[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