It’s the part where she says, “Maybe you believe and you don’t know you believe” which translates to me as “I can’t conceive that you really don’t believe in God, therefore, you must be in denial – you really believe – you just don’t know it”.

Oprah, you’ve just insulted a large number of atheists but, just in case you don’t know why your words are insulting, replace “God” with “Xenu” and pretend you are the one being interviewed.

Got it?

Although Darwin’s writing style was a lot more accessible than I expected, it was still a bit dry in places. That said, there were multiple rewards for my perseverance. Darwin did not disappoint – I was, in many places throughout the book, inspired in unexpected ways. For anyone interested in evolution, it really is a must-read. How could it not be? After all, it set the stage for the study of life on earth for the next 150 years (and counting)!

The Origin of Species was as much science as it was prophecy of the science that would follow it. Its author had an amazing grasp of was to come following the introduction of his dangerous idea to the world. While his excitement at the prospects of future discoveries was palpable, I imagine if he would have lived to see future discoveries (e.g. in the field of genetics) he would have calmly said, “Well, of course. Natural Selection would have it no other way”.

Another thing I was struck by was Darwin’s knowledge of so many varied fields of science. Not only was he eminently learned in his chosen field of biology, but his mind seemed absolutely brimming with knowledge about geology, paleontology, physics and more. He was a master at connecting the dots between various fields of science.

Upon reading Darwin, you come to really understand how badly he’s been misunderstood and misconstrued – especially by the creationist/intelligent design movement. Darwin himself was all-to aware of this unfortunate reality, and spent considerable time addressing it. In reading the book, you get a good sense of why it took him so long to finish it – he’d obviously spent a great deal of time debating both creationists and old-thinking naturalists, and wanted to do his best to address the objections he’d heard on what I’m sure were countless occasions.

The book makes it clear that Darwin was accustomed to seeing his words and work misrepresented. However, in the face of that, he was still an optimist:

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.

The most famous misrepresentation is probably this quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Creationists – to this day – insist on quoting the first paragraph whilst conveniently leaving out the second. The result is to portray a Darwin who is seemingly dumbfounded by the complexity in nature. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin, and his theory illuminated our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.
And that’s why it’s a must-read – because, even today, The Origin of Species is a candle in the dark. I, for one, am committed to passing on the flame.

I thought I’d follow-up on our disagreement about evolution. Before I go further, I thought I’d confirm what I think you said so I don’t put words into your mouth:

1. Evolution has been dis-proven.
2. Many scientists say that evolution has many holes in it and that it has not held up to scientific scrutiny.
3. There are not enough fossils to demonstrate sufficient evidence for human evolution. You asked me to show you that fossils exist in museums.

Please let me know if I got any of that wrong because I used your comments as the basis for my research (if necessary, I’ll revise my research when I get back from my trip).

My claim is that evolution explains the earth’s diversity of life, as well as the evolution of human beings on earth. Furthermore, I claim that there is substantial evidence for those two claims. With that in mind, below is some support I found for my claims. The information is in the links, but I provided a few teaser quotes or tid-bits of information beside a few of them.
—
Level of Support for Evolution: Quote: “…in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute…”

Objections to Evolution: Quote: “When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community.[2] The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.”

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism + the Rebuttals to those Dissents. I’m not sure about you, but I find the rebuttals to be pretty convincing.

Project Steve on Wikipedia and on its own site. Project Steve is a tongue-in-cheek response to the claim that many scientists oppose evolution. The point that Project Steve makes is that – even if the anti-evolutionist scientists were in the hundreds, that is a minute number compared to the many, many thousands who do accept evolution. The project lists over 1100 scientists named ‘Steve” who accept the theory. And that doesn’t even get into the discussion of which group of scientists have the credentials needed to assess the evidence (covered in the “dissent” link above).

Now that I’ve presented information supporting evolution as an almost universally accepted theory in the scientific community, let’s move onto your points about evidence and fossils.

Here is a list of human evolution fossils: Note that the article states there are thousands of fossils and that it outlines the progression from early mammals, to primates, to hominids (the family Homo Sapiens emerged from).

The Human Origins Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History – I don’t know if you can find a museum of higher standing.

Another place of high regard is the Museum of Science – the link contains a database of fossils

The Smithsonian Institute is arguably one of the highest regarded museums in the world. It has many, many fossils and an amazing exhibit (online and in-person versions). Suffice to say, the Smithsonian also accepts evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

A couple of very good university resources are the ones found at the University of California and Minnesota State University (there are lots of others).

PZ Meyers is a respected evolutionary biologist and university professor. This post contains a large number of links pointing to an immense body of evolutionary evidence.

A couple of great websites with information about evolution are Talk Origins and Panda’s Thumb.

Finally, there are tons of books written by highly respected scientists on the subject of evolution. The Smithsonian Instititute Guide to Human Origins is one I read over a year ago that I highly recommend.

I’m no expert but I think I can discern between an expert and a non-expert and that’s what I am basing my argument on – that the sources I am citing are numerous and respected within the scientific community.

I am not sure what sources you refer to when you say you know of many scientists who have proven evolution not to be valid. Therefore, I can’t pretend to judge if they are good, well-respected scientists.

Starting in the early 1960′s, the province of Quebec, Canada went through a Quiet Revolution – a revolution that’s resulted in an increasingly secular society. Link

Compared to the US, most of Canada is a relative haven for non-believers. A recent survey shows that one in four Canadians do not believe in god, but Quebec is leading the way with huge declines in church attendance. Things have gotten so bad there (or, good depending on how you look at it!) that churches are being sold to the lowest bidder.

And it appears that Quebec isn’t done sticking nails in the coffin of religion.

So, the next time you think it might be nice to get a change of scenery, think of Quebec …just make sure you brush up on your French.

1. Me, Myself and I (you could say, I write for an unholy trinity of sorts): I find writing about atheism/religion to be stimulating and satisfying.
2. Other Atheists: It’s nice to belong to a community and even nicer being able to learn from others.
3. The Doubting Christian: While I don’t go out and evangelize atheism on the streets or at Christian websites, I do welcome Christians who are doubting their faith – the ones who are starting to wake up to all the inconsistencies a belief in a personal god – can bring to one’s existence.

I’ve realized that last group is the most important part of my audience. Why? Because I empathize with them. I was a doubter less than two years ago and I know how hard it is for them and I want to help. So, while I share a sense of camaraderie with my fellow heathens, I also feel a sense of purpose in relating to you doubting Christians.

So, in case you missed it the last time, welcome to my blog. The price of admission is one boiled baby (not necessarily your own), a jar of mayonnaise and a glass of Merlot.

Who do you write for?

At first, I tackled the problem by exposing myself to more religion. I attended more church, met more church people, and read more of the Bible.

Still, nothing made sense.

“It must be my church”, I thought, and spent another couple of years church shopping.

Things didn’t get any clearer. Seeing that God’s churches could disagree on so much made things worse. The world, according to the Bible, just didn’t add up.

So, I withdrew from church life. But I wasn’t done with religion. I was still trying to make make God fit into the evil and suffering within the world. I watched hundreds of hours of video and read countless articles on (what seemed like) hundreds of websites.

Still, nothing made sense.

Finally, after many years of this heavy lifting, I asked the unthinkable…

“Maybe there isn’t a god?”

And then I read and watched for another two months before I finally read The God Delusion.

In between chapters, I supplemented The God Delusion with even more articles and videos – this time with a heavy focus on debates between believers and unbelievers.

And just like that, the world started making sense.

Thinking about the unthinkable was – UNDOUBTEDLY – the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Nevertheless, I finally arrived at an answer that really made sense. There was no god.

Why was it so hard?

First, because in addition to letting go of god, I let go of my ideas around immortality. I saw my mind/my consciousness/my soul as nothing more than what my brain did. When my brain died, I recognized that my life would end and there would be nothing more. This, after 40 years, was an excruciating loss. There was a very real mourning period.

Worse, not only had I let go of my own immortality, but I also recognized the mortality of my family. In a very short period of time, I had to come to terms with one day losing my parents – forever. Even harder, I began to imagine what losing my wife or one of my children would mean to me. I felt such fear. Such sadness.

I was preparing myself for future losses in a reality-based way that I’d never had to consider before.

The permanent loss of loved ones was the hardest idea I’d ever had to deal with – I’m still amazed I was able to accept all of it.

Can you accept the seemingly harsh reality atheism offers? Why would you want to go any further down this path? After all, compared to what the rest of your life has taught you, what I am saying is pretty damn bleak, isn’t it?

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley suggested that comfort and happiness often come at the expense of freedom and truth.

Yes, sometimes religion is comfortable. Sometimes it will make you happy. But, if inter-mixed and underlying that shallow sense of comfort and happiness, you feel conflict between religion and reality, it may be because you are doubting the truthfulness of what you’ve been taught so far. Accepting faith may also be impinging on your mental freedom to explore the real nature of the universe.

Comfort and happiness versus freedom and truth. Is that the choice? Not necessarily.

Since becoming an atheist, I’ve become free to think deeper about the meaning of life, and I believe I’m closer to the truth of this world than I ever was when I held a belief in God.

But, to my surprise, I am also much happier and more comfortable than I ever was before. There is no more internal conflict because the world finally makes sense. I’ve also gotten past mourning my immortality and am probably better prepared than most for my death, and the death of my loved ones. In fact, I no longer dwell on death at all (except of course to share these experiences!).

And that’s why you owe it to yourself to push a little further – to think outside the box that religion has put you in. You are seeking a melding of comfort, happiness, truth and freedom.

Is today the day you finally allow yourself to think the unthinkable?

For my part, I am rarely anti-theistic. Generally, as long as you don’t try to impose your beliefs on me – or the government (e.g. educational system) – I think your religion is none of my business.

And then something like the attack on Hemant Mehta – the Friendly Atheist – happens (how militant can a guy who calls himself “friendly” be?).

Links: here , here , and here.

When the religious attack good people like Hemant – try to get him FIRED from his job for beliefs that are never brought up in his MATH class (it’d be pretty difficult to talk about atheism while discussing algebra), it pisses us off.

So, now I’m mad. A lot of atheists are mad. Hemant’s unfortunate experience has reminded us that we must be vigilant to protect our rights. We must band together. We must speak out against religious wing-nuts.

Congratulations to the Illinois Family Institute for getting more of us atheists up in arms.

Almost as soon as we sat down, my daughter (11 years) mentioned how someone in the family thinks they saw a ghost at the side of her bed. My response was an immediate and confident, “there’s no such thing as ghosts”.

It was a that point where my other half took a friendly jab at the fact that I “don’t believe in anything”.

“Not true”, I said. “I believe in a lot of things. I just need to see convincing evidence before I proclaim belief”.

Something about that really clicked with my daughter who immediately went into a litany of things she didn’t believe or that didn’t make sense to her. Guess what sorts of things don’t sit well with her?

- the idea that there’s an invisible man up there that created everything.

- the creation of a woman from a man’s rib.

- how Adam and Eve could have populated the entire earth.

- Noah’s Ark.

The subject of god and my beliefs hasn’t come up with my daughter since I became an atheist. In other words, I didn’t put these thoughts in her head. Truth be known, I was a bit worried about how she’d react to knowing my thoughts on religion because she spent five years in a Catholic school (it’s a long story) before I became an atheist.

But, the conversation was exactly as I’d always hoped it would be – spontaneously initiated by her, at an age where she could formulate reasoned questions and answers. She was SO inquisitive and thoughtful. I also got the feeling she was really appreciative of the alternative viewpoint I had. I think she may have felt previously that her doubts about those things had no audience.

After she talked about what she didn’t believe, she asked how I thought the world was created. I was very excited to share what little I know about The Big Bang! Then, she surprised me even further by asking if we “came from apes”. “Wow! What a great day”, I thought, and proceeded to give her a quick run down on the theory of evolution.

She SOAKED it up …we connected in a way we never had before.

While all this was going on, my son (7 years) was going into great detail about how he was going to grow up to be a scientist and prove that zombies really do exist. I may have to work on that one a bit more!

I call bullshit.

1. Someone needs to explain how god’s morality can be so hopelessly confusing as to lead to thousands of religions – some of which are in such vehement opposition to one another other (e.g. Islam vs. Christianity). If god’s morality is objective, you’d think it would be easy for religions to agree on what is right, and what is wrong.
2. Specifically with regard to Christianity, someone needs to explain why there are so many strains of that faith. How is it that a Catholic’s moral code can be so different from a Protestant’s? Why are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Baptists so different from every other faith? Also, why are each of these varieties of faith so adamant that their particular brand of Christian morality is the superior one (in answering this question, Christians need to be reminded that each competing sect bases its claim on an interpretation of the same book)? Why isn’t the objective morality of the Bible easier to reconcile within Christian denominations?
3. With respect to modern/moderate Christian thinking, why has your religion’s moral code changed so drastically over the centuries and decades? Why was it perfectly acceptable to own a slave a couple of years ago and not today? Why was it ok to severely punish (i.e. beat and/or stone to death) wives and children for their disobedience then, but not now? How can objective morality be claimed when it has, in fact, changed over the generations? Is it possible that your Christian morality is already evolving in the same manner you seem to fear it will if god were to be taken out of the equation?

Objective morality that comes down from the heavens seems pretty far from being true. From my perspective, it actually provides evidence that much of what we call morality is subject to change. Further thought on the three questions asked above leads me to think that so-called god-based objective morality is, in fact, relative morality created out of a combination of:

1. What culture you live in.
2. What religion you grow up in.
3. What point in history you are alive in.

Those three points can be wrapped up nicely into one bullet:

• There is no evidence for god-based objective morality. Rather, evidence seems to point to a high probability that religious moral codes are shaped by us.

Just how morality is developed is a much (much MUCH!) bigger topic for discussion.