also gave them a sense of belonging to be around other women who were clearly in the same predicament. Now they're in this strange new world with alien cultures and ideals, and all they know is fear. We can hardly expect them to suddenly become enlightened.

Let's be honest here and start by admitting these women feel safer when hiding under their niqabs. This leads to another very important question: Are we really helping them by making them feel marginalized or challenged for wearing what amounts to their personal security blanket?

At a personal level, I disagree with the Niqab for fundamental equality reasons. That said, turning it into a national debate on the covers of newspapers and the top of Facebook news feeds only serves to alienate women who have possibly already suffered a great deal of abuse in their lives, and we may very well be driving them back into the arms of their oppressors. We should feel compassion for these women. Let them wear their Niqab if it makes them feel safe. Ours should be a culture of enlightenment.

Yes, I, an atheist, say, let these women wear the niqab, and let's show them that we accept them with open arms and uncovered faces. Over time, they will come to feel secure and may even come to recognize the niqab as something ridiculous and embarrassing as they assimilate into our culture. It may not happen overnight, and it may not even happen for a generation or two, but it will certainly happen a lot faster and easier if we can agree that marginalizing and criticizing these fearful women is not productive. Please join me and help them become part of our great multi-cultural country by opting out of sharing anything hateful about Muslim women in your Facebook feed.

Islamophobia

Phobia Noun 

A persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

Islamophobia is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but what does it really mean? Traditionally in the English language, the phobia suffix literally means fear. Thus, when we combine it with the Latin prefix of, say, Claustro (a door bolt), we get Claustrophobia, which is a fear of enclosed spaces.

Phobias are a fairly common trait that most people have. In fact, there is a web site, phobialist.com, that has made the attempt to list them all. Go ahead, have a look. Chances are you'll discover one or more of your own phobias on that list. What's not on that list is Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is a made-up word, with a made-up meaning. If we accept it at face value and use it like other words that end in phobia, the reasonable expectation is that it means a fear of Islam. Such a fear is not necessarily an irrational one; many people in the world today are afraid of Islam, as we have witnessed and continue to witness atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Fear is what keeps many people in the world in the Islamic faith. As such, a fear of Islam may be a very rational fear to have, and thus does not merit the use of the suffix -phobia.

The true origins of this word came from the popular use of homophobia, which is a real word with a real meaning. Originally, it was a fear of sameness or monotony derived from homogeneous, but then the LGBT movement took this word and assigned a new meaning to it, deriving homo from homosexual. This is actually quite clever, because both homosexual and homogeneous are Latin in origin, constructed the same way, and would translate exactly the same to derive a word that means a fear of homosexuals or sameness.

Some people didn't just fear homosexuals; there are those even today who outright and without rationale hate them. Hate isn't fear, and some of those people who hated homosexuals didn't feel compelled to avoid them. In fact, many of those who hated homosexuals would go out of their way to confront and attack them. However, people loved using the word, so the meaning became altered to be used to describe people who hate and become confrontational towards homosexual men and women. I don't consider this a great choice, as it dilutes the meaning of what a phobia is supposed to be, but they are fighting the good fight for equal rights and that matters to me. At least the definition of this word is very specific and makes sense.

Capitalizing on the LGBT struggle for equality, Islamophobia was coined with a made-up definition. This definition is: "Dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." However, the problem with this definition is immediately apparent to me: There are Muslims in this world who have a legitimate dislike or prejudice against Islam. This made-up meaning for this made-up word ends up stereotyping people of a specific nationality, allowing those who might question their religious beliefs to be ostracized or worse. We already have perfectly good words to describe non-Muslim people who hate Muslims. My word of choice to describe this sort of individual is is misotramontanism.

Now consider someone who dislikes or is prejudiced against Islam as a political force. Would we then consider someone who doesn't like Liberals as a political force Liberalphobics? At this point, the very definition of the word Islamophobia continues to become further diluted, fragmented, and nonsensical. Once again there exists words in our language already that better describe this; for example, try misarchist. Or, to be more accurate in this case, perhaps misotyrannist is more apt.

So we have this made-up word that, when taken to its Latin root, doesn't make sense. Its made-up definition doesn't make sense. We already have words in our language to describe people who don't like people of other races or nationalities that are far more suitable. The only reason I see for the existence of this word is to silence those who would criticize Islam, to demonize those who would question this religion, including the very people who are trying to escape it, and to give the religious an unwarranted position of unquestionable authority. That makes this a very ugly word.

I'm going to join French prime minister Manuel Valls in purging this ugly word from my vocabulary when describing anti-Muslim prejudice, and ask that you do the same.

Martyrs of the Age of Reason

Martyr (noun): A person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause. (verb) To make a martyr of, especially by putting to death.

Source: dictionary.reference.com

When we read and hear news coverage about the Charlie Hebdo shootings, we often see the gunmen had claimed to want to die as martyrs for their cause. Their claim is that they have avenged their long-dead prophet Mohammed in these killings. Had they laid down their firearms and surrendered to the French authorities after fulfilling their task of avenging their dead prophet and, as a result, had been executed for murder, one might see them as martyrs for their religion. They did not do this. In addition to killing the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, they also executed Muslim police officer Ahmed Merabet, and then took a hostage and engaged in a firefight with the authorities.

The Charlie Hebdo murderers did not die as martyrs. The French authorities did not kill them because of their religious beliefs. They were killed because they were randomly killing people for no apparent reason after executing the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. They were killed because they gave the French authorities no other option; failure to kill the shooters would have resulted in more innocent people getting murdered. I'm personally against the death penalty and police brutality, but this was a situation where the Charlie Hebdo murders left the French authorities no other choice. This is not martyrdom in any sense of the word; this was France protecting itself.

Being raised and indoctrinated as a Christian, there was one martyr that I was taught about, and that martyr was Jesus Christ. Yes, we are taught that he died for our sins, and he is the son of God, and through him all is forgiven, but consider the actual biblical account of how he was executed. For the sakes of argument, I'm going to skip over the contradictions in the Bible, and focus on what most Christians generally accept as fact.

It is generally accepted that Jesus never killed anyone during his short time as a mortal son of God. During his trial, Jesus was accused by Caiaphas for blasphemy, after which he was taken to Pilate's court, where he offended the Roman governor for claiming to be the "King of Jews." He was subsequently subjected to ridicule, torture, and then crucifixion by Roman soldiers.

Nobody would consider the Roman soldiers to be martyrs whenever they died for Rome; Jesus Christ was the martyr in this story. Fast forward to today. Islam is both a state and a religion. The state of Islam was offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, just as the Roman governor was offended. The Charlie Hebdo murderers are clearly modern day soldiers of the state of Islam; they were well trained and had access to military grade weapons. The cartoonists, who, like Jesus Christ, had never killed anyone and simply wanted to show humanity that we could be free from organized religion, were executed by those soldiers. To better understand, let's look into the work they did and why it's significant.

Historical milestones are generally measured as "Ages." Very old religions have survived, and perhaps even caused, multiple "Ages," but Christianity is considered to have its roots in the Apostolic age, between 30 and 100A.D. Then there are periods like the Islamic golden age, which occurred at around 750 to 1258C.E. However, the age that is relevant here is the Age of Reason, which started in 1794. At its heart, this calls for the challenging of institutional religious beliefs and the bible. While not a religion, it is based on principles and represents a cause that focuses on liberating people from the tyranny of organized religion. This was precisely what the people working at Charlie Hebdo were doing; their work was meant to challenge religious beliefs, to help liberate people from the tyranny of organized religion. They did this through the peaceful act of putting out a publication filled with relevant articles and satirical cartoons.

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo who were killed never killed anyone in their lives. They strove to make humanity better, by freeing us from the tyranny of organized religion by way of peaceful satire. They understood their lives were at risk by committing blasphemy and challenging established institutions. Each and every one of them are to us today as Christians portray Jesus Christ, but they were executed by Islamic soldiers instead of Roman soldiers, and I think it's possible that, if these cartoonists were alive today, they would tell us to forgive Islamic terrorists, for they really know not what they do, as their minds are held hostage by the organized religion of Islam. And so, I present to you the most recent martyrs of the age of reason, in no particular order:

Jean Cabut (Cabu)

"Cabu 20080318 Salon du livre 3" by Georges Seguin (Okki) - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cabu_20080318_Salon_du_livre_3.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Cabu_20080318_Salon_du_livre_3.jpg

This man spent time in the military, and based on his first hand experience, became anti-militarist. This is a clear sign of someone who will question authority and put himself at risk for what he believes is morally right. His main focus in his life has been the selfless act of educating through is art, in spite of criticism from the "Status Quo."

Stéphane Charbonnier (Charb)

"2011-11-02 Incendie à Charlie Hebdo - Charb - 06" by Coyau / Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011-11-02_Incendie_%C3%A0_Charlie_Hebdo_-_Charb_-_06.jpg#mediaviewer/File:2011-11-02_Incendie_%C3%A0_Charlie_Hebdo_-_Charb_-_06.jpg

This man was the editor of Charlie Hebdo. He was 47 years old. He had received death threats and was under police protection. He once told France's Le Monde newspaper that he had no kids, no wife, no car and no debt, and would rather die standing than on his knees. He knew the risk he was taking, and he did it for us, so that we could be free from religion. I will stay free, Charb.

Georges Wolinski 

"G. Wolinski dédicaçant à la fête de l'Huma 2007-02" by Alvaro - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G._Wolinski_d%C3%A9dica%C3%A7ant_%C3%A0_la_f%C3%AAte_de_l%27Huma_2007-02.JPG#mediaviewer/File:G._Wolinski_d%C3%A9dica%C3%A7ant_%C3%A0_la_f%C3%AAte_de_l%27Huma_2007-02.JPG

Another martyr of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter who oppressed organized religion to the bitter end, this great man had received the Legion of Honour for his work.

Bernard Verlhac (Tignous)

"Tignous 20080318 Salon du livre 1" by Georges Seguin (Okki) - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tignous_20080318_Salon_du_livre_1.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Tignous_20080318_Salon_du_livre_1.jpg

This man was a member of "Cartoonists for peace." His work was well-known for its attacks on hypocrisy. It's sad that he was also the father of four children, who have had their father ripped from their lives at the hands of Islamic soldiers. 

Philippe Honoré

"Philippe Honoré, dessinateur de Charlie Hebdo (crop)" by User:Mpayot - →This file has been extracted from another image: File:Philippe Honoré, dessinateur de Charlie Hebdo.jpg.. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philippe_Honor%C3%A9,_dessinateur_de_Charlie_Hebdo_(crop).jpg#mediaviewer/File:Philippe_Honor%C3%A9,_dessinateur_de_Charlie_Hebdo_(crop).jpg

This martyr regularly campaigned against injustice and cynicism, he was a "Kind and gentle bearded giant." 

Bernard Maris

Source: http://rift26.centerblog.net/

Bernard Maris was an economist, writer, journalist, and a shareholder in Charlie Hebdo. In 1995, Le Nouvel Économiste awarded him the "Best economist of the year." In December of 2011, he was appointed as a member of general council of the Banque de France, and had numerous publications. This wasn't just someone wanting to poke fun at religion, this was a well educated and knowledgeable man who drew from a significant depth of knowledge and understanding.

Elsa Cayat

"Elsa Cayat" by http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/doctor-elsa-cayat-psychoanalyst-who-wrote-for-charlie-hebdo-and-was-murdered-in-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-magazine-9973719.html. Via Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elsa_Cayat.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Elsa_Cayat.jpg

The only woman who was murdered for her participation in fighting for our freedom from religion, Elsa Cayat wrote a bi-weekly article in Charlie Hebdo called Charlie Divan," which translates to "Charlie's Couch." As a psychoanalyst, she would write about topics such as parental authority and couple sexuality. She had been threatened before for being Jewish.

Mustapha Ourrad

Source: http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/15/mustapha-ourrad-l-erudition-discrete-de-charlie_1181363

Mustopha was the copy editor of Charlie Hebdo; he made sure each issue was free from errors to ensure the message they sent out would be as clear as possible.

There were other victims, but these eight are the ones who were targeted specifically because of their cause of freeing minds from the tyranny of organized religion. They knew there could have been consequences like this, but these were principled people, driven to do what they felt was right thing to do for the benefit of us all. They died for our freedom from religion. Their deaths instantly galvanized freethinkers everywhere. Within hours, Facebook profile pictures everywhere changed to "Je Suis Charlie," or "I am Charlie." Vigils were held all over the country and the world in honour of these martyrs. World leaders came together in a march in Paris because of their deaths.

Look at their faces and know who they were, so they can live on forever in our collective memories as martyrs for the age of reason.

Religion is not a race

Listening to the CBC radio this morning, I heard some ignorant comments from fellow Canadians regarding the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Essentially, many of them equated the satirical cartoons that criticized Islam and the prophet Mohamed to racism and anti-Semitism. In this article, I will explore how they might have come to such an illogical conclusion, and demonstrate why this is a fallacy.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. This list includes: Race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended. Since religion and race appear on this list, some assume that they are one in the same, which they are not, just as race and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive. That's why they're listed separately. All this act does is prevent discriminating against a person based on something like their religious beliefs or a disability. Being critical of religion does not go against this list any more than would being critical of marriage, as long as the criticism isn't used to discriminate against a person.

The comparison to anti-Semitism suggests that, since Judaism is a religion of the Jewish people, race and religion are intertwined. Besides the fact that this ignores the fact that a person of any race can become a Jew by converting to Judaism, there exists many prominent Jews who proclaim to be atheists and agnostics. Clearly, there exists a distinction between Judaism and Jews. Anti-Semitism is defined as hostility towards or discriminating against a Jewish person or Jewish group of people based on their religion, ethnic, or racial group. Judaism is not a person or group of people; rather, it is simply a set of beliefs and practices observed by people. Therefore, it is possible to be critical of Judaism without being hostile or discriminatory towards the people who follow that faith.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and all other religions are ideas that came from the minds of men. These ideas are not people, and the progress of humanity is based on the concept of being critical to ideas. It's how we move forward and how things like vaccines are created. Old ideas about diet and nutrition are constantly replaced with new ones, as well as ideas about exercise and sleep as we endeavour to live longer, healthier lives. We ridicule the idea that smoking cigarettes can be healthy, even though this was once a commonly held belief.

Some people have a difficult time recognizing that criticism of their particular brand of religion is not an attack on them; in fact, it's not uncommon for a person to take offence whenever they hear or see criticism of anything they like. People become attached to cars, trucks, fashion, political parties, and even computer technology in much the same way. The guy who loves Chevy trucks and always buys nothing but Chevy trucks might want to punch you out if you say anything bad about Chevy trucks. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical of Chevy trucks just in case they might offend someone. What it means is that, if a person has made Chevy trucks so much a part of their identity that they might be prone to violence, they should probably avoid people and publications that might be more honest about their truck of choice than they are until they can sort out their anger issues. Along the same vein, someone who doesn't like Chevy trucks probably shouldn't discriminate against or be hostile towards people who drive Chevy trucks; it's a choice that really doesn't affect the other person.

Love the person, hate the religion. I don't believe Islam has a single redeeming value, but I believe some people who observe this religion are good people. On the grounds of discrimination, I consider religion to be more like a disability, along the same lines of alcohol and drug addiction. I believe the religion continues to do more harm than good like drug and alcohol addiction, but that good does comes from the people in spite of their religion. That's why atheists shouldn't take up arms against the people of Islam, but absolutely must continue, through satire and otherwise, be critical of Islam itself, because some truly wonderful people will recognize the truth and get better as they convert to no belief at all.

If you'd like to read more on this subject, I recommend the following:

Charlie Hebdo: The truths that ought to be self-evident but still aren't by Spectator Blogs
Confusing race and religion is dangerous by Psychology Today
What is Judaism? by Judaism 101

A dark day

Je Suis Charlie

A little fun on Facebook this morning:

The Atheist's Certainty

Recently, I heard a comment made about non-believers that the only thing we have to hope for is that there is no God. While I'm certain that I hope for a great deal more than that, I find this a curious statement for a believer to make and demonstrates how little they understand the true nature of humanity and their own beliefs.

First of all, the assumption that a non-believer's only hope that God doesn't exist is patently false. I, for one, would find evidence for the existence of a god or gods exciting. This would be a fantastic discovery. I would also find the discovery of the real life existence of flying dragons, fairies, and the Loch Ness Monster to be equally fantastic discoveries. I don't expect any of these discoveries to be made, but I certainly would never hope against their discovery. My atheism is not a blind faith; it's a default position made necessary by the existence of religion.

The atheist's certainty is much greater. Consider that a Christian believes only in one specific god. All of the polytheistic legends are myths to the Christians (and, to be fair, the Muslims), because they are told there is only one God. While this is what they are told, it's not exactly what the bible says. The first commandment in the Ten Commandments states as such:

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

This does not state that there are no other gods; in fact, it clearly suggests the opposite: That there are other gods, but that you should not have them before this god. This means that it's perfectly okay for a Christian to believe in polytheism (the belief that there are more than one God), but that the one they worship is the one of this bible.

Why don't most Christians accept polytheism? Part of it is that they recognize the polytheistic religions as the myths that they are. This is because they weren't brought up with those beliefs. With modern knowledge of science and understanding of how things work, they can see how ancient people would attribute a god to a natural phenomenon like lightning and rain, but their understanding of how these things come about in the natural world causes them to understand that a specific god isn't necessary for lightning or rain. There's another reason they choose to believe in only one god: They believe they're hedging their bets. As it turns out, this is a big mistake.

Consider the possibility that there might be multiple gods, or just one god. In either case, it's probable that only one of them is responsible for the afterlife business, and if that's the case, that's the one god anyone with a fear of death does not want to offend. A good Christian knows that if they might be worshipping the wrong god, they can weasel their way into a good afterlife by at least making the case that they intended to worship the right god. I hope that works out for the Christians, but I'm afraid they don't get off that easily.

As it turns out, an atheist has a much better strategy. Where a Christian hedges his or her bets by believing in one god and disbelieving the existence of other gods, an atheist simply chooses to disbelieve in them all. This is a much better strategy for the following reasons:

1. The Christian god might be a hated enemy of the one true god that is in charge of the afterlife, and worshipping that god alone might be enough to offend whatever god is in charge of the afterlife. An atheist would be non-offensive to this kind of god in comparison.
2. Consider the possibility that the Christian god actually exists and is the only god to worry about. The atheist's lack of belief is based on the fact that all they had to go on was the word of other men and women, who are, by definition of the tenants set out in the Holy Bible, fallible and inherently full of sin. How could this god punish a man or woman for not accepting the word of another man or woman? From our perspective, a preacher, priest, pastor, monk, or pope is simply a man or woman who does not wish to work to earn a living and is a parasite we wish not feed. Those of us who were Christians who left the faith can make a further case that God did not call to us when we prayed. Who are we to pressure the almighty for miracles when we are happy enough with life itself and there are children starving and dying of disease who are more deserving of miracles? Therefore, we default to the position of atheists, ready to convert as soon as we are called to by virtue of solid evidence.
3. Worst case scenario for the atheist is that there is a god, it is the Christian god exactly as the bible describes, that the men who wrote the bible were really enlightened, and this god is a jealous god who demands our undivided attention and obedience. We must worship him and, if we do this well enough in life, we get to spend eternity worshipping this jealous entity. If this is "Let's make a deal," I think I'd rather see what's behind door number two, Monty, because this is looking more like winning the goat. I think I'd rather have no goat and stop playing this insane game show.
4. That there is no god. The atheist gets to live his or her life free of superstition, free of mythical beliefs, understands this is the only life we get, and as a result lives a significantly richer, fuller life than they would if they believed. Thus, the only life we get in this case is greatly improved, and becomes its own reward.

I'm not against anyone believing in a religion, but as far as I'm concerned, hedging your bets in belief in a god is not a whole lot different than gambling at a casino, except in the case of religious worship, it's your time that you're using to bet instead of money. Just like in the casino, it's unlikely you'll win any of that time back ever. Unlike the casino, we never see anyone hit the jackpot. I'm glad to have had the presence of mind to have cut my losses when I did. I also understand why those who believed and worshipped their whole lives continue to do so: They are like problem gamblers who must keep plugging their time into keeping their chips on the table, and they must convince others around them that they haven't wasted their time by making statements like, "The only thing an atheist has to hope for is that there is no god." Or, as the problem gambler would say, the only thing a person not gambling has to hope for is that there is no jackpot.

This song came to me in a dream the other night. In the dream, I came up with the first four lines and the chorus, which inspired me to write the rest of the song. This is written to the tune of "Jesus loves me, this I know." Just in time for Halloween, I present to you...Zombie Jesus Eats Our Brains:

Zombie Jesus eats our brains,
High upon a cross he hangs.
We drink His blood and eat His flesh,
Even if he's not that fresh.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

Zombie Jesus died for us,
From his hands he's oozing pus.
He died because of our sins,
Now he's looking very thin.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

Zombie Jesus is our boss,
Hanging up there on His cross.
He's the shepherd of his flock,
He wears sandals without socks.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

On Easter our Christ Lord died,
For us, he was crucified.
He has risen from the dead,
To eat the brains inside our heads.

Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
Praise Zombie Jesus!
He likes to eat our brains.

An open letter to Muslims

Recently, there's been protests from the Muslim world calling for the execution of a particular filmmaker who posted online a film entitled, "Innocence of Muslims" that is critical of the Muslim faith. I took the liberty of watching this poorly made film myself, and found it to be boring. What is interesting, however, is the negative reaction of those of the Muslim faith. To me, whether or not this film is an accurate portrayal is besides the point. It's not anti-Muslim in the sense that it generates hatred towards Muslims as antisemitism does towards Jews; it's simply an interpretation of the writings of the Koran that casts a prophet in a negative light. It speaks nothing of the people of the Muslim faith today, whom I consider as equally as misguided as Christians are by this faith but still generally good people. And yet, these people would call for the hanging or beheading of this filmmaker who did nothing more than to make a film showing his interpretation of the Koran. Nobody was hurt, nor did watching it cause me to want to hate Muslims. However, the reaction of Muslims has caused me to reconsider; it would seem as though they are attempting to drag the world back into the dark ages.

Consider the protests against American embassies around the world. Clearly, the American government had nothing to do with the creation of this film. However, the United States of America offers freedom to the extent that freedom of speech does include criticism of organized religion, just as it also includes criticism of the American government itself. Films that criticize the American government are far more prevalent than those criticizing religion, and you would think that would give the protesting Muslims a clue. Instead, they continually demonstrate their hatred of freedom with each and every protest. In this, it is not this movie that makes me dislike people of the Muslim faith, but rather the reaction of those people and their attack on freedom that means a lot to me. It's this freedom that protects me from religion, and is something I value deeply, because, from all that I've observed, freedom from religion is what ultimately leads to progress with humanity. We learn more, understand more, live better and longer without religion holding us back. I respect a person's choice to be religious and to be critical of science, but I in turn expect their respect of my choice to be non-religious and to be critical of religion. The truly intelligent argue the point, not the person.

Ultimately, the truly intellectually honest Muslim has to recognize a fundamental issue is at hand and challenging their beliefs. If their god Allah really exists and controls our lives, and if "Innocence of Muslims" is truly offensive to this god by portraying one of His prophets in a negative light, then that god should decide the punishment for the creator of this film and those involved. If your god Allah does not punish that person, then you must accept that either: a) Allah does not care about or may even approve of this film, or b) Allah does not exist. I personally would go with option B, but either way, as soon as you get involved and decide to execute this person, I have to ask: Who the hell do you think you are, exercising the will of Allah? Let Allah speak for Himself, if he truly exists.

The trinity of belief

Having been a god-fearing Christian and now an atheist, I fully understand the reasons why Christians believe as they do, regardless of how absurd the bible may be. As an atheist, I recognize the flaw in their logic. Fundamentally, there are three reasons why Christians believe, each one supporting the other, creating a trinity of belief.

The Universe was created

Many Christians believe what they do on the false assumption that the universe was created, and attribute the creation of the universe to God. Every Christian I've spoken to proclaims, "All of this had to come from somewhere!" Does it really? When it comes to life, we have a pretty good understanding on how evolution works; we never see anyone or anything spring into existence. I know that I came from my parents, who came from their parents, on and on back in a process that is very well understood. Nature gives us clues as to our origin. As for the matter and energy of which the Universe is made up of, I find it very strange that one would assume this would need creating, given that the infinite nature of the existence of the matter and energy that makes up the universe stares us right in the face with the law of conservation of matter and energy. Whenever I mention this to a Christian, they have a difficult time comprehending an ever-changing universe that exists infinitely in spite of this observable and testable evidence, and yet they are quick to accept that God exists infinitely. It's very strange to me that they must keep believing in God, and I can think of only one reason why they refuse to accept the truth: The promise of an afterlife.

The afterlife

Christians believe that if they believe in God and Jesus, they will go to a place called heaven when they die. This also seems very strange, given that there is absolutely no evidence to support this belief. To this day, nobody who has died has ever come back, except in the questionable stories written in the bible. Given what we currently understand of the workings of the human brain through medical science, one has to wonder why belief in a spirit persists. Clearly, consciousness is the product of a working brain; when the brain starts to fail, consciousness also starts to fail. One can imagine bronze aged men looking up to the sky and imagining a place above the clouds, among the stars; but we have traveled above those clouds and have seen the stars for what they really are. We have even traveled to some of those ancient, far-off places in the sky; putting a man on the moon and robots on Mars. Why, then, hold on to those ancient misinformed beliefs? Because they are old.

The Bible is a very old text

The Christian logic works something like this: The earliest texts of the bible were written a few thousand years ago, and people who existed a few thousand years ago are closer to the beginning of our species than we are today, and as such were able to see things of a much earlier earth. The trouble with this logic is that, given the few billion years the earth has been around and the many billions of years the known configuration of the universe has existed, a few thousand years ago might as well be yesterday. Consider the scale we're discussing. A billion is equal to a thousand million. Imagine, if you will, the insignificance of one dollar compared to a million dollars. The single dollars start looking insignificant once you start seeing hundreds of dollars; even more so at thousands of dollars. Move up to tens of thousands, and that dollar is barely a drop in the bucket. At hundreds of thousands, it's not even a drop as it becomes nearly impossible to imagine each individual dollar. At a million, a dollar might as well be a penny, or even a fraction of a penny. Indeed, you would never see the actual dollars that make up a billion; at that point, money becomes conceptual rather than actual.

Now consider that we possess scientific instruments that allow us to look into the past many billions of years. Our Hubble telescope allows us to see distant galaxies as they were 13.2 billion years ago. Radiometric dating allows us to determine geological and fossil records that date back hundreds of millions of years, with carbon dating permitting greater accuracy on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Our science allows us to see well beyond what the bronze aged men who wrote the bible couldn't have possibly even imagined. What they saw of the world and the universe wasn't a whole lot different from what we see today, except today we have powerful instruments at our disposal along with a much better understanding of the natural world. Our knowledge of the past of our species and planet are far more accurate than theirs could ever have been, as we are reading the things that nature tells us.

Conclusion

Having once been a Christian, I understand this trinity of belief quite well. It is absurd given what we know today, but most Christians will never read their bible or allow their trinity of belief to be challenged. They become like the child at Christmas who fears he will get no more presents if he stops believing in Santa. Nevertheless, there really is nothing to fear, because nothing will be lost. It's my sincere hope that others will recognize Christianity for what it is, and regard it in the same manner as they do Greek and Norse mythologies.

Canada: Glorious and free without God

Today is Canada day, and on this day my thoughts turn towards a relatively recent campaign by the religious advertising that God should be kept in our national anthem. Some people mistakenly believe that God has always been in our national anthem, and should be kept there in honour of our tradition.

The lyrics for the English version of O Canada were penned by Robert Stanley Weir in 1908, in honour of Quebec City's 300th anniversary. The original anthem did not contain any mention of God, and the lyrics are as follows:

O Canada! Our home and native land
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise
The True North strong and free!
And stand on guard, O Canada
We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, glorious and free,
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

 Mr. Weir was an intelligent, accomplished man, and I do not believe he omitted God from the national anthem by accident. He knew very well that it is we the people who must stand on guard to keep Canada glorious and free, and he was probably aware of the cultural diversity that is Canada and singing praise to God in the anthem would alienate cultures with different beliefs. Intelligent people tend to be aware that not everybody on earth worships God; that there are also polytheists, those who prefer the term Goddess, Allah, and then there are religions like Buddhism which doesn't involve praising any god. Then there are atheists. Leaving God out of our national anthem demonstrated a great deal of forward thinking for a man of 1908 in recognizing the broad cultural diversity that has become Canada.

As a tribute, I created this video of our original anthem, as it should have been, as sung by Edward Johnson:

This is the national anthem I recognize, so when other people are singing, "God keep our land glorious and free," I proudly belt out, "OH CANADA! GLORIOUS AND FREE!"