Hate Mail Proves My Point

My blog and Facebook profile typically have lively positive discussion that is engaging, but I get quite a large deal of hate mail. As always, I welcome discussion, but little discussion is had when people offer personal attacks, wish that someone would shoot me, and tell me to come to a dorm room so "my fat face can get fucked up [for Jesus]." Of course not all theists are like this, but many of these people are indeed your "average Joe moderates." These are "regular, everyday people" who aren't the fundamentalists on TV that so many put all the blame on. These people are representing their religion (they are members of it, of course) with nothing but hate. And what, you ask, provokes such a visceral response? Perhaps you would expect this kind of stuff to be said to corrupt judges, rapists, or child molesters. Perhaps you would expect the most hated people to be the criminals in society. Nope. I'm the third most hated person in Luzerne County because I am publicly open and active about my skepticism and I filed a complaint against an illegal nativity scene that even courthouse officials admitted was wrong.

Recently, I got this nonsense from an anonymous blogger who hasn't read much of anything I have said, but took the time to type this:

Do you have a life or do you just think about this shit all day long?

I think people like you and religious watchdog groups are fucking pathetic. Get a life and concentrate on something important. You are actually infringing on people's First Amendment rights to practice religion by opening your mouth. I don't understand why you focus on this stuff so much. Maybe if you got a real job, you wouldn't have to ask for donations on your blog.

I know that by commenting this I will only fuel your fire of how people hate you. "I'm the most hated person in Wilkes Barre." that was you once quoted in the newspaper after you called the ACLU about the nativity scene. I think you should leave the elderly alone because they love religion and let them have their nativity. I saw a older woman cry outside the courthouse after they took down the nativity.

By expressing that I know this will only fuel your fire, I am no longer going to not say how I feel. You are ridiculous. You will never be famous only infamous and nothing is good about that. Even Michael Moore listens to the other side of the story, you just critcize.

I will end with this. May God Bless You and Keep You.

I followed-up with this simple response:

I really love people like you, previous poster. Instead of offering any argument on any of my 100+ blog posts, you simply send hate and offer personal attacks. Your fallacious assumption that I don't have a life is hilarious because I'm a fourth year college student, have two jobs, am quite involved with many activities and leadership roles.

How, exactly, are I depriving people of the freedom to worship by arguing that their religious ideas are false?

I never said that I was the most hated person I Wilkes-Barre. KRZ DJ Jumpin' Jeff Walker called me the third most hated person in Luzerne County. I wear this as a great badge of honor because it proves my point on so many levels. This demonstrates that religion is divisive as I have argued it is, moderates can be hateful people and part of the problem, people can turn their brains off when religion is involved, people lack critical thinking skills, and religion can do a great deal of harm. The nativity issue was a legal one, not a religious one. The arguments were and still are on my side and the courthouse officials even admitted they were wrong!

What do you mean "Leave the elderly alone?" All I am doing is upholding the law and voicing my opinions in the media, online, etc. I'm not knocking on doors handing out papers to people or anything like that. How can a dissenting opinion that is civil bother people so much if their beliefs are so substantiated, anyway? They should follow the advice in the Bible (1 Peter 3:15) and give arguments for their beliefs. How can a dissenter be such a bother in the face of God, if he exists?

I welcome disagreement on my blog, on my profile, and everywhere. If you don't agree, say so and dictate why. We can have a conversation instead of offering personal attacks, non-sequiters, etc.

It's also silly to suggest that I don't listen to the other side of the story because I listen (and post) debates from "the other side" and go to various religiously-themed events, and discuss these matters with other people frequently.

Thanks for brightening my day and proving my point!

I've previously argued that religion is divisive. Since I've been an atheist, I've lost friends [who really weren't my friends], have been lambasted by family members, and have received the ire of an entire county to become the "third most hated person in Luzerne County." First, as many have suggested, I did not bring this upon myself and it's not my fault. My former friends and family were the ones to break the ties and that is solely on them. Their actions led to the termination of those relationships. If you're going to cease talking to me because of a disagreement about politics and religion, there's a serious problem and something is wrong with the picture. What, besides religion... crime, substance abuse, and similar directly harmful stuff can possibly cause so many ties of friends and family to be severed? It's odd to put religion next to crime and drugs, but it is what it is.

I've previously argued that religion can greatly cloud thinking and impair judgment. It's quite easy to see that when people aren't listening to arguments and just have their ears covered. It's quite easy to see that when people ignore objections and continue to "believe what they want to believe." It's quite easy to see that, no matter what counter-evidence is presented, cognitive dissonance can be regulated to the point of double think and the magic answer of "God is mysterious and we can't fully understand him" when excuses would never be made elsewhere.

While I feel that hate mail is very entertaining, it proves my point. Let's tone down the hate, have an actual discussion, and not see each other as enemies because we disagree (unless, of course, there is more than a disagreement and the person is committing crimes against humanity).

The Ethics of Warcraft Raiding

...and now for something completely different! I suppose I can and should post "and everything else" stuff once in a while. This essay is written for a general audience so that people who don't play massively multiplayer online games (MMORPGS) can understand.

I argue that players in World of Warcraft who raid with others in a serious guild should do everything that is reasonable to maximize the efficiency of their character, their effectiveness in raids, etc. Failure to do so is acting in an unethical manner and negatively affecting yourself and others who you play with. As always, feel free to comment and disagree. If you feel that I went wrong somewhere, please make an argument and identify where my reasoning is flawed.

I haven't played the game for about three months now, but my arguments and criticisms should still be valid.

----

When joining a raiding guild in World of Warcraft, you're investing a great deal of time and playing with several others who have agreed to put everything aside to spend about four hours in any given night to work together to accomplish various goals such as obtaining guild achievements, blazing through bosses that have been killed over and over, and progressing through new encounters. WoW is much different than a single-player game because players are typically part of a larger group (a guild) that works together to accomplish goals. In a single player game, your actions, by definition, can not impact others because there are no others in your game, but in WoW, since you are playing with other people, it appears that you have various moral obligations to live up to for various reasons. I will argue that World of Warcraft players who actively raid in guilds have various moral obligations and are acting unethically if they fail to meet reasonable expectations.

As I previously mentioned, players are part of a larger group and are not only limited to their own characters and their own success. What happens in a larger group contributes to an overall success; if one player is under-performing, others in the group are almost certainly negatively affected in most situations. [Some goals can be attained without maximum performance and not all players have to employ “optimal play” to achieve a goal, but as I will argue, you should be obligated to reasonably maximize your performance.] You simply can't separate individual success from the group's success when the total performance of the individuals add to create the group's success or failure. This being said, it's quite obvious that when one person is not optimally performing, the group suffers and the effort of other individuals can not salvage a “lost situation.”

Many boss encounters require individual players serving specific goals: some players heal others, others deal damage, others deal damage and need to use specific skills to control or regulate the fight, and others take the attention of the enemies [agro] and take the damage given by the enemies. If one player who is assigned to a vital role fails and only one person is capable or is assigned to perform that role, the group effort ultimately fails. There are certainly cases in which some players can “carry” others by outperforming others and thus achieving success in a particular encounter, but if someone is under-performing when he/she could be performing as expected or better, the overall success of the group is hurt.

People come to raids with the expectation of success. People enjoy succeeding and receiving rewards (whether in-game items, notice, praise, or whatever else the person enjoys). If each individual maximizes the chances for success, the group effort is bolstered and the group has more chances of succeeding. If some players come to raid without having knowledge of encounters, do not have items properly gemmed, enchanted, etc, the chance of success is diminished. Imagine a model in which each player's character has a point value that increases with the addition of enhancements to that character [an addon called gear score does this]. At any given point, suppose that a player has no enchants and gems on his/her items. With each addition, the player's “score” goes up and the chances for success go up, thus positively impacting the group's chance of success [remember, individual success is not limited to the character, but rather contributes to the group]. Theoretically and actually, a player should strive to make this chance of success as high as reasonably possible for the sake of the entire team and not doing so appears to be neglecting to fulfill an expectation that other players have for you.

If, for example, Joe can achieve a score of 9000 on his character by reasonable measures [I will get to this later], members of the group should expect Joe to do so and Joe should be obligated to do so. If Joe does not achieve this score or come close to it when reasonable effort is displayed, he is hurting the overall success of the group and is not contributing at the same level as the other players, thus he is in the wrong. In raiding, lack of performance, as I mentioned hurts everyone in the group and may lead to what would be called “1% wipes” or close calls. This is especially important to understand and pay attention to when a guild is just beginning progress on a specific task and are not overpowering the content by having previous experience on the encounter or really good items that eclipse the difficulty of the encounter.

When a person joins an end-game raiding guild, his/her guild almost certainly has a statement of purpose and various expectations for the players who join. Joining a guild, in many ways, is like entering into a contract. If someone discovers that the terms of the contract are violated or the person is not suited for the job, the contract is dissolved. This same thing happens in World of Warcraft guilds; if players do not meet the expectations of the leaders of the guild, the person may be released from the guild or remediated before this happens. The moment you join a guild, you are agreeing with the mission statement and rules that the guild sets forth [in fact many guilds require players to fill out applications that explicitly require players to answer “yes” to specific “do you agree” type questions.

Reasonable Expectations

Imagine, for sake of example, a superhero who has the sole power of reading others' minds. The superhero can put this power to great use in order to help others, help him/herself, or harm others. The superhero can travel to police stations and be present in interrogation rooms in order to “extract facts” and tell whether a person is telling the truth. The superhero can be a truth-extractor in courtrooms and assure that justice is dealt with better than the current system (much better in fact). We can desire that a person such as this do as much as possible to better the world with his/her power, but would it be reasonable to say, “You should devote your entire life to helping others with your powers,” I think not.

In order for a person to be obligated to do something, the expectation ought to be reasonable. It would not be reasonable to point at one person and ask him/her to devote their entire life to a cause and have no entertainment, social interaction, or a choice in the matter. If we asked the superhero to use his power as a part of a full-time job, at least, and say, “Well, you can choose whether or not to use your power during your off-time,” this seems feasible because there is no overburdening, the hero has time of his/her own to spend as he/she wishes, and there is no present punishment for failing to act when action is not expected.

Right now, as I type this, I can be doing so much more in my life such as volunteering at a soup kitchen, working another job, helping peers with homework, reading, etc. We have to realize, as it is a fact of life, that only so much can be done in any given day. We have to face the cold reality, whether we like it or not, that we can't possibly accomplish all we want to do in a given day if we have to be on a schedule and accomplish numerous tasks. We must understand that we're not doing all that we can to benefit the world. Like the superhero, we can't be delegated with a task that would take up all our time, but we ought to fulfill certain obligations that we face that take little time, a moderate amount of time, and are reasonable to attain.


Back to Azeroth...

Let's suppose that Joe's character has almost all of the gear he would be expected to have at this point in the game except for two pieces. One of these pieces would require him to devote six hours of his day to possibly attain and may take a total of one hundred hours to attain the item if statistics are in his favor. Joe, like other players, has a “real life” in which he must go to work, school, and has other “real life” obligations. The potential item he can attain is only a slight upgrade from what he has (imagine the item he has is worth 4000 points and the potential item is 4050 points). It would not be reasonable to expect Joe to get this item because it it would take a significant amount of time and would not be much of a dramatic upgrade at all. He can better use his time in other endeavors inside or outside of the game.

Imagine that Joe's character has an item that does not have an enchantment on it. He can get the enchantment at a very cheap price, it would take perhaps four minutes to get it, and his performance would be increased (whether minor or moderately). Joe would be in the wrong if he failed to enchant his item and played with others because he had an opportunity to improve his performance and is now taking away from the overall chance of success of the group. Imagine that Joe has an item on his character that is quite bad and could easily be replaced by another item that would take perhaps two hours to attain and was almost guaranteed. If Joe refrained from getting this item, he's in the wrong.

Objections and Exceptions

The Element of Chance
Certain items in WoW are not guaranteed; they have a certain probability to appear and the chance of the item appearing, in some cases, is limited to once a day or week. An item, for example, may have a 10% chance of appearing for you and may never drop [each event is different and you can be profoundly “unlucky” day after day]. Personally, I've experienced this on my warlock, but I have three comparable items (one from pvp and two from instances) that have different stats which are comparable to the item that I don't have. In this situation, I found a replacement that is not very much damaging to my performance. I can't simply purchase this wand with little gold, like Joe can above, so this is a different situation. In my case, I have an appropriate replacement, so I'm not in the wrong. We can only do so much about probabilities in game, of course.

Don't Tell Others How to Play Their Characters!
Nothing in this essay entails that I am telling people what to do, but rather is indicating that there are certain reasonable expectations and obligations that each player faces on a daily basis. Characters who join guilds agree to meet various expectations and should optimally perform to maximize the potential success of the group. Many of the obligations that I listed are actually found in various guild mission statements and players agree to them. Even in random groups, players expect other players to have items that are suitable to defeat the encounters. It's obvious that a person would be in the wrong, for example, if their role was damage and they had all healing gear on. It should go without saying that this player is in the wrong and random players, if surveyed, would certainly agree.

You're an elitist!
No, I'm actually a person who puts a great deal of time into this game and don't want it “wasted” when others fail to meet reasonable expectations. Here are some expectations of a guild I was previously a member of:

- Raiders are expected to be online and available for invites at least 10 minutes prior to raid start unless otherwise stated on the availability forums.

- Raiders are expected to be thoroughly familiar with boss encounters, including viewing videos and reading descriptions before the raid.

- Raiders are expected to maximize the potential of their characters through talents/glyphs/gems/enchants/reforging. We are more than happy to provide constructive criticism if you aren't feeling confident in this area as long as you display the ability to receive and utilize it.

- Raiders are *required* to provide their own consumables for every progression raid, including but not limited to flasks and/or elixirs, potions, and food buffs.

- Raiders are expected to maintain a motivated and positive attitude during raids. It is extremely important that we have fun while raiding, as this is why we all play. That being said, when the boss encounter is engaged, we are professionals and will do whatever it takes to take down a boss encounter.

Compared to other guilds, these expectations are quite mild and less-”hardcore.” I've seen guilds that require you to post on forums and strategize for boss encounters before they even happen. I've seen guilds that require empirical evidence of performance via videos or logs. It goes on and on...

But I do enough now! I don't need to "x"
The idea that you "do enough" now does not exempt you from improvement or somehow overcome an already existing moral obligation. Since there is no cap in which all stats no longer benefit you in max-level dungeons, there is no such thing as "I do enough," unless of course, you're not raiding and easily outgear normal instances. Players who can improve should and are doing a disservice to others if they aren't meeting reasonable expectations. Sure, everyone can theoretically do more, but what I outlined was reasonable expectations, assuming that there is a minimum, finite set of obligations. Remember, I'm not arguing that people should dedicate all free time to WoW.

It's "just a game"
This is one of the most pitiful objections I hear that seems to somehow totally overlook the time, dedication, and effort that people put into this game that make it more than "just a game." This objection, in fact, misses the entire point of my argument and fails to recognize the case I build up that demonstrates that obligations exist. If you're going to say, "It's just a game," you're going to have to argue that obligations don't exist, but this is impossible because they do.

Time
Concerns about time appear to be the most formidable objections to my arguments and it is quite unclear about how much time is reasonably expected to be put into the game on a player-to-player basis when many players have “lives outside of the game.” Some players may be in high school and have loads of “free time” while others might have a wife, two children, a full-time job, etc. We would expect the high-schooler to put more time into the game than the husband/wife simply because it is more reasonable to expect the high-schooler to play more because the husband/wife simply can't put as much time in. You can't expect the husband/wife to play ten hours in a day because he/she would be grossly neglecting responsibilities outside of the game. Real life, at some point, has to come first.

Real life coming first, though, should not be a get-out-of-jail free card in any given situation because upon joining a raiding guild and being expected to come to raids, a minimum set of expectations are in place. Upon joining a guild and agreeing to the raid schedule, you should be able to attend the raids and give an advance notice if you can't show. Obviously, real-life emergencies must take precedence. Obviously we can't expect one to neglect responsibilities like tending a house, going to work, taking care of children, etc in order to play the game. If responsibilities outside of game force someone to not fulfill certain obligations, the player should inform his/her guild and his/her participation/rank should be adjusted accordingly. Players who are able to, say, do homework in the morning rather than at night (this is what I do on raiding nights), would not be justified in saying, “Well, I can't raid tonight, sorry for no notice. I need to do my homework tonight” when the work can be completed the morning and adequate sleep can be had.

Many people, as I have mentioned, have many obligations outside of game (and this is expected and warranted). This game, of course, is not (for about 99% of the players) something that you get financially compensated to do. Participation is totally voluntary. With this being said, although you are not required to play, players who join a guild agree to certain terms. When you join a guild and actively raid, you don't have to put a great deal of time in on your main character when you have the best items, enchants, etc that are reasonably attainable at your current position in the game. My paladin, for example, can not profit by anything from heroic or normal dungeons and only does one daily quest and the daily heroic outside of raiding. I play for about 1.5-2 hours on my paladin per day outside of raiding. My warlock is missing one item [Corla's Baton], but has a comparable wand. For weeks, I've tried to attain the wand, but have been unsuccessful due to no fault of my own. Players need not spend much time outside of raids.

Some people have an extremely tight schedule that only allows them to play during a limited number of hours per day and thus can not be burdened with an unreasonable expectation. Even with a tight schedule of my own (I have six classes, work two jobs, raid, maintain an active Facebook profile, do homework, etc), I find time to do my daily heroics, attain my five arena wins per week, etc. If, still, a player doesn't have time to do anything outside of raiding, even on off-days, he/she should reconsider being in a raiding guild or otherwise not raid at all. Sure, some raid days force players to have tight schedules and they might not be able to finish a daily heroic each day. I don't feel that this is a big deal, but if it is possible, valor rewards are really good and should be attained as soon as reasonably possible. Players who have tight schedules can accomplish what they need to do on non-raiding days. Players who do have the time, though, appear to be in the wrong if they are not doing the minimum of their expectations (I'll list these below).

What can you do to improve...and what you should be doing...
- Reading guides to mechanically optimize your performance including but not limited to talent specializations, glyph choices, gem choices, rotations, etc.
- Doing a daily heroic on your character for the valor points.
- Having the best possible BOP items from heroics (or something very close).
- Attain five wins in rated battlegrounds or arenas each week in order to get conquest points to replace sup- par PVE gear (some items are better than anything that drops from heroics and should be attained as soon as possible).
- Optimally enchanting, glyphing, and gemming your items within reasonable limits (You shouldn't put very expensive enchants on sub-par gear).

Even with a tight schedule, players should be expected to meet a certain level of minimum obligations if they are an active portion of a raiding guild.


Conclusion
I have demonstrated that players in raiding guilds have an obligation to improve their characters [at least their main ones] via methods that are reasonable and are acting in an unethical manner when they fail to do so in most circumstances. Expectations arise when characters join guilds with mission statements and play with players who expect others to do the best that is reasonably attainable to improve their character. Performing at an expected level is treating your fellow players with respect and acknowledging that you value others' time and contributions that they put into the game. At the end of the day, people want to be successful and don't want to see others slacking when they put “their all” into the game and failure happens because of something that would have cost ten gold or two hours of game time. Have less 1% wipes and “close calls” and have more success!

Tom Marino and Lou Barletta forum at King's College

Republican congressmen Lou Bareletta [who recently voted to defund Planned Parenthood, shame on him] and Tom Marino from Pennsylvania visited King's College for an event called "Congress on Campus." I learned about this event on the same day it happened and simply had to attend! I have had various qualms with Barletta and have displayed concerns about him in previous blog posts here and here and in December of 2009, he made a comment about the nativity scene that I filed a complaint against and had taken down because it was unconstitutional:

I don’t believe we are singling out any one religion. There is the menorah. There is the Nativity scene for the Christians and for the non-believers there is also nothing there. I don’t think the city is singling out one faith. I think they are all represented on the lawn,” he said.

Obviously, I'm no Barletta fan and no fan of republicans in general.

I brought my notepad and pencil to the event hoping to write some memorable quotes and was quite successful. My original intention and main objective was to ask Lou Barletta to clarify his statement made concerning the nativity scene, but unfortunately, the question was not selected out of the pool of index cards.

The event brought out people of all ages and intentions including King's College students who showed up for extra credit, elderly members of the community, King's College staff, local media, and others. The event was televised and presumably will be or is online somewhere. I'll link the discussion soon to verify my claims and criticisms of both candidates (It may be here).

Lou and Tom told their "American Dream" stories going from "rags to riches" and Tom mentioned that he was here through the good grace of the Lord. Great. Whatever. It's what you'll expect from these congressmen. The problem I see, though, is that republicans can tell their stories, but little that they do benefits the middle class. Republicans generally love tax cuts and exemptions for the rich while the middle class suffers.

Lou and Tom constantly noted that we have a huge deficit and that "there is nowhere to get the money from," but they somehow overlook taxation of the rich and corporations... I caught the first major spin from Barletta when he spoke of all the spending of previous presidents and noted that Obama spent more in 18 months than they did in all of their terms (but somehow forgot about Bush Jr.) Also, what about the other months in the Obama presidency and the fact that he inherited a flawed system from other presidents and has to "undo" Bush.

Marino mentioned that there was NO discussion with republicans regarding the healthcare bill that he so lovingly called "Obamacare," but this isn't the case because democrats have modified provisions in the healthcare bill due to republicans' input. Unfortunately, the discussions were not as transparent as Obama claimed in his campaigning [live on C-SPAN open to everyone], but republicans' complaints obviously swayed the bill because Obama wanted republicans to hop on board with the bill. Obama also directly invited republicans to have a conversation.

If I recall correctly, Marino mentioned China about two or three times throughout the discussion and made them look like an enemy nation that wants to destroy us. He said that China's military is growing and this is a domestic concern. Wow. I don't follow this... Our relations with China seem to be quite positive after Obama met with the president of China. He also said that China steals our ideas and patents.

Marino discussed the price of gas and oil and stressed that we need to end our dependency on foreign oil because, he claimed, we get most of our oil from hostile foreign countries. I knew that Marino was wrong about this one because it's a common ploy from republicans that I have noticed quite often in the past. Most of our oil comes from Canada! Also, if we end our dependancy on forgeign oil from hostile countries (Canada is our friend, last I checked), we won't be rescued by some night in shining armor. The Washington Post does a great job with this myth.

Marino furthered his discussion on hostile foreign countries by invoking the crisis in Egypt. He approved of Obama's handling of the Egypt situation and mentioned that "Mumbarak should not be thrown under the bus." Then, in quite a turn, he made a Glenn-Beckessque link of nonsense with no chalk or board with some wild assertions.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a branch of Al-Queda. (false)

We can't even afford to let them in the door and let them have power.

They want to get into Parliament.

Once they get into Parliament, they take over Egypt.

Once they get in power, we have an "Iran situation."

This doesn't work at all. First, the Brotherhood has been banned from running as a group and just because some individuals get in (if they are voted for) does not mean that they will take over. The president and many other officials will certainly have a say...

Barletta has to answer various questions about his stance of illegal immigration as I expected. He told some anecdotal stories about how an illegal immigrant in his town murdered someone and how a 14-year-old illegal immigrant shot a gun at a playground. Because of this and Barletta's desire to keep illegal immigrants out [he says that crimes from illegals drains the budget, illegal workers harm the economy, and illegals hurt legals the most, etc.], he felt that "enough was enough" and he was soon in the national spotlight. Lou was careful to mention that it's not fair to group all illegals together and portray them as problems and that we should never confuse illegals with legals (I'm not sure what that means), but it's not very clear that Barletta follows his own advice. There may be much more (and there probably is) to Lou's fervor for making illegal immigration a key issue, but to be fair, the time he had to speak was very limited.

Marino discussed social security and claimed that the government owes 2.4 trillion dollars to this fund. This is very false unless, somehow, I'm grossly mistaken. Social Security has quite a surplus.

On the Tea Party, one of the best and worst quotes from the night was made by Marino, "The Tea Party is the quintessential example of democracy." This almost provokes barfing. The "leaders(?)" of the Tea Party greatly distort history, don't believe in the separation of church and state, think that the founding fathers were against a centralized federal government, and despite their claims of small government, want big government concerned with the uteruses of women.

Finally, the wildest claim of the night award goes to Tom Marino when he said that Iraq and Kuwait should pay reparations to the United States for us helping them. Wow. I'm still waiting to hear about the happy troves of people in streets coming out to embrace the soldiers and go on live TV to do so. Apparently, the media is quite busy with other matters? We did much more harm to the Middle East and our reputation by going in than we helped.

Tom Marino makes Lou Baretta look like a liberal.

I thank King's College and the various sponsors who hosted this event. It was quite the educational experience and I was happy to attend and learn something about my local representatives.

In addition to my reporting, local newspapers also cover the event:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Reps__focused_on_the_deficit__jobs_02-23-2011.html

http://citizensvoice.com/news/barletta-marino-bring-conservative-views-to-king-s-college-forum-1.1109152#axzz1EmlkSgBT

Who in the World is Phil Zuckerman Addressing?

Wow...It's been a while.

I'm back.

In a new Huffington Post article, Phil Zuckerman "has a few criticisms for his God-denying brothers..." but I'm not sure who he is addressing because these criticisms don't appear to apply to atheists at large. I feel that he's targeting 1% of atheists who go out there without rational argument just blindly going after religion and religious people with no justification. Atheists like myself who write blogs, appear in the media, etc elaborate on their stances, are charitable to their opponents when it is deserved, and are sure to qualify their statements and refrain from using absolutes.

Here's Zuckerman's list and why he goes very wrong:

1. Insisting that science can, or will, answer everything. When Bill O'Reilly or your Baptist in-laws ask you pointed questions like: "How did the universe get here?" or "What caused the Big Bang?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?" don't insist that science has the answer. It may not -- ever. It is far better to simply say that we don't know everything, and may in fact never know everything. There will always be some mysteries out there. Just say: "Yeah -- it is quite a profound puzzle. No one knows the answer. But just because we don't know the answers to everything, doesn't mean we then automatically accept some made-up possibility."

A common strawman that I get from theists is that I think that science can or will answer everything. I don't make this claim, but I do think highly of the scientific method and believe it is the best tool to gain knowledge about our natural world. Science may be unable to answer so many questions (especially at this moment) such as "Is there intelligent life on other planets" or "Was the Big Bang really the start of time as we know it?"

We might have reasonable guesses (or strong ideas based on current evidence and theories) to questions like this now, but we can't be so sure and we don't just sit back and assume that the answers will be attained at some point. Science is the best representation of our knowledge based on hard evidence. I agree with Zuckerman's evaluation, but who exactly is making these errors? The atheists I know and who are "active" understand Zuckerman's evaluation very well and don't make this mistake.

2. Condemning all religion, rather then just the bad aspects thereof. Religion is man-made. It is socially constructed. It grows out of human culture. As such, religion inevitably contains, reflects, and reveals all that is within the realm of humanity: the good and the bad. It is like any other facet of human civilization: some of it is noble and inspirational, much of it is nonsensical and even dangerous. But to condemn it all as poisonous is to be in serious denial.

Atheists like myself acknowledge that good things can be had from religion, but we contest that all good that can be had from religion can be had without it and more honestly without the added baggage. Of course some religious communities do lots to, say, help the homeless -if they don't hold sandwiches hostage in the name of Jesus-, but we can help the homeless without being religious. Religion often warps moral priorities and causes more harm than good.

3. Condemning the Bible as a wretched, silly book, rather than seeing it as a work full of good and insightful things as well. The Bible was written by humans. It has no other source. The evidence is clear on that front. And similar to point two above, given that it is a human creation means that it isn't all good or all bad -- but contains both. Its contents can be downright absurd, flagrantly unscientific, embarrassingly racist and sexist -- not to mention painfully boring. But it also contains brilliant insights into the human condition, fun stories to entertain kids, and heady poetry. It even has solemn stretches of unbridled skepticism and existential angst. Check out Ecclesiastes.

The Bible, as a whole, is a wretched and silly book that condones slavery, has massive contradictions, silly laws to follow, ascribes throughtcrime, and uses the idea of Hell to fear people into worshipping Jesus. Of course there are poetic parts and, as Richward Dawkins said, it did a great deal for the English language and should be studied by everyone. Great...who exactly is totally discounting the Bible and saying that there is *nothing to gain* from this book? Certainly all of its good moral lessons can be had from other sources...and all of the bad moral lessons can be tossed aside. Look at the book as mythology.

4. Failing to understand and appreciate "cultural religion." There are tens of millions of people out there who are part of a religious tradition, but don't actually believe in the theological teachings thereof. They go to church, they get bar-mitzvahed, they identify with a religious tradition, and yet they are basically atheists, agnostics, or skeptics at heart. Why do they stay religious? They like it. They enjoy the traditions, the songs, the rituals, the community. These people should be seen as allies, not enemies. And every time we condemn their religion as idiocy or wickedness, we simply turn them off. Religion is not a black or white thing. Neither is secularity. There is a lot of gray out there. Deal with it. Appreciate it.

I'm not against the people who will honestly and openly say that they are a secular Christian, secular Jew, etc. I am, though, against the people who really are "skeptics at heart" who aren't serious about their religion, but rather do mental gymnastics to move the goal posts on hold onto their faith when they can just say "I like some things, but don't actually literally believe in the supernatural claims, etc." I understand that some people have to be closet atheists, great, but I'm not against those people either [although I think they could still "do their part" by contributing anonymously. My intention is not to let the "moderates" legitimize their versions of religion as Greta Christina says, they look for our approval and won't get it.

5. Critiquing God as nasty, wicked, and immoral. There is no point in critiquing a deity that doesn't exist. There is no need to catalogue the horrors, hypocrisies, or genocidal tendencies of a god that is imaginary. The reason we don't believe in God is simple: lack of evidence. That's it. Stay focused people.

What? Pointing out moral flaws of this "perfectly moral being" whether he is imaginary or not, is a great tactic and undermines the idea that God is all-loving and all-good. If God acts in an immoral fashion and this is identified, it greatly undermines the faith and rebuts the theist's conception. God commanded genocide, slavery, human sacrifice, etc in the Bible...and he's supposed to be all good? Of course the reason we don't believe is lack of evidence, but contradictions (i.e. God is good and God told Abraham to kill his son and sent Jesus on a human sacrifice mission) are good things to point out. There are other considerations besides lack of evidence to think about such as the problem of evil, Euthyphyro's Dilemma, competing religious claims, the idiocy of miracle claims, authors of the Bible not agreeing on important issues, etc.

6. Focusing on arguments against the existence of God, rather than working to make the world a better, more just place. People who believe in irrational things will rarely change their minds by listening to rational arguments. And yet atheists expel so much sweat constructing philosophical, scientific, or logical arguments against the existence of God. Think this will change people's minds? Perhaps. But only rarely. What really lowers levels of religiosity, the world-over, is living in a society where life is decent and secure. When people have enough to eat, shelter, healthcare, elder-care, child-care, employment, peacefulness, democracy -- that's when religion really starts to lose its grip.

My belief is that Christianity and other religions are making this world a worse place to live in. I agree that religion loses its grip when society is more stable, but before that happens, demagogues are using religious ideas to undermine society! Of course people will rarely change their minds...but look at all of us atheists who were formerly religious! The logical arguments of popular atheists such as Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc empowered a great movement and opened minds. We're not in the game to change people overnight (at least I'm not because this is not a reasonable expectation), but we will present rational arguments. Shall we battle unreason with unreason? I think not. Also, Michael Shermer mentions, "Smart people come to non-smart beliefs for non-smart reasons." Of course many intelligent theists exist. They might not be intelligent on matters of religion and many have hardly thought carefully about the issues, but they're smart in other areas of life. Saying that someone is dumb across the board for being a theist is a mistake. People can open up to rational argumentation and rational argumentation will be my method of choice. We should think hard about the arguments for and against god and philosophers should continue their work in undermining apologists.

7. Arguing about morality in the abstract. Don't get sucked into arguments about "Can we be good without God?" Don't try to convince theists that secular morality is actually more rational and, well, more moral. Rather, just insist that morality is ultimately revealed and shown through human action and deed. And we can plainly see that the least religious countries and states are generally the most moral, peaceful, and humane, while the most religious countries and states are the most crime-ridden, corrupt, and socially troubled. End of discussion.

Why not get sucked into arguments about "Can we be good without God?" The obvious answer is yes...and Zuckerman gives an answer why in #7. Many theists think that morality can't be had without God/God is needed to have objective morality and this concern needs to be undermined so that this popular nonsense can go away once and for all and people can stop thinking of atheists as immoral people who just want to sin. I'm so sick of the "Hitler was an atheist..." nonsense. Going after the idea that we need God for morality or that unbelief leads to immorality is quite important. If theists can be shown that secular, reason-based morality is superior to religious morality, much is gained.

Is Zuckerman addressing atheists who are "new to the game" here? I hardly see other atheists making these "mistakes." I also disagree with many of his conclusions here. Bring the rational arguments to the table, make these important points to theists, and keep up the good work.