Knights of Columbus Fund More Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives

The Knights of Columbus continue to show their true colors by funding more initiatives by sending out propaganda to oppose gay marriage by sending out DVDs to Catholic households in Minnesota. There's also evidence of the KOC supporting this initiative right at the end of part two. They already contributed one million dollars to the Prop 8 campaign, but they won't stop there. They also lie about sex and condoms. Shame on them.

I'll discuss some of the arguments, fallacies, and lies in both videos, but won't go into too much detail on all of them because I've dealt with gay marriage in previous posts and many of the arguments are repetitious in the videos.

Fallacies and Lies in Part 1:

There is an underlying naturalistic fallacy almost every time the word "natural" is uttered by the man in part one.

0:53: "It is the natural way we bring together men and women to conceive..."

Well, not really. People have children outside of marriage and marriage certainly isn't "natural" because it is manmade.

1:00: The complementary nature of the sexes is not only at the heart of the human experience, it is one we can see throughout nature..."

So what? What does this have to do with marriage? Not all married people have children and children don't need parents of both sexes in order to be fine individuals.

1:13 "The culture of marriage is critical for society"

We've redefined marriage in the past to allow for inter-racial marriages. We stopped arranged marriages. We put age restrictions on marriage...so why would homosexual marriage destroy society?

1:15 "High rates of fatherlessness impoverish children..."

Yup, when they had fathers to begin with...but this isn't the case if someone has two female parents.

1:33 "Society suffers when marriage fails..."

Again, this only is the case when the parents marry and then divorce...but this isn't the case when and if we redefine marriage.

1:37 "Redefining marriage will change the core meaning of marriage..."

So what?

1:48 "Same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment"

Lots of things are untested social experiments...but this doesn't mean that we should cease to progress as a society. Same-sex marriage has been "tested" in other countries and the societies did not collapse or suffer.

2:00 "Back in the early 1970's...with no-fault divorce...the divorce rate skyrocketed! ...children need both a mom and a dad!

What does no-fault divorce have to do with same-sex marriage? The archbishop keeps saying that failed examples of heterosexual marriages show that a child needs a mom and a dad, but this is an unwarranted conclusion. All that this shows is that children need parents...no matter what the gender is.

2:34 "Virtually every society has recognized that marriage is between one man and one women."

There are many things from the past that societies have recognized that were wrong. Societies used to bar women from voting. Societies used to allow for slavery. With new knowledge, we expand our moral zeitgeist and allow for more civil rights.

3:15 "Marriage exists primarily to allow for mothers and fathers to care for children."

Actually, this isn't the case. Marriage primarily exists for shared legal benefits...and what's wrong with same-sex couples caring for children?

3:23 "What will happen to children who learn that moms and dads are interchangeable?"

They'll be enlightened individuals who are tolerant of others' choices.

3:35 "Children learn that gay marriage and traditional marriage are the same"

Oh no!

4:10 "The church teaches that marriage is one man, one woman"

Great, but not everyone agrees with these views. Stay out of government.

4:20 "The church teaches that all people are children of God with intrinsic value"

...but apparently, they can't make "adult decisions" and marry people who they love just because they happen to be attracted to people of the same sex or be a certain gender?

Part 2:

0:25 "Marriage's foundation as a human reality is as ancient and honorable as any on earth."

Bullshit!

1:34 "Children need a mom and a dad."

No they don't.

2:00 "Marriage is celebrated as one man and one women for thousands of years...

I dealt with the claim at 0:25.

2:23 "Only through a marital union does husband and wife create new life."

Great, but we can have children without husband and wife.

2:50 "Children suffer when they lose a mother or father."

This is similar to fallacious claims in part one. This is the case only when a child had a mother and a father...not when they simply don't have a father because they have two female parents.

3:20 Children suffer when people don't care about one man-one woman.

Nonsense.

3:30 Men are dehumanized when they are told they are not necessary.

How? I'm not "dehumanized" because children have two mothers...

3:55 "They want you to think that there is no difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples. If you think differently, you're an equivalent of a racist, a bigot."

Strawman. The claim is that children are just fine with homosexual parents and that two people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

4:05-4:39 "The political argument that same-sex marriage is a civil right is troubling... A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law of God."

Great, but not all people agree what the "law of God" is. Not all people even believe that this God exists. We are a secular nation, not a theocracy that follow's "God's law."

5:15 "A strong feeling doesn't make a civil right."

That's not what people are claiming. People are claiming that limiting marriage to one man-one woman is discriminatory.

6:00 "Our Catholic faith clearly teaches that marriage is the union of one man-one woman.

Mrs. Betty Bowers disagrees.

7:17 "Instead of respecting the views and values of most parents, the common-sense ideal for children will be redefined as discrimination."

Beliefs don't deserve any respect. People do....and if you're going to claim that the beliefs of the anti-homosexual marriage people should be respected, why shouldn't the beliefs of the pro-homosexual marriage people be?

7:34 "Same sex marriage threatens Catholic and other faith traditions."

No it doesn't. Churches don't have to marry gays.

8:29 "The tax-exempt status of Catholic schools and charities will be threatened."

If you are tax-exempt, you have to play by the rules of the government. If you take money from the government, you also have to play by the rules.

10:09 "State puts church out of adoption business"

It's funny that the church states that everyone is a child of God, but apparently children shouldn't be helped by charitable causes because the charity wants to discriminate against gays. The video tries to case the state as the bully, but if the non-profits want to enjoy their non-profit status and receive support from the government, they need to play by the rules. If they want to discriminate, go ahead and pay taxes and refuse government money.

10:22 (A clip of Shirley Phelps)

I laughed.

10:30 "If you're creating a situation where just about anything can count as marriage..."

It's the classic slippery slope argument applied to gay marriage! There's no situation being created in which anything is being counted as marriage.

The Military Superiority Fallacy

A common fallacy that sneaks its way into discussions is what I call the "Military Superiority Fallacy." I can't find this fallacy coined elsewhere, so I'm going to "invent it" here. This fallacy occurs when a person says something like "I was in the military" and tries to dishonestly establish some sort of expert authority on a matter when it has no role in the current discussion. This fallacy may also parallel with an inappropriate appeal to authority or emotion.

The Military Superiority Fallacy is tricky to point out because if you do, the other person may cast you off as being offensive or rude. A proper way to address this fallacy is something along the lines of saying, "I respect you for being in the military and defending our country, but this doesn't give you an edge over me in this discussion just because you were in the military." If someone uses military experience that gives actual merit to a certain claim such as, "I was in the military and know what it's like to be in perilous situations..." no fallacy is committed.

Example of the fallacy:

Me: Separation of church and state is a very important matter and people should be concerned about it. Church/State violations happen when the government favors one religion over another religion, religion over non-religion, or attempts to make a national religion.

Them: I was in the military and defended our country. Your version is wrong.

In the above case, the person's military experience does not lend expertise that is relevant to the argument. If the person added some evidence to defend the claim that "my version is wrong," there may not be a fallacy here. Either way, experience in the military does not give someone de facto knowledge about the law.

We often give great respect to people who served in the military...and this is fine, but this doesn't allow someone to have the upper hand in an argument when their information is incorrect or lacking. The Military Superiority Fallacy does not give someone an upper hand in an argument and should be "called out" by people who are victimized by it.

The Military Superiority Fallacy also occurs when people say things like "You can't understand what this country stands for unless you serve in the military" or "Well, you don't have the experience I do from the military and you have lots to learn in life because you go around telling people that there is no good reason to believe in a god."

Are Atheists Harming People?

Earlier today, a theist approached me in a conversation alleging that I'm harming other people because I am an active atheist. He mentioned that people might go crazy and kill police officers because I filed the complaint against the nativity scene and proceeded to compare me to the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran. He said, in the familiar style of a military superiority argument, that my actions might cause troops to die overseas because people are angry about what I did...and of course was unable to present any evidence to support this nonsensical claim. I continued to ask for reasons why he thinks I am harming people, but did not get a sufficient reason.

Asking questions, challenging beliefs, and fighting for separation of church and state harms no one. If people got pissed because I filed a complaint against the nativity scene, that's too bad for them. The display was unconstitutional and courthouse officials even agreed. If people get angry because I'm challenging their beliefs, they can easily walk away from a discussion (that I typically only start when people bring up religion and make a wild claim) or not view anything I have to say online. It's quite simple, actually. No one is being forced to read anything that I author and no one is compelled to listen to what I have to say.

There's no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that any police officers will die because I filed a complaint against the nativity scene. The theist told me, "What if some fundamentalist fired an RPG at a police officer and killed him because he didn't protect the nativity scene?" This obviously didn't happen and almost certainly won't happen...and if it did for some reason, it's certainly not my fault. I don't know what the theist meant when he said, "...he didn't protect the nativity scene." What was there to "protect?"

When we got into discussion about matters like the burden of proof, the theist, as usual, was trying to shift the burden of proof and kept saying "You can't disprove God!" He then proceeded to say things like "You're saying that people can't believe in God" and "So, my believing is responsible for all the bad things in religion" which is clearly straw-manning my positions. I would never say that I'm trying to take away peoples' legal rights to believe and would never try or want to enforce such a thoughtcrimish law. I have noted many times in my blog that all theists don't harm others and make it clear that not all theists believe the same things.

On matters of separation of church and state, the theist was absolutely clueless when he said things like "Firefighters putting out church fires is a breach of separation of church and state" and that "Seperation of church and state only means that the government doesn't set up a religion." There was also a silly claim of the Treaty of Tripoli (see article eleven) being a bold-faced lie just to appease Muslims. This is a desperate ad-hoc explanation of defending the "Christian Nation" nonsense...and even without the treaty we're still a secular nation.

Let's return to the most important claim here: atheists are harming people. All I am doing is authoring a blog, challenging religion when it is appropriate, posting links on Facebook, going on radio shows, and (almost a year ago) filing complaints against church/state violations. How is any of this harming people? The most that can be argued for is that people become upset or personally threatened because their cherished beliefs are challenged...but people don't have the right to be immune from criticism. We don't withhold criticism on other topics like favorite music, sports team, pizza, or restaurant. People don't think twice because they levy personal attacks at the president. People send me hate mail. People thrash celebrities on a daily basis like it is a hobby.

There is a key distinction between "respecting beliefs" and respecting people. Beliefs don't deserve any respect whatsoever because beliefs are simply ideas. People clearly don't "respect" the beliefs of anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, flat earth theorists, geocentrists, Sarah Palin, or many others. Religious people certainly don't "respect" my beliefs when they challenge them (and that's fine, go ahead). You don't see me hiding behind a smokescreen when my beliefs or lack of beliefs are challenged. I have the discussions and don't cry when people disagree with me or offer real criticism. Why should religious beliefs be held to some holier-than-thou standard of immunity from criticism?

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, 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.

What I do is put the information out there for those who want to read it...this certainly isn't harming anyone. People are going to make choices for themselves at the end of the day, of course, but they should read the arguments from the other side and care about whether their beliefs are true or not. If believers want to hide in a cave and not give reasons for their position, claim "my reasons are my reasons," or not even have reasons they can do that, but that's not very critical at all.

If people are bad for challenging others' beliefs, teachers and philosophers ought to be a blight upon the world. Who are they to challenge beliefs!?!? They should just let people "believe what they want" and stop educating people! If theists think atheists are causing harm to people because they challenge beliefs, they should go out there and protest all forms of education and should certainly drop out of formal schooling.

Euthyphro's Dilemma

This post is a slightly updated version of an essay I submitted for a philosophy class in my third year of college.

In the Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss piety and morals. The central issue uttered by Socrates is, “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is loved by the gods” (Euthyphro 9). Other issues arising from the dialogue concern determining how to distinguish from right and wrong and how to account for the origins of morality. If believers in benevolent deities adhere to a certain religious moral code, it should be important to understand this moral code and have a response to the central issue in this dialogue. Non-believers and believers should also be able to understand and account for naturalistic origins of morality.

Euthyphro presents himself as a very knowledgeable individual in regards to the nature of piety and the gods, so Socrates proceeds to question in order to achieve understanding. Euthyphro says, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them” (Euthyphro 5). Socrates notes that the gods have quarrels and different opinions (Euthyphro 6), but Euthyphro counters and says that the gods have agreed on certain matters and agree that injustice should be punished (Euthyphro 7).

Eventually, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the central issue in the dialogue. Euthyphro doesn't understand the distinction that Socrates makes, but Socrates elaborates so that Euthyphro can understand. Euthyphro says that piety is loved by all the gods because it is holy, but Socrates says that “the holy has been acknowledge by us to be loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved” (Euthyphro 10).

Using a god or gods for the sole basis of morality is very problematic for several reasons. Who or what determines that the gods are moral? The gods simply declare what is moral and what is not moral without any standards or external judges. If there is no guideline outside of what the gods determine is moral, morality may be designated by the gods. With no guidelines for morality, the gods can declare certain actions like rape and murder to be morally acceptable in any given situation...and this obviously can't be the case.

If what is willed by the gods is willed because it is good (not because the gods decided that it is good), then the good is independent of what the gods determine and the gods did not establish what is good; morality is clearly grounded apart from the gods. If the gods, for example, endorse charitable giving because it is good, we learn that the good actions are good regardless of what the gods have endorsed.

Some modern-day and past apologists assert that God would never or could never endorse something like rape, but this means that there is some sort of standard that limits God that can be viewed as external, thus we need not evoke a deity in the moral realm. Others may assert that God's character is what makes God's commands moral, but this backs the dilemma up a step and forces the theist to consider "Is an action justified because God's character endorses/is in line with the action or is an action ethically justified because it is endorsed/is in line with God's character?"

Another main problem is how can we even establish, in the first place, that a god is good or, in the case of many theists, that a god is omni-benevolent. When we consider whether a person is moral or not or, in the case of god, whether a god is moral or omni-benevolent, one would, I would wager, look at the actions and inactions, in many cases, of a being. What examples, exactly, do we have to draw from to establish that god is good? With threats such as the problem of evil or specific religious passages in which gods endorse abominable actions, it's quite hard to establish this.

Some theists will assert that God, by definition, is omni-benevolent because he is the greatest conceivable being, but where does this get us? I can assert that a gooblegoop exists and is, by definition, an omni-benevolent being, but this, simply like asserting things about a god, makes no progress to establish a conclusion. Why, also, must the greatest conceivable being be all-good? Is not a 'greatest conceivable being' subjective from person to person and how can we objectively declare what a greatest conceivable being is? I can formulate a very good argument, for example, that the greatest conceivable being is actually a being which interferes least in human affairs and designed the universe in such a way that humans would only die to old age, violence, and accidents. I could posit that such a being might be simply good, loving, and very intelligent, but not maximally so and perhaps this would be best because if an omni-God existed and humans knew this, bad consequences would follow (I don't necessarily agree with this, but am simply positing it here for sake of argument although many theists actually do argue that bad consequences would follow if God frequently intervened in human affairs and revealed himself unequivocally).

Humans are social animals who need to work together to some basic degree in order to have a society. Although survival of society is by no means the only consideration for morality, this is a good explanation for how morality came to be. We treat others how we would like to be treated when we arrive at the conclusion that other humans have basic desires such as we have like need for shelter, security, privacy, stability, etc. At a very basic level, people refrain from being immoral because they want to avoid punishment and maintain a good reputation. It is possible to account for a naturalistic morality separate from what the gods declare to be moral or immoral.

Morality is informed by human knowledge, research, philosophy, evolution, basic intuitions, and societal rules. Over time, some actions previously considered acceptable such as slavery and stoning adulterous women have been abolished because of our increased understanding and empathy toward others. In the case of slavery, the god of the old testament explained rules for owning other beings. Today, whether or not people believe in any gods, we can look at these passages with horror and come to the conclusion that owning other humans beings is morally wrong. We can judge the rules that are said to come from the Christian god and view them as morally repugnant.

Reflecting on the Euthyphro dialogue reveals that morality can be had independent of what the gods say. If we agree with what the gods say is moral, the decision of the gods is arbitrary and the gods are just endorsing what we already know. Regardless of whether or not any gods exist, we can deliberate and come to conclusions about moral issues and even revise our moral zeitgeist when our current state of knowledge advances. With morality declared by the gods, this doesn't seem to be the case because the questions have already been answered and the word of the gods is supposed to be final. Morality is determined independent of the gods and humans can come to conclusions without divine declarations.

Works Cited

"Euthyphro." MIT.edu, 2009. Web. 25 Sep 2010.

Painting All Catholics With The Same Brush?

When I discuss the implications of certain beliefs and address very specific arguments, it's impossible to address the beliefs of every theist because so many people hold different variations of beliefs. I can't possibly account for the beliefs of every theist when I talk about interpretations of Hell, for example. When I argue against a specific belief, I make sure to note the specific belief when I start the discussion and respond to possible variations and counter-arguments at the end of my posts. Despite this, some theists accuse me of painting everyone with the same brush. I do my best to add phrases like:

"As usual, not all theists are harming others with their beliefs, but many are. Not all theists, of course, believe in a hellish torment if you don't believe in God, but many do. Some theists I know actually want to have the discussion, but many simply don't. It's quite sad."

"Again, not all theists and people are the same. Not all people behave in this manner when having conversations, but a vast majority I have met do try these tactics. I certainly am charging many people with intellectual dishonesty, but not all. Some people actually do have a discussion and have looked at the arguments from both sides, but when people start using Pascal's Wager and a good argument or start saying "You can't disprove it," they clearly have not researched the arguments from both sides."

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

"Sure, not all forms of Christianity or individual Christians accept everything the church or the Bible says, but the general idea of sin is widely accepted - we're inherently "fallen" and the way to deal with it is to accept Jesus, repent, and feel sorry for our wrongdoings after "getting right with God.""

"Couple this with the existence of Hell, the idea that God is always watching us, and the idea that only the righteous and true believers go to Heaven and you're quite easily "hooked." Again, not all believers think of sin and exemplify this loop, but many do."

"Of course, not all Catholics and Knights of Columbus members hold the views of the Vatican or some Knights of Columbus members"

Perhaps some are missing the point, avoiding the arguments, or not even reading what I have to say. If you are a theist who reads this blog and have a different take on a certain issue that I mention, please feel free to comment and add your interpretation. It's impossible for me to address every possible belief or every individual...that's just too much to ask for.

This "You're painting everyone with the same brush!" often parallels with "Why do you care so much?" I addressed this in a recent post.

Presentation - Is it Rational to Believe in the Supernatural?

I discuss common fallacious arguments and important philosophical concepts dealing with belief in gods and the supernatural.

Me explaining the Power Point slides:




The Power Point:
http://bit.ly/azaBAQ


Sorry about the buzz in the background, my headset is sucking.

Why Do Atheists Care So Much About Religion?

GoGreen18:

My Response:

Theists often say, "Why do you dedicate so much time to criticizing religion?" My main reason for criticizing religion is because it is very harmful to society. I also enjoy learning new information, spreading ideas, and being publicly active.

Beliefs often inform actions and often impact others; we don't live in "moral vacuums
in which no one else is effected by our thoughts and actions. Having less irrational and unjustified beliefs is best. We should strive to have beliefs as consistant with reality as possible and hold the search for justified beliefs above anything else. Religions make unsubstantiated claims and people are told to accept them "on faith." We should demand evidence, reason, and argument for extraordinary claims.

I find that discussion of ideas and a critical examination of organized religion is imperative because it is extremely harmful to society, harmful at a personal level for many, and informs politics. Let's just consider the current state of gay rights, stem cell research, womens' rights, etc. How about the child rape and torture in the Vatican where who may be the most evil man on earth, Joseph Ratzinger, is covering up child rapists for "the sanctity of the church." How about Vatican officials and missionaries, including the Pope, going to Africa and telling people that condoms can make AIDS worse, that condoms transmit AIDS, etc? How about children being denied adoptions because the prospective parents are gay? How about the Knights of Columbus marching to ban contraceptives?...

Personally, religious beliefs directly endangered me when I felt afraid to leave my dorm room because people were inciting hatred and violence. Tremendous amounts of people sent me hate mail because I filed a legal complaint against a manger scene and menorah (although not many Jews were not mad at all). I've had family members and friends disown me just because I have a different perspective than them. Religion is harmful...don't kid yourself. It's very worthwhile to discuss these issues.

My intent is not to "destroy" traditions and beliefs, but rather to put information out there so people can think rationally, be informed, and challenge themselves. Sure, I'd love for these beliefs to go away (keep the traditions, I don't care, but just don't get the government involved in it). If your belief in the Christian god, for example, is so important, you should be sure to research the arguments of the people who don't believe and come to a decision based on an extensive research...just like I did. I came to the conclusion that my beliefs were insufficient and unjustified, so I gave them up.

Belief should not because of comfort, fear, popularity, duress of others, family members, etc. As the Bible says, believers should be able to defend their faith and do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)...so they certainly should be interested in crafting and presenting this defense.

The truth matters...and it's simply not there in religion. NO claims about any gods made by believers have been demonstrated to be true; there's no rational reason to believe in any gods. Despite this, people go out preaching the "truth" while teaching children that they are unworthy sinners who deserve to be tormented in Hell if they don't accept the love of Jesus. People are told that their lives are worthless if they don't believe in God. People are taught that a totalitarian dictator named Yahweh can read their minds, punish them for thinking, and send them to eternal torment if they don't follow the rules that he arbitrarily sets up.

As usual, not all theists are harming others with their beliefs, but many are. Not all theists, of course, believe in a hellish torment if you don't believe in God, but many do. Some theists I know actually want to have the discussion, but many simply don't. It's quite sad.

Are They Making a Movie About Me?

There are many atheists who file complaints against religious displays, so it's probably not based on "my true story." This is still hilarious, though. Note all of the logical fallacies and how "evil" the atheist is made to look.

Replay of my ReapSow Radio Appearance

You can listen to a replay of the ReapSowRadio episode that I was a special guest on by clicking here. I join the discussion around the sixteen minute mark! Enjoy!

Upcoming Radio Appearance on ReapSowRadio

I'll be the special guest on this Tuesday's broadcast of ReapSowRadio at 6PM Eastern Standard Time. ReapSowRadio is a show from California that features many famous non-theists. "It's radio for intelligent people with a sense of humor. The topics include social issues, paranormal, religion, politics, sex, and current events. No topic is off-limits and a sense of humor is a must.."

You can stream the broadcast online via their website and listen to the show via podcast/streaming. http://reapsowradio.com/

I'm hope to discuss

- My "road to atheism"

- My involvement in the Nativity Scene Controversy

- Being an outspoken and active atheist at a Catholic college

- My blogging

- The NEPA Freethought Society

- dispelling misconceptions about atheism....

Tune in this Tuesday!

"Attend this event" on Facebook here!

Follow ReapSowRadio on Facebook here.

If you can't listen live, the show will be archived for viewers after it ends.

The [Im]morality of Hell

Find this awesome flowchart here.

I've previously discussed whether God would punish people for all eternity just because they don't believe that God exists. If atheists go to Hell (and Hell exists), God is judging merely on the basis of belief.

A recent episode of The Atheist Experience countered the idea that atheists send themselves to Hell; God is responsible for sending people to Hell. Now that that's out of the way...

Theists typically think of Hell as a place of eternal damnation that people go to because they violated God's rules. In the case of the rules, God determines what is right and wrong and this right and wrong is supposed to be unchanging.

According to the Bible, a person goes to Hell for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, for instance. Many Christians may propose that murderers and rapists would go to Hell. If God is all-just, his sending of people to Hell must be just...but is this justice? It is permissible to create unchanging rules and punish people for eternity because they break the rules? The concept of Hell is immoral, thus reconciling Hell and an all-loving deity is impossible.

If you don't follow the rules of God, you're punished for eternity without appeal because of thoughts you have thought and actions you have taken. Theists usually justify this by saying, "God created you and the world, so he could make the rules," but this is nothing more than servility and a might makes right morality in a "Big Brother state". God declares what is right because he has the power. He can choose to punish people for eternity for whatever reason that he wants. We can't escape this punishment, we're always watched by God, God reads our minds, and he fully can control us at all times...especially at death.

What if we don't like God's rules and think that they are unfair? Too bad, we can't do anything about it. In a democracy, we can work to get rules changed, appeal decisions by courts, etc. If we're punished for a crime, the punishment must be fair and will not be cruel and unusual. In the case of God, the punishment is eternal and torturous. An all-loving God would never orchestrate Hell.

My central objections are

• 1) The rules God makes are nothing but a might makes right morality.*
• 2) The rules are unquestionable and unchangeable.
• 3) Some of the rules are absurd.
• 4) God is not "checked" by someone else to ensure fairness.
• 5) Hell is infinite punishment [torture] for finite crimes.
• 6) People are condemned for beliefs that aren't turned into actions.
• 7) People may be judged solely on the basis of belief.
• 8) Complete control over a human being is slavery.

Let's consider many possible counter-arguments from theists dealing with Hell and God's morality:

Hell is not eternal torture, but rather is "separation from God," a void of nothingness or anguish

It's not quite clear that this is the case, according to church teaching and the Bible. Catholic Encyclopedia certainly disagrees. This does nothing to address problems 1-4 and 6-8, but rather attacks problem 5. Although this may not be a case of torture, a person is being deprived of a reward and is still being punished.

God gives you free will! You choose to break the rules he put in place.

This counter-argument tries to shift the blame away from God and to the person. As discussed above, God sends people to hell; people don't send themselves to Hell. It's extremely problematic to say, "Here, have free will, do whatever you want" and then punish someone for eternity because they chose to break a rule.

Well, humans have free will to kill someone, for example, and must pay the consequences, so this is the same thing!

No, it's not. Justified rules and punishments (don't kill someone - if you do, you get, depending on the severity and intent, you can get many years in prison) are fair, but this eternal punishment is not fair.

God is just like a human father. He makes rules and if you break them, you get punished.

The analogy of God as a human father is very problematic. Human fathers [should] fairly punish their children when they break the "rules" and is usually "checked" by the mother or other guardian. Fathers don't send their children to a basement to starve them, chain them to a wall, torture them, etc...and if they did, no sane human being would consider this just. Fathers aren't also able to punish for eternity. Children also grow up and are able to make decisions for themselves and get away from their fathers if they want. If I don't like my father and move out his house, I can do that and make decisions for myself; I no longer need to listen to what he has to say and obey his rules if I'm not living with him. When people get older, they move out and longer have to listen to their fathers...and this is expected. In the case of God, there's no getting away and no "growing out."

A friend of mine recently developed what appears to be an attractive argument that a theist might create:

Imagine that you made a robot.

Would you punish the robot if he disobeyed you?

If yes, why can't God punish humans?

This line of argument tries to make punishment of whatever kind justifiable, but robots are much different than humans; robots are not humans, animals, or sentient beings that have feelings. Even if they were beings with rights and feelings, I still don't think that it would be fair to unfairly punish a being even if we created the being. If the robot were a slave, slavery would also be problematic. If the robot were non-sentient, I would find it permissible to destroy the robot if it murdered someone, for example. No problem there.

We shouldn't have to bow down to an eternal being and follow his every word just because he created the universe and us. If God exists and punishes people for all eternity just because they don't follow his rules, he's no better than a dictator and we're nothing more than slaves without free will in the afterlife.

Should anyone have to worry about any of this? The atheist, of course, doesn't believe in the existence of God or Hell and would say that there's no good reason to support the claims being made...so there's no problem there. ...and don't even try pulling Pascal's Wager.

Aside from my bulleted objections, IronChariots.Org has some more:

God was unable to create or develop other systems of punishment/reward that were less harmful to human life and the high value he himself attached to it.

God was bound to a higher standard of morality if he was unable to forgive sin without the blood sacrifice of animals or other divine beings.

God cannot be omnipotent and "wish that none would perish" while declaring that some will perish.

God is a liar if he wishes all to be saved yet devises an intricate sorting system that is the cause of those who will perish.

God cannot be Omnibenevolent if he creates people when as an Omniscient being he foreknows that they will end up in Hell.

*Objections to this argument and discussion of Eutyphro's Dilemma will be discussed in a future post, but even if the laws are just, infinite punishment is not justified.

"God is like a mind...you believe in minds, but can't prove them"

In a discussion with a theist earlier today, I was arguing that there is no good reason to believe in God unless there is good evidence. The theist asked me, "Do you believe a mind exists? You can't prove it. I can't prove God and god still exists."

This argument dramatically fails.

The mind is a word we use to describe the sum of thought processes, neural impluses, consciousness, and brain functions. The mind exists and is demonstrable.

Even if the mind were referred to as a subjective concept (I can experience my mind, but you can't), the theist is making an error because the mind is a concept and God is a being. We can't use the same rules for discussing concepts and beings; God is proposed as an objective being and the brain is a subjective concept.

Even if I say, "the mind doesn't exist" (which I won't), this doesn't suddenly make God exist or belief in God permissible. If you're going to claim that God exists, you need to provide evidence, arguments, and reason to establish this claim.

This argument is new news to me, but usually comes in the form of "Love exists, but I can't prove it." For analysis on a rebuttal of this argument, visit this great site.

More Hate From King's Students

I love hate mail from King's College students. It's great for blog fodder, entertainment, and proves many of my points that I put forth in my blog posts. Instead of actually responding to arguments, some people will just levy personal attacks [and ignore what I say].

I find it funny that people say "no one is impressed when you have a blog" when I constantly have people commenting and discussing my posts saying things like "great job," "you write really well," etc. I'm not huge by any means, but my blog is getting a huge amount of traffic and it's quite fun. I enjoy writing and I enjoy having others interact with my ideas. People obviously are impressed by my blog.

I find it funny that people think I am arrogant when I constantly post things like "I'll change any and all of my beliefs provided new evidence and argument comes in." I hate the notion of absolute certainty and would never say that I am absolutely certain on anything. I always welcome people to disagree with me.

I still enjoy the argument of "it doesn't hurt anyone" being a justification to leave things alone. Many violations of the law certainly don't physically harm anyone, but are violations regardless. Should we leave things alone just because no one is harmed? I think not. Separation of church and state is a very important issue that people should support.

I do wear my accomplishments as badges of honor; my actions made a difference in this community and I was able to voice my opinion in a very public forum. I endured the criticism, wasn't wavered by the threats, and didn't shut up.

I don't expect anyone to care whether or not I call in the Corbett show. I enjoy the radio show and like participating in discussion.

I'm not sure what the Atheist tonight show is...

I do enjoy the publicity and attention. It's nice to be heard. Publicity doesn't drive my actions, though. I stand up for just causes and fight for what is right regardless of what other people think. I ask questions, challenge that which is supposed to be unchallengeable, and make people think.

I'm not harming anyone by any means...I'm simply asking questions, stirring the pot, and trying to make a difference in this world. People are thinking. People are reading arguments that they haven't heard before. More people are becoming non-religious. People are coming out of the "atheist closet" and are making a different. The tides are turning.

The purpose of this blog is to clear up common misconceptions about commonly held beliefs (religious and others) to make people think, sharpen critical thinking skills, and for me to keep a log of my thoughts. Even moderate theists enjoy my blog. If they disagree, they can post (hopefully good arguments) and we can discuss the issues at hand. People can also read what I have to say and might possibly reconsider opinions. Knowledge is power.

Though my blog and accomplishments may impress people, that's not the main goal here. If that's a by-product of this blog and my actions, so be it.

The Nativity...People Still Don't Get It.

The Times Leader has recently published what might easily be the most ignorant, misinformed, and fallacious letter in the Letters to the Editor section...and somehow an author connected the "Ground Zero Mosque" to my complaint against the nativity scene from last December.

It's quite sad that no matter how much information is out there, people will twist words, be willfully ignorant, and not do any research to understand very clear arguments that have been presented months ago by rational human beings.

Here's some background information for those who aren't aware...

During December of 2009, I filed a complaint about an unconstitutional religious display at the Luzerne County Courthouse - this letter was sent.

The nativity scene and menorah were taken down along with the snowman behind the tree as evidenced in this press release. Because of this, I received a great deal of hate mail, hate, threats, etc from residents of Luzerne County.

If you'd like to read all of the media coverage including newspaper articles, television appearances and stories, and everything else, feel free to browse through my "December 2009" section of my blog.

Jane George of Tunkhannock is way off the mark in this following letter to the editor,

Christian symbols also warrant protection

I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning.

But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or the desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried. Or it could have been about the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.

In fact, the letter correctly quotes the only statements the Constitution makes on the subject of religion.

Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion? Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.

One can only say on the subject of Christian symbols on public lands being illegal, never have so many been deceived by so few. Now that I have laid to rest the myths about the Constitution or other laws, what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land.

In corporations, decisions concerning the property owned by the business are made by the stockholders. So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there. In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?

Lincoln was right when he said, “you cannot deny equality to one without endangering it for all.”"

I will disect all of the arguments and claims in this article in order to have clarity tonight.

I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning. But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn

The "issue" regarding the "9/11 mosque" did not exist in the legal realm. People, for whatever reasons, did not want the Islamic Community Center, but none of these reasons were legal arguments. In the case of the nativity, the argument was PURELY a legal argument. People can put up a place of worship - this is legal...but the government can not put up religious displays conveying a message of support of religion over non-religion, endorsement of religion, or favoritism of one religion over another. The government -- not the people -- dictated the speech on the courthouse lawn in the case of the nativity. In the case of the "9/11 Mosque," people proposed to have a place of worship in a building that they purchased. These situations aren't even remotely alike.

The desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried

The ACLU did not desecrate a cross, but rather fought to have it legally removed.

the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country

It's funny how the language used when people are fighting for separation of church and state is so aggressive. What is this "assault?" People are simply filing legal complaints because they believe that the establishment cause of the constitution is being violated...and it's not only Christianity, either. Appealing to traditions is fallacious. The law is much more important than tradition. We had a lot of "traditions" in this country such as women not voting, slavery, racism, lynching, etc. We obviously can't morally justify traditions simply because they are traditions.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.

Wow. This irony is juicy and delicious. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the United States that the founding fathers were very passionate about. Wikipedia it. This comment is just ignorant. Like every amendment and article mentioned in the constitution, courts have interpreted the constitution to establish legal precedent. Perhaps this reader should purchase a copy of "The United States Constitution what it says, what it means: a hip pocket guide" to have some understanding and turn to page 39 to read, "...the Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of beliefs over another. ...the Establishment Clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state..."

This website gives another clear explanation, "It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment."

Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion?

This is more wordplay with incorrect emphasis on the word "Congress" and a misunderstanding of the word "establish." The establishment clause does not only mean, "We can't be a theocracy," as I mentioned above; it covers much more than that.

Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.

This wasn't my argument against the religious symbols. This is a very clear strawman of my position and the position of courts' rulings regarding religious symbols. Again, this letter plainly details what the violations are...and this has nothing to do with "Christianity being the county's religion." The establishment clause covers more than just that. If the author is seriously arguing that violations only encompass "what sets up a religion," she'd be disagreeing with hundreds of court rulings on church-state issues and tremendous amounts of legal precedent. She'd also have to concede that it's perfectly okay for the government to erect Islamic crescent moons on government property and force students to pray to Mecca in classrooms because it's not making the nation an Islamic nation. Give me a break.

...what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land. [...]

So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there.

This argument is ridiculous. People can't break the law or "do what they want" simply because they pay for the land. If the author wants to seriously forward this argument, she'd have to agree that slavery, rape, incest, and murder are perfectly permissible on land that they pay for. She'd also have to concede that I can break the law in my own home because I own my land. Clearly, this is not the case.

The author is also arguing for a tyranny of the majority, the idea that people can "vote" to do whatever they want simply because everyone agrees with it. Just like above, this simply doesn't work. If 90% of the population decided that slavery is permissible, would slavery suddenly be okay? Obviously not.

We also can't claim legal rights just because a majority wants a legal right. Could we all agree that we ought to have a legal right to punch babies simply because a majority agrees on it? Obviously not.

Laws are in place and they must be followed. We can't suddenly break laws with no punishment and claim legal rights just because a majority of people decide so.

In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?

Red herring....this is breaking the law. Rights don't even need to enter the picture. The displays were clearly illegal.

The author of this post clearly "doesn't get it." Perhaps she should attend the Wilkes University discussion this Friday.

Do People *Need* Religion?

Imagine, there's no Heaven....that's an absolute absurdity because what do we have to live for? We have no explanation for how we got here. We have no explanation for where we're going or no explanation for why we should live morally, today!

(See, I don't build up men made of straw to make these posts!)

Theists argue that people need religion in order to live. In other forms, people say, "People have to believe in some higher power!" I find that the sentiment of "people need religion" is a very sad and false view of human nature that even believers should not accept.

It's quite obvious that people don't need religion to live because many non-religious people are quite fine without it. People from all times in human history have been just fine without religion. Non-believers aren't mopey and sappy automatons with no purpose in life just because they don't subscribe to a religion.

I think that the real claim that some people are trying to make is that some people need religion in order to live, but this is also false and dehumanizing. Saying that a person needs to subscribe to a system of beliefs of some sort in order to live is equivalent to saying, "they don't know any better and can't make decisions for themselves; they need religion to tell them how to live."

Religion doesn't create morals, as many would like to think, but rather is contributed to by morals that people have already had. "Don't murder, lie, perjure, and steal," for example, didn't just suddenly fall down from the sky as new knowledge that people weren't aware of. If this was suddenly new information, how could the human race even make it to the proverbial Mount Sinai? Religion draws from our morality and borrows from human insights - it's not the other way around. Sure, you might gain some sort of moral code or structure for life from religion, but you can have that without religion quite easily.

There's also an "easy compromise" and obvious counter to this argument; people can take what they like from religions, not be religious, not believe in anything supernatural, and lead a meaningful life from what they found in religious books. In this case, people live without being religious and do just fine. If you don't like this argument and want to say, "Aha! They did need religion, but just weren't religious," this doesn't work because we could still arrive at these conclusions without religion.

In my post discussing morality, I discuss how moral information is acquired, arrived at, and why it is desired...we don't need God to explain morality and we certainly don't need religion to be moral individuals.

We can have great social cohesion, answers to "life's questions," a fulfilling life, love, happiness, and everything else that we might need in life without religion. If you don't have the tools to arrive at understanding of how to live, you can acquire them.

Here are some responses to potential detractors:

"Religion provides Security"

Everyone has difficult times of stress, struggle, hardship, and pain throughout life. Some people might turn to religion to deal with hardships, but this isn't necessary. Although it might be comforting to believe that there is a higher purpose or divine reason for the bad parts of our lives, we don't need to believe this in order to endure struggles. It might be comforting to think that our dead loved ones are smiling down from Heaven, but we need not have these beliefs to cope with death. Although some people may not be able to cope with problems properly, there are people who can console others and teach them how to deal with tough times - we call those people friends, family members, psychologists, co-workers, and peers.

"Religion provides meaning"

In order to derive meaning from life, we don't need religion. We can decide what's important in our lives, assign subjective purpose, make life better for others, have fun, and inspire others. If I like writing, I'm going to go out there and do it because it's meaningful for me. I can create meaning in my life right now and be satisfied with this. Although my accomplishments and life won't be lasting forever, I don't despair or suddenly feel that life is meaningless. I don't need "cosmic significance" in order to feel accomplished or fulfilled.

"Religion provides authority and direction"

Some people say that we're not good enough to make decisions for ourselves and must submit to some sort of authority system in order to have some sort of direction, but I reject this. Even if we have an innate need for authority, we need not "resign" ourselves to religion and belief in God. We can have direction from significant others, friends, teachers, etc. As adults, we must accept the fact that we hold a great amount of responsibility. We exercise a great degree of self-determination and don't have people over our shoulders telling us what to do...and we should be okay with that. If we're not okay with that, we certainly don't need religion to fill the gap.

"If no religion, anything goes"

The fear that "anything goes" because someone is non-religious is unsubstantiated. Non-belief doesn't entail a murder spree and total disregard to other human beings. Atheists, just like believers, can be great upstanding moral individuals. Theist or atheist, most humans still want to follow laws, respect others, be charitable individuals, and make the world a better place. Don't have fear that non-belief means that anything is up for grabs and that people will behave poorly.

We tell stories about the unknown and want to have answers. We see divinity beyond what we can't explain or understand. It's attractive for many to cling to religion to answer the unknown, but we should be content not knowing and honestly adjust our beliefs and perceptions about life to deal with reality. Let's be intellectually honest, concerned about acquiring truth more than comfort, and face reality for what it is. We don't need religion to live and we certainly don't need religion to be good people.