Does Dying for a Belief Add Validity To The Belief?

Is she really dead?

Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel like to use the following argument, "Why would the apostles die for a lie? The reason that they died for their beliefs is because Jesus rose from the dead! No one would die for a lie!" Lee Strobel fails hard in this video:

Besides the obvious objection of there being no good evidence to suggest that the apostles were actually martyred, here are some easy refutations.

This argument of "why would someone die for a belief...the belief must have been true because they died for it" seems appealing, but it easily fails when you start to think of examples and understand potential motivations...

- Members of a religious sect want their ministry and doctrine to continue, so they actually die (whether or not they actually believe) for their beliefs.

Imagine that a member of a fringe religious sect is captured by members of a majority religion. The fringe member is asked to recant his beliefs or be killed and decides not to recant. Because of this death, the person is thinking that the belief will be spread because someone was willing to die for it.

- A person dies for a lie in order to protect others.

Consider the following situation. A mother and her son are involved in gangs and drug dealing. They are often in trouble with many gangs and the law because they steal weapons and drugs from others. One day, while a mother and her son are home, a gang member breaks into the house, places both the son and mother at gunpoint, and says, "I want to know who stole my drugs. I'm going to kill whoever did it and then leave. If no one says anything, I'll shoot you both." Although the mother had nothing to do with the theft, she speaks up to protect her son and is then killed. The gang member walks away as promised.

- A person believes that martyrs will enter the afterlife.

The almost exclusively religious suicide bombing community believes that martyrdom is a good thing that will send one to a very pleasant paradise.

- People think that they will die for "reason x" and take their lives instead.

Consider a mafia member who is captured by vigilantes. If the mafia member rats out the mafia boss, he knows that he'll be killed by the mafia boss and the organization would crumble. Instead of being killed by the mafia boss and destroying the organization, the mafia member tells the vigilantes a lie in order to deflect attention away from the mafia boss's location. Unknown to the mafia member, the vigilantes know that this is a lie and kill the mafia member.

- Heaven's Gate Cult

Members of the Heaven's Gate cult who thought that a UFO from behind a comet would kill them decided to take their own lives before the comet passed them. They clearly died for a belief that wasn't true.

- People make up a story to add credibility to a claim

Perhaps the apostles were killed in a skirmish and people who wrote the stories later on decided to embellish and make up the story that the apostles died for a lie. There's a great deal of embellishment already in the Gospels, for example, that really hurts their credibility as historical sources free from myth and extreme bias. The Gospels were written so that people would believe them, not to objectively report happenings.

Regardless of all these objections, the argument of "People died for a belief, so the belief must be true" is a total non-sequitur. Dying for a belief does not suddenly make the belief true. All throughout history, people have been martyrs for ideas, religions, and other people...and we view these deaths as wasteful and silly. Think about Nazis, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. If a solipsist were to be martyred for his belief, would solipsism suddenly be plausible?

I'm interviewed by local author Kenny Luck

A few months ago, I was interviewed by local author Kenny Luck about my complaint against the nativity scene at the Luzerne County Courthouse. I discuss my background, the nativity, atheism, and much more in this 40 minute audio interview. Enjoy.

http://www.filefront.com/17437546/Justin_Vacula.wav

I'm going to be featured in a chapter of his upcoming book, NEPAtized, that is scheduled to be relased in April of 2011.

Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?

NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”

With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose, complimented by Ted Michalowski’s engaging illustrations, explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words, their roles in shaping it, and their grievances against it.

Why Good (and bad) People Do Wrong to Others: From Aristotle to 2010

I've composed the following essay about something from Aristotle for my philosophy class and would love to share it with my readers.

Introduction

What can drive people to harm others in a society where most people are generally well-meaning and moral individuals? Why would someone intentionally break the rules, cheat, and act with malice? How can upstanding individuals who have never committed a crime break the public trust? Chapter twelve in book one of Aristotle's Rhetoric addresses the motives that drive people to wrong others. Although it might be impossible in practice to address the motives for every instance of wrongdoing, Aristotle was well ahead of his time and provided reasons explaining why people would behave poorly. Contemporary understanding, in addition to Aristotle's arguments, can provide many explanations as to why people misbehave, harm others, and commit crimes.

What Aristotle had to say applied to modern times

Two of Aristotle's first reasons explaining why people misbehave boil down to people thinking that they won't have to pay the consequences of their actions; “they can do it without being found out, or if they are found out they can escape without being punished” (Aristotle 1). Committing a crime and thinking that a person won't be caught is self-explanatory. An accountant, for example, may decide to embezzle money from a business and “cook the books” to make it appear like no money was stolen so that he/she would not get caught. The same accountant may think that even if he/she would be caught, he/she would not have to pay the consequences. Foe example, the owner of the business might never question the bookkeeping because he would be afraid of possible retaliation, more embezzlement, poor job performance from the accountant, or the accountant quitting the job.

Another one of Aristotle's reasons for a person to do wrong to others is “that if they are punished the disadvantage will be less than the gain for themselves or those they care for” (Aristotle 1). A politician may decide to bribe another politician to vote a certain way to ensure that a motion is passed. The politician offering the bribe may feel that the punishment for bribery is far less than the gain; the passing of the motion is far more important than a small fine that the politician might have to pay. A person might also judge the reward and potential benefit from crime to be worth taking the risk of being caught or punished. The homeless man might have little to lose if he is punished for robbing a liquor store and might even be content with going to jail. The money is enough incentive to commit the crime and would be a huge benefit in comparison to the punishment of going to jail.

People might also commit crimes with the mindset that they are great rhetoricians, have great lawyers, are famous and would not be convicted, and have a great deal of money to avoid punishment if brought to court. Celebrities and politicians in this category might decide to break the rules because they feel that they can get out of any possible situation if charged with a crime. A police officer may act in an unjust and illegal fashion toward a downtrodden individual who – in the eyes of the officer -- has no money, lawyers, or intelligence to appeal in court. Aristotle mentions that the confidence of evading punishment is greatest when an individual has the qualities as opposed to that person's friends.

Criminals might feel safe when committing a crime, Aristotle says, when they are on good terms with their victims or the judges. Child rapists in this category might feel immune from prosecution because they often know their victims and feel that they would never be punished because of that close relationship. Abusive men might also batter their wives or girlfriends with the idea that they would never be prosecuted because the female would never confess, press charges, or jeopardize their well-being by turning in their significant other. The wronged persons might also make arrangements with the criminals outside of the legal system. Criminals, as Aristotle mentions, might also know the judges who prosecute criminals. Although judges are supposed to be neutral toward the person who they are trying in court, some criminals might feel that they will get some sort of special treatment from familiar judges.

People might commit crimes because they feel that their appearances contradict the punishments that they might face and not fit the stereotypical viewpoint of the particular criminal. People might not suspect a twenty-six year old nurse, for example, to molest a senior citizen in a nursing home. People might not expect respected priests to rape and torture children. Defying expectations of individuals in society might lead a person to be more likely to commit a crime. People don't expect females to partake in armed robbery nor do they expect females to rape.

Aristotle notes that people might do wrong because they expect to “stave off a trial, or have it postponed, or corrupt your [their] judges: or if you [they] are sentenced you can avoid paying damages, or can at least postpone doing so for a long time” (Aristotle 1). Local county commissioner Greg Skrepenak and his lawyer attempted to delay and reduce sentencing because they felt that Skrepenak's obligations toward his children would allow for some sympathy. Eventually, his sentencing was reduced because of medical problems, cooperation with officials, previous charitable works, and obligations toward his children (Skrepenak 1). People with power, prestige, and money can easily postpone trials and sentencing while destitute and common people are disadvantaged.

Aristotle mentions despots who may commit crimes because “their punishment is nothing more than being called bad names” (Aristotle 2). Leaders like Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot, for example, had very little to lose when they committed atrocities. Who could find corrupt despots guilty of crimes and prosecute them? People who make the laws can violate the laws or change the laws to suit their agendas if no system of checks and balances is in place. Laypeople may revolt, but when a leader has a tremendous amount of power, protection, and a secret police force, revolt is almost impossible. The government in 1984 is a great example of an unassailable power that was free to do whatever it wished because punishment would never be levied.

People may continue to commit crimes because they have “escaped detection or punishment already; or by having often tried and failed; for in crime, as in war, there are men who will always refuse to give up the struggle” (Aristotle 2). Drug dealers hiding from police may feel motivated to continue selling crystal meth because they feel that they won't get caught. Drug dealers might also appear in court and found not guilty, leading them to think that they can never face punishment for their crimes. Some chronic criminals may also continue to commit crimes regardless of being punished in the past because, as Aristotle says, they refuse to give up the struggle. Some people who grew up in oppressive environments might enjoy committing crimes or feel that crime is the only option to get ahead.

Weakness of will is another reason that Aristotle gave for why people commit crimes. Some people might not be content with what they have and wish to act in unethical manners to get ahead. Greedy politicians might decide to lie and accept money from special interest groups in order to move to a higher office. Athletes may take illegal performance-enhancing drugs in order to compete with their peers and vanquish their opponents. Students might cheat on tests because they feel that they should not have to study because others cheat, because they are on sports teams, or because cheating is far too easy.

Aristotle notes that people whose “victims may be far off or near at hand” can be motivated to commit crimes (Aristotle 2). “If they are near, he gets his profit quickly; if they are far off, vengeance is slow, as those think who plunder the Carthaginians.” (Aristotle 2) Charles Keating, the man behind one of the largest loan scandals in the United States, defrauded many senior citizens in order to attempt to make a huge profit. Many of his victims were very near to him, so he was able to quickly amass wealth (Keating 1).

“A man may wrong his enemies, because that is pleasant : he may equally wrong his friends, because that is easy.” (Aristotle 2) When people are charged with violent crimes or possession of child pornography, people are often very quick to want to exact vengeance or call for violence against the person who is charged. Although the “eye for an eye” mentality makes the whole world blind and might be cruel and unusual punishment (should we rape rapists?), people are quick to endorse it and feel no sympathy if a person who is charged and not even convicted is beaten in a prison. In more general terms, people want to wrong their enemies because of jealousy, spite, or even a good reason by taking the law into their own hands and attempting to punish others. Some people may find it easy to wrong friends because friends don't expect to be wronged and because it's much easier to wrong friends than strangers because friends often let their guard down.

Aristotle mentions that “there is something fine and pleasant in wrong such persons [who do violence to others], it seems as though no wrong were done (Aristotle 3). This “eye for an eye” mentality might lead a female's father, for example, to harm an abusive boyfriend and feel that nothing was wrong when this happened because the victim was previously doing the harm. This might even prevent future harm and serve a greater good in the eyes of the father. People who lost friends as the result of violence might also go after the criminals because they feel that avenging their dead friends is morally justified.

Beyond Aristotle

Physicist Steven Weinberg once said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Many of our beliefs inform our actions. People often shape a great portion of their lives with religious beliefs and accept what holy books say and what parties of gods say simply because they were told to do so or feel that doing so is moral. While religious beliefs can cause some people to do good, religious beliefs can often cause people to perform atrocious acts. The suicide bombing community, for example, is almost entirely religious. Children, from an early age, are filled with propaganda and hate from extremist religious groups and are led to believe that suicide bombing is a perfectly moral action. Because of religious beliefs, some people are also led to murder abortion doctors because they feel that their actions are morally justified.

Religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus have contributed over one million dollars to fund proposition eight (the initiative to stop gay marriage) in California (Knights of Columbus Contribute 1). The Knights of Columbus also recently produced a DVD that was sent to Catholic households in Minnesota in addition to donating 1.4 million dollars to the National Organization for marriage, a group that wants marriage to remain as “one man, one woman” (Birkey 1). In addition to all of this, Knights of Columbus members also marched in the Philippines in attempt to cease governmental distribution of contraceptives (Knights of Columbus Rallying 1).

Another example of misplaced moral concerns is Mother Teresa's campaign against abortion and contraceptives. One of Mother Teresa's main moral concerns was preventing abortion, what she called the “greatest destroyer of peace” and a “direct murder” in her Nobel Peace Prize speech (Mother 1). Mother Teresa also gave speeches in Ireland encouraging the ban of abortions and contraceptives: “Let us promise our lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this county a single abortion [pause] and no contraceptives” (Hell's).

It's very easy for our moral priorities to be confused because of religious belief. Absolutist beliefs are very difficult to hold when faced with complex situations and conflicting moral priorities. Recently, a woman was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because she performed an abortion on a woman who wanted the abortion and would have died if she did not have the abortion (Nun). This situation seems quite simple. Many Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and would not want to perform or endorse an abortion, but in this case, if there were no abortion, the mother and potential child would have died. If the abortion were performed (and it was), the mother would not die. Should you save one life or lose two? Clearly, the good action was to perform the abortion and save the life of the mother, but some thought that the mother should have died. After this incident, the nun was excommunicated for saving her life.

Returning to humans in disadvantaged situations, some may choose to commit crimes because they calculate risks, determine that since they are living in a situation with a low life expectancy, and realize that there is no or little chance for financial improvement. People may choose to commit crimes when there are huge discrepancies between the rich and the poor because there is a big payoff that is worth taking the risk. Although it may certainly be immoral to murder, steal, and harm others, crime can be an adaptive rational response to high-risk situations and a vision of low life expectancy.

The Twenty-Sided Die Thought Experiment

Consider the following thought experiment: Someone presents a twenty-sided die, verifies that the die is fair, and says, “I have one million dollars in a bank account and would like to present a wager to you. If I roll a one or a two on this die, I will give you one million dollars. If the die result is three to twenty, you allow me to kill you instantly.” People may decide to think about this risk and determine that a 10% chance to win one million dollars is worth wagering their own lives while some people might think that a 90% chance to die is not worth one million dollars. Imagine that the chances are changed to 50% of winning the one million dollars? Would many people then choose to roll the die and determine that a 50% chance of winning one million dollars is worth gambling their lives?

Criminals may consciously or subconsciously weigh the risks of being caught when considering to commit crimes just like people who are presented with the twenty-sided die. Crime is certainly more advantageous when there is little risk of being caught because the criminal would not have to pay the consequences and might be able to commit more crimes. This is similar to how it is more advantageous to roll the die when there is a greater chance of winning the one million dollars. Criminals may not choose to commit crimes when they are more likely to be punished while they may be more likely to commit a crime when punishment is unlikely.

Conclusion

Aristotle provided many reasons explaining why people do wrong to others. Despite the fact that most of us generally behave well, have respect for others, obey the laws, are not psychopaths, and have very good reasons to behave well, people do wrong to others for various reasons. The temptation to do wrong is ever-present and always possible, but many of us choose to refrain from doing wrong because we don't want to be incarcerated, we care about our reputations, and we don't want to harm others. If we identify and reflect upon Aristotle's reasons for why people do wrong, we can be more aware of ourselves and maximize our potential to do good.

Voris' screed against "modernist, progressive, traitorous, agnostic, practical, atheist, humanist, secularists"

If he hasn't already lost his mind, Michael Voris clearly lost it while taping this ridiculous video.

I don't know about you, but I support the "modernist, progressive, traitorous, agnostic, practical, atheist, humanist, secularists" instead of the "God-fearing, family loving, respecting, patriots."

Voris starts his video with a ridiculous false dichotomy and implies that atheists and agnostics are traitorous, non-patriotic, and disrespectful.

Voris appears to argue that atheists, agnostics ,and even people of other religions shouldn't receive any votes because they don't believe in the Christian god.

According to Voris, we also shouldn't vote for people who golf on Sundays.

We shouldn't vote for people who say "Jesus Fucking Christ."

Apparently, the "modernist, progressive, traitorous, agnostic, practical, atheist, humanist, secularists" also don't honor their parents. "All they do is euthanize them."

Voris claims that contraception and birth control is murder and the "tens of millions of abortion" are also murder...and don't forget IVF and stem cells!

Adultery is also our favorite pastime...

"False" is our middle name we "choke on the truth."

"Modernist, progressive, traitorous, agnostic, practical, atheist, humanist, secularists" also covet wives, husbands, homosexual partners...

And don't forget! The democratic party is the "party of God denying, euthanasia loving, abortion embracing, birth control and contraception cheering, adultery welcoming, thieving, lying, pervert supporting, wealth distributors."

More Gay Marriage Arguments

I recently finished a gay marriage argument paper for my Pop Culture and Philosophy class and would like to share it with my readers. I've previously authored an essay for a different class and posted it here, but this essay makes new and stronger arguments. Unfortunatly, this paper could only be three pages, but that's okay. As always, feel free to agree or disagree and make comments. Enjoy.

Homosexual marriage, a marriage between two people of the same sex, is a very controversial issue that splits society and leads religious demagogues to become very active in politics. Religious groups are tremendously concerned with gay marriage because they feel that marriage should only be between one man and one woman; their holy books and traditions, they say, dictate this. The Knights of Columbus, for example, have funneled over one million dollars into anti-gay marriage initiatives to uphold Proposition 8. They also produced and sent an anti-gay marriage DVD to Catholic households in Minnesota. Others, both religious and non-religious, may oppose gay marriage because they feel that “the institution of marriage” is being threatened or because they just don't like homosexuality. Homosexuals, of course, want to have the ability to marry the people they love. Homosexual marriage does not harm anyone and can be extremely beneficial to society, therefore it should be legalized.

Some philosophers feel that gay marriage should be illegal because it is not beneficial to society. This includes Jeff Jordan who argues that homosexuals cannot benefit society by providing the following benefits that heterosexuals do: children, gender-differentiated parenting, and prevention of out-of-wedlock children via affairs (Jordan PowerPoint 5). Jordan also argues that if homosexual marriage is legal, polygamy would also have to be legalized (Jordan PowerPoint 6).

Some philosophers such as Jonathan Rauch and Jacob Held feel that gay marriage should be legal because it is beneficial to society. Held argues that there is no reason to restrict gay marriage because it does no harm, but added rights must be shown to benefit society in order for homosexual marriage to be legalized (Held PowerPoint 14). Rauch argues that homosexual marriage benefits children and domesticates homosexuals (Rauch PowerPoint 6-7).

I will argue that homosexual marriage should be legalized. To defend my conclusion, I will show that homosexual marriage is beneficial to society because homosexual marriage will benefit children, marriage makes for more stable households and well-adjusted children, the sexual orientation of parents does not affect their children or make the parents unsuitable, homosexual marriage will “settle down” homosexuals and therefore reduce the prevalence of AIDS and STDs, and gay marriage will help normalize homosexuality.

Opponents of homosexual marriage typically argue that homosexual marriage will harm children because children need a mother and a father, but this isn't true. Children need a stable household and parents who care for them. If gay couples are married, this will provide more stability for children because the couple has an obligation to stay together and has various legal incentives to do so. Jordan argues that homosexuals can't benefit society, but severely limits himself. Although homosexuals can't produce children or provide gender-differentiated parenting, they can provide various other different benefits to society.

Various studies have shown that homosexual parents are fine parents who do not even influence the sexual orientation of their children (Rauch PowerPoint 10). According to researchers, “measures of children's gender roles were generally unrelated to parental sexual orientation. Parents' attitudes and behaviors were more strongly associated with children's gender development than was parental sexual orientation” (Fulcher, Patterson, and Sutfin 330). Psychologist Patricia J. Falk dismisses various arguments regarding children and their lesbian parents; she notes that “Courts [...] have assumed that their children are likely to be emotionally harmed, subject to molestation, impaired in gender role development, or themselves homosexual. None of these assumptions is supported by extant research and theory” (Falk 941). Other researchers note that “children [of homosexual parents] develop normally, showing no particular behavioral, social, or emotional problems. Research on these children also reveals that they show typical development of gender identity, as well as sex-typed behaviors and preferences” (Sutfin, Erin, et al. 503).

Society reveres marriage because people have a committed partner to care for them and help them in their hour of need. Married couples also enjoy benefits such as tax breaks, hospital visitation, and death benefits. Unmarried homosexual couples are currently unable to realize all of the benefits that straight married couples enjoy. Rauch says that “it is good for society to have “settled down individuals” (Rauch PowerPoint 7). Marriage of gays will also help diminish the gay sexual underworld. If couples are married, individual partners will not be having sex with so many different people because they are committed to a monogamous relationship. Because of this commitment, the rates of STDs and AIDS will greatly diminish. Rauch notes, “A sexual underworld is inevitable in every society, but in a marriageless society its extent is greater and its allure stronger. And, of course, its cost is higher” (Rauch PowerPoint 8).

Homosexuals are often stigmatized in society and viewed as immoral, disordered, abnormal, sexual deviants, and child molesters. Because of this stigmatization, stereotypes are perpetuated and homosexuals are afraid to reveal their identities. If gay marriage were made legal, homosexuality would start to be normalized because society says that it is permissible for homosexuals to marry. Opponents of gay marriage argue that if gay marriage were legalized, gay couples would have children who are teased because their parents are gay, but if the homosexual perspective were normalized, this would cease to happen. People who make fun of these children need to change their attitudes and be educated to accept other lifestyles. Less teasing, oppression, ignorance, and stigmatization certainly makes for a better society.

Gay marriage won't lead to polygamy as Jordan argues because we would need to demonstrate that polygamy benefits society. If we wanted to legalize polygamy, this would be a different argument. It does not follow that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to legalization of polygamy.

Since homosexual marriage is beneficial to society, it should be legalized. Children benefit from gay marriage, sexual orientation of parents does not affect their children or make the parents unsuitable, homosexual marriage would “settle down” homosexuals, diminish the gay sexual underworld, and legalization of gay marriage would normalize homosexuality.

Works Cited

Fulcher, Patterson, Sutfin. “Individual Differences in Gender Development: Associations with Parental Sexual Orientation, Attitudes, and Division of Labor.” Sex Roles 58.5/6 (2008): 330-341. Print.

Falk, Patricia J. “Lesbian Mothers: Psychosocial Assumptions in Family Law.” American Psychologist 44.6 (1989): 941-947. Print.

Sutfin, Erin, et al. “How Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents Convey Attitudes About Gender to their Children: The Role of Gendered Environments.” Sex Roles 58.7/8 (2008): 501-513. Print.

Master List of Best Posts for New and Old Readers

Please go to the tab at the top of my blog for my master list of posts or click here.

Donation Button Added

I've added a paypal donation button on the right-hand side of my page. If you like what I'm doing, wish to financially support me, and help me pay for college tuition, please feel free to donate.

I'm not blogging for money. I blog because I enjoy exploring ideas, sharing my thoughts, and promoting critical thinking. No one, of course, is required to donate. It is up to you. Regardless of any donations, I'm still going to post frequently and share my ideas with all of my viewers.

Disappointing Conversation With My Former Priest

I recently had a discussion with a former priest of mine who argues that there is no such thing as reality, knowledge, or evidence. He thinks that all beliefs are faith.

Debunking the "9/11 Truth" Movement Claims

Unfortunately, I've been quite silent about "9/11 was an inside job" claims from the "9/11 truthers," but I no longer feel that I can be because I've read a portion of a book debunking the conspiracy theory (that is used below) and have watched several skeptical videos. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job undermines our government, promotes un-critical thinking, and promotes credulity. We have an official explanation for 9/11, no evidence of explosives via the seismographs that would detect them, and no good reason to believe that there was a conspiracy.

I don't have any specific emotional attachment to this issue like many military personnel, firefighters, victims' families, etc do. I'm also not working for the government in some sort of cover-up. I'm just trying to debunk conspiracy arguments here and promote critical thinking. As always, I try to keep my beliefs away from discussions and believe whatever the evidence points to. We should hold this position in all areas of life and put our beliefs on the table for examination. I'm willing to change any and all of my beliefs provided that the evidence comes in to change them because the truth is more important than comfort or whatever else.

I counter some claims from a discussion on Facebook (they are in quotes) and raise various counter-arguments with help of Theodore Schick's "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age" book that I highly, highly recommend which includes information from this article from an expert in demolitions. I'm no veteran to the 9/11 arguments, but I'll give it a shot regardless. I paraphrase information from pages 280 to 287 from Schick's book below in addition to my own thoughts.

Here we go.

"Just a few days ago a news story was released involving the thermite, the highly explosive material, found in the dust."

There is no evidence to suggest that theramite was found in the dust. If you have the story, please link it. There's no reason to go much further with that until we have the evidence (There can be other objections if it were there, but let's start small).

The Towers' collapse did not look like explosive demolitions. Blasting engineers, since the 1800s, used gravity to maximize the force of explosions, thus they concentrate on the lower levels of the buildings instead of a top-down method. Towers 1 and 2 do not show "failure" from the lowest floors. The buildings fall precisely where the planes struck.

"Explosions were reported by survivors in the basement of the twin towers before the planes even hit."

This is a personal experience claim that is highly dubious. Regardless, many might have heard >loud noises<, but this doesn't mean that there were explosives and it doesn't refute the idea that there is no evidence for explosives being there. Many eyewitnesses (6 million followers), for example, have claimed to experience miracles from an Indian Guru Satya Sai Baba and have signed testimonies that he can perform miracles. He is described by his devotees as an avatar, godman, spiritual teacher, and miracle worker. He has said that he is the reincarnation of the fakir and saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi. His biographer, Easwaramma, described him as being born of immaculate conception. She relates, "I had dreamt of Sathya Narayana Deva and he cautioned me that I should not be frightened if something happened to me through the Will of God. That morning when I was at the well drawing water, a big ball of blue light came rolling towards me and I fainted and fell. I felt it glided into me". Sathya Sai Baba confirmed this during a 2003 birthday party. When he had first announced that he was a reincarnation of a saint, the people asked for jasmine flowers...when the flowers were dropped, they spelled out his name and from then on, he was said to have been a saint. He has made various public appearances in which we can now see his reported miracles. His followers believe that he is a saint, we have eyewitness testimony of followers, and actual video footage of these miracles. Some miracles include materializing jewelry, conjuring ash, levitation, turning water into gasoline, and controlling the weather. Regardless of this eyewitness testimony and the six million people, there's no good reason to believe their claims. People can easily be fooled and in this case, they have been. You can watch Sai Baba's videos on Youtube and come up with naturalistic explanations.

(read more about Sai Baba in my old Miracles post)

Eyewitness testimony isn't a good reason to believe a claim when we have great reasons to doubt. We need more than that.

Anyway, all seismograph readings of the towers indicate a single level of gradual ascending and descending vibration for wtc 1, 2, and 7. Since no sudden or independent spikes on the readings were recorded, we have very good reason to suggest that there was no explosion. A demolition that was powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have been detected on the seismographs.

Also, no evidence of explosives were found.

"Building 7 pancaked controlled demolition style with free fall effect while buildings with greater damage, closer to the towers did not."

The buildings actually didn't fall straight down, but rather followed the paths of least resistance (and there was great resistance). When the impact floors of the towers failed, the upper sections of the towers tilted while collapsing downward. Debris rained down on several blocks around the site. WTC7 and other buildings to the north were impacted by great amounts of debris - the effects responsible for fires. A small amount of structural support debris landed straight down making this event very different than a planned demolition.

"The only two examples in history of two steel skyscrapers crumbling to the ground they way they did... was the twin towers"

Many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. The idea that no other buildings crumbled the way they did, even if this is true but it doesn't matter if it is, does not mean that this collapse was impossible. Each building failure on 9/11 displayed characteristics that are very different.

The towers were brought down because of burning jet fuel, not a demolition. The people who are best qualified to determine whether explosives were used are people who do controlled demolitions for a living...and there is no demolition expert who claims that the buildings were the product of a demolition. Although the collapse may look like it was the result of a demolition, our eyes are very untrained to analyze these things because we're not experts and appearances may be deceiving.

The 9/11 conspiracy theory has little explanatory power because it is less simple, is less conservative, has less scope, and is less fruitful than the official view.

It's less simple and conservative because it assumes that many people including top-government officials, rogue explosive-setters, FBI agents, etc were all involved. This also assumes that people were able to do this all with the officials who would be able to detect foul play either being informed or totally ignorant. We also assume that government officials and many others are so cruel that they would throw the entire nation into a peril, sacrifice so many people, cost tons of money, etc. Don't you think that if there was a big conspiracy that the information would be leaked, the someone would "tattle," that someone would mess up and reveal information, etc? None of this is seen. What about e-mailed, private conversations, notes, memos, etc that should have shown up? There's nothing.

Do we also assume that for some reason the explosives wouldn't be picked up by seismographs even though we know that seismographs would pick them up?

It has less scope because the conspiracy raises so many questions:
- How were the explosives planted (without anyone knowing)
- How did these planters sneak into the towers without people noticing?
- If the buildings were going to explode, why did planes fly into them? Terrorists tried to destroy the buildings before, so why wouldn't the planters just blame it on the terrorists?
- Why kill so many? WTC 7 was evacuated because it was destroyed, so why not evacuate the others?
- Where do the attack on the Pentagon and the PA crash figure in to this conspiracy? Why bother if there were explosives?
- Many believe that the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane because the hole was small and contained few big parts (this addresses something you asked above). Why not use a plane? Wasn't a plane good enough for the towers?
- If the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, where are the passengers and crew?

Videos and documents from Al Qaeda provide evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job and has been broad-casted. Suicide videos from the hijackers were also found. So, did the government also plant all of this in some massive cover-up campaign? How did they do all of this: where were the videos filmed? Where were the documents made? How did they get into the hands of the Arabic broadcasting network?

If there really was a conspiracy, we need to know who did it, how they did it, be able to offer an explanation that is better or as well as our official view. This is just like saying that the Minnesota Bridge Collapse was a conspiracy and was demolished by explosives. We have no evidence for explosives in either scenario and have official explanations that are adequate explanations. 9/11 was no inside job.

For more information, please read Skeptic Magazine's very extensive article debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories here.

Another great site is this "9/11 wiki" debunking many claims by the "9-11 truth movement."

Here's a great movie with a panel of skeptics including one of my favorites Michael Shermer. This movie takes claims by conspiracy theorist, lets them voice their ideas, and takes them apart one by one.

Drug Legalization

D.A.R.E. and many school programs taught and continue to teach students about the dangers of drugs and may have played a large role in keeping me away from drugs, alcohol, and smoking cigarettes ... and I'm very happy about this. I was in student groups in high school and was very much against drug use, but I've modified some of my stances. I used to think that marijuana and other drugs should be banned, but I no longer hold this position. It seems that the arguments that I have seen lead me to accept the fact that all drugs should be decriminalized, but I'm still thinking about the "all drugs" part. I will argue that marijuana (and potentially other drugs) should be legalized in this post.

Before I begin with the arguments, I have no interest whatsoever in smoking marijuana or using any drugs. I don't even like alcohol, going to drinking parties, or the idea of getting drunk. I'm very much against the "drinking culture" because I view it as anti-intellectual and harmful. I'm also not arguing for legalization just because I have friends who smoke marijuana or because I want to be anti-establishment (although that often incidentally happens).

Drug Use is a Matter of Choice, not Legality: Strip Club Analogy

Think about strip clubs. Many people enjoy going to strip clubs and others have no interest in attending, think that they are immoral, and think that they are degrading women. Regardless of the legality of strip clubs, the non-interested parties have made decisions regarding whether they want to enjoy strip clubs. Interested parties go to strip clubs because they think that they are entertaining and want to enjoy the experience regardless of what is legal or illegal.

We know that we can't stop strip clubs because there are so many strippers and so many people who enjoy watching strippers. People pay good money to see strippers and tip well. Stripping is in high demand and if you strip in a safe environment (or view stripping in a safe environment), ensure that others' rights are not being violated, and choose to attend or strip, everything should be fine.

Imagine if strip clubs, something in high demand, were illegal and strippers and strip clubs could not be stopped. Regardless of legality and despite all efforts to stop strip clubs, they still are in very high demand.

As you can see, strip clubs and drugs have many things in common.

- Regardless of legality, there is demand.

- Regardless of legality, people make choices to be entertained/entertain.

- Non-misuse of drugs and strip clubs do not violate others' rights.

- We can't stop strip clubs because of the high demand, because of how easy it is to make a strip club, and avoid being caught; efforts to stop strip clubs are futile.

- If strip clubs and drugs were illegal, prices would go way up (because of the risk factor, limited availability, etc)

- If strip clubs and drugs were illegal, the people who choose to partake would be more likely to commit crimes to acquire money.

- If strip clubs and drugs were illegal, there would be no way to settle disputes, so people would resort to violence in order to "settle disputes."

- If we ban strip clubs or drugs, the government would have to spend tremendous amounts of money and time to enforce laws.

- If we ban strip clubs or drugs, offenders who are caught would spend time in prison, face tremendous fines, clog up the prison system, cost courts money, etc.

Criminalizing Leads to Crime and Violence

If something that is in-demand is banned, suppliers have tremendous profit incentives and can charge much more money because people are willing to pay and because of an added risk factor. Banned items also become less readily available and more expensive because there is not an open, visible market with many, many sellers and competition. Not many people are willing to take the risks of selling drugs (because it is illegal), but if drug use were legal, many more people would be willing to sell and thus drive the price down [more sellers, more competition, lower prices].

Since people don't have the money and can't afford to buy banned items, they'll commit crimes in order to acquire money. If the item were not banned, people could afford it (like alcohol and cigarettes), and these crimes would not be committed. Another problem with criminalization is that there is no legal recourse that people can have because the action was illegal. If a drug dealer is ripped off in an illegal setting, he/she can't take the purchaser to court in order to settle a dispute, so violence is often the only option. If someone was ripped off in a legal environment, people can use legal methods to have recourse.

In a legal setting, crime rates to obtain drugs would be greatly diminished because the prices of the drugs are very low. Decriminalization would lead to lower prices, competition, less violence, and less crime.

A Libertarian and Freedom Argument

As citizens, we should be free to make decisions about what we want to ingest whether it be saturated fat, cheeseburgers, alcohol, or marijuana. We should have the right to do whatever we please provided that we don't violate the rights of others. Individuals, not the government, should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies. This argument is quite simple and should be the cornerstone of our laws.

Pay the Consequences for Misuse, not use

Safe amounts of various drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, and caffeine can be ingested without misuse and causing harm to others, therefore safe usage should not be criminalized. I can, for example, legally ingest a safe amount (or even an unsafe amount) of drug x and harm no one. Should my actions be penalized? Clearly no harm was done to others, so how can I be charged with a crime? Crimes with victims are similar to debts without debtors - they don't exist. If I fail to violate the rights of other individuals, I should not be prosecuted. If, though, I misuse a drug and violate others' rights, I should be prosecuted. The drunk driver who kills someone should be prosecuted just like the marijuana user who drives impaired and kills someone (even if the latter never happened).

It is not fair to ban something just because it can be misused especially if it's relatively harmless and can be used in safe doses quite easily. Alcohol may be very harmful if misused, but this doesn't mean that I should be banned because of this. Marijuana can impair people and interfere with driving ability, but this also doesn't mean that it should be banned. If we want to ban marijuana just because it can be misused and lead to harm, we should also ban many prescription drugs, caffeine, and alcohol.

Costly efforts to house criminals, enforce laws, wage "the war on drugs," etc, are a tremendous waste of money that could be avoided. The "war on drugs" has also failed despite tremendous commitment.

From David Boaz (source):

- Federal drug war outlays increased by more

than 1150% between 1981 and 1999, and the

federal government spent more than $75

billion on anti-drug activities during the last

five years. Adjusted for inflation, the federal

government spends twenty-five times as

much on drug law enforcement every year as

it spent on Prohibition enforcement

throughout the Roaring Twenties.

- Police officers made more than 1.5 million

drug law arrests in 1999, about eighty per- cent

of them for drug possession.

- The number of drug busts tripled during the

1980s, and the number of convictions

doubled. Arrests continued to rise throughout

the 1990s, and the average sentence for drug

offenses nearly doubled.

- America's prison population quadrupled

between 1981 and 1999, from 344,283 to

1,366,721. More than six million people were

on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at

year end 1999. (

3.1 percent of all U.S. adult

residents.)

- On December 31, 1999, state

prisons were operating at between one percent

and seventeen percent above capacity, while

federal prisons were operating at thirty-two

percent above capacity. More prisoners are in

jail for non-violent drug law violations than

ever before.

- The armed services, Coast Guard, and Civil

Air Patrol became more active in the drug

fight, providing search and pursuit planes,

helicopters, ocean interdiction, and radar.

Defense Department spending on the War on

Drugs rose from $200 million in 1988 to $800

million in 1990.

- The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and

National Security Agency began using spy

satellites and communications listening

technology as part of the drug war. The CIA

also designed a special Counter Narcotics

Center.

- The federal government forced drug testing

upon public employees and required

contractors to establish "drug-free" workplaces.

Drug testing has also expanded

among private companies.

The above arguments should be sufficient reasons to legalize all drugs, but there are additional good arguments for legalizing marijuana.

- Marijuana has health benefits and can be used to treat anxiety, depression, glaucoma, and other problems.

- Marijuana is quite harmless to its user and is not addictive.

- Marijuana, with a good conscience, can be regulated and sold by the government creating many, many, many new jobs and great revenue.

A bad argument that pro-legalization people shouldn't use:

"Marijuana exists in nature, therefore it should be legal and moral to use!"

The idea that something exists in nature does not give it a legal or moral basis - this is the naturalistic fallacy. Rape exists in nature, so should that be decriminalized? This is a bad argument.

I'm standing on the fence at the moment about the implications of my argument regarding hard drugs and may post an update when I reach a conclusion.

I hope you enjoyed my arguments for legalizing drugs. Please point out any issues you may have with my arguments...this is a new field of argumentation for me!

Should Atheists (or anyone else) Just Shut Up to Make Everyone Happy and Expect Everyone to Like Them?

"You should just shut up and make people happy!"

"You should just 'leave people alone'"

"So many people get angry because of what you say!"

I've been contemplating a post regarding "pleasing everyone" for quite some time. I want to argue that we should not want to please everyone or hold irrational beliefs that we can make everyone happy. We also shouldn't want to be friends with many people who behave poorly or shut up just because we want to please everyone. It's impossible and undesirable to be liked by everyone and it's foolish to "play neutral" to achieve this impossible goal. I'll discuss the public opinion of me, how people treat me, the ramifications I have faced because I am a public atheist, and argue for my previous points.

Ever since I became a vocal atheist and especially since I filed a complaint to remove a courthouse nativity scene, I've been unfairly vilified, stereotyped, and avoided by students at my college. I've lost friends, family members, and acquaintances. I've received a tremendous amount of hate mail and backlash, threats of violence, after-death threats, and gained the ire of an entire community (and then some) simply for doing and saying unpopular things. I haven't levied personal attacks against people. I haven't broken the law. I haven't harmed anyone. I simply challenged a tradition, challenged beliefs, fought for the important of separation of church and state, and disagreed with people...and it's all worth it.

People might think, "Can you handle it?" Are you okay? How are you dealing with these issues? How is it to have troves of people hate you when they haven't even met you or read what you had to say? How is it to have so many students from your college send you hate mail, avoid you, spread rumors, and say really nasty things? I'm content and am actually empowered by the hate because it justifies what I am doing. If people are going to hate me for challenging religion and fighting for separation of church and state, they're proving my point that religion can cause people to do irrational things and must be challenged. Of course, as I always mention, not all theists do bad things or encourage this behavior, but many continue to behave in this irrational manner.

No matter what I do as an active atheist or no matter what Joe Status Quo Public does, we're going to be disliked by someone. We're not going to make friends with everyone. For whatever reasons, rational and irrational, people won't like us. People might not like me because they feel that I am "threatening their beliefs" and "imposing reality" on them. People might not like Joe Public because he works at a pizza shop and they feel that he is wasting potential. We can easily look at any give person, find a flaw, and dislike them because of this. We can also dislike people because they have a prevailing attribute like intelligence. We can not like someone because they are a "threat" to having a relationship with someone, getting a job, or virtually anything. At the end of the day, no matter how hard anyone tries, you're not going to be liked by everyone.

It's totally irrational to expect everyone to like you, agree with what you have to say, think you are beautiful, etc, so it's useless to try to "please everyone." No matter what, people with unpopular opinions such as atheists, are going to be especially vilified and disliked. Don't consider this to be a sign that you're doing something wrong, that you are a bad person, or that you're a total failure.

Some people might want to "please everyone" by holding a neutral position or remaining silent on issues that need to be discussed. Let's face it: some people need to be addressed and "called out" when they make insane comments or promote irrationality. We certainly can't do this all the time, but we really should when we have the chance (but it's important to pick battles). If I'm sitting at a table and someone says something like, "Atheists are bad people who have no morals," I should feel morally obligated to raise objections against this. Sure, some people (especially the person making the comment) might feel uncomfortable because their beliefs are being threatened, but this doesn't matter. The neutral position or silence can't possibly be maintained from an intellectually honest person when inflammatory statements are made.

When I find that people say nasty things about me or when I receive hate mail, I don't want to be friends with them. I don't want to have much to do with people who think that I deserve to burn in hell and exult at this idea. This saves me time in the long run and really tells me a great deal about a person in most cases. This might be difficult to accept for several reasons because people don't really think about beliefs and might change positions, people can otherwise be stellar individuals, and this greatly limits friendship possibilities. Exceptions aside, we shouldn't want to be friends with hateful people.

Don't get me wrong, though. Just because I disagree with some positions that people might hold does not mean that I don't want to be friends with them or even discuss important issues. I'm friends with many theists even though I think that their positions are unjustified. It would certainly be unreasonable, anyway, to only be friends with those who share all of your opinions. I want to have a diverse group of friends.

Atheism aside, we shouldn't even want to be friends with people who behave poorly toward others, are bigots, spread false rumors about others, or even treat us poorly. What do we possibly have to gain by being friends with people who often act in an immoral fashion? Shouldn't we instead want to befriend upstanding individuals? Shouldn't we want to distance ourselves from those who aren't so stellar?

Atheists sometimes complain and say, "I don't want to speak up because I'll lose friends." Well, good, lose them because if someone's not going to be friends with you simply because you're an atheist, they're not good friends anyway. If being an active atheist limits your social possibilities, so be it. The ramifications just prove that being an active atheist is a worthwhile endeavor, but there are many benefits such as empowering other atheists, offering support to others who share your ideas, making new friends, and being on the forefront of discussion regarding many important ideas of our time.

Unfortunately, some people are forced to be closet atheists because of the threat of losing jobs, friends, or family members. Those who can speak up should to allow for a normalization of the atheist perspective and lend a voice to the silent atheists.

Although I wish people were more willing to think critically, have discussions with me, read what I have to say, and not stereotype me, I'm perfectly fine with being "the third most hated person in Luzerne County," "the most hated person at King's College," and whatever else title I may have. I stood up and continue to stand up for great justified causes and won't back down just because people will threaten violence or even send me death threats; I won't give in to terrorism. I'm not going to back down, shut up, or give up because people behave poorly and vilify me.

I don't want to be friends with everyone, I don't want to please everyone, and I don't want to take a neutral position on everything or be silent to make people happy. I want to continue my pursuit of knowledge, promote critical thinking, raise much needed objections, prompt discussion, and "fight" for a great cause: critical thinking in all areas of life. I'm not backing down just because people don't like what I have to say.