Tolerance

Most people like the idea of tolerance.
The truth is that they only accept it in a very generic way.
To be tolerant, is to accept change, and to accept difference whenever it is upon us or just around us. Embracing change becomes a requirement for tolerance.

World peace is all about tolerance. It is about accepting different people, with different ways and different values to be themselves even when right in front of you.

Religion is about absolute certainty. Is about repeating the same words over and over, in a church or holding a rosary, forever and ever, until the end of time, even if that means defying logic or letting go of common sense. When it is all about faith, thinking about it does not matter:

Amnesty International has condemned the stoning of a 13-year-old girl in southern Somalia. The human rights organization claims the teenager was stoned to death after her father informed the authorities that she had been gang-raped. She was reportedly accused of adultery and the stoning, in front of a crowd of around 1,000, was her punishment. Reporter Jon Manel and Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International, discuss the influence of militant Islamist group Al Shabab, which has control of some areas in Somalia.

From this article.

Well... Gay marriage, abortion, public displays of affection, and an endless list of behaviors that people have, will obviously clash at some point with some religion's law that clearly states that no one can have such behavior. No one can be different. No one can be outside what such religion claims.

You can surely see where this is going as far as tolerance goes. World peace, for one, will have to wait a long time... If you don't believe me, ask the 13 year old girl mentioned above.

Tolerance and Muslim Faith

One day, someone in Denmark made some drawings of prophet Muhammed, of Islam. It was a cartoon about the muslim god. However, the reacting muslims looked more like this:

Muslims at the Danish Embassy in Britain,
preaching their views on tolerance,
according to their religion.

For these religious people in the picture above, it is ok to trust the invisible god they have never seen, and trust that his teachings are just fine: if anyone makes a drawing of my invisible god, or if they say something I believe to be an insult to him, I should slay them, butcher them, and make all Europe pay because demolition is on its way.

Religious faiths are not all the same. But when us as a society grant people the right to trust whatever thing they want (faith), even when no reason or facts are behind those beliefs, it is obvious that if enough time passes, beliefs like the ones on the pictures will eventually be part of our world, and forever passed from generation to generation...

If you think world peace is on its way, religion will make sure that day will never come. At least for as long as we allow people to draw cartoons about whatever they want, that is...

Faith

Faith: confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Faith is also a personal choice. The concept alone has little to do with reality, proof or fact. It can, but it does not have to. It is a trust based system, not necessarily a fact based or reason based one. You can trust a person, idea or thing, for any reason (or absence thereof) or fact whatsoever.
Some people wrongly believe that faith is a concept of religious origin alone.

Faith can be the choice we make when facts are not available:
Like when we are about to decide between A and B and we believe both choices are good in their own way, but we are unable to choose both. In such cases, faith comes in. We decide to trust one choice to be the better one over the other or others, and we go for it.

I have faith when I play the lotto. I know the odds are against me. I know the odds of it being a waste of money are huge. But I play. Even though I rationalize the act of buying a ticket as the price for the excitement before losing, faith in winning is a big part of it all as well.

Religious faith is no different. It just means that the same faith is put into what some religion / belief is claiming to be true with a lot of trust and confidence, wherever those claims may be coming from.

Free Will

If I give you the remote to a TV with 99 channels but that only picks up the reception of 1, and then tell you have the free will to choose any channel, even though the 99 options are real, I do know what you will choose just because I know there is only 1 viewable channel on such TV.
As long as I know what your choice will be, you have to real choice. You will choose exactly what I know you will.

I always felt religion was throwing sand in my eyes when the subject of free will came about to shield gods from guilt and responsibility.

Every time we ask why do gods allow for evil, a weird answer is always given. In those answers, there is always a relative or a too general term to describe the whole deal.
My favorite one, is God giving humans free will.

Let's grasp this concept.
Let us consider God in that moment before creating man.
Then, let us consider mankind as we know it today.

Before Man was created, God knew everything, as He always does.
What this means, is that all future things He was about to create were known to Him.
What it also means, is that the knowledge of all people's actions was also known.
And what it also means, is that he knows exactly what all humans that will ever exist will do every time, in all the moments and choices of their lives.

If He knows all my decisions, then I am only making the decisions He knows I will make. Not the other decisions also presented to me.
If I am living exactly the life God knows I will be living, then I am only choosing to live the life God knows I will live. I will happen exactly the way God wanted and knew all along.

Where do I do whatever I want? So much for free will...
There is no free will if someone else with 100% certainty (such as all knowing gods) can know what my choice will be before I even make it.

Divine sloppyness.

A god is, according to many, the all powerful, all knowing creator of everything.
When he was about to create Man, he knew how we would turn out to be, and made us the way we are anyway.

Man is by far, the most cruel of all species. We are the only ones capable of torturing, killing for sport, genocides, mass pollution, the atom bomb, to name a few...

When I was a roman catholic, I was once told that God had made us in His own image. Now that I see that a being that can do everything (including having created a perfectly happy humanity) was able to be so sloppy in creating Man, I wonder:

Since God is also responsible for the creation of evil to begin with, and responsible for creating beings that become evil, is God really that human?

Perfect

Defining what perfect is, can be very difficult.
One of the reasons for that difficulty is the fact that some of us may consider something to be perfect, while others may not.

Although I do not think this post will end up with an exact and precise definition of perfection, it is in the interest of this blog to at least present the readers with a definition that matches what we mean when mentioning perfection.

Perfection is a relative attribute: It describes a goal's complete achievement.
It is a good rule of thumb not to use the word perfect by itself.
By itself, the word perfect cannot specify the goal it is referring itself to.

In religion, this separation of the word perfect from its goal is, in my opinion, intentional. By stating something like "God is perfect", the goal is hidden, and we are allowed to fantasize about any kind of perfection, making God's perfection match our own definition of perfection.

The statement "God converts people to His faith perfectly." states its goal clearly.
It is also a false statement being that atheists exist, and are not converts; the goal is definitely not completely achieved.

Religion also complicates the very definition of perfect. Sometimes God's perfection is referred to as infinite as well; Infinite perfection.
If perfection is an absolute quality, making it infinite only contradicts what perfection means. Perfection is something one can achieve, not improve on infinitely. If you believe you can improve perfection, then it wasn't perfect to begin with.
Perfection is like death. It can't be infinite. God's perfection can never be infinite.
Either it is, or it is not.

Testing

When I think about the movies I like and the actors that play them, I can't help to realize how good some are at playing roles that sometimes are so different from what the actors are in real life.

If you lose some of your limitations, you also lose a part of what you were when you had them, to become what you now would be without them. For example, if you were to become immortal, then dying would be something you would lose, and never again be able to do. Immortal people do not die.

The same thing applies to omniscience, that wonderful ability of knowing everything, that all gods seem to share. If you know everything, there will be a few things you just will not do: wonder about something, the need to ask questions, discovery, learning... etc.
Once you know all, you stop needing those things. And in some cases, just like being immortal, some things you won't be able to do anymore: ignorance is one of those lost things.

We, regular humans, observe the world, pass knowledge from person to person, inquire, experiment, and test things, in order to understand and know the world around us.
Of all these things, all knowing beings need none of them, and can't do a few: like learning. Gods can't learn, because they know all already.

As such, the next time someone tells you that your god is testing your faith, or wants to find out something about us, remember that those are just some of the things he can't do.
He can't find out something he already knows (knows all), or test us to see what we do, because he knows that as well.

Like my favorite actors, some roles just aren't for God. Being curious is one of them.

Responsibility and Blame - Part I

Religious people have a double standard when it comes to figuring out what their god(s) is responsible for.
When we are about to be held responsible for something, two things come into play:

• Knowledge of whatever we're being held accountable for;
• Power to affect whatever we're being held accountable for.

Let's imagine a parent and a toddler in a room.
The parent holds the child while considering putting him/her down to wander the room.
Before that happens, the parent spots broken glass all over the floor (or sparking wires, or whatever your favorite type of problem may be).

In this example, the possibilities would be:

• Protect the child by avoiding the glass (by cleaning it, or deciding that both should leave the room).
• Let the child walk and learn the room and hope for the best.

Let us assume that the parent goes with the second option, and lets the child walk around the room.
All will go well until the child gets hurt with the glass.

Who's responsible for this?

The answer is pretty obvious: The parent.
My claim is, knowledge and power affect guilt. Had the glass been hidden from the parent's view, but in reach of the child anyway, we would call it an accident (knowledge). Had the child been near an exploding window, the parent would have no power to avoid glass and it too would be deemed an accident (power).

An all knowing god, has the knowledge of all "glass". Even before "glass" is created. An all knowing god will know where the glass will be, and who will get hurt with it before it happens. Also, it will have all the power in the universe to change and/or solve any glass problem.

So when I look at this beautiful world but also full of glass, and hear religious people saying we're all god's children, who is to blame when some of us step on the glass that this parent (god) not only knew about, but created, and decided to put us and it in the same room for us to step on (power and knowledge)?

Omnipotent - Part IV - Motivation

The problems of Omnipotence - Part IV

Motivation can be all sorts of reasons, feelings, cravings, fears, desires, that all put together create this need that moves us towards achieving something.
Just like that thirst we have while we search for a drink and then disappears once we're done drinking. Or that sleepiness that goes away once we get tired of being in bed sleeping... Motivations go away once what they crave gets realized.

We live our lives in search of meaning, satisfaction, purpose and all other goals that the universe did not provide us with at birth. We compete with each other, at school, at work, for a better life. We live.
All that we do, is motivated by what we are not. The word "not" is the important word here. Our lack of power to be what we are not (richer, healthier, happier, whatever...) is what drives all of us.
What choices and options will a omnipotent god have?

No matter what you can think of as being one of god's needs, no one must ever forget that in god's all power, the power to instantly satisfy those needs exists, and no reason exists for that power not to be realized.

Take your lack of power, now turn yourself into an all powerful, omnipotent being, and what would you get for motivation? Think about it. What does an all powerful being need to crave for, that it does not already have? What is it waiting for? And why wait and waste time to begin with when you do not need to?
All these questions search for reasons, for answers. Oh wait, omnipotent beings do not have choices to go through, nor their reasons...

So if you were an all powerful being existing alone before anything else existed, knowing all outcomes of all your actions, with a needless perfect satisfied state of mind, and no reason to do anything, why create the universe? Totally pointless.

Once done with the power to do anything, there will be one thing always left to do: nothing.

Omnipotent - Part III - Choices

The problems of Omnipotence - Part III
We've seen here, how omnipotence can be a tricky concept.

When we walk a path and that path splits, a choice is presented to us. Do I turn left, or right? We do not have the power to go to both paths at the same time. You can walk both paths simultaneously only if your power is limitless, only if your are omnipotent.

If we can do everything, the power to perpetually enjoy a certain state of mind, to enjoy all my favorite states of mind, or even to create an infinite number of states of mind and enjoy them all at the same time, is possible. Being at perfect bliss is not an aspiration of an all powerful being, it is just something such beings always have, because there is nothing stopping them from having it - they are all powerful.
Again, nothing you can think of has "no" for an answer.

Given this, the word "choice" will lose meaning. When regular beings choose something, there is always a motive or a reason for choosing A instead of B. And even when the choice is random, there is usually a reason for that too: indifference, no time or patience to choose, etc...

Omnipotent beings will be presented with a dilemma: their choices never have a reason behind it, because they have absolute power. Why? They can change the choices they are about to have, change themselves not to need the choice, make themselves able to choose both, whatever... There is never a "no" to "can a Omnipotent being do this or that?".

If you can do everything, you don't choose anything. Choices are options that only limited beings need to go through. Example: "Should I stay single, or get married?". An all powerful being knows the lives of all married people and of all single people, from the past and the future (omniscience). Such being can know the pros/cons of all people of both groups and enjoy both at the same time. Better yet, without the cons.

So next time you hear someone say God did something this way instead of that way, and they give you an explanation as to why that choice was the way it was, remember how Omnipotent beings don't deal with choices. Choosing is a thing for us power limited mortals. And as for the reason or explanation given: Omnipotent beings are not limited by anything, so there are never reasons to go one way instead of another.

So what would motivate an all powerful being to do anything?

Omnipotent - Part II - Pleasure

The problems of Omnipotence - Part II

Think about some of the few great pleasures you are able to enjoy in life. Pick your favorites.
Not that perfect afternoon at the golf course, nor that perfect walk by the beach, nor that perfect night partying with friends. Try to breakdown those complex feelings into all those smaller ones that make those mentioned above.

Think instead of simpler, more intimate forms of pleasure:

• sleeping
• laughter
• sex
• eating while hungry
• drinking while thirsty
• breathing fresh air
• stretching in the morning

etc...

You can usually find some of these simple pleasures in the complex things we love to do everyday. However, there is a point in our day, our week or our month when we feel like we are missing some of the pleasures we have experienced before. From the simplest ones to the more complex ones. Lacking some of the more important pleasures in our lives will make us pursue them more intensely. The hungrier we get, the harder we will try to eat, the thirstier we get, the harder we will try to get something to drink, and so on...

I wish I had unlimited financial resources to pursue my sources of pleasure.
To own that perfect house, that perfect car, to climb a mountain, to go into space, to have my own jet, my own yacht, to take my friends on a cruise, then on a submarine, to afford it all several times... All that to get my intimate pleasure(s) and share it with whomever.

What if I had health problems that money could not solve? Money will not provide me with all forms of pleasure I may think of. There is more than just the power of money.

What if my power was limitless?

• Would I eat my favorite steak all the time?
• Or would I eat just that first perfect bite when I am the hungriest and freeze that feeling in my head forever?
• Would I get tired of that feeling being always there?
• Or would I remove boredom from my head forever and enjoy it forever?
• Would I then drink my favorite drink after that bite of steak?
• Or would I freeze that drinking feeling, that first sip when we are the thirstiest, along with the steak bite forever?
• Would I then add my favorite music to the whole thing?
• Or would I add that musical bliss to my brain forever along with the sip and bite...?
• What would keep me from making this list of things grow forever in my head?

Steak, Drink, Music, Company, Games, Winning, Pleasing, Being Pleased, Ice cream, Sports, Excitement, a Massage, a Swim, Sky Diving, World Peace, everything!

Let us assume that I added and absorbed all pleasures in life just because my power is limitless. Just because I can.
If you had the power to do anything and everything, what pleasure would you not add, and why?

[Definition] Omnipotent

Omnipotence: unlimited power to do anything.

Omnipotence raises a lot of problems to any god. Some even argue it is impossible, contradictory, and even paradoxal. What does it mean, and how?

Unlimited power means that everything we can think of, one can do. Because of having a somewhat wild imagination, I reached a point where, already a non-believer, the concept of Omnipotent (or all powerful) stopped making sense.

We all experience good and bad in one way or another. Being hungry is a bad thing that our own biology makes us feel, but then it drives us to eat and feel the great thing that is to eat when hungry. The same can be said for thirst. Although dying of thirst can be a horrible thing, few things compare to drinking that perfect cool glass of water when you were the thirstiest.

However, all this happens in a world with power limits. I do not have the power to change myself to never need to eat or drink. Nor do I have the power to grab that feeling that happens when food or water is entering your body when you want it the most and make such feeling last forever and at all times. These unreasonable changes are things that only an omnipotent being could do.

Our lives happen because of our power limitations.
We will die, so we make our lives safer and we cherish it, because we will lose it.
Car crashes usually hurt, so we came up with seat belts.
Eating the wrong stuff is bad for us, so we label things.
We enjoy other people and we make more people, because we would all die and disappear if otherwise.
We search fun because we know how boredom feels like.
We search what we find beautiful because we know what ugly is.
We travel, we search, we wait, we learn, we build, we live, kill and die, because we usually know the consequences of not going after the good, and avoid the bad.

So, if one was actually omnipotent, had the power to do and change anything and everything, what would you do?
I will share my view of the problems of such power very soon.

[Definition] Omnibenevolent

Omnibenevolence: unlimited or infinite benevolence.
(Benevolence: the quality of being kind and altruistic.)

If one is the universe's creator, and one is the God of any major religion, they are omniscient in that creation. God would know exactly what such creation is going to turn out to be, whatever the circumstances, whenever the circumstances. Given that perfect knowledge, the universe will still be created, and everything that will ever exist is going to be exactly the way the creator knew it would be. Such creator is omniscient.

Once God created the universe, everything in it is included in God's plan. I do not know if there was a plan to begin with, but knowing that God knows all, then everything will go according to that infinite knowledge, on in other words, according to the plan. Everything will be the way God knows and wants it to be, always.

Gods in major religions are seen as forgiving, merciful, compassionate, and kind in a infinite way. However, they chose to create evil, knew all, so they knew the consequences of that evil, and created beings that are evil, which is still included in God's initial plan., because all is included. If God knew all before creation and still created all this way, then that was the plan.
So why forgive what or who is happening according to plan (evil or not, that was the plan)?
Why punish whoever is happening according to plan? Is there anything or any one thing that has not or will not go according to God's plan messing up God's omniscience?

God's cannot be just, or merciful, or kind, or evil. All in the universe is just the way it is supposed to be from the start, because all omniscient beings knew it would be this way, and that is how they created everything.
Therefore, omnibenevolence is not a quality any omniscient god can have. At least not the ones that created hell and eternal punishments along with the universe (If they claim that quality, they're faking it!). Eternal punishments after death seems like a sentence given to someone that had messed up the plan of the universe's supreme being. Can that be possible?

[Definition] Omnipresent

Omnipresence: is the property of being present everywhere.

There seems to be no present major religion with god(s) that are omnipresent but not omniscient. Given this assumption, what would the purpose of omnipresence be, after already being omniscient?

We go to places to interact with its contents. No one ever goes somewhere to do exactly what one can do where they already were to begin with. At least no one ever does that rationally.
We can read a book at home, but if we choose to read it outside, it is because the outside has something else to offer us, and so on...

If you are omniscient and know all, you are in the position of not needing interaction. Whatever that interaction was supposed to give you, you already have perfect knowledge of its outcome. Unless you plan on affecting the environment actively, why go there in the first place?
Knowing all (omniscience) is a concept that includes what being everywhere provides you with, because if you know all, you know the same (or more) as if you were everywhere.
The same way that being under water includes having your hands wet.
So why the trouble of being everywhere when you know everything at all times?

Unless you need to do something actively instead of passively watching, being everywhere at every time, forever and ever, and being omniscient at the same time seems pretty useless.

[Definition] Omniscient

Omniscience: the capacity to know everything infinitely.

This concept is very interesting. It means that all things that anyone can know, past, present, and future, are already known by an omniscient being.

Gods of all major religions share this trait.
And if for some reason the concept seems simple, or if you think that being omniscient would be something cool, consider this:

• Would you like to know the lotto numbers? Even knowing before playing, what, when and how you would spend every penny, and knowing perfectly how you would enjoy each experience, with no surprises, knowing as well as if you were living it the second time around or the 1000th time around, even before experiencing it the first time?
• Would you enjoy the company of a person, if you knew all things the person thinks, everything that person would say to you or talk to you about, ever, as well as all events, all experiences shared, all harm and good coming to that person, darkest secrets, flaws, everything?! But, better, all that even before meeting the person for the first time? Just like watching a movie for that second time... ;)
• What about mankind? Would you like to know how we started but also how we ended and why? Even before mankind started? No mysteries, no surprises, ever?
• Would you like to never experience learning because you already know it all? Or never experiencing decisions, because you already know all of them?
• What about the meaning of life? Would you like to know the meaning of life? Even before life or the universe started?
• Would you like to never experience surprise, because everything is exactly the way you know it is?
  
• What would you do, if everything about to be done, every pleasure or pain coming from it, any success or failure, was already known to you? Just like you know what the next breath of air is going to feel like as you read this, and the next one, and the next one, always known, forever and ever...
  

I wouldn't like to be omniscient. It seems, very, very, boring.

Let us question then...

After having my revealing moment at a young age, I decided to start asking questions.
Asking does not always come natural to us. Sometimes the explanations given to us seemed reasonable when they were not, sometimes we like the explanation enough not to ruin it with questions, and sometimes we just don't even feel like over thinking it.

Having grown heavily into a Roman Catholic environment (which is not the same as saying that I was heavily put into religious environments, just that everyone around me was the same as I was) it all settled naturally in my young mind. God was looking out for us, I had a guardian angel like my grandmother once told me, and I was happy.
Just like any other "truth" given by my older role models, I believed.

At this point, I had noticed that adults were ok with the idea of telling children something false, and later admitting it was all a lie: Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, etc...

So that is when I started questioning my religion as well. I wanted to be sure I understood perfectly well why I believed what I had been taught.
The day I started getting some "I don't know" for an answer, was the day I knew I could not stop asking, and the questions kept on coming. The day that I heard an "I don't know" for an answer, followed by "God's ways are higher than ours", I felt someone was telling me to stop asking, and just believe. I had then convinced myself that grown ups were trying to convince me not to demand answers, or explanations; worse: they did not know some of the answers as well!
I felt an excitement about having found an unknown to it all, and curiosity settled in. I was really on to something!

New Labels!

The blog is growing, so here's a compilation of subjects we are trying to cover so far. Because some labels are less obvious than others, here is the list of labels and their meanings in this blog:

• affiliations: distributions of people among any categories.
  
• contradiction: posts about obvious contradiction of concepts in any subject.
  
• defense: posts about how to defend yourself about faulty arguments.
  
• dot: surprise label. At some point, you will connect the dots! ;)
  
• guide: posts like this one, that explain the ins and outs of the Challenger.
  
• revelation: revelation in the non religious sense, such as an idea or new opinion replacing an old one.
• support: posts that show support for other institutions, web sites or people.
  
• welcome: posts to read once you arrive at this blog for the first time.
  

The list will grow, so keep an eye for new themes. Also, feel free to suggest new ones. We will appreciate it!

[Definition] Tradition

Tradition: an inherited pattern of thought or action.

In religious debates, a position that supports a religious based action or tradition, against a secular action, can turn into a conflict where only one side can win. Although it's not always about winning and losing, and compromising is most of the times possible, tradition is sometimes a concept that people believe to be of importance.

For some, a tradition holds an importance higher than an unknown or simply recent non-traditional behavior.

For example: tattoos.
In a lot of work places in our society, tattoos are not seen as tradition, and so people applying for sensitive positions are often discriminated based on having visible tattoos. Bank tellers, Presidents, most managerial positions, are usually some of the positions where the issue is most prevailing. It is as if all bad people in the world could be identified by having tattoos.
Most people allow themselves to have double standards. Sometimes without even noticing. For thousands of years, man has marked his body with paintings, carved it with scars, and all that became tradition in some cultures. Tattooing is tradition. But if you're applying for that very nice job, the standard changes and your tattoo is now bad.

Religion is also tradition.
So was burning people at the stake that were thought to be witches, or heretics, persecuting and forcefully converting people based on their religion (crusades, inquisition), hanging criminals in public places in the old west, and other barbaric acts once done and accepted by the population as traditional: that inherited pattern of thought or action, passed from generation to generation (for whatever reason).

Don't let this become tradition!

When something is just tradition, it is just that: something that has been done a lot. Nothing more, nothing less. Lots of bad things have been done in a traditional way, and so have good things. When a tradition is challenged, all we should do is think about it as if it had been created today.

Next time someone defends something based on tradition alone, or in other words, because it has always been so, demand a better answer. Doing wrong over and over does not make it right. Tradition can be changed, and when a bad one, changing it recycles our minds, our ethics, our values and ourselves. And when times and people change, so should their traditions.

The Reason Project

"The Reason Project is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world."

Our blog supports The Reason Project's efforts.

Semantics

Semantics: The study of the relationship between words and their meanings.

After defining Theists as believers, Agnostics as "neutrals" (most of them), and Atheists as non believers, it will come a time when an atheist will hear that atheism cannot prove it is right with any more certainty than theism can. This post is not about proof.

As with any of these definitions, the focus falls on the belief at any given time, not its proof, or who's right or wrong. What these words describe is the opinion of the one labeling him/herself with any of these terms. Not how or why someone got to label themselves with one.

Let us take this statement: I believe gods do not exist with the same certainty that the sky is blue.
It sounds like an arrogant bold claim. But, the sky may not even have color, and it may be just reflecting radiation that my eyes perceive as being blue, and color becomes an abstract concept that my mind creates... well, and this is when we start playing with words: semantics.
In my experience, semantics has been one of the worst enemies of healthy religious dialog, it allows for interpretation of already ambiguous ideas, and such dilemas should be avoided.

Absolute Conviction vs Certain Conviction

My belief in religious disbelief is a conviction of mine. Not an absolute one, as stated on the very top of this blog. An absolute conviction is unchangeable. Mine is not. My conviction is certain only in the sense that nothing that I have observed or experienced, points in any other direction. It is not an absolute conviction. It is also only certain to me up until now, and probably for a long time to come. 100% of my perceptions, reason, and logical conclusions, point at atheism. If someday new facts and experiences come to light and my logic is challenged and proven wrong, I will change my belief.

But what does it mean to logically conclude? Is this semantics too, and if so, how do we avoid semantic dilemas? Where in Atheism should we stand? We'll see (or try!)...

Absolute vs Certain

Convictions are an interesting aspect of people's beliefs.
However, there are different types of convictions.
In the interest of trying to keep this blog free from ambiguous meanings:

Absolute Conviction:

A belief that you already know will never change, regardless of any new information you may get.
Example: The universe exists.

Certain Conviction:

A belief that can change with new information or facts. A certain conviction, however, has the particular characteristic of having 100% of all facts and information pointing at its claim.
Example: I have never been killed before (just in computer games).

Conviction:

All the other beliefs. These convictions may just be less than 100% certain. Like this one:
Example: Aspirin cures headaches.
It cures most of times, anyway!

These definitions are not necessarily the ones to be used by everyone. They are a personal preference. They are also the ones used in this blog. ;)

Secular

Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion.

-wikipedia.

A lot of things can be considered secular, a lot can be considered non-secular, and some can be considered both.
For example, walking can be considered a secular human activity, but in religious cultures where one can walk to a temple in prayer, religious parade, or pilgrimage, that specific walk would be non-secular because it would be connected to religion in some way(s).

A Secular Government would be a Government in which law's are made to be disconnected from religion, and equal to all, not favoring or hurting any group of people based on their religious views or absence of religious beliefs, and giving no special authority to religious groups.
Iran, for example, is a non-secular government, because its supreme leader is also its supreme religious leader.

In the United States of America, Secularism is gaining ground in government, but the connections to religion are still plenty.
The U.S.A. is not the most secular society. The European Union, is more secular in the sense that no religious references are seen in the Euro (European Union's currency), nor are they usually seen in courts, and some of the least religious nations on Earth are in Europe.
However, some European nations are still behind in the Secular race. Portugal's government, for example, is still a nation that provides perks to the Roman Catholic Church while not providing them to other religions, when the fair thing to do would be to help none.


In the United States, it is still imposed on non-believers that they carry non-secular money (not that I mind much, but I would prefer that even Uncle Sam would keep his religion to himself). Because religious people (theists) would probably dislike carrying money that said "In gods we do not trust", the obvious conclusion is always the same: the way to please all, is to keep personal choices (such as religion) private by not forcing them on everyone.

Keeping Government religious free is needed and not the same as removing the right to religion. However, our money, courts, pledges of allegiance, schools, public places in general, and all other civil procedures that any citizen may take part in, should always be free from religion, fair to all, believers or not, or in other words: Secular.

[Definition] Atheist

Atheist is probably the less precise definition about non religious people due to being somewhat generic, but then again, so is labeling someone "religious".
Atheism can be defined as the lack of belief in god(s), or the belief that there is none.

• Implicit Atheism:
• An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods.
• Explicit Atheism:
• An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods;
• such an individual may avoid believing in gods (weak atheism),
• or assert that gods do not exist (strong atheism).

The Atheism Concept:

Image found here.

In the more generic conversation about religion, the safest assumption (in other words, the one that seems more likely to be correct) is that when one claims being an atheist, they are claiming they believe gods not to exist. Although this assumption is a personal choice, it is no more correct than the one that claims Atheists as the ones that do not have a belief in gods.
However, not believing in gods (strong atheism) or deities, is the definition that this blog will chose to use when a more precise term is not used, or when the definition is simply "Atheist".

Strong Atheism's categories:
Strong Atheism contains yet another definition not shown on the diagram above: the anti-theism.

Anti-theism:
The act of being an atheist while being against religions and their gods.

• Militant Atheism
• Being anti-theist and actively and openly discussing it with others.

• Evangelical Atheism
• Being anti-theist and taking action to promote your stance.

Some of these definitions will be covered in dedicated posts.

More information on atheism here.

[Definition] Agnostic

Agnosticism is considered to be a middle ground between the believer (Theist) and the non-believer (Atheist).
Subtle differences occur in the definition of Agnostic when compared to the other two.
While Theism and Atheism focus their claims on the belief, Agnosticism aims at simply claiming that the impossibility of any of the other two terms lays in the impossibility of obtaining knowledge to prove either atheism or theism to be true or false.

In other words, Agnostics claim that because we cannot prove the existence or the nonexistence of any god, we cannot assert its existence or claim any belief; we do not know.

Here are some types of Agnosticism:

Strong Agnosticism:
A strong agnostic will claim that the truth about divine existence is impossible to find out. No one will ever know.

Weak Agnosticism:
Weak agnostics will claim that we cannot know about divine existence, but if someday some new knowledge comes to light and supports the existence of god(s), we might.

Agnostic Atheism:
Agnostic Atheists share the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any divine beings (gods), and do not believe in any due to lack of proof. This is where Agnosticism and Atheism intercept.

Agnostic Theism:
In the opposite side of the Agnostic Atheists, the Agnostic Theists intercept Theism. They share the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still choose to believe in such an existence.

In these ways, Agnostics tend to stay away from objective claims about divine beings, with the exception of Agnostic Theists (who are Theists nonetheless). They will stop at the fact that proof is not around for us to base our claims on.

More on Agnosticism here.

[Definition] Theist

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity [divine being or god]. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine (or religion) concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.

-in Wikipedia

Theism also divides itself in a few categories:

Monotheism:

• The belief in one God.

Polytheism:

• The belief in more than one god.

Congressman Forbes, Religion and Government.

Not all leaders believe that we should be free to be religious, as well as to be free from religion. Some are bold and selfish enough to take their religious beliefs to the government, a place that should rule us all fairly and religiously unbiased. Congressman Forbes goes even further, by bringing his religious convictions to the place that also represents non religious citizens.

Congressman Forbes:

I feel that in light of so many false statements by a member of government, one should make things clear about some of the people from back in the day, just to leave things in a fair and unbiased state:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-Abraham Lincoln

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

-Thomas Jefferson

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!!!"

- John Adams,

letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson,

letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

-Thomas Jefferson,

letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

And my favorite from one of the brightest minds the world has ever seen:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

-Albert Einstein

Turns out, Mr. Einstein, that most of us still are in that poor place, and most of us still neglect the opinions of the intelligent.
Maybe the 16% of non religious Americans(1) should be more respected in their own government by seeing a private matter, such as religion, kept private.
Reading, learning, and thinking clearly about the sides and opinions that stand against ours can be difficult. But it is rewarding nonetheless. Maybe Congressman Forbes should read about both sides of the story as well, and keep his or any religion outside of government. We are already free to worship whatever we want.
Government should be free from religion exactly because some of those who the government represents also are.

(1) C.I.A.
Jefferson Quotes
John Adams Quotes
Abraham Lincoln Quotes

Labels?

Labels (also known as tags) are words that identify the type of content that a post has.
Having labels on posts increases the functionality of this blog tremendously. Here's why:

In the early days of blogging, labels were not around. When browsing the blog for an old post, the archive section was all we had. Finding something specific would require patience, time, and then more patience. After a good dose of both, one would actually land on that old post that we were looking for.

Today, one post can be about anything. To make things more complex, most posts mention several different things. So, how to find those posts about a specific subject in a blog about lots of things?
You got it: labels.

Every time an article is posted in this blog, one or more labels will be assigned to it. This post for example, is all about the label concept. I have decided that all posts that mention the practical aspect and functionality of this blog would be the blog's guide. As such, this post is labeled guide.

The result is: when this blog becomes large enough to make browsing the archives a tedious task, one will be able to click the guide label (present in this post) and see all the tricks and tips about this blog. All posts about tricks and tips will be under the label guide.
The same will be possible for all other aspects and themes I hope to cover in this blog.

Search for the guide label at the bottom of this post and have fun with labels!

Trinity - Part I

As I grew up and suddenly religion became a subject of the most interesting conversations I have ever had, I soon took an interest in shortening the length of the initial part of the conversation. A pattern was evident, and that was the finding out about the other person. After knowing that the labels were out there, it became a lot simpler to ask which of the 3 main categories would they fall under.
As a non believer, I tend to look at people in one of three ways:

• Atheist
• Agnostic
• Theist

It seems to me so far that there are no more categories, only sub categories of those 3. As soon as a religious debate starts and in such debate a non believer side exists, the debate becomes a lot clearer once you know to whom of those 3 types are you debating with.

So, what exactly are these 3 categories? How do they sub divide? Why do I start off with these 3? That is what we will see in coming posts.

[Definition] Definitions

It is hard to write and at the same time guarantee that the readers will get exactly what you wanted them to. Correction: it is, to my knowledge, impossible to guarantee such result.
How great would I be if I had the gift of transmitting exactly what was on my mind?

Because of this limitation we, humans, have, I decided it would be wise to populate this blog with definitions. Not because I think they are absolutely necessary, but because I believe it helps to have quick access to what this blog considers an Atheist, an Agnostic, or even a Religious person.

These terms are easy, but in religion, there are plenty of hard ones to go around.
In this way, we will at least guarantee one thing: that the readers that started out like I did (not knowing much about the subject) will have a quick access to terms we may use in future posts.
Actually, I will be one of those... ;)

In this blog, we will have a "definiton" label.
Posts that refer to and only to one definition, will be labeled as such: as a definition.
May this post be a definition about what definition stands for around here. It is also part of our guide.

Note: For the perfectionists out there, definition also is: "a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol". :)

[Quote] Albert Einstein on questioning:

In the previous post, I mentioned questioning. I wanted to question both sides of religion: the believer (which I was) and the non believer's side.
At some point in life I came across famous people's quotes.
One of the world's most intelligent human beings in history once said:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

I have to admit that once I found out about this quote, I felt really proud to have started my questioning early on in life.
To keep the questioning habit going: Have you been questioning anything lately? ;)

What if I am happy with Religion?

If the answer is yes, you are happy with it, you may not even be reading this. But in the event that you are happy being religious and you are reading this, then here is a thought, that changed my approach to religion during my teenage years, that I feel should be shared here.

People form their opinions and beliefs in an immense number of ways: experience, social events, opinions of others, influenced by friends, cultural pressure, coercion, you name it.
When it comes to our opinions about religion, a lot changes when compared to our beliefs about democracy, football, or chocolate.
Religion, is that one thing that comes to us by word of mouth all the time, before coming in any other form. It also comes to us, usually through someone we look up to: our parents.
It is very rare to find an adult without any religious beliefs that experiences and learns all or some religions and then decides one of them is the one.

At some point in my early teens, I decided that I should investigate why some people did not believe in God. I thought that if God had given me the ability to question things, then I should do it. I could even find out why not believing in Him was wrong. Maybe I could help people by bringing them into believing again once I knew the answer to their disbelief.

So, while I was happy with my religion, I decided that the worst thing that could happen, is that I would be the one being wrong. Being wrong would give me a have a chance to be right, and being right would be great. I love being right. I could not afford to be religious and wrong. I had to find out for myself.
Even though I hoped I was right to begin with, I knew at that point that trying to prove myself wrong would ultimately turn out a failure, and I would come out stronger and more religious on the other end of this journey.

And so it began. From that time forward, I started questioning everything. I told myself that would be the only way to actually think about religion: by knowing both sides of the story.

And we are live!

Any post with the "guide" label is intended to guide you through the inner workings of this website. Things like: what are labels, what do they mean, RSS Feeds, how to use them, etc.
Hopefully, "guide" posts should also inform you of any blog related feature that may show up in the future.
So if you happen to throw this blog's address to someone (thanks in advance!), leave them with the hint of clicking the label "guide" before moving on. It will make the experience better, I promise.

Welcome!

Welcome to Religious Faith Challenger.
Do you like challenges? Read on!

Before reading any further, one should be aware that this blog is all about sensitive subjects, conflicting opinions, and possibly offensive ones, depending on how much freedom you give others to think whatever they want about your beliefs.
Given that, I would say that part of this blog's mission statement is in its own header on top of the blog.
What is left to say is that this blog will aim at making you think about the non-religious way of thinking about the world. As a consequence of that, some will try to embrace it, some will try to avoid it. So if you are a fan of soul searching, pursuing different views, different beliefs and different ways to live life even if that changes nothing about you, this may be the blog for you.

If you are here as an Atheist, you will feel that we are preaching to the quire most of the times, but not all the time. You may get a surprising new approach to a few subjects.
As an Agnostic, you may find some challenges, but nothing overwhelming.
As a Religious person, you will see your beliefs in a new light, you will understand non believers better, and hopefully you will leave with whatever opinion you desire. But if you happen to come back, then the mission is accomplished, and our most dear and special welcome note goes to those who return.

Thanks for your time. Let's get this blog under way.