Psychic LTE Published [Times Leader]

http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/letters/MAIL_BAG__ensp_LETTERS_FROM_READERS_04-28-2010.html

I’m not against people who present psychic services with the very clear purpose of entertainment.

I’m not against parents who want help to find their children.

I’m not against people who seek psychic services and who understand that the services aren’t “real.”

What I am against, though, is people who say that they have supernatural powers and don’t offer their services as entertainment. Self-proclaimed psychics offer false hope and can exploit people who often are in very desperate need of assurance, are very afraid and are desperate to find missing persons.

Pauline Bailey, a resident of Pittston, recently contacted psychic Carla Baron with sincere hopes of finding her missing daughter. According to Baron’s website, phone sessions range from $155 to $310. I’m not sure whether the Pittston resident was charged for the services of Baron, but there is little doubt that other individuals have been charged.

There is no compelling evidence that people have supernatural powers. If psychics such as Baron do have powers, they should submit themselves to experimental testing and prove their abilities. Until this is done, everyone should be very skeptical.

I have challenged Baron to a test of her psychic abilities and also have referred her to James Randi’s “The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.” As of this writing, she has not responded to my message.

Faith Essay

Recently, I spoke about Alvin Plantinga's definition of faith and various other definitions of faith given by theists in my philosophy essay. I'll post it here with some modifications.

I explore...

Is faith sufficient grounds for belief?

Does the Holy Spirit imbue believers with faith?

Do the claims of Christianity require evidence?

Faith, according to Plantinga, is the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit that is not a product of evidence, rationality, or argument. According to Plantinga, a person with faith accepts the basic beliefs of the Christian doctrine (virgin birth, Apostle's Creed, etc).

Faith is often used in several different ways:

• belief in God's promises and scriptures being true (a trust)
• belief on little or no evidence
• belief in any "higher power"
• belief coupled with reason, evidence, and rationality

Individual theists may have differing ideas about faith that don't match Plantinga's definition. Plantinga would say that a Muslim's faith is not the same as a Christian's faith although a Muslim may claim "correct faith." Plantinga describes this knowledge as a tube of sorts placed by God inside of our heads.

I disagree with Plantinga's definition because faith in a religious/supernatural sense can be had by any sort of person who believes in the supernatural. I'm not going to deny belief in belief or the idea that people do believe, but will deny the idea that the Holy Spirit exists and that the Christian faith is real.

Apologists, believers, and theologians of all stripes proclaim that faith is a good reason to believe when they say things like, "God can't be proven, that's why it's called faith" or "I don't have evidence, but I believe regardless." The curious "God won't reveal himself because he wants our faith to be tested" is a common response. After numerous personal correspondences, debates, and arguments with theists, I've never heard one person using faith in the sense that Plantinga uses it.

Many atheists like Dan Barker and myself agree that faith is intellectual bankruptcy, a cop-out, and an admission that your claim can't hold its own ground. I don't need to have faith in gravity, evolution, or thermodynamics because I can discuss these ideas while appealing to evidence.

Christianity needs evidence for its claims because it makes very specific claims about the nature of reality and many of its claims tread on our knowledge of the natural world. There is no convincing reason to suggest that the Christian faith is imbued within us and that the central claims of Christianity are true.

If Plantinga wants to assert that the Holy Spirit gave us faith, he needs to establish an argument for the existence of the Holy Spirit and how he knows faith is within us. Why can't someone say "Allah put something in us so we can believe in the literal truth of the Koran, but this is not based on argument, evidence, or reason?" Claims that can be asserted with evidence, like Christopher Hitchens likes to say, can be dismissed without evidence. If we're to allow the Christian Holy Spirit, why not allow any other religious claim?

We need very good reason to suggest that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit actually exist and are triune. We need a good reason for how we know this and how we know it is true.

Free Will God Style - Video and Arguments

------

Here's a wonderful three-part video showing how God's way of free will works.

Via NonStampCollector...his videos are amazing!

-----

Arguments:

Some theists try to use free will as a solution to the problem of evil, but this doesn't work. Natural Evil in a world created by a supposed all-loving being shows that an all-loving being is impossible. An all-loving being would never create a universe that includes natural evil.

If you see someone being raped, should you just watch and say things like "I don't want to stop it because it would take away free will?" Is the free will of the rapist more important than the person being raped? Would you say, "I don't want to reveal myself because people have to fix things on their own? Would you say, "It's just part of a larger plan or everything happens for a reason?" If you or anyone else is any decent person who has the immediate ability to alleviate suffering without risking your life, you career, or financial stability, you should do it.

With or without God free will is limited. We can't control many things in life such as the actions of others we don't know and haven't met, the weather, unlucky situations, gravity, etc. If God did make the universe, he chose for us not to control weather, but apparently made people with the ability to rape others...and cares about everyone's free will so much that the free will of the abused is apparently more important or even equal (?) to that of the rapist. God, if he exists, did not let humans eventually fly unaided, did not allow for us to have more than two arms, made us with the need of sleeping, etc. Why not just remove the desire to rape from the picture?

A God like who just sits back and watches, if he exists, seems more like a deistic god than anything who doesn't care about human affairs and just let things go their own way. If God really cares about human affairs, he'd have done a better job. Christianity, though, says that God made the universe with us in mind and cares about what we do.

-----

Addressing "Evil is a consequence of Free Will"

Even if evil is "needed," natural disasters, viruses, toxoplasma gondii, miscarriages/birth defects, genetic disorders, AIDS, "nature red in tooth and claw," and many other non-human-controlled evils make no sense in the light of an all-loving god. He certainly can't be all-loving if he made natural disasters and things out of our control.

-----

Addressing "If God intervened, it would take away free will"

God appeared to many people in the NT and OT whether it was Jesus or God. People, according to the Bible, saw Jesus perform miracles. Did these people lose free will?

God didn't need to intervene in the Haitian earthquake. He simply could have created an earthquake-free universe /natural disaster-free universe.

In removing natural evil, free will is not challenged. We would still have to deal with other humans, our own emotions, and everything else...but wouldn't be picked off by stuff outside of our control from nature.

-------

Addressing "But Heaven makes up for the evil in this world"

If there is an afterlife and death here seemingly doesn't matter/this life is transitory, does this make life some sort of cruel game or joke where God simply hides, doesn't plainly reveal himself, watches all of the evil, and does nothing about evil? What about all of the pain and suffering that others must face when we die, what about us losing loved ones, etc... The afterlife, in this sense, greatly cheapens life because this next life is transitory and this one pales in comparison with the next. I suppose the real game begins in Heaven where there is no evil (apparently, then, there is no free will).

------

Addressing "Evil makes the human experience complete and allows us to reflect, understand ourselves, etc"

How do deadly earthquakes, tsunamis, and AIDS help us “fully understand ourselves?” Without these, we'd probably be able to live longer, appreciate more people, and almost certainly have a better life experience overall.

Maddow: Overview of Priestly Abuse

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's some great reporting on the sexual scandals within the Catholic Church.

Psychic LTE Published [Citizens Voice]

Original Link is here:

http://citizensvoice.com/opinion/letters/psychics-good-for-entertainment-but-not-for-serious-matters-1.740314

I'm not against people who present psychic services with the very clear purpose of entertainment.

I'm not against parents who want to find help to find their children.

I'm not against people who seek psychic services who understand that the services aren't "real."

What I am against, though, is people who say that they have supernatural powers and don't offer their services as entertainment. Self-proclaimed psychics offer false hope and exploit people who often are in very desperate need of assurance, are very afraid, and are desperate to find missing persons.

Pauline Bailey, a resident of Pittston, recently contacted psychic Carla Baron with sincere hopes of finding her missing daughter. According to Clara Baron's Web site, phone sessions range from $155 to $310. I'm not sure whether or not the Pittston resident was charged for the services of Baron, but there is no doubt that countless other individuals have been charged.

There is no compelling evidence that any people have supernatural powers whatsoever. If psychics like Clara really do have powers, they should submit themselves to experimental testing and prove their abilities. Until this is done, everyone should not accept her claims and be very skeptical of her abilities.

I have publicly challenged Clara to a test of her psychic abilities and have also referred to James Randi's one million dollar supernatural challenge. She has not responded to my message and has blocked me on Facebook. What is she hiding?

Justin Vacula

NEPA Freethought Society

Third Year King's College Student

South Park Death Threats

In a recent episode of South Park, Mohammad was pictured wearing a bear suit.

A major premise of the episode is that Mohammad is immune to being offended and can't be shown, so everyone decides that Mohammad can't be shown. In order to avoid showing Mohammad, he is placed in a bear suit in the back of a U-Haul truck. Later in the episode, Mohammad is "shown"wearing the bear suit.

You can watch the most recent episode here. There is, of course, much more to it and many other plots. This is easily one of the best South Park episodes.

In an interview, Matt and Trey said that they won't back down from their decision and would be hypocrites if they would offend Christians and not Muslims.

"We'd be so hypocritical against our own thoughts if we said ok, well, let's not make fun of them because they'll hurt us." Here is the interview:

After all of this, a Muslim website threatened the creators of South Park with death.

Muslims are saying the following:

May Allah kill Matt Stone and Trey Parker and burn them in Hell for all eternity. They insult our prophets Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses...

"May Allah destroy these filthy kuffar."

"Perhaps only when the angel of death comes to them, then they will learn."

Of course not all Muslims advocate this action, but this is a very clear case of freedom of speech being threatened and religion leading to horrid actions. Tune in this Wednesday for the next episode of South Park!

Slippery Slopes and Gay Marriage

When discussing gay marriage, people like Mike Huckabee often introduce fallacious slippery slope arguments:

...well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?

Arguments like these don't deal with the issue at hand (gay marriage) and are merely red herring arguments. Imagine if you and I were to discuss playing Chess in a library and you said, "If we allow people to play Chess in the library, we'll have to go ahead and accomodate those who play Strip Poker and Naked Twister." As you can see, I don't address the question of whether Chess should be played, but rather invoke a slippery slope and bring up red herring arguments.

Here are some other slippery slopes:

Why should King's College teach students about the Nazi viewpoint about the Holocaust? Before you know it, they'll have classes recruiting neo Nazis and promoting white supremacy.

Why should we allow for the experimentation of stem cells? What will stop us from killing living people and using their cells too!

The same fallacy is exhibited in "If we allow gay marriage, where do we draw the line about incest, pedophilia, etc." Saying that "If we accommodate gays...we'll have to accommodate drug users is another fallacious argument. Not even really addressing the issue of gay marriage and bringing up incest and drug use is a red herring.

First, to clear up some confusion, gay marriage is simply the marriage of two people of the same gender. This entails nothing about sex, children, or anything.

There is confusion about "strongly advocating" and permitting something to happen.

We don't "strongly advocate" homosexuality when we allow for gays to marry. There's a difference between permitting something and strongly advocating a behavior. The only behavior, in this case, is the ability to marry...and that's not really a behavior. If we enact a law that says wine can be sold on Sunday in supermarkets, are we strongly advocating the purchase of wine by consumers? No, we are simply allowing it. If we allow people to have assisted suicide are we strongly adovating behavior? There are many laws in effect that are simply laws and don't advocate behavior.

Let's have an analogy here...if gay marriage is passed, only homosexuals (for the most part?) will marry. Many people who are otherwise married in heterosexual marriages, are straight and don't want to marry, or not married at all simply won't marry.

If Pennsylvania enacted a law that allows people to catch fish with bare hands out of the Susquehanna River, are we strongly advocating the behavior of catching fish with your bare hands? Those who would like to do so will, but many people simply aren't interested in catching fish with bare hands.

We can have a psychological or philosophical argument about whether or not laws strongly encourage behaviors, but from a legal standpoint, laws aren't made to encourage behaviors. Laws are made to tell you the consequences of actions, permit for actions, and set standards. Sure, if I give a child 50 cents to put in a gumball machine, I may be encouraging the behavior, but it's up to the child whether or not he/she wants to spend the money.

It doesn't really matter what people think of behaviors in regards to the law. We can't have a tyranny of the majority and the nation doesn't bow down to what people consider weird...and it's almost certainly subjective. I consider long fingernails on males, droopy pants, and gangster rap weird, but laws aren't going to pass because of this.

Here are some more slippery slope fallacies:

If we allow residence life to inspect our dorms once a month, they'll eventually search every week! If we allow them to search once a week, they'll search three times a week! If they can search so often, they'll install cameras in our rooms! Ergo, residence life inspecting dorms once a month leads to cameras being installed in our rooms.

If we allow gay marriage, we'll have to reconsider our viewpoints on family members marrying! If we re-define marriage to allow for relatives to marry, we'll then have to allow people to marry pets. If we then allow people to marry pets, we'll then have to allow people to fuck horses. Ergo, gay marriage leads to legalization of horse-fucking.

Both arguments are fallacious.

Creationism/Intelligent Design in Science Classes

Recent discussions from a FOX News story regarding the terminology of the Christian creation story as a myth have sparked a great deal of debate in the atheist community here, here, and here.

Fox News doesn't give the facts and the entire quote in context...the exact usage of the word "myth" in the science textbook is here:

In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for "equal time" for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the "equal-time" bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, here is the applicable definition of myth:

A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.

These two definitions fit well with the context in which myth is being used. The third defintion, though, is clearly not the form of myth being used:

A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

Even if we were to allow the third definition to be applicable, it is fair to say that the belief about Adam and Eve is widespread and untrue. There is a great misconception amongst Americans about this garden of Eden story and even close to 50% believe that God created everything in its present form less than 10,000 years ago!

This science textbook is clearly not anti-religion by any means. The word myth is not used in an offensive or denigrating manner. I suppose we can return to the debate of "is someone being offended," "is it okay to discuss ideas even though the discusser does not have the intent to offend," etc, but I'm not wholly interested. The textbook has no intent to offend and is just recounting evolution and the law.

Saying "I'm offended" in many cases is almost certainly entirely subjective and varies from person to person.

I could claim that I'm offended by people who chew gum and have long fingernails.

I could say that I'm offended by gangster rap.

I could say that I'm offended by Christianity and the Bible.

...but does this give me warrant to ban books, stop behaviors, and make the world bow to me and change the way people act because I say so even though I have no legitimate legal complaint?

"I'm offended" may be a valid complaint if people are racist, sexist, or personally attacking you...but people often say that they're offended by people who critique IDEAS, not people. I hear this complaint quite often from theists who tell me that I'm offending people. I make it very clear that it's okay to critique any idea and that we should do so in a fair manner. I'm not going out attacking people...I'm attacking ideas. I understand that people may hold ideas dearly, but you have to step back sometimes and accept constructive criticism for your the benefit own healthy thinking and perhaps your life.

I'm personally fine with calling the creation story a myth. What's so bad about that? Theologians and many honest religious people will call the creation story a myth. The usage in the textbook does not belittle religion, present an anti-religion viewpoint, or really say anything about religion at all. The section in question discusses results from court rulings and legal documents.

A science textbook I used in my Natural Science course, Just a Theory, used Creationism and Intelligent Design as pristine models for pseudoscience (as they are).

Science teachers and people who represent science should repudiate pseudoscience and give the information what science has to say. In public schools, the situation may get difficult, but here's a simple example of some discussions that students may have with teachers:

Student: My religion tells me that Adam and Eve were the first humans and God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago.

Teacher: Well, science shows us that the universe is much older than 10,000 years old. This is confirmed through the fossil record, geology, radioactive dating, and many other sources. Evolution shows us that humans are the product of a very long process. We have very good evidence supporting the idea that humans arose in Africa about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago and are now what we are. Vestigial organs, molecular genetics, and the fossil record, among other sources confirm evolution. I reccomend that you read Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, visit TalkOrigins.org, and do some research on these matters.

What teachers should NOT do, though, is say things like,

• Evolution is "just a theory"...and not explain what theory means in a scientific framework. *
• Here's what science says, but if you're a creationist, I'm not telling you to listen to what science has to say. **
• Just like the Bible, evolution shows us how humans are humans. ***

The main goal, I believe, of a science teacher, is for students to be inspired by science as a way of life, investigating claims, and being very excited about learning about life. My middle school education, as far as I can remember, was just facts remembered and regurgitated on tests. I didn't really learn much about the methodology of science applied to everyday life and why science is so important. My enthusiasm about science was blossomed when I became an atheist and wanted to learn about evolution. I read Jerry's Coyne's wonderful book and was astonished and convinced. I then went on to read Carl Sagan's thrilling Demon Haunted World (that really ought to be used in EVERY science class that is age-appropriate).

* The word "theory," in an everyday sense, is thought to simply be a guess. Anti-evolutionists often say that evolution is "just a theory," but don't realize that a theory, in a scientific sense, is a framework for explaining how something works.

** We need to end the nonsense of "believe what you want to believe" and replace it with, "Don't believe what I say, don't believe what anyone says...but here are my points, arguments, and reasons for taking my stance. Go out and do the research, listen to what others have to say, and make an educated decision."

*** Evolution is not equal to the claims of the creation story. Presenting it as such greatly weakens the case for evolution and presents your decision as an equal choice.

Should we "teach the controversy?" As I mentioned, science teachers should use creationism/ID as a model for pseudoscience like Ben Ari does. Here's what philosopher A.C. Grayling has to say:

Limiting Expenditures and Living Comfortably

NOTE: This is still a post in progress. I only spent about 30 minutes on this one....I need to add items and more explanations.

I’ve been thinking a great deal about moral obligations and money. This post will be the first of a series of posts dealing with money and ethics.

What ethical responsibilities, if any, do we have regarding spending money? If we have an excess amount of money, are we morally obligated to give this money to charities of our choices if we can comfortably afford to? Shall we spend money on unneeded items? How much money is permissible to spend on unneeded items?

I don’t think that we should be paupers in the extreme sense or give ALL of our extra money to charitable causes and people in need. Live comfortably, be entertained, build capital, and give to charitable causes without exhausting yourself in any of the fours areas mentioned.

After reading Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save, I started to really think about my money, how I spend it, and what I can do to maximize my capital, minimize spending, and continue to live a good life.

Some of us have a great deal of excess money (money in addition to what we need, at a minimum, to pay our needed bills, survive, and buy basic foodstuffs) and choose to spend it on items that we don’t really need such as fancy shoes, expensive bathingsuits, cologne, bottled water (!), take-out food, fast food, etc.

What is the minimum we need to spend in order to live comfortably?
To live comfortably, I’d propose that we need deodorant, inexpensive clothing, shelter, bedding items, toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, soap, running water (for showering/bathing and to drink), basic non-expensive food (shop at a discount grocery store or get food in an inexpensive fashion. After this, people need to pay taxes (unless you don’t work), pay for car insurance, gas, and car maintenance (unless you don’t drive and own a car), pay monthly bills for internet, cell phone, television, etc (this perhaps aren’t needed and you might not pay for all three…but I’ll discuss that later), and pay tuition for school/student loans (you may not attend school). It’s very possible that I left stuff out, of course. If you’re a parent or caretaker, you need to provide for children in your care……

It’s very easy for us to devise a minimum budget where “unneeded spending” is put to a minimum. We don’t need to buy bottled drinks, fast-food, expensive food, dine out, have that expensive cell phone, text, have unlimited minutes, etc. We don’t need to go to concerts, go drinking, etc. At a minimum, we can pay our living expenses, have little to no entertainment that costs anything, start giving to charitable organizations, and build capital.

Although I sought to spend money only for “living,” I realized that this was personally impossible, but I was able to really think about what I spend and spent a minimum amount of money on entertainment and non-needed items.

Here are some expenditures we can really cut that make a tremendous difference:

Bottled Water/Drinks
I think that bottled water is a tremendous waste of money that adds up very quickly. An average bottle of water is approx. $1.25. Other bottled drinks may be more expensive ranging from $1.50 to $3-4. If you’re home, there is no need to buy bottled water…just get it out of your sink. If you still would like to drink something other than water, buy no-name brand two or three liter bottles of soda. Personally, I think tea bags are a very cheap alternative to drinks. I can make cold or hot tea with tea bags and they are very cheap. I buy about 100 tea bags for about $1.50.

Drinks/Coffee that you don’t make
Buying drinks that you don’t make can also be very expensive. Coffee or tea made at home is few pennies, but coffee or tea typically ranges from $1.25 to $4-$5.

Drinks you order when you eat out
This is almost certainly one of my biggest pet peeves. Every time I do go to a restaurant, I order water from the fountain/tap. Why spend $1.50+ when I can get a drink for free? What’s even worse is when people order bottled water when they are eating-in. Get free water and drink it. If you’re not going to stay in the restaurant and to-go containers are available, get water.

Take-Out Food, Dining Out
Take-out food and dining out can be very costly. I purchase take-out food one day a week and spend less than seven dollars on Chinese food. Some people may order Domino’s, Chinese, go to Sheetz, dine at a restaurant, and spend close to 70 dollars or more a week! Imagine that you spend fifteen dollars on pizza, twenty on Chinese, buy three coffees (~5 dollars), dine out for a total of thirty dollars, and finally purchase drinks in all situations totaling ten more dollars…you spent eighty dollars in one week on top of normal food expenses! This could have been avoided very easily.

A minimum food plan, I think is spending forty dollars a month on basic food. I spend about fifty a month on take-out, fast food, and dining out (though this number is not always the same…I want to reduce it, too.) I’ve been doing this for about three months and have been satisfied. You can go to a local non-expensive food store and purchase bagels and cream cheese for breakfast, ramen noodles for lunch and/or dinner, cheap frozen items like pot pies and burritos, hot dogs and bread (not buns), and rice.

Alcohol
Many like it, sure, but it’s not needed. You can, of course, spend money on alcohol, but limit it if you want to save money. Drink water and tea.

Expensive Food
It’s very easy to buy brand name items, expensive meats, expensive cereal, etc. Avoid this and buy inexpensive food.

Cell Phone Bills
As much as I hate cell phones, I finally caved in and purchased one. I was fine with a home phone for a while, but I arrived at many situations where I needed to talk to people when I wasn’t home to coordinate rides, find people, chat in between classes, etc. Do you really need internet, texting, unlimited minutes, and other items on your cell phone bill though? I have a minimum family plan with one other person and we both spend about $40 a month for 700 shared minutes. I suppose family plans with unlimited minutes, texting, etc can really be cheap if you have many people on the plan..and that may be the way to go. Cut the costs of cell phone bills.

Internet Bills
Purchasing the minimum high-speed plan is a good idea, but you don’t need the ultra-fast connection.

Candy
This can be very expensive. A great deal of money can be spent on candy, gum, mints, etc.

Here are some “unneeded items” that I feel are justified in spending money on:
Minimum cell phone bills
Internet services

Books
Ah, the joy of learning! Inexpensive books can offer you a wealth of information, entertain you, and help you re-think life. Reading is a great thing.

Subscriptions
Cheap subscriptions to magazines, good online services, and other things can be cheap and very worthwhile.

Inexpensive Vacations/Conventions/Trips
You need to take a break once in a while. Spend minimum money when doing so and have fun!

Television
Basic cable can be a good thing, but I’m not a TV watcher. I get almost all of my news online and watch some TV shows online (Colbert Report, The Daily Show, South Park, and The Atheist Experience).

Video Games/Movies/DVDs/Music
Entertainment is good, but don’t go overboard. It’s very easy to purchase many DVDs, CDs, movie tickets, or games, but try to limit yourself.

When looking at all of the money you can spend in a month or a week, it’s very surprising and scary. My conclusion is that we can save a great deal of money and build capital while still having fun, spending “extra money,” giving to charity, and living a comfortable life.

A great threat to spending minimal amounts of money is conveinance... it gets the best of us.

In my next blog post I’ll discuss the ethical obligations we have regarding money involving charity. A big focus of my next post will be individuals and organizations that have a great deal of extra money but don’t spend it. I will argue, particularly, that the Vatican and rich individuals have ethical obligations to donate money to charitable causes to help others.

National Day of Prayer **Unconstitutional**

The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) recently won a case declaring that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional! In the spirit of the FFRF's glorious victory, I, hopefully with the help of the ACLU, wish to challenge the state of Pennsylvania and also abolish their day of prayer. If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional for our nation, the day of prayer in Pennsylvania ought to also be unconstitutional. I'll keep everyone updated about this situation!

It is DECLARED that 36 U.S.C. § 119 violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[Local] Woman Enlists Help of Psychic + I Challenge Her to a Public Test

Psychic asked to assist search

TV star gives reading to woman; her daughter vanished in 2004.

By Jen Marckini jmarckini@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

The mother of a Lake Township woman who vanished six years ago is seeking insight from an internationally renowned psychic.

Bailey, of Pittston, is now hoping to find answers through Carla Baron, a psychic profiler from Los Angeles who stars as a lead psychic detective on truTV’s reality series “Haunting Evidence.” Baron provided Bailey a reading Tuesday night.Pauline Bailey’s daughter, Phylicia Thomas, was 22 years old when she disappeared from her home while her boyfriend was asleep on the bone-chilling night of Feb. 11, 2004.

Baron, originally from Lock Haven, has been working on the case since Thomas’ disappearance. Baron provided what she called a clairvoyant insight on the young woman’s killer.

“I see him kneeling down in the stream,” Baron told Bailey during a three-way phone interview with The Times Leader. “He’s crying – maybe from the release of it all. He didn’t realize what went on until that very moment.”

Baron said she saw Thomas’ killer, a man close to her, blank out. Rocks were placed on top of Thomas, who was battered from a fight with her killer, whose livelihood is selling drugs.

“The rage was so intense he had an emotional blackout from the rage,” Baron said.

Investigators should focus their search in the same area of Hunlock Creek where they found the skeletal remains of Thomas’ friend, Jennifer Barziloski, Baron said.

Barziloski was reported missing shortly after she was last seen outside C Majors Sports Bar, Main Street, Edwardsville, on June 23, 2001.

Two cadaver dogs from the New York State Police led the way through dense woods in Hunlock Township on Tuesday just days after Barziloski’s skull was found.

Both souls are somehow intertwined together, Baron said, and they were disposed of in the same way.

No one has been charged in the death or the disappearances, but police knew both women had a connection to Steve Martin, 32, of Sweet Valley. Authorities had called him a person of interest in the disappearances. He and Phylicia Thomas’ boyfriend were best friends.

Martin hanged himself on Aug. 11, 2005, in the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, where he was serving time in connection with a fatal crash.

“I’m just overwhelmed by all of this,” Bailey said after her reading. “It just seems like forever.”

-----

The local newspaper, the Times Leader, featured this article today. I'm reposting it here because the article will be archived and not open for viewing.

Anyway, this case is a prime example of people not thinking critically and enlisting the help of super-naturalists in desperate situations. First, to get it out of the way and perhaps dismiss the obvious, psychics are frauds. They present no good evidence to back up their claims, have not submitted themselves to rigorous testing, etc. There's no good reason to believe that people have some sort of supernatural channeling powers.

Upon typing this "psychic's" name on Google, I found her website which offers "private phone readings." A thirty minute phone session is $155, a 45 minute session is $225, and an hour phone session is $310.

I easily found that this "psychic" has a Facebook page that she updates and sent her this message:

"Hello, I saw that you were featured in a local newspaper article that was posted on your Facebook page and the Times Leader.

I am a skeptic and atheist activist in NEPA who is a member of the NEPA Freethought Society.

I understand that you are internationally renowned and have a great fan base and acclaim. You should, as a service to others, demonstrate that your psychic abilities are valid so we know that you are truthful and sincere. I'll admit, I'm very skeptical of you and anyone else who claims supernatural abilities because I've seen no good evidence to suggest the supernatural.

James Randi of the JREF has a one million dollar challenge to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural abilities. So far no one has passed this test. You should take the test, "win," and donate one million dollars to a charity of your choice if you really do have powers.

If you don't like Randi, I would be more than happy, as a member of my organization to procure a test of your psychic abilities. If you would like to accept this test, we can work together to form the test, specify the conditions, and host this event in public.

You should have nothing to hide and should be willing to prove your abilities.

I hope to hear from you soon!

- Justin Vacula

Consider The Best Objections!

It's very easy to argue any point by refuting strawmans, simple claims, and simply ignoring or not addressing the best arguments.

Everyone who holds dearly to any position should consider the most thoughtful, well-constructed, and challenging objections and stances that individuals from the opposing side hold. It's easy to take a hard stance and not really engage the best arguments from your opposition, but we shouldn't do this. There is tremendous virtue in understanding the arguments from the other side: why they are made, who is making them, and what evidence backs the argument. We can strengthen our convictions by understanding the opposition and dealing with the toughest arguments. We might even change our position if the arguments are very good.

If you're going to argue abortion, for example, and you are pro-life, you should listen to pro-choice arguments and really think about the claims being made. You should also ask yourself why you hold your position, be able to dictate it to others, and provide justification for your ideas.

Personally, I really enjoy chatting with people who hold views that are contrary to mine to learn about new arguments, better develop my arguments, and gain some insight. I believe that everyone should have this positive attitude and really think critically. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many. People are just happy to believe whatever they believe as a matter of policy no matter what objections are made.

I had a very refreshing conversation today with a moderate theist, but unfortunatly ran out of time. I'm very happy to listen to what he has to say and have future conversations. I also meet with priests, ministers, and theists to discuss what they believe and discuss my views. It's a very good thing.

This isn't gloating, as a person has claimed, but rather a call to critical thinking and good argumentation. It's very necessary. What good are our beliefs and views if we don't meet good objections and chat with people who differ?

The "People Will Believe What They Want" objection

This is a follow-up to my Open-Mindedness Post

Theists often levy the following objection to arguing religion, "No matter what you say, people are going to believe what they want to believe. Regardless of science, evidence, or anything else, people aren't going to change their minds." Some extend this to "Whatever you say, I won't change my mind" or "I don't care what science says, I'm not going to change my mind." What, other than this, could more accurately demonstrate closed-mindedness?

"No matter what you say, I won't change my mind" is a horrible position to take. If extraordinary evidence is presented to challenge your position, you should consider it, start independent research via reading books and listening to debates, perform a thorough investigation, really think about the issues, and make a choice based on good reason. If, for example, very good arguments for God's existence were presented or God revealed himself to everyone in an indisputable fashion, I'd change my mind...or at least really consider the objections.

Would you accept this argument or levy it in non-religious situations?

"I will believe that [the earth is flat, drinking Lysol is good for my health, Germany is located in Canada, the planet Saturn doesn't exist] no matter what you say! No, this position is untenable. Pro-life individuals have told me on numerous occasions that "I believe a life is a life from conception no matter what science says!" This position is not only intellectually dishonest, but simply false. Cells that are not fully human beings are not human life. Potential life is not life. Etc, etc, etc.

If science shows that life is not life until the third trimester and backs this statement with good and hard evidence, we should accept the idea. If science shows that the earth is older than 6000 years old and backs this with hard evidence, we should also accept this idea.

Consider objections.

Think about your beliefs.

Be willing to change your mind if the evidence is presented.

Don't be closed to ideas simply because you disagree with them.

Dispelling Misconceptions About My Position

It’s been a while since I last posted on this blog. I wanted to take a break from blogging, reading, researching, and generally “from atheism.” I want to step back and reevaluate my positions and claims here in this blog and elsewhere. I’m certainly not changing my stance regarding materialism, God’s existence, or anything like this (unless good evidence is presented), but I want to make claims that are less totalizing to dispel rumors and misconceptions that people have about my atheism. This post will be very loosely constructed - I just want to put ideas on the table for discussion. I may repeat myself, disgress, and mention larger issues.

Here are some common ideas people have about me that are all false:

I dislike religious people.
My arguments, in almost all cases, are against ideas, not people. I certainly dislike individuals such as Pat Robertson, Mother Teresa, and Jerry Falwell, but this is not because they are religious – this is because they have bad ideas, do bad things almost certainly because of their religious ideas, and hurt humanity. I certainly am in opposition to religion, specifically Catholicism/Christianity, but am not opposed to people simply because of their religious beliefs. It's fair to say that I dislike people, but not exclusively because they are religious. It's perfectly morally acceptable to dislike individuals because of their ideas and for many other reasons. It would be ridiculous to insist that every person likes every person in the world. Again, to make the case quite clear, I dislike religion, not people who are religious. It's certainly possible to dislike religious people who act on their ideas, but this is warranted.

I say that no good comes from religion; it is all bad.
Theists often make this claim to try and combat my “religion is harmful to society” claim. Good certainly does come from religion, but time and time again, I make sure to note that all of the good can [honestly] be had without religion and we won’t have the added negative baggage. I do, though, posit that religion has a net negative impact on society for several reasons documented in previous posts. It’s very easy to understand that because of religion many bad things are happening in the world daily. Simply look at world news on any given day and see the harm and suffering. Religion also infiltrates people in “everyday life” on a personal level putting sanctions and boundaries on many decisions we make without even realizing it.

I think that all religious people think the same.
This claim is ridiculous. It’s very obvious that beliefs – both religious and non-religious – vary from person to person. Some Catholics, professed “religious moderates,” disagree with many “fundamentalist ideas” such as gay marriage, stem cell research, etc and would like to see homosexuals marry and experimentation with cells to better society. At a minimum, though, theists do share many things in common: a personal god created the universe, an element of the supernatural does exist, etc. It’s impossible and unreasonable for me to identify every person who believes subtle differences exist in religion – I try to combat general and specific claims and note that “yes, not everyone does believe this.”

I think that religion is harmful to every individual on a personal level.
I’m aware of many theists who don’t do or say bad things. Some theists are also apathetic or compartmentalize religion in their lives. It’s impossible to evaluate data from person to person and ask, “Hmm? Was THAT bad decision based on your religious ideas?” It’s certainly true, though, that beliefs do inform actions – if you’re pro-life [because of religious reasons], you may be apt to go and protest at abortion clinics or, like the Knights of Columbus, pray the rosary at abortion clinics. Of course not all religious people are pro-life. Of course some atheists are pro-life. Some people may do good things because they are religious…although I would argue that in most cases, they’d be apt to do good if they weren’t religious. A person may say, “I stopped the rapist because my religion tells me to help others,” but I’d think that with or without religion, people would stop rapists. This gets hairier in more complex cases: say, for example, someone attends a church function that specifically helps the homeless. Would the atheist do this? He/she would probably not be presented with this option and simply might not. If the religious person wasn’t presented with this option, he/she probably wouldn’t either. The waters are murky.

I think that atheists are superior to religious people.
I think that in the matter of belief in God and other related beliefs, atheists have, if of the result of good thinking, investigating the issue, and making the conscious choice to not believe in God, made the right decision. I don't think that just because a person is an atheist really means anything. I have expectations that atheists are generally good people, critical thinkers, likable, etc, but this is not the case with every individual who is an atheist. Less can be said about individuals who, dare I say it, are "nominal atheists." I don't want to tread on a No True Scotsman fallacy here at all... but some atheists exist who haven't considered the arguments for and against God, are intellectually lazy, and aren't critical thinkers. These people, of course, are still atheists, but they are very different than atheists who have deeply considered the issues, are public, etc.

All claims require extraordinary evidence!
I don’t hold this position. I strongly believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and perhaps with the following adage, “all beliefs of extraordinary significance that guide life require extraordinary evidence.” A recent counter-example to needing good evidence, justification, etc was posed in my philosophy class and reinforced in an earlier conversation: A person has a terminal illness and believes he/she will survive, but has no good reason to believe this based on evidence. A situation like this, when reason is properly used (I think) would call for a person to believe that he/she will survive in order to possibly extend life. There’s no harm in this, I think, and is beneficial to survival. We don’t, though, need to believe in God to live – we can live just fine without him. Many theists would object, but what really matters here is the question, “Does God actually exist?” not is the belief useful, beneficial, etc. Utility does not make a claim true!

If God doesn't exist, we can and should be fine with this honest conclusion. This differs a great deal from my terminal illness example. “Minor” claims that don’t have a significant impact on life such as “I believe that my teacher will be in his office” can be made on little or no evidence. I can go on and on, but I want you to realize this: not all ideas need significant evidence (or any), but the idea that god exists ought to because it’s based on ideas that aren’t solid and backed with evidence, reason, and argument and is often contrary to what we know about the universe.

You must provide evidence for everything!

This parallels the "do all claims need evidence" claim. Regarding the question of God, theists aren't obligated to explain to everyone who doesn't accept their ideas, but they should have good reasons for their beliefs. If pressed on the issue, theists ought to provide good reasons for their beliefs. How can and should we believe in something if we can't explain why we do? If I were to claim that the Holocaust did not happen, that Thor exists, or that thetans determine our emotions, people would press me on why I believe this before the conversation continued. Why do the rules change with God? Provide evidence for your claim of God's existance if you're discussing the matter, defend your position, and give good reasons.

Concluding...
The bottom line is this: I’m not painting religious people with the same brush and can’t be expected to acknowledge every person’s point of view and accommodate that. I’ll probably get much flak about this post from atheists and theists, but I welcome the discussion. I won’t fully investigate every issue in great detail in this post because I want to keep it relatively short and encourage further discussion.