NEPA Freethought Society

Are you a non-theist in Northeastern Pennsylvania who would like to join a community of like-minded individuals, discuss important and serious philosophical matters, and enjoy discussion with other non-theists?

The NEPA Freethought Society is a group primarily for non-theists in Northeastern Pennsylvania. We first offer a social context in which like-minded individuals can meet and discuss anything at a table of honest conversation, skepticism, and critical thought.

People who attend our meetups have various positions ranging vary from college students to judges, government employees, physicists, Humanistic Jews, pharmacists, fathers, and mothers.

Typical meetings include buffets, cookouts, Drinking Skeptically events, monthly meetups at Rodano's in Wilkes-Barre, community events such as autism benefit walks, the NEPA Pride Fest and diversity picnics.

You don't need to be an open activist or an individual who had been a non-theist for your whole life to join us. We have activists, bloggers, people who don't openly discuss their beliefs or lack thereof, and everyone in between. Your level of participation is up to you.

Our most widely covered action in Luzerne County was filing a complaint against the Luzerne County Courthouse nativity scene in which the group organizer and I put our names out in the public. Many people offered tremendous support, we held our own in the media, and had multiple appearances in local newspapers, local television, local radio, and nationwide television shows.

Our current and future initiatives include an educational program for prisoners in the Luzerne County Prison and a public challenge for debate in Luzerne County with any religious person of standing and renown.

We're not only against religion...we're supporters and advocaters of science, skepticism, secular morality, philosophy, critical thinking, reason, logic, and various other matters of importance.

From our website:

The NEPA Freethought Society is a secular discussion and activist group located in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area. The group is intended to be a coalition of non-believers comprised of atheists, secular humanists, skeptics, agnostics, rationalists, etc, predicated on support and community. The group gathers monthly to discuss any pertinent issues and fully intends on defending the rights of the secular when and where appropriate. The separation of church and state is a very important issue and critical thinking should be prevalent in all walks of life.

MISSION STATEMENT
S.E.A.P.

SOCIAL

To establish a vibrant freethought commuity that provides fellowship and social enrichment.

EDUCATIONAL

To establish a public and societal understanding of atheism/freethought that is correct through community outreach and dialogue.

To refute the common myths about atheists/freethinkers.

To combat the moral stigma that characterizes atheists/freethinkers.

ACTIVISM

To serve as a watchdog, support system, and advocate on behalf of atheists/freethinkers who are victimized by discrimination.

To engage in the political process for the purpose of advancing atheist/freethought interests.

To oppose any violations of the separation of church & state.

PHILOSOPHICAL

To challenge religious truth claims by way of philosophical scrutiny, and in so doing, promote a world-view of naturalism together with rationalism.

To champion the epistemological principles of logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method over those of mysticism, faith, and divine revelation.

The Local Newspaper Archives Have Opened!!!

BILL TARUTIS/FOR THE TIMES LEADER

Something has changed on websites of local newspapers and you can now view the archives of general hate, ignorance, and the media coverage of the nativity challenge from December. For those of you who aren't aware, I challenged the constitutionality of a nativity scene at a local courthouse in December of 2009 and was lambasted by the public in various media sources...although the reporting was pretty decent for the most part.

Go here and here and type "Justin Vacula" or "ACLU Nativity" and you'll be on the internet all night...

I'm going to edit previous posts and repost some of this glorious material.

"The Right To Your Own Opinion"

Update 10/17/11:

My views on this are better reflected here.

The Lies of NOM (National Organization for Marriage)

"The Albany protesters came armed with balloons and rainbow-colored umbrellas..."

NOM (The National Organization for Marriage) vows to "protect families" by preserving the "traditional marriage" of one man and one woman. A quick view of their website reveals a tremendous amount of spin and flat-out lies. One of their new videos features a woman with dark skin and white children (obviously, there is either an interracial marriage or she had a child out of wedlock)...so what traditional marriage are they talking about? Decades ago, whites and blacks weren't able to marry and interracial marriage wasn't "traditional." The woman argues that the silent protestors with umbrellas harassed her, "I was a scared in the beginning and their goal was intimidating my family, my children, five and under." How exactly is standing with umbrellas intimidating [children]?

In their ustream video on their website a woman says, "Their only argument [for same sex marriage] is that it hurts feelings...I've been on college campuses and that is their only argument." Really? What about civil rights arguments, financial benefits, custody of children, adoption of children, and various other arguments? This woman is either a liar or willfully ignorant and certainly didn't do her homework. Another man says, "If there was one evident truth it is that marriage is designed for one man, one woman for procreation....people are trying to redefine marriage." Wait a second here...what about married couples who don't have children? What about married couples who can't have children? Do you want to not allow rights to sterile individuals?

I have a question for "traditional marriage" supporters...

Do you enjoy denying marriage to those who are not attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Do you think that same-sex couples should not be allowed to share financial assets and adopt?

Would you protest marriage between people of different nationalities?

The marriage of straight couples is not being "threatened" because people of the same sex are being married and want to be married.

I've written extensively on this topic in the past in various posts here, here, here, and elsewhere in this blog.

It's odd that people want to "vote" for same-sex marriage when civil rights are not up for a vote...can we vote for slavery? Can we vote for women to earn less money in workplaces? Can we vote to not allow Muslims in the United States? Of course not...

Some actual angry and possibly violent protesters were shown in the videos, but how many of these people are actually arrested or cause physical harm to others? I'd venture that the number is very, very low. Either way, NOM is a spin machine. ...and guess what? Catholic News Agency supports them!

If you're up for some vulgarity and crude humor, feel free to watch Coughlan666's take on NOM.

ABC Nightline "War on Religion"

ABC Nightline recently showed a special television program called "War on Religion" with a subtitle on their website reading "A look at in-your-face atheism in the U.S.A."

I'd like to review this video, comment on some segments, and identify some possible bias, misconceptions, and bad reporting.

I was interviewed by ABC at the American Atheists' annual convention in New Jersey, but unfortunately my interview wasn't showed in this video...Edwin Kagan and the other speakers in the video did an excellent job though.

You can, though, clearly see me at the 31 second mark smiling and laughing near the camera (picture above) and later on in the crowd on the far right side of the room sitting in the front row. Yah, yah, no big deal here for me, but it's still exciting to be shown on national news.

You can watch the short video here.

A discussion about this video on the ABC website is also here...

Right off the bat, I don't like the title on this video because it seems very biased...why not a title of "Atheism is the U.S.A." and a different subtitle instead of such a charged subtitle and title? A phrase like "war on religion" is a silly term that I believe religious people created just like "The War on Christmas." Do we usually say that people are "at war" with religion or do we say that people don't accept the claims and challenge believers?

Alright, now some of my commentary on some points from the video:

"they not only disbelieve, but are waging a war on religion..."

Again, "a war on religion" is a very odd phrase. Atheists aren't waging any sort of war, but rather the open atheists are often out and about having discussions, educating people, writing books, making videos, debating, and engaging people with arguments. Why doesn't ABC say something like "Not only do they disbelieve, but they are active about their beliefs or lack thereof" and then proceed to explain why some atheists are activists (as the video later does).

Atheists are "fighting" against religious people and religious organizations who are doing tremendous harm to the world. Educated and rational human beings who are often atheists are putting a spotlight on great issues of our time that are plagued by religion like the Evolution/Creation "debate," the fight against AIDS in Africa in which the Pope says condoms can make AIDS worse, the Vatican claiming immunity to investigation by secular authorities, etc, etc, etc. I personally feel that religion, specifically Christianity, does a tremendous amount of harm to the world and that's why I'm active.

"and mockery is often their weapon of choice"

Actually, this is simply false. Mockery is not often the atheist's "weapon of choice." To be fair and precise, an atheist is simply someone who does not accept any claims about the existance of any gods; it's impossible to lump them all together and say "this is how an atheist acts," but from my experience and my "circle of atheist friends, mockery is not a "weapon of choice" because discussion, logic, questions, and words are often the "weapons of choice" in this "war." Mockery can sometimes be used (or something that would be construed as mockery), but this often (as ABC liked to use) is simply to prove a point that nothing is sacred and religion shouldn't be immune from criticism. Everything could be mocked...and why not? If, though, we're going to have a serious discussion about why atheists don't accept the claims of theists, I won't mock the theist or the belief of the theist to prove a point. I might parodize a bit and use some humor, but this certainly isn't my main "tactic" in the "war." Everyone can and probably should joke around sometimes and not always be 100% serious...

"an increasingly aggressive atheist community"

What, exactly, is so "aggressive" about this atheist community? Is being public about our lack of beliefs and philosophical positions "aggressive?" As this excellent post explains, people ought to reject this notion because it is ridiculous. Atheists are "coming out," speaking up, and caring because they feel that there is a need for this as I previously discussed. I feel that it's also important for atheists to speak up and inspire other atheists to be active. Discussions are also important because people do change their minds and even if they don't, they gain understanding if they're actually listening. Others are "on the fence" about various issues. Many people haven't even heard the arguments from both sides... I'll deal with this discussion in a future blog post.

As I noted in a previous post from forum discussions,

Religion is not just nice inoffensive Christians of various denominations who don't bother people. It's also those who are responsible for killing abortion doctors, impeding stem-cell research, preaching the sinfulness of condom use in AIDS-riddled sub-Saharan Africa, 9/11, 7/7, repression of women, honor killings in the Muslim world, violence against homosexuals.... the list goes on and on. That's what aggressive religious people do. These things are directly attributable to religion. (It's not only atheists that say that, by the way. Those who commit those acts say it. If nothing else, we're taking them at their word, and giving them credit for honesty.)

What do aggressive atheists do? They speak their mind.
And you're saying we should be quiet?"

"The ringleader...Edwin Kagin"

This treads on the territory of viewing Edwin as "the leader of atheists," but there is no "leader" or "holy book" for atheists. This post on the Iron Chariots Wiki dispels this crazy argument. I've also extensively reviewed and responded to arguments that "atheism is a religion" from a set of videos in these previous posts here, here, and here.

"...symbolically remove the baptismal water"

The video later says that this is not a "symbolic" removal, but rather a joke that really means nothing in terms of a "official ceremony" like baptism or any other sacrament intends to actually do something and is connected to some divine source or filled with a divine meaning. Sacraments, as I have learned, are a "gift from God" in the Roman Catholic church (and elsewhere).

"sometimes you gotta have shock value...they ask questions"

This is an excellent quote from the video! It's not always easy to gain attention and various methods work for various people and grab attention. Advertisers, news commentators, and comedians use shock value to grab the attention of audiences and provoke people to think. People are often persuaded for various reasons and although shock may certainly not "deconvert" people and may turn many off, some people will think and listen. Atheists really aren't out there to convert people anyway...or at least I'm not. I'd love for people to understand my arguments, would like to see people thinking critically, and would love to be in the company of more non-theists in this nation, but I'm no miracle worker and don't expect to be. My main focuses are to present arguments [that people may not have heard before], have other people understand my reasons for my positions, and provoke thought.

"Look at them there, they're making fun of the church...we're having fun and you guys take it seriously"

Exactly. Atheists aren't taking this de-baptism thing seriously. It's fun for those participating and it's intending to demonstrate that nothing is sacred and that this ceremony is as ridiculous as baptism is.

"A new brand of in-your-face atheists"

Oh, no, another "brand" of atheists... There's nothing new about this, but perhaps you now see more people with the courage to speak up and attend events like this.

"Religion is the source for...strength, serenity...good works..."

Great, but utility doesn't matter when truth value is concerned; the behavioral effects and comfort of people who believe something don't give merit to the belief's truth value. If believers in Mithra claimed that they benefited a great deal from the belief and behaved well, does this suddenly make the belief plausible...? Of course not! As Kagin says in the video, bad often comes from religion too. We can get all the benefits from religion more honestly and without claiming anything on little or no evidence from other sources.

"Godlessness has been a force for evil...Stalin, Pol Pot"

Oh, the interviewer should have included Hitler too. This "argument" is garbage and I debunked it several times in various posts like this one. Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill because they didn't believe in a god...they killed because they had warped crazy beliefs, formed personality cults, and were cruel and evil individuals. Perhaps Stalin had a mustache...so are people with mustaches more likely to commit evil? Oh, but people without them behave well...even though some don't. Okay, I'll end the sarcasm already.

"Why use bad works as an excuse to mock"

There's no excuse and the bad works of religion are not the reason that atheists mock or criticize religion.

"If someone is so secure in their faith, why in the least are they concerned about some atheist mocking them?"

Excellent point, Kagin! Christians shouldn't care...and it's just in jest and not aimed at attacking people as is often misconstrued. I respond to they "Oh, you're offensive and attacking me" misconceptions here.

"The right to say what you want."

That's right. Free speech is important. Christians should be able to make fun of whatever they want and atheists should do the same...and people certainly shouldn't be killed for drawing cartoons or making movies. Comedy, as George Carlin said, is meant to tickle the funnybone and simply to make fun.

More Common Theistic Arguments

Here are some reasons for belief in god that I got from a two hourish discussion in the wee hours of the morning. I'm quite tired and annoyed at the moment, so I'm making an impromptu post with less structure that others. I've dealt with these various "arguments" in other posts before as you can see below.

1) God feels true to me because I've had personal experiences and there's no other way that I could explain this.

^^ Personal experiences are unreliable and not good evidence for a claim about the existence of a supernatural being.

Fallacy of special pleading...why don't you accept these arguments from other people who make similar claims?

Compartmentalizing....Why do you only apply these standards to belief in god but not anything else in life?

Millions of people make similar claims around the world and they aren't accepted just because they "feel true" or because multiple people believe the same thing (bandwagon argument)

More here...

and internal justification (It's true for me) simply doesn't work.

2) What do you believe in then / You can't prove that God doesn't exist

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and a red herring...Believers are making the positive claim; people who don't accept a claim don't have to demonstrate why this claim is false.

Example:

Me: I can fly

You: Prove it.

Me: You can't disprove my flight!

More here...

3) Is it is possibility that God exists? Might God exist?

Sure, God might exist...anything might exist. The idea that something might exist doesn't give credence to a claim being either true or false.

4) You can't explain it and that's the point!

Great, the idea that something can't be explained doesn't make it true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and exemplary explanations.

>>Argument from ignorance /special pleading / God of the Gaps

Let's apply "you can't explain it" to lightning. Humans at one point could not explain lightning, but we eventually found and explanation. Lack of explanation doesn't demonstrate or give weight to the idea that a god exists.

"I can't explain it" = I don't know, not "God exists."

I can't explain witchcraft and alchemy...so are these ideas suddenly plausible?

5) "That's why it's called faith"

Why is faith a reliable mechanism for knowledge? To believe something its to stand in some position to reality with knowledge that something is true. "Faith" shouldn't be acceptable when very specific claims are made that aren't backed up with specific facts, reasons, and arguments.

Arguments debunked here and here

6) My faith in God is like the faith that you have in your parents protecting you.

This is the fallacy of equivocation...this is a different kind of faith being used in two different contexts with two different meanings.

More here...

6) "There's facts out there that Jesus existed and was the son of God! It's in history books!" (but yet the person provides none of this evidence)

Appeal to authority... the idea that something is in a book doesn't make it true. We need information as to how this information was gained, who gained it, and why it is reliable.

Also, how can we have information about SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS in history books? History books aren't religious books. So what if Jesus did exist? Does this suddenly make him divine? Of course not...

More on this here...

7) "You can't know for sure!"

Red herring, shifting the burden, strawman, and special pleading.

I don't claim to know anything "for sure," but I have reliable means for gaining information...and not all claims are created equal. A claim such as "I was abducted by aliens last night" and "My mother is going to drive me to the DMV" carry much different weight.

I don't care about absolute certainty...and during the discussion the people kept saying "I don't know for sure" and told them to stop saying "for sure" because I'm not claiming this and I don't claim absolute certainty.

8) You don't believe in God because no dramatic event happened in your life that made you believe in him. Many dramatic events happened in my life and that's why I don't believe. Until something dramatic happens in your life, you won't believe.

I don't base knowledge and beliefs about extraordinary claims on personal experience of dramatic events and dramatic events certainly don't give weight to the idea that a god exists...so what? What god exists? Is my friend right for believing in Odin because dramatic experiences happened in his life?

Do we honestly base beliefs about extraordinary claims on personal experience? Wouldn't we have to accept every claim that every person said? The believer is special pleading here.

9) What happens if you're wrong? What if God exists and you go to hell?

This video says it all. You should watch it.

10) This belief gives my life meaning and God set a path for me to live. I've been through hard times and faith in God led me through the hard times.

Arguments from utility simply don't work.

-----

At the end of the day it's not me failing to believe in something because I haven't encountered dramatic experiences...almost everyone has, anyway. I don't believe in any gods because the claims from the believers have failed to produce good reason for belief. Arguments, evidence, and reason determine beliefs about extraordinary propositions, not personal experiences.

People of all different religions (and even people of the same religion) make totally different claims about the nature of the universe and we can't accept them all just because someone "feels it is true." Guess what? My neighbor Earl "feels that" he encountered the Loch Ness Monster and there's no way to explain the encounter and it's just faith. This is the same thing that believers have provided me tonight. Nonsense.

Apologetic speakers are actually formulating reasons for their beliefs and developing reasons for why they believe what they believe. We can examine these claims instead of listening to "it feels good to me" and "I had personal experiences that I can't explain."

It pains me to hear that people have analyzed the arguments when they clearly haven't while presenting nonsense like Pascal's Wager and saying that I don't believe YET because I haven't encountered God.

Catholics Against Health Education and more

I recently returned from my one week vacation in New Jersey and found a new news story to blog about. The "sex ed" war is now in full swing because various Catholics across the nation want to keep sexual education out of the classroom...but this time it's not only limited to sexual education at all. Read this new article...

People tell me that Catholicism doesn't hurt anyone and that beliefs aren't harmful...but here is another example of how beliefs are harmful and how children are paying the price. Catholics across this nation want to protest sex education programs in schools and jeopardize the health and safety of children.

The article says that Catholics

"must fight back with the truth that we are made in the image and likeness of God; we are created male and female by Divine design to complement each other; sexual intercourse is a beautiful and holy gift meant to be shared between husband and wife; all human life is inherently sacred from conception to natural death. That is the truth written on every human heart and the world needs the Church to proclaim it."

This is leading "true believers" (fundamentalists) to declare war on the health of children across the nation, individual relationship choices, and of course, homosexuals. People always tell me that the Catholic church isn't anti-gay, but it's quite "funny" that Catholics will encourage violence against homosexuals, punishing financially destitute people, and basically extort Washington D.C. to get their ways. Sure, many churches may help communities by giving to charities, giving people a place to live, etc, but this doesn't make up for the other horrid behavior that goes on...especially Pope Benedict saying that condoms can make AIDS worse.

The Catholic Online article says,

On to the proposed instruction: beginning in 2nd grade, the children are taught that "family structures differ" and that "most people who marry intend the relationship to be lifelong" and that "individuals and families have a variety of values as it pertains to sexual behaviors." Then in 3rd grade, it is taught that "there are a variety of reasons why people may end a committed relationship." The message is clear: Family doesn't mean Mom and Dad anymore; sexual values are for each person to decide for themselves; marriage is not required, only a "committed relationship" and even that may end for a number of reasons. Nothing is concrete or stable.

Oh no! People can make their own decisions! Family structures can differ! Blow the vuvuzelas! People do have a variety of values...because everyone isn't a Catholic fundamentalist like Mother Teresa who wants to ban contraceptives and insist that abortion is the greatest threat to peace in the world. (View her saying this at 1:00 to 1:59.) It's quite clear that if the Catholic church doesn't want you to make personal decisions with your own mind that you're to be a slave to whatever they say.

In 1st grade, the kids will be taught to "understand human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender." It's clear that their intent is not simply to teach about familial love between siblings, relatives, etc., but to teach about sexual and romantic love between two men or two women because in 2nd grade, the instruction is about the harm caused by calling people names such as "fag," "homo," and "queer."

Again, it appears that the Catholic Church doesn't want people to respect homosexuals. It also seems like people aren't supposed to respect sexual choices that people make...and why is it a bad thing to teach children about how homophobic comments and names are harmful?

By 5th grade, the homosexual indoctrination is direct: "Understand sexual orientation refers to a person's physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same gender and/or different gender, and is part of one's personality."

"Homosexual indoctrination" is quite an odd term, isn't it? How exactly are children being "indoctrinated" into homosexuality. These anti-homosexual individuals fail to realize that most children are "set" in their sexual attraction at a very early age (even before school)...and god forbid (no pun intended) that some people are homosexuals and are happy with their lifestyle choices! The article insists that this sexual education and health program is to "promote sex, contraception, and abortion rights to a new generation of Planned Parenthood clients" which is ridiculous on various levels.

The article then says "To say that young children must now be taught explicit details of sexuality in order to "protect" them is perverted." This notion is also ridiculous...how exactly is sexual education in schools perverted when children can learn about life decisions, their own bodies, and be safe? The United States dramatically "fails" in rates of STDs, abortions, and early pregnancies while citizens of other first world countries have dramatically lesser rates of STDs, early pregnancies, and abortions as shown by this study. As this article explains, " Attempts to impose narrow moralistic views about sex and sexuality on young people through sex education have failed." and also notes that

"Some people are concerned that providing information about sex and sexuality arouses curiosity and can lead to sexual experimentation. However, in a review of 48 studies of comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programmes in US schools, there was found to be strong evidence that such programmes did not increase sexual activity. Some of them reduced sexual activity, or increased rates of condom use or other contraceptives, or both.²³ It is important to remember that young people can store up information provided at any time, for a time when they need it later on."

The Catholic Online article notes that "It's not normal or healthy for young children to be so knowledgeable about sex and shoving this information at them when they're only still learning their letters and numbers is abusive." While we're at it, why don't we talk about the "normalcy" of telling children that they can burn in an eternal hellfire if they misbehave...is this normal and healthy? What is the real problem, though? Is this Catholic writer concerned about the children or only about her wicked and narrow-minded dogma?

This is Satan at work, and those who do not recognize that are frightfully naïve and complicit by their unwillingness to fight against it. The spiritual ignorance, the moral apathy of those who are advancing this curriculum out of some moronic notion of health and well-being is all that's necessary for the enemy of our souls to have his way with our children.

Lucifer, coming disguised as "enlightenment" and "tolerance" and "freedom" has successfully captured our youngest children, and will bring us to total ruin because our instinct to protect them from evil has been silenced.

Aha! Now we're on the money! Satan is at work corrupting your children with vital information about sexuality, respect, and health!

The Catholic church isn't about hope, charity, and the dignity of the individual...it's about pushing a system of beliefs onto everyone in the United States whether they agree or not. Apologetic speakers try to tirelessly defend "the truth" of Christianity when their arguments have been shown to be critically flawed time and time again... Pastors, ministers, and priests try to defend the agenda of the church by saying "We're not against the homosexuals, we're against the homosexual behavior" in a futile and pitiful attempt to try and look good. What really makes me angry about this is that homosexuals fall for this and even agree with church teachings on this topic.

Again, of course not all Catholics are fundamentalists who want to force America to bow down to God and of course not all Catholics are influencing politics, but so so many are...and so many "moderate Catholics" are just sitting by while it happens claiming no responsibility for this behavior. Unfortunately, the believers are providing cover for these beliefs and these fundamentalists. You can't just call yourself a Klansman and say, "Well, I'm not a racist, but I come for the free food and drinks and really like the community" just like you can't call yourself a Catholic and say "Well, I don't believe what the church teaches and I don't support it, but I'm just spiritual." Believers of a certain claim give tremendous power to the claim being made when the number of followers is so large and the followers are willing to defend their doctrine.

As usual, the Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world.

The Perils of Prayer

Catholic masses typically feature various prayers, hymns, and offerings in which priests and parishioners evoke their deity for some sort of divine intercession or a simple "Lord, hear our prayer." It seems to me that if people are asking for someone to hear something and are aware that this someone is all-powerful, they are expecting something to happen. If prayer was always some sort of spiritual boost or ritual with no desired literal effects from a deity, the words and masses ought to be changed. Believers literally believe that their god does answer prayers and is active in helping other humans.

Some Catholics will say that God doesn't literally answer prayers, but praying is just a personal and communal activity that might "pump you up" or ready yourself for important situations.

Some Catholics believe that God literally does answer prayers...but when he doesn't, it must be "God's will" ... and when the prayers "appear to be answered," God has acted and was "listening."

Not all Catholics will agree on this definition of prayer, but the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

Prayer - An act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire aknowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer.

The idea of "I prayed and the person recovered" is a classic attribution error; instead of praising (no pun intended) doctors for their hard work, thanking scientists/doctors for inventing medicines, saying "I don't know how the person recovered," or acknowledging personal strength of the recovering person, people thank God for the recovery. This can also be applied to situations where people say "I prayed to do well on a test and I passed, so God must have answered."

Take away the doctors.

Take away individual hard work.

...you'll often see drastically different results.

Sure, we have "flukes" when people pass tests or recover when they "had no chance," but these events do occur and we don't need a deity to explain these situations.

Personally, I find the whole "Thank God he/she recovered" very demeaning because doctors the ones who really did the work...but God gets the thanks. The sentiment of "I prayed and something happened" is very compelling because the situation is often emotional and people can't think of other explanations...but we should count the hits and misses here. How many times have you prayed and received no "results?" Compare this to the "successes."

Imagine a time where you were thinking of someone and suddenly this person telephoned you. You might think, "Wow! I was just thinking of Jim and he called!" ...but how many times do you think of Jim and hear no phone ring afterwards? The same thinking process should be involved with all superstition...think about it.

When a person acknowledges the "power of prayer" and other people chime in and agree, this is a great validation that is almost certainly false and really vicious.

The worst situations involving prayer are when people don't actually do anything and decide to only pray and, because of negligence, a person dies. Christian Scientists refuse medical treatment and resort to prayer for maladies. If a person dies, I'd think, who really cares if you believe that it was God's will anyway and the next life is so much better than this one?

Stop thanking God for the situations you can't explain.

Stop saying that prayer worked and this is a legitimate claim to prove the existence of God.

Even if prayer does work, which I won't accept, this gives no credence to a claim about a specific god. What if Thor is answering your prayers? What if an ancient intergalactic civilization can hear our thoughts?....

Prayer doesn't prove anything. If you're going to pray (and obviously I'm not going to stop you nor do I want to), be honest about it. Don't use the "results" of prayer as a proof for any gods. Don't rashly accept supernatural explanations just because you don't have naturalistic ones.

You may think prayer is harmless and others don't take prayer seriously, but you'd be mistaken.

Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

OilSpillPrayer.com:

In the midst of one of the worst ecological disasters ever, we turn to the God who created, sustains, and will redeem all things. We trust that He is in control and able to act. So it is that in the face of disaster we turn in prayer to our Lord who is in control.

Some theistic friends on Facebook made some comments about prayer. I admire their courage in posting and having discussions, because many, many, many theists simply won't have the conversation and resort to sending hate mail, running their mouths on other's profiles, and threatening me. Anyway, here are some definitions of prayer:

I guarantee that the vast majority of people who pray know that it won't produce "mass miracles" or anything of that sort. Does it help through divine intervention? Normally not. Does it help those who do pray through a calming effect, and a self-reassurance of faith as well as assurance that there are others around you who believe like you and care about similar things? Yes. If you also believe that it can do good through divine intervention and God "answering your prayers," than so be it.

Prayer there is a calming, and reassuring thing, just as any religious faith is / should be as well as a path in life. Religion has always had it's way of easing people through troubled times.

I pray knowing that He is listening, and that's a great comfort to me. Do I believe He'll miraculously stop all sin? No. Do I believe that he could and will someone's hard times into better times? Maybe. Just the knowledge that He is listening and there to listen can do much.

So, what exactly is prayer, what do you think it does, and do you think that there is actual literal divine intervention? Feel free to comment.

Patriotism...Hijacked by Christianity

Happy Fourth of July weekend (or not, if you're reading this after the week of this post)!

One common misconception that I've briefly dispelled in various other posts like the one here is the idea that America is a nation founded by Christians with Christian principles. This sentiment is false and has become a very common misconception amongst people of all different faiths. The true character of this nation is a secular one in which power is derived from the people. Church and state are to be separate.

This spin machine from the "No Spin Zone" is quite active, of course...

but Keith Olbermann deals with Palin here and educates us about the non-Christian character of America and the founding fathers.

The Treaty of Tripoli is quite a telling document that clearly states,

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

In this post, I'd like to focus on how patriotic songs and patriotism in general have been hijacked by Christianity. Songs about America containing God are viciously perpetuating this myth that America is a "Christian nation."

The Pledge of Allegiance

The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. In the following video of a 1939 cartoon, you can clearly see that "under God" was not part of the pledge. This phrase was added during the Red Scare and the fight against "Godless communism."

Proud to be an American/ God Bless the USA

This is a very popular song that is heard all throughout "the land." You probably know the chorus to this song...but what do we have at the end of each chorus? "God bless the USA." The song is largely about how great the USA is, what patriotism means, and is also a tribute song to soldiers. Great...but why do we need God to be in this song? A majority of this nation certainly identifies with some sort of belief, but this majority belief ought not represent what it means to be patriotic. What if this song talked about how people are proud to be white Americans? The majority of people in America are white, but this doesn't reflect this nation as a whole. Why don't we just remove the lyric "God Bless the USA" and make this song representative of patriotism and our diverse country?

There is also a great deal of confusion dealing with this song from what I found on Youtube. Typing "Proud to be an American" and "God Bless the USA" reveals the same song...and it turns out that the "two songs" are actually the same song with a different name. To me, "God Bless the USA" sounds like a religious song calling for some sort of religious benediction and "Proud to be an American" should be something totally different.

America, the Beautiful

Everyone knows the first verse and the chorus, right...but what about the rest of the song? There's a great deal of God in this song and perhaps more than you've ever heard...

America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

When is God mending flaws (of people or nations) anyway...and why is this in a song that's supposed to be about the United States? We hear about purple mountain majesties and amber waves of grain and that is fitting, but this confirming of the soul is very much out of place.

Happy Fourth of July!

All Americans are Americans whether they worship a god or not.

"Muslim Soldiers Defending Muslim Lands"

If you're not living in a cave, you should know that an individual recently attempted, via a vehicle bomb, to kill civilians in Times Square, New York. This man, Faisal Shahzad, is a Pakistani-American dedicated to Islam...a more extremist version, of course, and is willing to do whatever it takes to follow his version of religion. He has admitted to training to commit acts of terror in Pakistan. He wasn't a "dumb terrorist with a box cutter" as many people incorrectly like to mention, but rather worked as a financial analyst at Elizabeth Arden and has an MBA in computer science and engineering.

If you somehow haven't heard much about Shazad or would like to learn more, please watch this video:

Here are some words from Shazad's plea agreement.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,34 v. 10-CR-541 (MGC)

45 FAISAL SHAHZAD,56 Defendant. Plea

"THE DEFENDANT: I have an MBA.

THE DEFENDANT: I want to plead guilty and I'm going
19 to plead guilty a hundred times forward because until the hour
20 the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the
21 drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops
22 the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims
23 and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be
24 attacking US, and I plead guilty to that.

(emphasis mine)

...Muslim soldier defending Muslim lands. And it's not unintelligent people doing things like this, either. The 7/7 bombers, the 9/11 pilots, and now Faisal Shazad prove that intelligent men and women could be persuaded to commit atrocities after believing absurdities.

The motivations of the 7/7 bombers were largely religiously motivated as evidenced from a video transcript:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

Youtuber Nykytyne2 has an absolutely remarkable series dealing with 9/11 and the hijackers. Here is one of the videos:

We, as a society, if we are to thrive, need to move away from the idea that people can claim a divine mandate and use divine sanction to discriminate, kill, oppress, harm children, teach children about Hell, cheapen science, misrepresent real knowledge, and undermine all of the real knowledge that humans have attained in our short existence.

If you're a religious person of any brand, you should be speaking out against people like this whether they be violent or not. You should be condemning the Pope (if you're Catholic or not). You should set fundamentalists straight. I know that it's not all of your responsibility and it's certainly not up to you to educate "true believers" with a more reformed version of your type of religion. It's certainly not my responsibility to have conversations with all theists, but I certainly try. I do my best to educate, inform, discuss, and get a message out there for all to view and interact with.

Of course not all Muslims are bombing Subways.

Of course not all Christians are killing abortion doctors.

Of course not all Jews are Zionists who want to see the world come to an end....but religious extremism does come about in the worst of ways from people doing physical harm to those working feverishly to deny rights of homosexuals, paint atheists as immoral people who just don't like God, ban contraceptives, march against condom use and claim that condoms can make AIDS worse, deny charity to children because their parents are homosexuals, etc, etc, etc.

It's time to wake up.

Don't let people ever tell you that you shouldn't speak your mind, criticize ideas, and raise awareness to issues that NEED to be discussed. Be respectful of people...but beliefs don't deserve or merit some sort of "you can't touch me" status. Only M.C. Hammer can say that.