You keep using that word.

Language. It can be a tricky and finicky thing. It has evolved through centuries much in the same way species evolved through millennia. Being the only species so far which has found a way to communicate with such structure, and refinement, it's simply baffling that there are so many people that misuse so many words to make their claims. Of course language is still evolving, and meanings are subject to the context at the moment. However, there are just some words which are blatantly abused today, especially when it comes to religion. I'm still boggled when people use the word 'nauseous' incorrectly, however, that's not the subject for today. I am going to discuss the meanings behind theists favourite word; faith, and the meaning of burden of proof.

To accomplish this I will have to try to use small words and simple explanations, NOT because I am attempting to offend anyone, but instead to break things down to a basic level which will hopefully clarify what I am attempting to convey. I often listen to other atheists talk about these words, and it simply baffles me how they attempt to educate someone by using words which sometimes requires a dictionary. My belief is if someone has a difficult time understanding something, it's because they don't have a simple baseline to go from. So if you are one of those wordsmiths, or scholars who loves flowery words you are absolutely going to be frustrated with me today!

Let's start with every theists favourite word; Faith!
Well, what is faith? If you speak to a theist you'll often be told that it is a unshakable belief in the supernatural which comes from within. It is spoken of with reverence as if it is a gift which they choose to accept. Faith is comforting, it's personal, it's a connection to their god. Theists live on the word faith to justify their belief.

Now when you look up the definition of faith, you will actually find 2 different meanings.
One is the complete trust in someone or something. Not really a bad thing.
The second one is to believe in a supernatural without evidence, or the belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Two definitions, they look similar, but they are vastly different.
Faith is one of those contextual words. The first definition is dealing with the real, while the second one specifically deals with the supernatural.

The first definition deals with trust. Trust is earned. Trust isn't just thrust upon someone without any evidence to support that total belief. I get asked sometimes by theists "Do you have faith that when you sit in the chair it will not break?". Simple question, and I give a simple answer. It's not faith in the context of belief without evidence, it is belief with evidence because if I've used the chair before and it were sturdy, and didn't give any signs of failing, then I have belief with a past experience which is my evidence. If the chair were a new chair, say in my friends home, I have trust in my friend that they would not be having shoddy furniture in their home for guests to hurt themselves on. Initially I have trust in my friend, and not in the chair. I could even go as far as saying I have evidence based on observation that the chair is sturdy. I know what a chair is supposed to look like, I've sat in many as a matter of fact. This one looks similar to ones I've experienced in the past.

Is it at all possible my trust could be broken if the chair were to fail? Of course! I would lose trust in that chair, but I wouldn't lose trust in chairs forever. That is of course a chance, although a very low chance. Saying I have faith in the second definition is not applicable here.

A correct way to say faith in a non-religious context would be your wishful thinking on a situation. For example, when my boy Peyton Manning was having his worst season statistically in his career in his final season he was benched for several games up until the last game of the season. He was brought in after his replacement was having a very bad game in order to try something to pull off the win. Winning meant home field advantage for my beloved Broncos throughout the playoffs. The coach gambled and brought in a player with 18 years of experience, and many many instances of being able to pull this game out to win. When I say I had faith in Peyton, I'm appealing to his performances in the past which gives me evidence he could do it again. I was not in any way appealing to any form of supernatural forces to appeal to this game. Now of course Peyton pulled it off, and of course he even held it together long enough to see my team with the Superbowl. I have Faith in Peyton Manning!

When it comes to the second definition of faith, this specifically deals with belief without evidence. The last part is very important. Without evidence. In what instance is the submission of ones own senses to believe in that which they cannot verify ever a good thing? Just think about it, if someone believed without evidence in nearly every other part of their lives, they'd be looked at as crazy. People still believe Tupac is alive, they have faith. Do we speak of them regarding the topic in a positive view, or do we say they are crazy? There are people who believe Elvis is somewhere in memphis living out his life peacefully. Good spiritual folk, or bat shit crazy? Imagine if the justice system went off of belief without evidence and not......evidence, how many innocent people would be in prison or death row today? OK, maybe we would've gotten OJ for his wife and thats a positive, how many other lives would be destroyed because of belief without evidence?

Take it slightly more personal. Imagine if your insurance company operated without evidence. They could decide if your claims were valid without ever looking at the evidence. You said your car was damaged because someone hit you, you want your car covered for repairs, but they say they believe you weren't driving properly so it's your fault. How frustrated would you be if they wouldn't look at the police reports, the pictures, nor the statements from the other insurance company? You'd be furious. That's what it's like when you tell an atheist you have faith. You have blatantly claimed you will ignore your own senses, and submit to this belief which you can't possibly ever prove.

Now you've probably heard of the burden of proof. This is where the person making the claim is the one who needs to hand out the evidence. Atheists use this all the time by stating "Where's the evidence?". It is correct to ask this question because there is a claim being made which contradicts the senses. However, this doesn't stop theists from attempting to shift the burden of proof back to an atheist by saying "Where's your proof god doesn't exists?". That's not how the system works unfortunately. The definition needs to be expanded on when it's being quoted. I would argue that the definition isn't just "The person who makes the claim should provide the evidence.". Instead I would say "The person who makes the claim against the default position should provide the evidence! Those 4 little words "against the default position" makes a world of difference.

As an example; a man is on trial for murder, the jury has to listen to evidence, and the jury needs to make a decision. They don't decide between guilty and innocent; they decide between guilty and not guilty. Why is that? The default position for the man on trial by the law is innocent until proven guilty. Every person has that right afforded to them. He is at default innocent before the end of the trial. It is now the prosecutor who has to prove the claim that he is in fact guilty because it counters the default position.

The default position is important to recognize and agreed upon before any form of debate can be had. I've gotten the most ridiculous questions regarding the burden of proof like "Prove to me you exist" or "Prove to me you are not a rapist!". The easy answer is by default if you are in fact interacting with me and I respond then I do exist. It is now on you to actually determine that I don't. The default position is I am innocent of any crimes because I have no record, nor any reason for you to believe so. No one walks around and has a badge saying "I'm not a rapist". The default position is they aren't. It's on you to determine that I am something else because you are the one that brought it to attention with the claim.

The default position is there is no god. No one was born with a god which they knew about early into their lives. Something so grand the way religions make them out to be should be as obvious as the sun. Long before any kind of religion existed, the default position was no acknowledgement of a god. Somewhere, and somehow lunatics or conmen convinced a society that there was one or several by either providing flimsy evidence, flawed logic, or force. I also guess Pascal's wager which appeals to ones sense of "I'll just cover my bases and believe!". It's another submission of the mind that we decided to not follow our actual senses, nor sought evidence like any good intelligent primate.

I will close with this, as an atheist myself, and a person who seeks knowledge, and more accurately, correct knowledge. I don't want to be right, I want to be correct. There is a huge difference. Being right is appealing to my ego regardless of what the actual facts are. Being correct is means I'm simply on the proven side of the argument. I've got one life to live, I have no intention on wasting a second of it on trying to justify my ignorance. Being proven wrong is actually quite a good feeling for me. It means I've grown, and I've gotten better. Even more important is I don't get to look stupid in front of someone simply because I am arguing for something which is incorrect :D

My take on Islam: The legend of Koran

I want to start by prefacing the fact I am talking about Islam, and not Muslims.
It may seem strange to separate the two, but in reality there is a big separation.
It's easy to find posts and news against muslims anywhere. I feel muslim persecution is completely wrong. These are people too. Quite frankly if you live in North America, the odds of you ever meeting an extremist Muslim who lives in here is minuscule at best. Most muslims are peaceful, loving people. They are just like the Xtians who haven't read the whole bible, or if they have, they've simply glossed over the negative parts of it. Muslims tend to ignore all the calls for the death penalty in the Koran.

This is where the problem begins though. The koran itself, much like the bible is a terrible book which has been sold as the word of god. Had these books simply been sold as literature, there wouldn't be much issue. However, that isn't the case.

So the Koran has 109 verses alone on holy war, what calls for it, ways to conduct it, and so on. It has misogyny, rape, pedophilia, and plenty of reasons to kill. Now for the 99.999% of people who read or are taught from the book, these points mostly go ignored. Just ask a Muslim about one of these verses and most likely the response given begins with a stutter, that stutter indicating they are digging for a way to either justify, or to move past this very glaring issue.

The big issue is that 0.0001% of people take the book literally. I know it seems like a really small percentage, but with the population of Islam over 1.5 Billion people, that begins to cause a problem. Estimates by world wide intelligence agencies approximate the number of religious extremists who identify themselves as a part of one of the many extremists sects to be around 200,000 members. 200,000 out of 1.5 Billion. Very, very small percentage. Certainly this is why it's extremely unfair to judge one good, peace loving Muslim for the crimes of such a minority. So what's the issue?

Look at this from another perspective. I have a new cure all pill. It cures cancer, aids, the common cold, you name it. There may be mild side effect, some people may even become slightly bigoted from it, some a little judgmental, others a little preachy about the pill. However, guaranteed, 1 out of every 7500 people who take the pill will become a murderous lunatic who will kill anyone who doesn't conform to their ideals. So, out of 7500, most would be normal, some will be jerks, some become bigots, but only 1 will go on a rampage. On top of that, these people will seek out one another and form a group who's sole purpose is to eradicate anyone not like them. If this pill were real, would it ever see the light of day at your nearest drug store? Would you risk taking such a pill? That pill is the Koran. Most people are fine, some jerks, but 1 in 7500 become extremists.

For sure the bible has it's fair share of these very issues.
The koran, much like the bible, has built these fail safes into itself as to prevent people from asking questions. Just even thinking of it could be considered a sin and cause for punishment. It has even convinced millions of women that they are not the equals of men and should act accordingly. There is even a verse stating if a woman does not succumb to her husbands desire that she will be cursed that night.

At some point the world has to admit that these teachings are dangerous. There is just too much of a risk for someone to become an extremist when you have so many followers. Imagine if the Pope today came out and stated that Xtians should kill gay people, of course a majority of folks would ignore this command, but what of the bottom 1% of the geniuses who will follow word for word? Is it worth the risk?
Now what's the solution? Well, education would be best, but it's going to take a lot of work by the rest of the world to do so.