CFI Canada Launches New Campaign

The Centre for Inquiry Canada‘s Extraordinary Claims Campaign will feature bus ads, educational events and online discussions to challenge well-known and widely believed claims by demanding evidence as extraordinary as the claims themselves.

Why is belief in Bigfoot dismissed as delusional while belief in Allah and Christ is respected and revered? All of these claims are equally extraordinary and demand critical examination.
At CFI Canada we challenge ideas and ask tough questions to promote reason, science, secularism and freedom of inquiry.
Pending adequate financial support from individuals like yourself, we intend to run the two ads featured on this page on public transit:

Join or Donate to the Extraordinary Claims Campaign!

Contact us at

Recap of Atheist Ads in Ottawa

By Julie Breeze (Director, Humanist Association of Ottawa)

The Humanist Association of Ottawa has been working to bring ads to Ottawa buses saying: THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE.

We are part of an international movement which began in Britain last June. A woman named Ariane Sherine went to a website advertised on a London bus and read that non-Christians will“spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels.”

Disgusted, she decided to counter with an ad of her own. She teamed up with Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and the British Humanist Association, and set the goal of raising £5500 (about $10,000 Canadian) for their own counter-ads. Dawkins pledged to match all donations up to £5500. They settled on the slogan THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE. “Ours is a fun and light-hearted message,” said Sherine, “but it does have a serious point to it: that atheists want a secular country. We want a secular school (system) and a secular government.”

In spite of there being no plan or funding for soliciting donations, the money flooded in. The original fundraising target was met within twenty-four hours. Today the total raised in Britain is in excess of £140,000, which is being used to put bus ads in twenty cities across the nation.

The idea is spreading rapidly around the world. At the time of writing, groups of Freethinkers have placed ads in Canada, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and the USA. Groups are working on ads in Germany, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, and Croatia.

Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal accepted and ran the atheist ads. Halifax’s Metro Transit initially rejected the PROBABLY NO GOD ads on the basis that they were offensive, though they said they would reconsider Humanist Canada’s YOU CAN BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD if they “toned down the message” (!)  Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna BC, and London, ON do not accept religious advertising on their buses, and so rejected atheist advertising also.

Halifax transit officials announced they will be forced to reconsider their decision once the Supreme Court hands down a verdict in a pending related case. The Canadian Federation of Students and BC Teachers’ Federation are currently appealing BC TransLink’s decision not to allow their political advertising on Vancouver public transit on the grounds that this violates their right to freedom of expression. Given that BC TransLink is a public rather than a private company, and is thus obliged to follow public standards concerning freedom of speech, their success seems likely, and is expected to have a great impact on other Canadian cities’ decisions of whether to allow atheist bus ads.
In Genoa, Italy, the Catholic Church forced atheists to change their slogan from The bad news is that God doesn’t exist. The good news is that we don’t need him to The good news is that there are millions of atheists in Italy. The best news is that they believe in freedom of expression.

In Australia not only was the  “probably no god” message refused, but even Celebrate reason: Sleep in on Sunday mornings and Atheism – Celebrate reason were turned down by the largest outdoor ad company in the country.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation in the United States came up with very creative ads, including


The atheist bus ads have become such a household word that the United Church of Canada has started running their own ad.


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

People have opened their wallets to the campaign because they feel it gives a public voice to their point of view, in a way never seen before. It gives them a sense of solidarity with other atheists. They derive satisfaction from giving confidence to other nonbelievers and doubters who may feel bound by a need to appease religious family and friends.

The Humanist Association of Ottawa teamed up with the Freethought Association of Canada and to put Sherine’s ads on Ottawa buses. We were told that the Transit Committee had rejected our ads, but Pattision, the company which places advertising on the buses, offered us a discounted rate on roadside billboard ads instead. We thought about the billboards but decided to stick with our original application, since
OC Transpo had previously approved a number of Christian ads for the buses and we saw no reason why we should not receive equal treatment.

The HAO Board met on February 17th. Realizing that City councilor Alex Cullen, the Chair of the Transit Committee, had decided to ask the reason for OC Transpo’s rejection of our ads at a Transit Committee meeting the following day, it became clear through discussion that we should go to City Hall right before the meeting to make our opinion known.

The HAO put out a press release that night to every English-language media outlet in the Ottawa area. We contacted as many members as we could reach at the last minute. Seanna Watson (HAO President) spent most of the night making T shirts saying “Why not in Ottawa?” with our ad slogan. We didn’t think we’d be allowed to carry signs in City Hall, but we were pretty sure clothing was permitted (or even required).

In spite of the short notice, four of us were able to make it the next morning. We stood somewhat nervously in front of the door to the meeting room, not sure what would happen. There had been no time to apply for a permit or ask about rules. We didn’t know if we were allowed to be there, if we would be asked to leave, or if we were even at risk of being arrested.

And then the first cameraman showed up. We put blue tape over our mouths and waited. He came up and began photographing us. Then more people arrived. One asked us tentatively “Would you speak to us?”

I have never been too free with identifying myself as an atheist, for fear of the silent discrimination in our society. People almost never ask my religion, and if they do ask what they really want to know is whether I am part of their own particular denomination. I tell them I’m a Humanist.

That day we were surrounded by microphones, still cameras, and TV cameras. Everybody wanted to know our names and why we were there. It was just like a movie scene of a media scrum. I felt like after a lifetime of keeping my toes dry I was suddenly standing on the edge of the high diving board.

I took a deep breath and jumped in.

That day we were all over the news. I heard we were on CBC radio at noon, even before the vote had been taken at the meeting. We were on the television news, the radio, and in every one of the five daily English and French newspapers in the Ottawa area. The publicity was phenomenal!

Once the reporters had had the chance to interview and photograph us to their hearts’ content, we learned that we were allowed to attend the Transit Committee meeting. Alex Cullen even came over and told showed us the form we should fill out if we wished to have up to five minutes to address the Committee.

It took most of the day to get to the bus ad issue, with the journalists coming up to us periodically to take more photos or ask more questions. When the matter came up, Alain Mercier, the Manager of OC Transpo, waffled around a bit, ultimately giving several reasons for his staff’s decision to reject the ads. He said that the policy stated that religious advertising was unacceptable unless it advertised a specific event, with a date and time listed. (Nothing wrong with that policy, except that OC Transpo had previously accepted ads from the Anglican Church, the Pentecostal Church, and Bus Stop Bible Studies, none of which listed specific events, times, and places.) He said that they felt that our ad could be offensive to Transit riders, and that they had wanted to avoid controversy. Oops.

David Burton (another HAO director) addressed the Transit Committee, making a wonderful case for why we should be allowed to run the ads. Then another member of the public, Teresa Milligan, took a turn to speak. She stated that atheists should never be allowed to run ads, since the Stalinist Soviet Union was atheistic and they had committed
terrible atrocities, killing millions of people. Atheists are therefore dangerous people who should not be allowed to air their views.

When I heard that I knew that we could never let these ideas go unchallenged. Even though I had not planned to speak, and had not prepared any remarks, I quickly grabbed a “Request to Speak” form and scribbled in the required information as fast as I could before Milligan finished her five minutes of speaking time. A man appeared and took the form from my hand, and I was called to the microphone. I explained to the committee that Humanists never advocate or participate in violence of any kind, and that far more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than in the name of Atheism. I cited the bombing of the World Trade Centre as one such example. One of the Guiding Principles of Humanism is that we advocate the peaceful resolution of conflicts. (I later discovered that Stalin’s evil was in fact committed in the name of Communism
rather than Atheism.)

The six councilors present at the meeting discussed the ads for a while prior to the vote on overturning the ban, with Cullen calling the ads censorship and a denial of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of freedom of speech. Councilor Marianne Wilkinson stated that she found the ad offensive to her as a Christian.  ‘It grates on me,’ she whined. They voted 3-3, not enough to overturn the ban, so Cullen said that he would bring the matter to a full City Council meeting on March 11.


This time we had a chance to be much better prepared. Seanna added a back to the T-shirts which listed all 15 cities around the world where atheist bus ads were already running, along the lines of a rock concert tour, with Ottawa? at the bottom. We got together two dozen people from as far away as Bowmanville for a protest at the start of the meeting on March 11, and had lots more press coverage. There was a group of children who had been bussed in from a Christian school to protest our ads.

A new member of HAO, Paul LeClair, had written a song about the bus ads titled “Freedom of Expression”. He played it for the press, and then went outside to serenade the Christian schoolchildren with it.

At the meeting we learned that Alex Cullen had asked the City’s legal team to analyze the City’s chances of upholding their ban of our ads should we decide to take the matter to court. They released a six-page document giving all the reasons and precedents why the City hadn’t a hope of winning any such lawsuit. The City lawyer estimated the cost to the city of such a battle at about $10,000 – 20,000.

Marianne Wilkinson and her cronies on the council had another try at banning the ads, wanting to rewrite the city’s policy so as to exclude them. They had no particular plan of how they could word such a policy, given the legal opinion that it couldn’t be done, but their move would at least postpone the ads’ debut. Mayor Larry O’Brien spoke about the inter-faith council which he chairs, and said that everybody on the council felt that the ads should be allowed to run. In spite of this, he later voted to uphold the ban.

Alain Mercier was on the hot seat again, and was forced to admit that had he known that the ban would never stand up to a court challenge he would not have suggested it in the first place. At this point there were about fifteen of us sitting together in the public seats. Even though the public is not allowed to speak at full city council meetings, we were quite noticeable in our white T shirts, and the councilors were clearly aware of our presence, referring to us several times during the debate. At one point Cullen mentioned that the city “hadn’t a prayer” of winning a legal challenge, and the councilor beside him
gestured towards us chuckling in the audience, commenting “They got it!”

Whether due to personal convictions that it was the right thing to do, or from distaste at the idea of  wasting city money on an unwinnable legal battle, the Council voted 13-7 in favour of running our ads. The ads have been running on Ottawa buses since 7 April.

You can read more about the worldwide atheist bus campaign in the Summer edition of HumanistPerspectives, expected to be published in June.

Jesus, A Brief Look at the Evidence.

There may be some evidence claiming a Jesus existed and if he actually did exist, he most definitely isn’t the one that you’re probably thinking about. So let us go over the sources for the life of Jesus and see what we can come up with.

We will start with the Roman’s. They were meticulous for keeping records and in fact there are hundreds of surviving documents from the 1st century. Documents from historians, philosophers, religious thinkers, public officials, poets, and even private persons have been discovered all from the 1st century. How many of these sources made reference to Jesus? Zero. There were no birth records, no correspondences, no literary discussions, no personal reflections, nothing at all that mentioned a Jesus in any way at any time… you’d think there would be something, especially after the way Mel Gibson portrays Jesus in “Passion of the Christ”.

Finally at 112 C.E. Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus made mention of Jesus. He was concerned about the prosecution of Christians and mentioned that they were in a range of social classes and that they worshiped Jesus as a god, there was no reference to the life and teachings of him  or anything else.

The second, from a Roman historian named Suetonius who only mentions “Chrestus” aka “good one” once and this was a few years after Pliny. He made mention of riots among Jews in Rome during the reign of Claudius from 41-54 C.E.

The Third Roman reference was by Tacitus at 115 C.E. He mentions that emperor Nero blamed the Christians for fires he started and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius but does not mention how Jesus lived, his teachings, etc.

There are no roman sources within the first 100 years after the supposed life and death of Jesus and finally the records that do show up are 79+ years after when some believe Jesus died. What evidence is there that he is anything like the Christians and other religions believe he is?

Based on Christian sources outside of the New Testament gospels, the apostle Paul mentions eight things about Jesus, the earliest letter is from 50 C.E. What Paul has said was that he was a Jew and born of a woman (Gal 4:4), that he ministered among Jews (Rom 15:7), had brothers (1Cor 9:5), last supper (1 Cor 11:23-25), possible betrayal (1 Cor 11:23 “handed over”), was crucified (1 Cor 2:2), and also had 12 disciples (1Cor 15:5). On top of that Paul hardly provides any information about Jesus teachings and in fact only mentions three things Jesus said. What Paul mentioned were the words of the last supper, that Jesus was against divorce, and a cryptic message that might mean people should pay their preacher. The rest is left to interpretation.

There are the New Testament non-Pauline letters of the four gospels but they cannot be used literally and they do not provide historians with an accurate synopsis of the life of Jesus. The New Testament gospels were written 35-75 years after Jesus and were not written by Jesus earliest followers. All four gospels are anonymous as well… meaning that no body actually knows who wrote them, also meaning that a Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t actually written by a Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John despite what most common-day church goers probably believe.  The four gospels are also inconsistent with each other and it is agreed among scholars that perspectives of each book have been affected and influenced by the writers own bias. Since written there have also been some additions added to the books that were not by the original authors.

The book of Mathew was most likely written between 85-95 C.E, contains a unique birth narriative, adds to Mark’s passion narrative, and portrays Jesus as the new Moses. Mark was written between 70-75 C.E. and doesn’t contain any birth narrative nor any resurrection stories, he is portrayed in full human nature (has human emotions such as fear, anger, etc). Luke was approximately written around 85-95C.E. with a unique birth narrative, Jesus is portrayed as showing little or no emotions (remember book of Mark says he is more emotional), does not suffer during ‘the passion’. The gospel according to John was written aprox. 90-120 C.E., Jesus is portrayed as being in complete control, gives long speeches throughout (how could anyone remember the exact words ppl said so long after?) and the book of John also adds unique material that none of the other gospels share.

These sources provide almost no historical information about Jesus because the authors have interpreted Jesus’ life rather than reported it. There are also contradictions which make it very hard to determine anything conclusive when evidence is not in agreement. Contradictions include Mark claiming Jesus attempted to keep his identity a secret but John mentions Jesus making his identity very public, Mark says Jesus told parables so people would not understand while Matthew says it was so they would understand, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus empty the Temple at the end of his ministry while John has him do so to begin his ministry.

There is virtually no actual evidence of miracles, dying and rising again, and all of the fairy tale superstition that many Christians and other religious folk believe. There is only theological interpretation and that cannot be used to reconstruct a biography of Jesus.

There is also alleged events that are shared between Jesus and another Egyptian mythological character named Horus. Such events include same ages of baptism, same fate of baptizers, same activities such as walking on water, cast out demons, healed sick, also died and resurrected. For a full range of comparisons click here.

Last year there was also an ancient tablet discovered that further adds fuel to fire the debate that the Jesus story was actually Jewish tradition. The tablet discovered speaks of a messiah called Simon who will rise from the dead after three days. Full story here.

So in sum, was there a Jesus? Maybe. Was he anything like modern mainstream Christian religions presuppose him to be? Definitely not, and most scholars will agree to that.

Happy Easter everybody.


– Bronner, Ethan. “The New York Times Log In.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 6 July 2008. 11 Apr. 2009 <>.

– Michael, Tony. “Life of Jesus.” Christianity in Context – Life of Jesus Lecture. York University, Toronto. 22 Sept. 2008.

-Robinson, B.A. “Jesus’ and Horus’ life events, etc.” by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 25 Apr. 2004. 11 Apr. 2009 <>.

– Weaver, Mary Jo, and David Brakke. Introduction to Christianity. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2008.

Creationist Conservative MP Laughed at by Scientists

To date 2009 has proven to be a bitter-sweet year. It was and is to be a year of ‘change’ as proclaimed President Obama, the first black President of the United States. It is the International Year of Astronomy to celebrate 400 years of science since Galileo and also the 200th birthday of Darwin. This year is also supposed to be a year of reform, a year where we shed our old ways of faulty banking methods that have led to a global economic recession, invest our future in environmentally friendly and sustainable industries, and learn, grow, and reform from our mistakes in the past.

But without even touching the global economic troubles, some people around the world have managed to screw things up even more than they already are. The United Nations has further damaged freedom of speech and human rights by passing anti-blasphemy resolutions (this will surely cause/continue the numerous deaths and lifetime jail sentences within Islamic states for anyone speaking/acting against Islam as interpreted by the state), Afghanistan has legalized marital rape after Canadians, Americans, Britons, and other countries around the world have invested billions into restoring and creating a democratic and free Afghanistan and have taken on hundreds of casualties, a few weeks ago Gary Goodyear, MP and Minster of Science and Technology has shown Canada that he doesn’t understand evolution, doesn’t know how it works, is probably a creationist, and doesn’t even support science. And now ‘Dr.’ James Lunney, Conservative MP has embarrassed Canadians in defence of creationism.

Recently he addressed parliament and said:

Jesus Rides a Raptor

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

If it wasn’t bad enough that Canada became the laughing stalk of the world after Prime Minister Harper missed the G20 photo shoot with world leaders, all saying he was in the washroom and missed it (this made world news headlines I might add), now the scientific world is laughing at us. PZ Meyers, a biologist and associate Professor at University of Minnesota wrote on his blog “Of course, none of those other countries are entirely exempt from having dumbasses pontificating on science, so we can still occasionally take a cheap, desperate shot at some furrin’ loon.”

Larry Moran, Professor at the Department of Biochemistry at University of Toronto has responded by calling Lunney “a genuine kook” who has “made a fool of himself”. And rightfully so because clearly Lunney hasn’t a clue about evolution.

Thanks to PZ Meyers for posting resources to respond to some of Lunney’s errors about plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos, and polystratic fossils.

I’d like to add that even if Darwin rose from the grave and told us all that he no longer supported evolution and wanted to scrap his books, it wouldn’t matter because the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution continues to grow daily. Darwin’s idea gave way for future evolutionary research and understanding but had he not thought of it, we would have discovered evolutionary process without him.. he was merely the first one to hypothesize it. It’s no different then Sir Isaac Newton discovering gravity, had he not ever lived then someone else eventually would have discovered it. So the creationist argument that we need Darwin is faulty.

I also want to add that we did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans both share a common ancestor.

Finally, I prepared this little clip to show why creationism (called intelligent design in this clip) keeps failing. Please watch and enjoy. :) P.S. Lunney, political suicide?


More readings about this topic here:

Darwin would think again, Lunney tells House of Commons –
James Lunney v. Evolution –
Not so smug now, are you, Canada? –
James Lunney: Creationist, Chiropractor, Conservative – Sandwalk Blog
I’m a Believer – Ottawa Citizen


If you want to discuss evolution and creationism please take it to our forums at We have a special category just for evolution. Thanks.

Campaign Update

Dundas Square
Mock-up image of Atheist Bus Ad at Dundas Square - Toronto

Hey everyone, here is an update on where we’re at with the Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign, what’s coming up, and some news about a Calgary counter advert campaign.

Ottawa Atheist Bus Ads:

We’ve signed a contract and our production artwork has been submitted, the ads are scheduled to be posted on April 6th. There will be 24 King Size bus ads (the big ones on the sides of buses).

Next Step in Advertising:

We have a little bit of money left to advertise with, those who have any suggestions on the best way to spend it please post in the comments. I personally would like to either advertise quotes on the interiors of buses and subways or put a poster up on Dundas Square as seen in the mock-up picture I created to the right. Dundas Square has always seen religious groups advertising through word-of-mouth and fliers and just yesterday I saw a group attempting to convert passerby’ers to Islam. Maybe it’s time to spread a little bit of atheist love.

I also wanted to propose an idea similar to that of which the bus stop bible studies is already doing. During the CFI Ontario Annual General Meeting I proposed that we should be advertising educational quotes sponsored by donors. We would have a list of proposed quotes to advertise and donors would send us money for the advertisement and we’d handle the production and posting. We would also give the donor a choice to have his or her name listed on the advertisement as the sponsor. If you want to share your suggestions about this idea, please comment below.

Allah vs. God, What’s the Difference?

Allah by definition means God.

I’ve received at least a dozen emails asking why we are apparently picking on Christians with our advertisement (we aren’t picking on Christians btw), they would like us to advertise a message that opposes the Muslim and Islamic religion. So to anyone reading this and wondering why we don’t say ‘Allah’, here is the answer. Allah means God. Taken from, “The word “Allah” is the perfect description of the “One God” of monotheism for Jews, Christians and Muslims“. From, “–noun Islam. the Supreme Being; God“. When we mention ‘God’ we are referring to all monotheistic and polytheistic gods of every religion. That’s probably why Imam Syed B. Soharwardy, a Muslim, has recently used $12,000 of credit with his own personal credit card to purchase and produce 8 advertisements for the sides of Calgary’s city transit buses.

God Exists ads that began in Calgary on March 16th/09

Imam Syed Soharwardy Buys $12,000 of Ad Space With Personal Credit.

In Calgary a group titled “God Exists” has started advertising a message that says “God cares for everyone…. even those who say he doesn’t exist”. The ads were paid for by Imam Soharwardy with his own personal credit card.

According to CBC, Soharwardy has said “The message they are saying is that believing in God creates worries, that it takes away joy from people’s life, which is wrong. It is not true,” and that “Believing in God brings strength, especially in this economic crisis when millions of people face losing their jobs.”

To add a little bit of my own commentary as a response, I would say that believing in god ‘takes strength’ rather than ‘brings strength’ because it is always harder to believe in something/someone that doesn’t exist. And rather than clasping our hands in prayer during this time of economic crisis, we should be lending eachother a helping hand and doing what we can to help our follow man/woman out.

Soharwardy has it wrong when he said that beliving in god doesn’t create worries. I’ll share with you a personal anecdote from my childhood when my friend and I went to see a church play. When I was 11 years old and at the time a Pentecostal Christian, the church I attended allowed a travelling Christian show to perform. The title of the performance was “Heaven’s Gates and Hells Flames”. The play was about various people of Christian faith and non believers- it showcased the last minutes of their lives. After each person died they appeared at the gates of heaven. Those who believed in the Christian God and Jesus were permitted to enter heaven and those who weren’t were dragged into hell after a group of demons and ‘Lucifer’ appeared. There was loud music, demonic voices, and sound effects used that were accompanied by lighting and fog machines to try and amplify the experience of hell. After my friend watched this, he told my family that he ‘gave his heart to Jesus twice’ just to be safe because he was so scared that he would go to hell. Looking back at this I feel great sadness for any child that is subjected to such mental torture and abuse. The fact is that religion does bring fear and worry into many peoples lives and so Sohwardy is wrong. I can’t imagine why anyone would want God to exist after reading the bible or the Qur’an (visit to see what I’m talking about).

Listen Up TV Viewers, Welcome

To all of you that learned of our campaign through Listen Up TV and decided to check out our website, welcome to the Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign! To everyone else that hasn’t a clue what I’m talking about, Listen Up TV is a television program exploring news and current affairs from a Christian worldview. Today they aired a show about us on Global TV that can also be viewed on their website.

There are a few things I wanted to address that Lorna Dueck (Listen Up TV Host) mentioned during the show but first please take note that their broadcast is fairly slanted towards a Christian perspective and doesn’t really give a fair and equal opportunity for both Atheist and Christian viewpoints. Justin and myself spent 15-20 minutes each in-front of a camera with ListenUp but unfortunately our parts were edited and cut to a small 2-3 minutes. The show in total lasted 23 minutes 25 seconds. Despite our parts being cut short, I am grateful that they gave us an opportunity to speak with them.

During Answering Atheism Lorna spoke with David Harrison and later Dave Schmelzer, both about their religious experiences and how they went from Atheist to Christian. The two discussions revolved around experience and reason. Experience is referenced as their encounter with prayer and crying out to or asking a supposed god for help and guidance. According to them, ‘god’ responded.  A website called god Is Imaginary lists 50 proofs that god is not real and the first proof is simply asking people to try praying, I encourage you to read through it for yourself and possibly test out the first proof. Try asking God why he never heals amputees and then take a look at Dave S. and David H. both prayed and coincidentally had some sort of result that could be explained away without a divinity.

Response to LUT’s The Wrap which discusses ‘3 Reasons/Tests to Believe in God’

Response to Listen Up TV's "The Wrap"
Response to Listen Up TV's "The Wrap"

First Test according to Lorna: “the test of reason – everything has to have a starting point, it’s the law of thermodynamics. All matter has a beginning, and if it began, it has to have a cause. Science and theology relate to that. The test of reason for belief in God is not afraid to explain origin, irreducible complexity, and cause

There are three laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is that energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes form. For example: the energy used during the combustion phase of a four-stroke engine is not lost, it simply is changes form. A large portion of that energy is turned into heat, kinetic energy, and some turned into sound, but none of that energy is ever lost- it simply changes form. The second law simplified states: “It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one”( The third law implies that it is impossible to cool down a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.
Apparently this is the test of reason to find God. It somehow implies a beginning and an end, doesn’t sound like it to me though.

But lets give Lorna a break, let’s suppose that everything has a beginning and an end, after all she is taking Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) five argument for the existence of God and compressing it into a dozen words. Aquinas basically argued that everything is the result of a cause before it, for example a billiard ball is moved by a cue, you move the cue, and there is a chain of movements before that leads up to that movement, or, every action is a reaction from an action before it. Aquinas believed that there was a first mover, something that originally set motion to the chain of events in our universe. He calls this first mover God. Unfortunately for Aquinas and other Christians that follow this school of thought, no one could ever prove how the first mover related to Christian theology or any theology. In other words, ‘so what’ if there was a first mover because there is nothing to imply that the first mover was the Christian god or a god of any other religion. For all we know the first mover could have been a bunch of fairies moving things, or the first mover could have moved the universe and then dropped dead. There is no evidence at all to support a first mover as the Christian god, and if there was a first movement, there’s no evidence to support it was any god of any type.

As for irreducible complexity.. that argument was debunked and disproved years ago. Michael J. Behe couldn’t ever get the scientific community to support his argument about the eye, flagellum, and mousetrap all being a complex system that would fail if one part was removed. In sum, Behe said that these complex systems would fail if a single part was removed, the removed part would render the systems useless and unable to have evolved from earlier simpler systems. His theory was largely debunked during the Kitzmiller v. Dover case when Intelligent Design was ruled out of Dover county school system.  Watch Dr. Kenneth Miller debunk irreducible complexity on YouTube here.

Second Test according to Lorna: “Test of experience, we know we experience an innate sense of right and wrong, a sense of universal moral law. Why is love the highest law of this moral code? Where does that experience originate from?

The answer is in the words evolution and empathy and I highly recommend you read this four page PDF on “The Evolution of Empathy” from Berkley University. In this document Frans B. M. de Waal shows us how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted  propensity for feelings of emotions of others.

Third Test according to Lorna: “Take the test of practice. Is belief in God and what that requires, something a person can actually consistently live with? People do practice christian doctrines in error, that explains past religious wars […] but when Christian truth is applied correctly, does it past the test of practice. Can you live with it, day in and day out. In a way that brings you joy, peace, and improves who you are?

Is practice of Christianity really what we want? has created a great YouTube video titled “The Bible Is Repulsive“, it explains how according to the Bible we should be stoned and put to death if we work on the Sabbath day, that non-believing towns and inhabitants should be destroyed, and a few other shocking details about the bible that most Christians don’t know about simply because they haven’t read the bible all the way through. is also a great resource to show all the horrible parts in the bible that are often overlooked. Belief in God is something we can consistently live without and there’s a popular saying that that “[…]good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg Nobel Prize in Physics (thanks to Galen for the comment giving me the correct quote).

Quick Update About Ottawa + Video

We are working closely with the advertising agency that manages OC Transpo’s ad space. Within the next couple of days our contract should be finalized. If all goes well, Ottawa will be seeing our pretty pink, red, and orange banners next week.

Below is a video that discusses the dispute with Ottawa City Council, OC Transpo, and our advertisement disapproval and then approval. The interview is with David Burton, the Director of Humanist Association of Ottawa.

The song below is at the end of the video above. It is by Paul LeClair and was created as part of the protest against the OC Transpo’s attempt to censor our ad. To listen to the full version please visit his website.

Freethought and Free Speech Prevail in Ottawa

25 supporters of freethought and free speech turned out to the morning protest before the council meeting, and about 12 were in the chambers later in the afternoon when the vote took place. The protesters, representing the Humanist Assocation of Ottawa and the Freethought Association of Canada all had matching T-shirts, with the bus ad on the front, and on the back was a list of cities where atheist bus ads have run, with the heading “Atheist bus world tour”.

City Councilor Alex Cullen (also chair of the Transit Committee) spoke eloquently and passionately in defense of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, citing the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. Cullen emphasized that the right to freedom of speech must also apply to people with whom we disagree.

Councilor Marianne Wilkinson repeated her opposition to the ads, saying that she found them offensive to her Christian faith. She also re-iterated her comment that the ads were only rejected because they did not meet the previously stated policies and guidelines, saying that the FAC had been informed of this, but we had refused to comply. (The guidelines state that religious ads are only permitted if they refer to a specific event, and include time and location information; however, there are numerous examples of religious ads that do not meet this requirement – see

One councilor took exception to the light-hearted spirit of our ad, likening it to a youthful prank (rather odd, since the assembled group of atheists sported more than a few gray hairs among the bunch of us). Mayor Larry O’Brien almost seemed about to vote in favour of allowing the ads, saying that it had been a topic of discussion at the Ottawa Inter-faith Council (which O’Brien chairs), and that “to a soul” all the faith leaders were in support of the ads, many even considering that there would be a positive effect of increased dialogue and attention to religious ideas. However, in the end, he said that he felt bound to uphold the city’s policies and therefore would vote against allowing the ads.

It is interesting to note that several councilors were willing to spend $10-20k of taxpayers’ money to fight a legal battle that the city solicitor said they would be almost sure to lose.

In the end, the rollcall vote had us nervously counting on our fingers, but the decision was in our favour, 13 to 7.

Proposed Talk and Discussion Based Television Show

[poll id=”4″]

Today I was talking to Justin about an idea that has been floating around for over a year now with the Freethought Association of Canada. We are curious about the response and support we might receive if we were to create a discussion based talk show about secular, atheist, humanist, and other related issues. Is there a market for such a thing? Would people care to watch it? There’s obviously a lot of religious programming on TV, is it time for the rise of non-religious shows that take a secular, atheist, and humanist standpoint on the issues in our world today? These are questions we’re working on but we’d like to hear back from you, our fellow atheist bus supporters and critics.

So what do you think? Please use the comment section below or sign up and post on our forum at We would most likely start a show through web-based broadcasting by utilizing online tools such as YouTube.  Right now we are figuring out the technical aspects, such as whether we would want to purchase our own equipment, rent it, or pay a freelancer to produce and film. I think the best thing to do would be to rent equipment for our first broadcast just to see how it plays out and whether anyone else is interested in watching. So please share your comments, thoughts, and ideas about this!