It's that time of year again. The winter cold is settling in, the decorations are up, and the holiday season is setting in. It's an annual tradition that impacts nearly everyone in the Western and Non-Western world. It is the time of the Christmas holiday, a holiday which is deeply steeped in modern culture. It is a festive time when people celebrate the season through family, faith, and gift-giving.

Now this time of year is special to me personally. As a non-believer who does not believe in the Christian god or the miracles of the bible any more than any other claim in mythology, many assume I'm left conflicted. This isn't necessarily the truth. Growing up I always loved Christmas, even before I was a devout Christian and before I became a non-believer. Some of my fondest memories are of Christmas. My family has always made an extra effort to make Christmas special and I've carried on with that tradition.

While I understand that Christmas is strongly tied to the story of Jesus's birth and is deeply steeped in Christian tradition, I never associated the holiday exclusively with religion. To me religion was a part of it, but it wasn't the only part. I always focused on the charity, good-will, and humanity aspects that Christmas evoked. To me these were and still are strongly associated with the teachings of Jesus Christ. He more than anyone embodied the spirit of Christmas in his teachings. Even a non-believer can respect those teachings and appreciate the holiday traditions.

Now that I am a non-believer, Christmas has taken on a slightly different context. But the meaning has never changed. I still put up a tree. I still wrap presents. I still decorate my house and spend time with my family. There just isn't a religious subtext to it anymore. I do it out of tradition and culture and I still enjoy every bit as much as I did when I was a devout Christian. Even my friends who are religious appreciate this and I wish them good will regardless of my non-belief. Even though Christmas has always been special to me, this time of year routinely evokes the usual War on Christmas in the media.

A lot of people think that because I'm a non-believer I'm on the side of the politically correct crowd when it comes to Christmas. They're dead wrong. I'm against pretty much everything the politically correct crowd stands for and that includes Christmas. I don't believe "Happy Holidays" should be mandated to be sensitive to other faiths. I don't believe nativity scenes should be banned or Christmas carols should be censored. This is a free country and these things are part of free expression. Nobody has a right NOT to be offended and if they don't like seeing this sort of thing that's their problem. They can move to a place with less freedom if that'll make them happier. It certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the season.

Some of the more extreme atheists go so far as to twist Christmas into this secular holiday with none of the traditions that make it special. This is where I disagree. Christmas, like it or not, DOES have religious undertones. It always has even before Christianity. To take that out of it in the name of secularism is to miss the point of the free society. Christmas is not something the far left crowd should regulate. This is a tradition steeped in culture and in free societies cultures are free to express their traditions so long as they don't impose on anybody else with force. I find it embarressing for rational and reasonably minded non-believers when some atheist spokesperson tries to make a bold statement about Christmas in the media and utterly misses the point. They may claim that Christmas needs to be overhauled, but they cannot do that without infringing on the rights and traditions of others. Regardless of what anybody does or doesn't believe, that's just plain wrong.

The War on Christmas has become a joke. On one side there is fear that some crusading atheists will destroy the holiday and on the other side there is fear that some crusading Christians will use the holiday to impose their beliefs. Both are foolish and do the holiday a great disservice by politicizing it into this struggle between one group of people and another. That isn't what the spirit of the holiday is about. Even the most dogmatic crusader of either side can understand how ridiculous it is to use the holiday as a means to push an agenda.

What's important about this time of year is that humans have been celebrating it in good spirit for a long time. Even before the birth of Christ, this time of year evoked many celebrations. The Winter Solstice when Christmas occurs has long been a special time of year in many cultures. It stems from mankind's obsession with predicting and understanding the seasons, winter being one of the most important. It is when the days stop getting shorter and the nights stop getting longer that mankind feels a sort of kinship with nature and celebrations will inevitably follow. Every culture from pre-Christian pagans to Native Americans to Buddhists have some holiday associated with this time of year. It is only fitting that everyone has a chance to enjoy it without politics making an agenda out of it.

The Holidays of the Winter Solstice

So this year as every year, I look forward to celebrating the holidays as I always have. I still say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays. I still give gifts, spend time with loved ones, and reflect on the past year. It is a wonderful time of year and I have no desire to see it politicized. So for the sake of humanity and in the spirit of the season, I call for a treaty to end the War on Christmas so we can all celebrate peacefully.

With this in mind I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday.

Regards,
Godless Patriot

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.

Terry Paulson: Put Your Bet On God Over Newsweek

During every holiday season the media usually jumps on a story about some radical atheist trying to ban Christmas displays. These stories, which the Christian Right loves to point out, represent only a small minority of atheists who are radicals and are just as wrong as the Christians who want to ban non-believers from gaining any kind of status or influence. Most atheists still celebrate Christmas. Even though I have been a non-believer for years, I still celebrate the season by decorating my house, buying presents for loved ones, and enjoying the festivities. But to me, there is nothing supernatural about the holiday. I do not associate it with the birth of Jesus Christ or any miracles. I associate it with the messages of peace, giving, and good will towards all. And it is my favorite holiday and has been for years.

But it is also worth pointing out that Christmas, like any other religious holiday, has a context to it. Most Christians do not question it or look into the matter. Most are content to believe whatever their parents or pastor tells them. But if anybody tries to do the research, they'll come up with some unexpected and in some ways disturbing answers. Because when the history of Christmas is put into a real-world, non-supernatural context it takes on a different meaning to believers.

The first and most glaring discrepancy has to do with the date itself. Most people never question whether or not Jesus was born on December 25th. But a brief glimpse into history shows how that may not be the case. Research among scholars has shown that the actual birthday of Jesus Christ was forgotten in the early Christian church. Differing groups celebrated his birth on days ranging from January 5th and May 4th. It wasn't until the 4th century, after Christianity had become the official church of Rome, that December 25th was chosen as the date of Jesus's birth. History does document this and there is a reason why this date was chosen.

Among nearly all civilizations and cultures within the Middle East and Europe dating back to well before the time of Christ, one of the most important parts of the year was the Winter Solstice. On December 21st, the days are shortest and the nights are longest. And on December 25th, the days start getting longer again in a noticeable manner. This was important because it helped cultures measure time and seasons, which aided them in farming. So it was only natural that this date would take on more meaningful significance in the eyes of spirituality.

Even during the time of Christ, many pagans celebrated December 25th as a major holiday. The Babylonians celebrated 25th as the "Victory of the Sun" festival. The Romans celebrated December 17th through 23rd as Saturnalia, the festival of Saturn. In addition, December 25th was the alleged birth date of many other savior gods who had stories similar to that of Christ. Attis, son of the virgin Nana, was a Roman pagan icon who was said to have been born on December 25th. Dionysis was a Greek savior god who was worshiped around a century before Christ and his birthday was celebrated on December 25th. But probably the most well known and well documented savior god born on that date besides Christ was Mithra. Mithra was a Persian god whose worship was a chief rival to Christianity in the early days of the faith. And like the other savior gods before him, there were many of the same stories built around his life such as his birth being witnessed by shepards, performing miracles in his life like healing the sick and casting out devils. He was also said to have had 12 disciples and was crucified around the Spring equinox, at the same time as Easter, and ascended into heaven.

So Jesus's story was not unique. But was his life a myth? Probably not. Most scholars agree that there probably was a flesh and blood man named Jesus who walked Palestine around the first century. But there is no evidence that the miracles of his life occured anywhere outside the bible. Most agree that his life was later mythologized and embellished as many great leaders often are after their deaths. And Jesus did live at a time when many of these savior gods were very popular so it is only natural that later followers would attach such attributes as the virgin birth on December 25th in order to become more acceptable to pagans and other faiths. And history documents this shift with the emergance of Jesus's divinity through scriptures and gospels that started with the letters of Paul and were later cannonized with the gospels. But it is also worth noting that even Paul's letters, which are the oldest documentation of Christian beliefs, still were not written down until after Christ's death. And of the 40 secular historians living at the time, only about 4 or 5 give mention to Jesus and none of them document any of the events the bible discribes.

So why did Jesus become so universally accepted? Part of that has to do with the appealing message. Other faiths like Mithrism were very exclusive and secretive. The average person was not allowed to partake in the festivals. Christianity was unique in that it offered salvation to everybody, not just elites and their contemporaries. That open message was part of why Christinaity became so popular so fast and why the Romans were threatened by it because it threatened to upset the ridged hierarchy of their society. Another major reason had to do with the emporer Constantine, who made Christinaity the official religion of the empire. This big endorsement gave Christinaity support that no other faith could boast so it propsered while others eventually died out. It was after this big endorsement that the bible was canonized and December 25th was decided as the date of Jesus's birth.

So Christmas in context is not necessarily about the birth of Jesus. It is part of the evolution of a holiday that has its roots in the earliest parts of civilization. Other aspects such as Christmas trees, gift giving, and Santa Clause came later. But the message is still the same, preaching peace on Earth and good will towards all. And that is a good message for anybody to celebrate no matter what their faith.

For more information on Christmas and the non-biblical life of Jesus, please consult the following link, which has a great deal of other well-researched articles on religion in general:

The History of Jesus Christ

Regardless of whether or not Jesus was a holy figure as he said he was, the message of Christmas still remains and it is a message I celebrate every year. Even as an atheist, I have a strong appreciation for what Christmas brings and I will continue to celebrate it. So from the Godless Patriot, I wish everybody regardless of their religion or lack thereof a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holidays.

When I was a devout believer in Christianity, I never questioned where religion came from. It wasn't that I was curious. I just didn't see it as pertinent. But as I began to doubt my faith and the supernatural in general, I began to look into what religion is and where it came from. And in my search I have found many interesting revelations, but none of them point to anything supernatural or godly.

Most people will say religion is something innate. They claim that it is human nature to believe in something greater than themselves. And that sounds pretty intuitive because so many people turn to religion or something supernatural when they can't explain something in logical terms. But just because a lot of people turn to it doesn't make it true. A brief insight into human psychology and social dynamics reveals that religion does play off human beings' natural tendencies. But it's not in the way many believers think.

The best example I ever came across was a discussion I had in my old sociology class on the origin of stereotypes. People have a lot of false believes about groups they don't know about. There are stereotypes about black people, white people, Asians, muslims, Christians, and atheists and many are prevalent, but many are still wrong. So why do they persist? Well it has to do with a phenomenon psychologists often refer to attribution bias. When people don't know all the workings of a situation, they instinctively go to pre-set assumptions that they have been conditioned to turn to. Many of those assumptions are learned through environmental and social influences so if someone is taught that all atheists are wicked, that's what they'll assume when they look at an atheist. It's a mental shortcut of sorts because it saves people the time of investigating and looking into every given situation about a person.

In an evolutionary context it makes perfect sense. These assumptions and stereotypes allow people to devout more mental energy into other more important matters such as survival. Just think of it in the hunger gatherer sense. A normal hunter doesn't have time to investigate and understand every possible event that they come across. They have to have certain stereotypes and assumptions like "blue berries are poisonous" and "those people that attacked my tribe are evil." It saves them energy and mental resources to devout to survival.

So what does this have to do with religion? Well religion acts in many ways as a mental shortcut. Many who use the 'god of the gaps' arguments point it out. Since we can't know everything about something like where the world came from, what happens when we die, or how do the heavens work we take a short cut and say "god/gods did it." That's much easier than having to investigate all the complex and in many cases unknown forces that go into the natural world. It's hard enough for people to wrap their heads around one facet of science so they assume the rest on faith.

Just think of it in terms of creationism. Creationists simplify the whole proces of how the world came to be by saying it's all written down in this one story in this one book and it all boils down to "god did it." It plays off the natural tendancy to seek the easier, less complicated answer instead of investigating the complicated and complex forces of evolution that include other complex forces like chemistry, physics, biology, geology, climate, etc. People devout their entire lives to just one of these fields and still can't wrap their head around it, let alone all of them in general. So for the average joe, religion is a convenient and comforting short cut that cuts down on uncertainty. Because like the hunter in the woods, uncertainty is detrimental to survival and nobody likes to be uncertain.

This basic psychological phenomenon puts religion into a more rational perspective. It doesn't say believing in god is wrong. It doesn't even prove that god doesn't exist. Perhaps this is just how god set things up, but there's no way to prove that so that is why faith is necessary. As a non believer, I don't assume any supernatural forces in any gaps in my knowledge. I honestly admit that I don't know and in some cases I can't know. But the problem is religion does more than play off this basic psychological trait. It grows and expands in a way that creates all these other complex social forces, some of them good and some of them bad. It's all a matter of understanding what is at the core of these beliefs that allows us to deal with the bad and reinforce the good.

There are many other facets of the origin of religion and I could spend several blogs discussing it. But I recently came across an article that offers a good, fairly objective insight into where religion came from. You can view it at the following link:

The Origin of Religion

In a free society people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they want. It is when some beliefs are imposed or endorced by the state that problems arise. You don't have to like what one person believes or doesn't believe. You just have to respect that their belief is different and keep it all in context.

This past year, the comedy world lost one of it's most prolific and influential figures: George Carlin. He spent nearly half a century in show business. His comedy specials and television appearances are some of the most memorable and funny skits in pop culture. Many comedy experts rank him among the elite with the likes of Richard Pryor and Rodney Dangerfield. His death this year was a true loss.

George Carlin gave us many memorable routines. Most notably was the "seven words you can't say." This famous routine prompted a Supreme Court case known as FCC vs. Pacifica, which laid the foundation for the censorship powers that the FCC uses to control broadcast media. Carlin, and many like him, spent many years decrying this act as being unconstitutional. And a strict interpretation of the first amendment confirms this. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." And yet an unelected body in the FCC is given power to regulate and control speech they consider 'indecent' or 'obscene.' It is censorship, plain and simple. It was unconstitutional when Carlin fought it and it's still unconstitutional now. It comes down to politicians and beauracrats banning something just because they and a select few don't like it.

In addition to Carlin's rants on free speech. He was also famously a non-believer. Some of his most memorable skits were about god and the irrational nature of religion. Even before I became a non-believer, I felt he made many astute observations that were not done out of malice, but out of criticism. And some are valid. Many people of faith often don't think critically about it and don't approach it from different points of view. So that when they try to engange in discourse with others, it is often hampered because they are unwilling to think differently.

One of my personal favorite rants was about Easter and the life of Jesus. When I was a Christian, I may have found this troubling. But as a non-believer, I think it's very thought provoking and worthy of inquiry. Below is an excerpt from that rant, courtesy of Carlin's book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops." It details what he considers a description of Easter if it were reported by an objective, outside media source.

"Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buffs on a day in which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as 'The Messiah' was allegedly crucified and - according to legend - died for mankind's so-called sins. Today kicks off a 'holy' weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday when, it is widely believed, this dead 'savoir' - who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling, invisible being known as God - mysteriously 'rose from the dead.'

According to legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus has saved every person that has ever lived - and every person who will live - from an eternity of suffering in a region popularly known as Hell, providing - so the story goes - that the person be 'saved' firmly believes this rather fanciful tale."

It's interesting to consider how those who believe would look at this compared to those who don't believe. Many people believe in many different things. And even for the beliefs shared by a vast majority of the population, it is important to look at them from an outside perspective. George Carlin was a master at painting things in a differet, if not bawdy, sort of light. He could do it in a way that was entertaining, insightful, and very funny.

Geroge Carlin will sorely be missed. He lived a long, eventful life and had a very successful career. And his jokes, and insight, will live on for generations to come.