It's remarkable how often religious zealots play the victim. And who could blame them? It's easy to play the victim. It saves people the trouble of actually having to defend their position with rational arguments. Whenever some other group comes along, secular or religious, and says something they don't like, they rush to classify it as an issue of religious bigotry. As if any opposing viewpoint or differing opinion is somehow an insult to their way of thinking. It isn't just irrational. It's downright childish.

But that doesn't stop men like Ken Conner from writing articles that accuse scientists of all people of religious bigotry.

Science Theists Need Not Apply

The cores of Conner's article centers around Dr. Francis Collins, who President Obama picked to head the National Institutes of Health. Collins is a controversial figure because he's not just a scientist, he's a devout evangelical Christian who often tries to integrate his work as a scientist with his beliefs as a Christian. He's written various books such as "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." He was also featured in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which presented a dubious case that the scientific community was anti-god and anti-Christian.

This notion is not only completely false, it's rediculous. Collins isn't criticized for his religious beliefs. Nor is he criticized for his work. He is a target because he is violating one of the most important aspects of science. He is trying to thrust the supernatural world of god, satan, angels, and miracles into the strictly rational process that is science. It is a major fallacy that any rational minded scientist is quick to point out. It's called 'violation of the philosophy of science.' It is a tenant as old as science itself. One cannot appeal to the supernatural or the spiritual when making a scientific claim. That is because science is inherently rational. It requires evidence, testable hyopothesis, and logic to prove points. To put any kind of god into the mix be it the Christian god or the Aztec god is to negate the very tenants of what makes science work.

Conner doesn't understand this and neither does Collins. They rely on emotional appeals that pain the scientists as cold, uncaring, and prejudice. They will gladly point out that some of the greatest minds of all time like Plato, Aristotle, and Newton were all devout believers. This is true, but never at any point did these men use the supernatural in their work. They never appealed to god or spirits of any kind to present justification for their claims. In science, one's personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. It does not matter of a scientist is a devout believer in god or is a worshipper of the sun. What matters is the claims they make and the evidence they use to back it up. It is the evidence that trumps personal beliefs. It doesn't matter where it came from or who it came from. If it can be verified and vindicated, it is worth just as much as any work from a devout believer.

Conner will also argue without god, science lacks ethics. But this is a completely false assumption. It assumes people need god to make good moral decisions. This is a complete misnomer considering people have had god for years and used it to justify violence, prejudice, racisim, slavery, murder, and genocide. Conner and Collins try and make it seem as though without religion, science is somehow evil. But science is not evil. It can't be evil. Only people can be evil. Science by it's own definition is objective and unbias. It is the human beings who use it.

When it comes to the debate between religion and science, the issue is clear. Science is inherently rational and based on evidence, logic, and reason. Religion is inherently irrational and based on faith, superstition, and the supernatural. One cannot be used in the context of the other without destroying the premise of the other. Men like Conner and Collins are destroying their credibility by trying to have their cake and eat it to. There's nothing bioted, prejudice, or bias about it. It's irrational, illogical, and flat out wrong. Plain and simple.

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.

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.

In the never-ending search for truth its easy for people with no expertise in certain matters to fall prey to oversimplified, overzealous beliefs. They are spurred on the the age-old addage that seeing is believing and believing is seeing. While that may be true on some levels, many fail to understand that to believe in something isn't the same as knowing it. In the realm of emperical reasoning beliefs and eyewitness testimony are among the least relyable means of proving any claim. Only evidence can prove a claim, but many dogmatic believers shun the idea of providing anything tangible to prove their beliefs. They go so far as to claim they don't just believe it, they know it. This is where religion runs into problems.

In every debate I've had with religious believers, they all make the same claim. They say that their beliefs are the turth and to reject their beliefs is to reject the truth. Many take it a step further and claim that their beliefs are not beliefs at all and that they are "revealed truths" from some supernatural entity or spirit. They'll claim the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bagahavita is truth revealed by divinity. But there's no evidence of that they're true. There is nothing tangible they can provide to prove that any of these texts or messages came from any divine source. That is why faith is necessary. But that is where it ends. Faith and belief do not equal truth. They are just beliefs.

It is among the most frustrating parts of being an atheist. I do not believe in the mythological claims of religion for the same reason I do not believe in fairies, unicorns, or elves. Many religious people will scoff at the notion of their existance as well, and yet using the same faulty reasoning they claim their brand of supernatural dogma is right and true. And every time I try and point this out to them they thumb their nose at me, claiming I am shunning their diety by rejecting the revealed truth (which is really just boils down to personal belief). But I am not shunning just their diety. I'm just rejecting every supernatural diety on a purely reasonable stance. If there is no evidence then there is no proof.

Some will counter that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense.' And this is true to some extent. Many things may be possible that we can never prove, but it's necessary to seperate that which is possible from that which is probable.  Is it probable that there are other forms of life outside our planet? Taking into account what we know about life, physics, and the cosmos then yes. It is probable, even though we don't have any evidence of it yet. It does fit into our understanding of the natural world that we can measure and observe. So is it probable that there is some all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural sky god lurking in some spiritual realm watching over and observing our every move and judging us for everything we do? The answer is simply no. There is nothing outside the realm of baseless speculation that such a being could exist. It is by the very nature of the supernatrual to be unprovable and untestable. That is why faith is required, otherwise nobody would believe it.

Then there are those who equate believing in something equats to values. Many religous social conservatives call themselves 'value voters,' but this is another faulty assumption. Just believing in something doesn't make any one person more righteous than anyone else. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, that's fine. But it doesn't make you any more upstanding than an atheist, muslim, or hindu. It is a grossly self-centered, narcisistic view to think that a single set of beliefs are the right set of beliefs while all others are either wrong. Yet this is the view of many religons (and I'm not just referring to Christianity). It creates a dangerous precedent by claiming their side is right and the other side is wrong. So that gives them permission to demonize, persecute, and sometimes even harm those who believe differently. And there are no values in such despicable self-righteousness.

In a free society people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe in all the stories of the Bible and you can believe that crystals have special healing properties. But the line is drawn when those beliefs are imposed on others or endorsed by the state. Beliefs are not knowledge and they never will be. You can believe in something all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Having faith and believing in something greater than yourself is a noble thing, but it's necessary to keep things in perspective and understand that it is a belief and not the truth.

The following is link to an interesting video I found on youtube that also explains this concept in a much better way than I ever could.

Beliving isn't Knowing

As an atheist, I often come into conflict with the beliefs and values many people have. I respect and admire those beliefs, but on certain subjects that respect is lost in the sheer disparity of how extreme some beliefs are. One belief about religion that has long troubled and fascinated me is belief in creationism. As someone who strives to be rational with everyday things, I find it strange when I hear how people so fervently reject reason and logic in favor of mythological psuedo-science. I've looked into groups like the Institution for Creation Research and Creation Science and tried to understand their beliefs and how they justify them. And every time I hit a brick wall because they are all so completely and utterly convinced by their faith that what they believe is true that no amount of evidence, no matter how overwhelming it may be, will get them to believe otherwise. There are so many reasons why creationism is wrong, but that doesn't matter to them. All that matters is believing in their favorite myths and fables.

Recently, I came across some videos on youtube by a user known as Aron Ra. He's made a series out of the absurdities of creationism and I find his critique both enlightening, coherent, and entertaining. He is able to explain far more than I can so I thought I would share a clip and an excerpt from one of his videos. Please note: these are his words, not mine and only he can take credit for this skillfully assembled work.

So for those who believe in God, the question really is how God created, and whether it was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera".

As an atheist, I often get asked by Christians and other religious people where I get my morality. They claim that without a just and merciful god, mankind cannot be good because there is no reason for them to be good. I often say my morality comes from my experience and upbringing. My parents taught my sense of right and wrong and while not strict atheists, they didn't use gods to justify why something was wrong. When I was a boy my grandma often used Santa Clause as a reason for being good. She would tell me "Aww, Santa Clause won't be bringing you any presents this Christmas if you act like that." Looking back on it I see she could have easily replaced Santa Clause with a god and the message would be the same.

But morality is a tricky topic because it is so subjective. That is why science has usually ceded these concepts to philosophy and religion. However, modern science has made strides in recent decades and is beginning to unlock the roots of our morality. As it turns out it may not have been my personal experiences after all that gave me a sense of right and wrong. It may very well be that much of our moral sense is written in our genes and our biology.

Newsweek recently did a feature on the biological roots of human morality, citing research done by psychologists and biologists to give an insight into what gives us our sense of right and wrong. They used classical moral dilemmas to get a feel for how people judge a situation. They call it a moral sense test and they painted the following scenarios:

Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of five drowning people knowing that a person in your boat will fall off and drown?

Would you fail to give a drug to a terminally ill patient knowing that he will die without it but his organs could be used to save three other patients?

Would you suffocate your screaming baby if it would prevent enemy soldiers from finding and killing you both, along with the eight others hiding out with you?

These situations have no clear cut answer, but when scientists gave these questions people responded with remarkable consistancy. The article stated"What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way. Moreover, when asked why they make their decisions, most people are clueless, but confident in their choices."

Further studies tried to see if emotions were tied into our sense of morality. And even studying patients with brains with damaged connections between the planning and emotion systems, their answers were consistant. This suggests that emotions are not linked to our morality. They do, however, play a role in our actions. Emotions may make us act in ways that we know are immoral, but that is where the concept of guilt comes in.

This leads to another point religious people often make when I debate them. How do you justify the lack of morality for atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin (Hitler doesn't count because he was a confessed Catholic and admitted creationist)? The article goes on to offer insight into that as well:

"New, preliminary studies suggest that clinically diagnosed psychopaths do recognize right from wrong, as evidenced by their responses to moral dilemmas. What is different is their behavior. While all of us can become angry and have violent thoughts, our emotions typically restrain our violent tendencies. In contrast, psychopaths are free of such emotional restraints. They act violently even though they know it is wrong because they are without remorse, guilt or shame."

In other words, they may know what they are doing is wrong, but they just don't feel guilty about it. Or they find some way to justify it in their twisted and skewwed psyche. Theists and atheists can agree that what these men did was vile and wrong. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they believed in gods or religion. By the same token, religous authorities have committed similar atrocities over the centuries that include genocides, wars, and prejudice. Millions have been put to death at the hands of religion through witch hunts, ethnic clensing, wars, human sacrifice, and inquisitions. Studies show that such blind faith in any ideology whether it be religon or personality cults like facism and communism may psychologically condition people to ignore the wrong they feel about taking a life. It's not about faith or lack thereof. It is about psychological pre-disposition.

But then why are those that are good continue being good? Well the article states that "studies suggest that nature handed us a moral grammar that fuels our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. Emotions play their strongest role in influencing our actions—reinforcing acts of virtue and punishing acts of vice. We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as wrong." It is a simple matter of reinforcement. Good gets reinforced more than bad and that is why people do good. Most people get no pleasure out of hurting or killing people. We do get a sense of satisfaction when we do something good though. There's nothing supernatural about it. It is basic psychology.

So going back to the question I get asked of where do humans get their morals, I would now answer it is part of our individual and collective psychology. Cognitive and behavioral systems within and among us, coupled with aspects of our social nature, work within a biological grammar that instills an innate sense of right and wrong among human beings. Or more simply put, it is part of our nature.

I find it demeaning in a sense that some religions paint humans as naturally immoral or tained by sin or kharma and the only way to repent is to proclaim blind faith in an invisible, intangible force and make sacrifices in its name through religous authorities. That is just playing of our natural tendancy to avoid guilt. People can be good without gods. They can be good with religion too. One shouldn't place itself higher over the other. So using this research and my general understanding I have formulated two 'commandments' for morality among both religious and non-religious people. And they are as follows.

1. Try not to hurt anybody.
2. Try to be nice to people.

Link to Article

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous "wall of separation" line in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut the United States was the most secular nation in the world. Jefferson along with the rest of the founding fathers, some of whom were Christian and others of whom were Deists, saw the importance of keeping faith out of politics. But beyond the political arena, they saw the importance of keeping faith from intruding upon reason and how it should not be used as a way to circumvent logical thinking. The Constitution gaurenteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You're free to believe whatever you want so long as that belief does not intrude upon the natural rights of others.

But I've found in my experience that sometimes beliefs are taken too seriously and used to justify dogmatic morals based on old dogma. These irrational, misguided, and oftentimes authoritarian beliefs can lead to bigotry, racism, sexism, and homophobia. It crosses the line from being just an opinion, which is perfectly fine in a free society, to being an agenda, which is not.

Back in October 2006 then governor Sarah Palin of Alaska publically stated in the Anchorage Daily News that creationism should be taught in science classrooms along with evolution. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that doing so violated the seperation of church and state, she and people like her won't give up even though evidence is not on their side. The whole concept of it being "just a theory" is a gross misue of the word theory in a scientfic context. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word theory as follows:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution has been tested exhaustively and creationism has not. Visit the site www.talkorigins.com to see just a small collection of that evidence and see for yourself just how irrational this policiy the now Vice Presidential candidate's views are.

So why does this matter? Why should it matter that Palin believes the theory of evolution is just as possible as being poofed into existance by an all powerful diety? Because beliefs are a reflection of character in that those who let their beliefs in religous dogma guide their decision-making process are more likely to abandon reason. And in a world as complex as ours, reason must come before faith especially in the highest levels of power.