Blaming the Media and Atheism for Child Rape and Immorality

Sorry for not posting in approximately a week. It's been quite odd being out of classes during this break...I'm usually responding to arguments from theists in my classes on this blog, but I haven't had many recent discussions with theists.

I found a letter to the editor in the Times Leader that I'd like to respond to. Unfortunately, the Times Leader doesn't allow unlimited text, so I'll post my full response here. Catholics often try to deflect attention away from the child rape and torture scandals by claiming that the media is "anti-Catholic" and is treating the church unfairly...so I'll respond to this letter and offer an open challenge to a public debate with the pastor emeritus of Saint Aloysius church in Wilkes-Barre to any of the following topics:

• Is Catholic morality superior to secular morality?
• Can we be moral without God?
• Is the United States of America a nation founded by Christians on Christian principles?
• Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?
• Is the media undermining religion and being unfair to Catholics?
• Did Jesus exist?
• Did Jesus rise from the dead?
• Does the Christian god exist?
• Are the accounts of the New Testament reliable historical sources?

It's quite easy. If the pastor is so sure about his arguments and stances that he posed to his letter to the editor, he should be more than willing to debate me at his church with a public audience. People will surely attend and it's a great chance for him to spread "the word" and prove his points. What does he have to lose with God on his side?

Anyway, here's his letter to the editor and my response point by point:

I am writing to protest the degrading and insulting editorial cartoon published by The Times Leader April 5. It portrays a picture of the pope and someone shouting, “Do something about pedophile priests!” The caricature responds, “Say again?” And the caption is “the deaf boy.”

The timing for such a presentation could not be worse, coming the day after the joyful celebration of Easter. Certainly we all lament and deeply regret the crimes that have been committed by Catholic priests and the suffering by their victims.

Oh, no, degrading and insulting...it's a cartoon that's meant to prove a point and to garner some laughs. What's really degrading and insulting is the Vatican, its treatment of the child rape and torture cases, and the behavior of fundamentalist Christians, not this cartoon.

What do you, reader, think is more degrading: the idea that we should have justice for raped and tortured children and pointing out that the pope isn't listening to the victims and concerned human beings or a cartoon? In the tune of Richard Dawkins' great speech here, what about the idea that a mother and her potential child should die rather than having an abortion that saved the mother? How about Pope Benedict saying that condoms can make AIDS worse? How about the idea that children (and adults) are being taught that they will suffer and burn for all eternity because they think the "wrong things," behave contrary to the church's teachings, or don't accept Jesus? How about the idea that non-Christians are immoral and can have no meaning in their lives or that people treat atheists well because they feel sorry for atheists? ...but no, let's just notice the "insulting" nature of a cartoon.

Children who are raped and tortured by an institution who claims that the "good of the church" is more important than justice and the well-being of children is not something to write off and put to the side. We can't go around complaining that just because we might be offended that people should stop "offending." So what. Everyone can claim to be offended by something. Political humor mocks almost every well-known important individual from Sarah Palin to Obama to Glenn Beck...and they're not crying about it...well, at least Glenn cries.

I think that the cartoon's message is very subtle, perfect, and well-crafted...and not just because I'm an atheist openly against the Catholic church. The deaf boy is obviously referring to Father Murphy who raped the hopes and dreams of boys in a school for the deaf...and the Vatican failed to defrock and/or excommunicate him. The current pope, in his position as a Cardinal, ought to have done something about this...and certainly could have done something recently. The pope really isn't "listening," just as the deaf boys can't. People also certainly can't listen to the cries of the victims who aren't speaking as is beautifully sung in Epica's Cry For the Moon.

The letter writer complains that the timing was horrible on the cartoon...but would be honestly be less grieved or even happy about the cartoon that was "insulting and offensive" if it were published at another time? We ought not declare times where people ought not be offended - and let's face it - all sorts of people can claim offense to all sorts of behaviors, drawings, and even foods. Can I claim offense to gangster rap and have it stopped? May I declare days where people shouldn't criticize me and my organizations? Should I tell Fox News that they better stop critiquing Obama on Memorial Day?

Please bear in mind, though, the fact that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles and the vast majority are faithful to their calling. Please bear in mind also, looking at the whole picture, that the sexual abuse of minors is not confined to the Catholic Church.

You will find the same situation in the history of many other religious dominations, public or private institutions, social agencies, public or private schools, etc. Why is it that the Catholic Church is singled out by the media? In some instances the reports have taken place 30 or 40 years ago. To what purpose?

People aren't claiming that all priests are pedophiles nor are they saying that the sexual abuse of minors is confined to the Catholic church. This pastor is clearly strawmanning arguments from his detractors and trying to prove a case. What people like myself are claiming, though, is that the Catholic Church is not doing enough to crack down on pedophiles, offers half-baked apologies, and should care more about justice and children than the church. Sexual abuse, of course, happens everywhere...but it is a huge concern when it happens in the Catholic Church and almost nothing is done about it.

The letter writer claims that "the same situation" has happened, but I fail to see the "leaders" of any organizations who knew about sexual abuse harboring criminals, exempting them from secular authorities, differing blame to the media, claiming that the documented rape and torture is "petty rumor," covering up crimes, blaming it on homosexuality, transferring criminals to different buildings, etc, etc.

This reporting is being performed because it's important and the media should be disseminating information. If employees of Google were raping little children, would you say something like "why is the media singling out Google?" This blame of the media is ridiculous. The blame should be placed on the Vatican.

It is important, also, to point out that after the scandal broke in our country, the Conference of Bishops through “The Texas Charter” established a zero-tolerance policy, stating that any priest, religious or layperson working for a diocese will be immediately suspended from their position if a complaint is made, and the matter will be immediately referred to the lawful authorities for investigation. If the charges are found to be true, the person is permanently removed from office and is subject to legal punishment. I know of no other religious denomination or group that has taken such a strong stand.

Great...but is this happening? Why isn't the Vatican excommunicating these individuals? Looking at the list of excommunicated individuals, one sees that people are excommunicated for disagreeing with church doctrine, saving the lives of mothers, and being Freemasons. Since so many victims have demonstrated that they've been abused, why don't we see these priests on this list? It's great that Texas may be doing something, but it's not enough. Well, just as theists often say, "God's law is above human law," so why bother? Excommunicate and repudiate nuns who perform abortions, but forget about the rapists.

I believe that it should be the objective of the news media to report the news fairly, objectively and without prejudice. The cartoon I refer to fails to meet any of these criteria. To depict the office of pope or bishop, or any authority figure in another religion, in such a ludicrous fashion contributes to undermining the faith of the people and makes religion in general an unimportant institution in our society. I have to wonder if this is the intended purpose of this cartoon.

Political cartoons, by no means, are intended to be "objective and fair." Political cartoons are meant to poke fun and be unfair - it's satire! Journalists are supposed to be objective and fair, not cartoonists. Depicting people in a ludicrous fashion does not necessarily undermine faith or people...especially in political cartoons - again, it's a point being made. Atheists from around the world depicted Mohammad in various cartoons and this was not meant to provoke people, but rather stand up for free speech. Depicting religion in a negative light also doesn't "make religion in general an unimportant institution in our society" ... depiction does not make it unimportant ... the idea that something is depicted almost certainly shows that it is important. The purpose of this cartoon is clearly to criticize the Catholic Church.

George Washington said, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” It would appear that our modern age never heard the words of the “father of our country,” or, if so, choses to ignore the warning and immorality continues to increase day by day.

Is the letter writer seriously claiming that without religion we continue to become immoral? Morality is not, by any means, exclusive to religious people. People of various faiths or no faiths are moral individuals. It's also awkward to claim that immorality continues to increase...how can we possibly demonstrate this? What I can demonstrate, though as a correlation, is that the least religious nations and areas have fare better in terms of societal health: less religious nations have lower rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions while the most religious nations have higher rates of poverty, income inequality, and dissatisfaction with life.

George Washington, also, was not a Christian by any means. He was a deist (a person who believe in an indiscriminate creator god who is not active in human affairs who embraced religious freedom and recognized that religion can be helpful and consoling for many:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion,pp. 14-15

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also James A Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief

If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
-- George Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman asking him to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

Regardless, it's absurd to claim that the lack of religion causes immorality to increase. Continuing with the letter...

Consider the corruption on the federal, state and local levels of government, as well as in private businesses; the crime rate; the rising number of drug and alcohol addicts; the breakdown of family life, many times due to infidelities; abortion; and same-sex marriages.

Corruption in government and businesses has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of religious faith. It's quite apparent that the majority of people professes religion, specifically some form of Catholicism, and these crimes still occur. I'm quite positive that the people involved in the county corruption probes are religious believers. Consider this...about 75% of Americans profess some sort of religious beliefs. People who run businesses, are politicians, commit crimes, and divorce are representative of the general population....so about 75% of these people are religious. Are you claiming that the lack of religious faith is a contributing factor to this when the people are already religious? When I think of crime and corruption, I think of greed, desperation, taking advantage of the system, poor life conditions, lack of positive peers, and perhaps a bad childhood...not a lack of faith.

Religion can certainly help people cope with problems and avoid crime, but we see that the majority of prisoners are religious (and were before entering prison) and continue to commit crimes in spite of religious devotion. If your idea that the lack of faith leads to crime is correct, we should see non-theists in prisons and on the front page of newspapers eating babies, shooting doctors, etc...but this isn't the case. Where are all the atheist prisoners?

This "breakdown of family life" is a recent myth perpetuated by religionists who assert that the traditional family is a man, a woman, and two children, but this idea is always changing. Many children grow up with one parent, stepparents, grandparents, and not their two birth parents. The "traditional family" was previously not people of mixed races, different religions, different ethnicities, etc. Marriages used to be arranged by parents and females were forced into relationships with people they didn't even know or like. Times are changing...and it's not because of lack of religion.

Learn how the "traditional family values" are Bullshit! from Penn and Teller:

The divorce rate among Christians isn't even pristine. ReligiousTolerance.org even claims that

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing.

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:

"In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."

...so, it turns out that atheists and agnostics are more likely to stay with their partners and not divorce. So much for this idea that lack of faith leads to more divorces.

Pastor, I'd be more than happy to debate you in a public venue. I'm very easy to contact and I'm more than willing to debate. Take this as a challenge.

- Justin Vacula

Co-Organizer, Board Member, and Spokesperson of the NEPA Freethought Society

www.NEPAfreethought.org

Save One Life or Lose Two? Catholics say lose two!

Video Update: This was on The Today Show.

Here's the story in a nutshell.

A woman in a Catholic hospital is 11 weeks pregnant and will die unless she has an abortion.

The nun on staff and the woman decide that an abortion is the logical choice.

The women survives and the abortion takes place.

The nun is excommunicated soon after for the abortion.

Catholic leaders lambast the nun and say that the abortion should not have taken place.

Here were the two options:

A) There is no abortion. The woman dies and the fetus dies.

B) There is an abortion. The woman lives and the fetus dies.

It should be very obvious to any rational person that the obvious choice is B. But no, Catholic leaders and other various individuals would have preferred A and said that the abortion should have never taken place. The decision should be obvious: save one life instead of losing two.

Here are the facts from an NPR article:

According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."

The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die.

The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.

"She consented in the murder of an unborn child," says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

Olmsted dealt with the situation very quickly and excommunicated the nun.

Ehrich also felt that the mother should have died instead of living.

The positions of the Catholic Church are extremely dangerous and ironically often anti-life. Whether or not you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life, this situation should be an obvious case where there should be an abortion because you're saving the life of the mother and the fetus would die regardless. This isn't rocket science.

The nun who was involved with the abortion was a very brave individual in my opinion who acted in opposition to church dogma and saved the life of another human being...but she's being lambasted because of her decision and was excommunicated.

Let's review some despicable words from Catholic News Agency and Catholic.org:

The Catholic Physicians Guild of Phoenix has come out in support of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, who expressed outrage that a nun administrator at a Catholic hospital in his diocese permitted a direct abortion.

"The Guild stands by the church's teaching that is guided by the Holy Spirit in ordering life toward truth and love."

Brophy reaffirmed that "medical treatments are appropriate for the direct purpose of curing a proportionately pathological condition of a pregnant woman, when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable. When an unborn child attains viability, labor may be induced."

"An unborn child is not a disease." "While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means," he said.

Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, told LifeSiteNews.com Monday that he knew of no situations when an abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, and that "given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no" to abortion.

Apparently, "Life, Truth, and Love" is having a woman die when her life can be saved; it's very clear that various individuals would have preferred that the woman should die.

It's nonsense to say that medical treatments are only for curing pathological condition...the woman, according to NPR, was almost guaranteed to die (which Catholic.org conveniently left out) and the medical procedure of an abortion saved her life. Unborn children (or in this case, potential human beings) certainly aren't diseases, but the woman was going to die if the abortion did not take place. It's very sad that they'd prefer that a woman die just to uphold Catholic teachings.

There are various situations (including this one) where abortions are necessary to save mothers, also here and here. Regardless of how frequently situations like this happen, this is one definite case where the mother's life was at risk...this should not be written off as "just" hypertension.

Bishop Olmsted explained that every Catholic institution is obliged to defend human life “at all its stages,” and that Catholic individuals also have this obligation.

“If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action,” the bishop continued. “The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty.”

“We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care; not merely one. The unborn child’s life is just as sacred as the mother’s life, and neither life can be preferred over the other.”

“The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.”

Hmm. So, defend human life at all stages, but don't have the abortion and have the already living mother die and have the fetus also die. Sounds about right...

The bishop sets up a false dichotomy of "one life over another." Nobody proposed that one life was more important than the other. I already discussed the real two options: Have the mother and fetus die or have the fetus die. The issue here is to either save one life or lose two. The bishop also calls the fetus a child, but it is not a child by any means - it's a potential human being. Even if it were a child, the decision should be obvious to save one life instead of losing two.

Imagine that there were a stranded person who was unable to swim and was going to certainly die in a very fast current. No matter what you, the onlooker, could do, the person is going to die. Do you think that you should jump in and also die...or should you live while the non-swimmer dies? My analogy might not be perfect, but it's clear...again, save one life or have two die? The choice is simple...

Questions come to mind....

Why are churches so fast to act regarding abortions, but not fast when addressing child rape and torture by priests within the church?

Why is the church so hypocritical? They always talk about "the dignity of persons" and "fighting for life," but they'd prefer that a mother and a fetus die instead of the mother living and the fetus dying.

The NPR article addresses the "double-standard" of dealing with the priestly abuse cases.

"In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook," Doyle says.

Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.

"Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case," Doyle says.

What do individual Catholics have to say about this?

The world so truly need religous and lay people in its hospitals that will ALWAYS ALWAYS uphold the PRO LIFE teachings of the Church ie Those that wil always protect the vunerable innocent unborn! Now if some religous cant do this when they are put to the test if the pressure is far too much then perhaps these people should not be in such positions at all if they buckle under pressure! One mistake and an innocent vunerable human life aborted is one mistake too many! We were all the unborn once and we are here because some one protected our right to be born. Religous have to be both better prepared and informed re these issues and have to always resolve to hold the pro life line whenever these matters arise! Saving innocent lives is always far far better than ever destroying them!

That so called "nun" needs a serious reprogramming in Catholic Medical Ethics! Now that she has excommunicated herself, she has some serious canonical matters to deal with. A "Religious" who publically defied Church teaching is a source of grave scandal and should not only be removed from her lofty position as CEO of that hospital, but asked to removed herself from that Diocese and go back to her Motherhouse, or her apartment, of wherever those of her ilk "roam the world seeking the ruin of souls ..."

Years of dissent and flaunting of the teaching of the Catholic Church morphed many former Catholics (politicians and sisters) into the functionaries of a leftist, secular party with claims that the Church "allows" abortion. These are the times of diabolical assault.

I am so proud to have Bishop Olmsted as the Bishop of our diocese. He is true to the teachings of the Catholic Church and all he says and does is out of humble love and obviously guided by the Holy Spirit. Thank you Bishop Olmsted for all you do to fully support all life!

This is quite disgusting. I'm quite certain that readers of my blog and others who consider themselves Catholics would make a decision to save one life instead of losing a fetus and a mother. Morality, as I've previously mentioned, is quite tainted by absolutist church teachings May God be less...

More About the Local Psychic Case

Well, I thought that all was over about the local psychic case, but this letter of the editor was featured in today's Times Leader. I previously submitted letters to the editor in order to inform the public about the dangers of psychics and specifically challenged Baron to a public demonstration of her abilities.

Missing woman’s mother clears the air on psychic

I would like to clear up some things about my daughter, Phylicia Thomas. First, psychic Carla Baron has never asked me for a dime. She helped me to bring cadaver dogs, which did make some “hits” on property on Golf Course Road, Sweet Valley. The woman who trained the dogs did not believe that the authorities would listen to me, so she went with me.

My daughter meant everything to her family and friends. Her killer probably is still walking around freely.

We are still looking and will never give up.

Justin Vacula said...

I understand that your daughter is very important to you and that the situation is tragic. You're desperate for answers, want justice, and will seemingly do anything for help. Contacting a psychic is not a viable option by any means. Psychics are frauds and should not be taken seriously. Baron and every other psychic has not demonstrated that they have psychic abilities. Psychics offer false hope and take advantage of people. Why hasn't Baron accepted my challenge to demonstrate her abilities or the James Randi Challenge. She's afraid to do so and is hiding. This demonstrates a great deal of deception, cowardice, and evasion. I hope that you and other rational readers will see the light and agree with me. Psychics who don't offer their services as entertainment are dangerous individuals who take advantage of others and make us credulous. Do some reading...especially Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things." We need skepticism, rationality, and critical thinking.

May 18, 2010 at 1:59 AM

An Open Letter to Pope Benedict, Master of Hypocrisy and False Hope

A parody of

http://catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=36488

In the interest of honesty, I will say up front that I'm not a supporter of yours. I am a man who actively opposes the Church and the teachings you claim as your own, and I am disgusted at your most recent attempt to apologize to raped and tortured children under the guise of Christian love. The religious games you play are bad enough, but your public perversion of justice and the law simply cannot go unanswered.

Your platform gives you an international microphone; your religious authority can lead the ignorant and the gullible to think that you speak with authority on secular matters as well. You do not. In another profession, your errant views might only go as far as your immediate friends and family, but due to your position, your errors and your teachings are spreading like a deadly virus among thousands.

You are misleading people, Pope Benedict, and in my opinion, you take a rather cheeky satisfaction in doing so. I read your remarks from various half-baked apologizes, statements regarding homosexuality, and AIDS in Africa and the nicest way I can say it is: you sure have a lot of nerve.

You told the people of the world who might not agree with your vision of sexuality and personal choice that “gay marriage is insidious and dangerous” as you tried to move past the child rape and torture scandal. Such initiatives, you said "help respond to some of the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today." "Alongside numerous other forms of commitment, such initiatives represent essential elements in the building of the civilization of love," you said. How can you expect to build a civilization of love when you oppose the ability for homosexuals to marry and have the same rights as others?

You and your institution have also failed to report child rape and torture as evidenced by The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse's 2009 report. In your formal position as Cardinal, you decided not to report various crimes, but instead stay quiet and reassign priests for the “good of the church.” Cardinal Sodano has called allegations against the Pope as “petty gossip.” Your “apologies” are continually not focused on the victims, but rather on protecting the church – you seemingly care more about the reputation of the church than for the well-being of children around the world. Why won't you release all of your reports and documents? Why won't you defrock all priests who have betrayed their charge?

You stated with shocking audacity that "forgiveness cannot be a substitute for justice." Your hypocrisy is simply staggering! You see no obligation to recognize the worth of children, your duty to report felonies, and the role of the secular justice system. Instead, your apologies are often evasive and euphemistic. Make a clear statement and turn over the crimes to the proper authorities.

In addition to the scandals within your church, you've made statements concerning AIDS saying that it is, "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." You continue to teach and affirm doctrine against contraception, birth control, safe sex education, and condoms although evidence suggests that these means are effective and worthwhile. Your teachings, apparently, are more important than peoples' health although you and other Catholics proclaim that "We have to respect that dignity and worth of the individual and recognize that the Church has an important role to play in that."

Where was your conviction that we must respect the dignity and worth of the individual when you've hidden crimes by priests within the church, failed to alert authorities about child rape, called homosexuals immoral, and repudiated people who wish to live lives of their own accord in opposition to your teachings? Funny. I never knew that respecting the dignity and worth of the individual entailed called homosexuals depraved and disordered, saying that condoms can make AIDS worse, and making a decision that the reputation of the church is more important then the well-being of children?

Pope Benedict, you can make such a tremendous difference in the world by appealing to the needs of everyone, looking at recent scientific evidence, re-prioritizing issues, and consulting others before making statements. If you're so concerned about lessening suffering in the world, why do you continue to glorify suffering? Speaking to the sick, you've said, "you carry out an important task: living your sufferings in union with Christ crucified and risen, you participate in the mystery of his suffering for the salvation of the world. "Offering our pain to God through Christ," you said, "we can collaborate in the victory of good over evil, because God makes our offering, our act of love, fruitful." You implored the residents not to feel "foreign to the destiny of the world," but to see themselves as "precious pieces of a beautiful mosaic that God, as a great artist, is forming day by day.”

You can easily sell much of the Vatican's wealth, give away your money, and work to greatly diminish poverty in the world. You have not done this and probably never will.

If I had a position of power and a microphone like yours, I'd make a tremendous impact on the world, allow for various great thinkers to speak, consult experts before making statements, and not value my personal beliefs over those of others at the cost of lives like you do.

Are Atheists Bad for Challenging Beliefs and Asking Questions?

Apparently, when you have no good arguments for your god, the next logical alternative is to attack the person who challenges your beliefs, make baseless assertions, and make demeaning statements. Here's one for the Hall of Shame.

From a recent discussion in Facebook....
(Click the image to enlarge it)





I respond....

"If you really think you are so wonderful, why does everyone talk about you behind your back? Why do you have a reputation for being a cocky SOB? I CAN'T GO INTO THE LIBRARY WITHOUT HEARING ABOUT HOW BIG OF A DICK AND A JERK YOU ARE TO PEOPLE."

Well, I can't control what people think and how biased people are. People can read what I have to say on my blog, on my Facebook, have conversations with me face-to-face, etc, but they hardly ever do. Almost every theist I chat with face-to-face walks away not in rage, but in understanding. I'm friends with many theists here and work with theists - we share mutual respect. If you look at my hate mail, you see nothing but personal attacks, misrepresentation of my positions, and nothing but rude comments. Where am I rude to people? Where am I sending hate mail? I just have conversations, challenge beliefs, and critically examine the issues at hand.

If I'm a dick for challenging beliefs, that's not my problem, but the problem of the people who are being challenged. If people can't take criticism and thought provoking discussion of ideas, they might as well just crawl in a cave and just stay there.

I'd like to see one piece of physical evidence attesting to me being a dick to people, sending nasty messages, etc. You ...but I can show you several hate mails from students here at King's College. I hardly, if ever, lose my cool in discussions. I may have been a bit mean once before when people threatened my life, incited violence against me, called for people to attack me, etc, but that's almost certainly warranted and excusable.

A very low amount of actual discussion takes place from the "haters." Just the other day, someone who was pissed with me apologized to me online and I accepted the apology:

"So, I know I've been reading what you have been saying the wrong way, but after talking to one of my professors today, I've came to realize that I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry.

Most of what you post is very interesting to me, as I have a strong love for philosophy. You actually remind me of Socrates actually. Mostly because you seem to tell people what they don't want to hear.

I'd like to hear what you have to say, so if you ever want to get a coffee or something and chat I'm all ears."

If people have a problem, they should could to me, post on my blog, etc, instead of running around misrepresenting me.

-----

" If you believe that there is no proof for God, that's your business, but what we believe is none of your business."

So, do you think that we should stop all philosophy, critical thinking, and halt any societal change? Beliefs are often not private matters...they effect public policy, education, science, and almost everything in the world.

Beliefs certainly do effect me when people want to kill me because I disagree with them.

Beliefs certainly do effect me when I see a tremendous amount of unneeded suffering in the world because of a religious ideology.

Beliefs do effect me when friends are victimized by religious thoughts.

Beliefs effect me when my aunt disowns me because I'm not a Christian.

Beliefs effect society when children are taught not to listen to science and accept what the Bible says instead.

Beliefs effect society when we funnel money into abstinence-only education and forgo safe sex education. The rate of STDs in America is about 800x that in France.

We should challenge beliefs that are seemingly held for no good reason and are harmful. Psychics, for example, prey on the emotions of people who lose children and are very emotionally weak - individuals pay out thousands of dollars to scam artists. We should challenge psychics, call them out, and advocate critical thinking. I recently did this in two letters to the editor in local newspapers, online, and personally in sending a message to the psychic. Am I a bad person for doing this?

If your beliefs are so strong and true, why should me questioning them be so much of a big deal? You should be able to defend your faith as the bible suggests or just not worry about opposition.

If someone challenges what I accept as being true, I don't threaten people, hate people, call for violence, etc. I have critical discussion with the individuals and give my side of the story. I'm not personally threatened or offended by people who disagree with me, nor do I hate people who I disagree with.

----

"What if we don't want to be "helped"? What if we don't want to succumb to your "correct" way of thinking? We are content with what we believe and who we have in our life. That's what matters. "

Great, if you don't want to listen to what I have to say, don't. If you don't want to think about your beliefs and be self-reflective, don't. Don't visit my blog, don't visit my profile, don't respond to my messages, and stop questioning.

Personally, I feel that the truth and reality matters more than comfort or beliefs, but if you disagree, then simply disagree and don't question your beliefs.

----

" If you have to list your good characteristics in a list, you must be trying to rationalize and prove to other people that you are a good person, because we won't believe it to begin with."

Well, it seems that you're making me out to be a bad person, so I offered a rebuttal to the claim. If someone says that you are a bad person, wouldn't you say, "well, I'm not because..."

Anyway, how does it logically follow that since a person lists good characteristics he/she is rationalizing? Is this the attitude we should take when we meet new people?

------

There is more to life than that. There's more to life than sitting behind a computer desk searching random articles and trying to convince people that Atheism is the only logical possibility out there.

I don't only let atheism define me, but it is a big deal. Besides matters of religion, I read books, play D&D, go to college, have a job, have friends, play Scrabble, go to community events, etc.

I also don't say that atheism is the only logical possibility out there. Non-theistic Buddhism, Humanistic Judaism, Pastafarianism, Humanistic Christianity, Deism (with one qualm), Agnosticism, Apathetic, Secular Humanism, Skepticism, and many other choices are viable options, I think. I just don't think that theism is a logical possibility and have various arguments for why it is not. If you don't agree, so be it.

-----

"You have potential to have people respect you, honestly consider you to be a great person, and what do you do with that potential? You offend the crap out of pretty much every Christian you come in contact with.... I pity you, really I do. And I hope for your sake you can look past atheism as a crutch and discover who you truly are."

If I'm going to be a bad person for questioning beliefs and inspiring people to think critically, I guess I'll be a bad person. If people are "offended" by my questions and my critical examination of religion, that's on them. I could claim offense at long dirty fingernails of males, gangster rap, baggy pants, the republican party, and various other things, but does this warrant me complaining about the people and saying that they offend me even if they don't try to?

Asking questions and prompting people to think, apparently, is a horrible thing. We should stop philosophy, psychology, all questions of others' ideas, movie reviews, book reviews, disagreements about sports teams, opinion polls, popularity contests, King's Idol, all satire, all comedy, and just sit in public square holding hands followed by crawling into caves and vow to never critically examine anything, disagree with anyone, or raise valid questions about the world.

If people can't take valid and charitable criticism of IDEAS, that's too bad for them. Ideas don't deserve respect and religion or anything else shouldn't be above criticism. We should question everything, critically examine everything worth examining, and be informed citizens of the world.


Update: After this post, I was de-friended and my posts were deleted. So much for discussion.

"I don't claim that God exists, I just believe"

"I don't claim that God exists, I just believe"

I've been hearing a particularly odd statement from Catholics lately.

I've challenged this argument before and now have posted a formidable challenge to it online.

If someone doesn't claim that God exists and just believes, the person should not ever make any argument appealing to reason or evidence to defend the claim that God exists...they also shouldn't be a theist, but rather designate themselves as "Pragmatic Christians." It seems very dishonest and evasive to make this argument.

----

Here's my response:

To believe something is to stand in some relation with ideas to make a factual statement about reality.

If I believe that I am going to meet with friends for dinner , for example, I ought to have some good reason to think this. If someone asks me, "Do you think you will meet with your friends," I'm not going to say something like "I don't claim to know that I'm meeting with my friends," I'm going to give a reason for why I think this and certainly should have some reasons "for myself" even if I don't voice them.

Imagine if you saw a neighbor digging in his backyard on a Sunday with his entire family. When you ask him why he is digging, he tells you "I believe that there is a diamond in my backyard the size of a refrigerator." When you ask him why he thinks this, he says things like, "Well, I don't claim to know that the diamond is buried in my backyard, but I believe that it is." You certainly would not accept this response, see it as good justification, and would almost certainly ask for some good reasons out of your neighbor. If you started to tell him things like, "Well, there's no good reason to suggest that there is a diamond in your backyard" and he responded, "Nothing you say is going to change my mind," you'd think he was crazy.

God and religion play a big deal in peoples' lives. If there's no good reason to suggest that any gods exist, you should think about changing beliefs. Beliefs often have huge implications and really matter. During my last year as a theist, I decided that the question of god/s was really important, so I felt personally obligated to ask questions, research, listen to the opposition, and make a decision based on an honest search. I found no good reason to believe and as I progress in my studies and research, it's less and less plausible.

Atheists don't claim (or at least I don't) that people shouldn't believe just because it can't be proven. Many ideas can't be "proven," but we still accept them on good reason. We can't prove that the future will resemble the past, but we have very good reasons for thinking this way. We also can't prove that the sum of any two prime numbers equals an even number, but so far in limited forms of Goldbach's Conjecture, we see that this is true, giving good reason to beliefs. The previous ideas that I mentioned aren't extraordinary claims, though, like that of Christianity...

Christianity proposes that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being created the universe with humans in mind, impregnated a woman with a spirit, had this son who raised people from the dead, resurrected from the dead, currently is interested in human affairs and has an active presence in this world, and apparently cares about how and with who we have sex. He's all-loving, but he left humans to die and suffer for about 75,000 years before Jesus came while we almost went extinct. If we don't accept Jesus, according to the Bible, we deserve to be eternally punished, but we're led to believe that it's our fault and our choice. Does this seem plausible? I think not.