New Tab Added: Public Debate Challenge

I've added a new tab to the top of my blog titled "Public Debate Challenge" in order to keep all information relating to the challenge in one place. Read more in the tab.

The NEPA Freethought Society -- a local social, educational, activist, and philosophical community group of non-theists in Northeastern Pennsylvania – challenges priests, ministers, theologians, and other individuals in the local area and beyond with some qualifications to defend their religious beliefs in a formal debate.

American Atheists: World Trade Center cross unlawful promotion of religion

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "American Atheists: World Trade Center cross unlawful promotion of religion." View the article here in addition to other content and please subscribe to my Examiner.com articles by clicking subscribe!

Igor Khazanov: A timeless force of art

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Igor Khazanov: A timeless force of art." View the article here in addition to other content and please subscribe to my Examiner.com articles by clicking subscribe!

Diversity: Some Restrictions May Apply (Addendum)

Should promises of diversity (including everyone and allowing everyone to have the same opportunities at a college) be limited or otherwise broken by a college? If a college allows Catholic organizations and does not allow clubs for atheistic students, are their promises of diversity genuine? I will argue that in a college setting, administrators should not put limits on their promises of diversity and should not break their own rules. Colleges that do not allow certain clubs and break their own rules to allow organizations to discriminate are being inconsistent, unfair, and profoundly intellectually dishonest.

In previous posts and in public forums, I have taken King's College to task for their lack of full diversity. From one area, King's College says that they welcome all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds and list, in their student handbook, various commitments to diversity. Student clubs are also offered in order to further this commitment and support students. King's College also notes that student clubs may not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or religion. Despite all of this, clubs which exist on campus such as the Knights of Columbus and a female counterpart (separate but equal, anyone?) known as The Columbiettes break these rules. When I mentioned this and went very public in 2010 and 2011, after my secular club was refused because it “was against the mission statement of the college.” my concerns were not addressed and nothing was done.

The club that I proposed in 2009 at King's College was an affiliate group of the Secular Student Alliance (a national organization that facilitates groups of students at colleges and high schools) that was primarily for non-religious students, but religious students were also welcome. I noted, in one of several proposal statements (that were not required for a club to exist, but I went the extra mile) that non-religious people are very underrepresented at King's College and elsewhere and should not be disqualified from having a club simply because of philosophical beliefs that differ from others. While diversity of ideas is not often promoted at universities, according to my experience (it's usually skin color), this should be an important part of diversity.

The Office of College Diversity at King's College states, in the student handbook, "[The office]works toward promoting and incorporating an appreciation for the multicultural nature of our society into every aspect of campus life. Educational, social, and cultural programs are the primary means that this office seeks to expand the multicultural and global perspectives of King's College students. In addition, the Director of College Diversity assists many students from under represented groups with academic, social, and personal issues. We allow for the inclusion of all who access our services and resources. We work with individual students, student organizations, faculty members, and faculty members interested in fostering an environment of respect and appreciation around issues of diversity, including but not limited to race, gender, ethnicity, and social justice. By working collaboratively, we can create an environment where intercultural dialogue and interaction is encouraged and expected."

Why should student groups be excluded when others are embraced in a mission statement such as this? To exclude atheists from having the same services and the ability to have a club on campus is unfair. The office says that it works with all students.

Although King's College is a Catholic College, this should not mean that particular groups of students should be denied the ability to have a club and this also should not mean that some rules can be broken in order for other organizations to exist. Why should Catholics get special privileges to break the rules stated by the college, yet atheists who play by the rules are denied their rights as college students to form a group?

Another concern of mine, which was never fully addressed, was regarding a club at King's College called “The Questions and Answers Club” [which still is not on the activities page on the King's College website despite multiple requests by me, but it is on the student government page]. The club, as you would never expect, is a club for homosexual students and gay allies to address concerns that homosexuals face, provide community, and educate. In my final year of college, I decided to be an active member in this club. One of my first questions was regarding the name of the group. I never got a straight answer from anyone and answers given by officers of the club differed. The ultimate message I got was that the college wanted the group to not call the group a gay/straight alliance and “allowed the group to exist” so people were OK with changing the name of the group. In this case, we have a college that is supposed to promote diversity, but at the same time encouraging groups to change their names. This is a problem.

A message of full diversity should not have limits. While colleges might want to restrict groups such as NAMBLA and Aryan Youth, good reasons can be given for doing so and this would not be restricting diversity. There are obvious good reasons to not allow racists or people who are pedophiles to have groups on campuses and doing so would not be unfair. While a Catholic school obviously is not secular and its administrators presumably believe in a god, why should atheists not have the same opportunities as other students? Atheists are a 'large minority' at Catholic schools and many of them are closeted including students, teachers, and administrators.

Religious schools should welcome atheist clubs as an opportunity to challenge the the beliefs of the religious, think about difficult issues, and understand what those who are godless do believe. It is quite often the case that religious people misrepresent atheists or otherwise do not understand the philosophical arguments against gods. Instead of religious people asking me why I do not believe in any gods, they often jump to conclusions by saying things like “What bad things happened in your life?,” “Why do you hate God?,” etc. Clubs on campus that are for atheists or homosexuals and gay allies allow for those outside of the clubs and inside to become educated regardless of what others may believe.

Clubs that promote a message of diversity should be consistent with their own ideals instead of allowing people to break their own rules and excluding people who they may disagree with or not appreciate. Any college that does not allow atheist clubs or groups for homosexuals and gay allies (or otherwise apply 'special rules' for the clubs such as making them change their names or suggesting they do so) is not being honest and really is not embracing diversity in any meaningful sense. All students at colleges should be treated fairly and play by the same rules. Diversity should not have hidden fine print or asterisks.

Special concerns:

Should groups be allowed to restrict membership?

This issue is a tough issue that I am leaning toward 'yes' on when such restrictions are reasonable. For example, if atheists were allowed to have a club at an organization and Christians wanted to join in order to disrupt activities of the group, vote in non-atheist officers, etc, it would be reasonable to limit membership and perhaps simply allow Christians to attend meetings or other special events such as open discussions, debates, etc. Group members can surely file complaints with the college if there are problems. This might get more difficult when considering private schools versus public schools.

Should colleges write into their own rules that groups such as LGBT groups and atheist groups are not allowed?

In the above example of King's College, their statements about diversity are not limited, so this is not a problem. I would think though, not just because I am a gay ally and an atheist, that certain groups should not be excluded (unless they are hate groups, pedophiles, etc) from statements of diversity especially when such groups are underrepresented, mistreated, and stigmatized.

Casey Evans: Homosexuals and atheists are "natural allies"

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Casey Evans: Homosexuals and atheists are "natural allies." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Atheists and Homosexuals are "Natural Allies" (Addendum)

I am an LGBT ally and have defended homosexuals, argued for gay marriage, and have done a great deal to educate people about homosexuality on Facebook and in my blog. It is quite obvious that there are many common concerns and problems that LGBT individuals and atheists face: both groups generally advocate for separation of church and state and specifically, for LGBT people, advocate for gay marriage; both groups are discriminated against, face social stigma, and are treated unfairly; both groups are greatly misrepresented by outsiders; both groups are vastly underrepresented; and many members of both groups are closeted amongst other things. I constantly see gays being mistreated and victimized because of religious beliefs and I am constantly baffled as to how so many homosexuals are either religion, affiliated with an organized religion, or both.

During my last year at King's College, I supported a LGBT group on campus known as the Questions and Answers Club, but I faced tremendous resistance from the club. When I would attend meetings, I would bring up some concerns I had such as religious groups discriminating against homosexuals and closing charities, the intolerance of students on campus, and problems with supporting the Knights of Columbus on campus (a group that is part of a national organization which funds anti-gay initiatives and sends anti-gay propaganda). I would leave comments on the group's Facebook page dealing with discrimination that gays face from religious groups and because of religious ideas and my comments would be deleted by group admins.

I would be told, when I would make comments at meetings on online, that the group only wants to focus on local issues, relevant issues, and does not want to anger religious people on campus. I was also told that the group should not be “confrontational with the school” because the group is “allowed to exist.” Members of the Q&A Club also even went so far as to act as apologists for the Knights of Columbus and argued that they weren't anti gay and the group on campus is not doing what the national organization does.

While homosexuals might be against my approach (although it is very mild, yet I do not pull punches) and while they do not want to be confrontational, they should not try to stifle my efforts and even more importantly should not be defending religious bigotry. I've previously commented on differing approaches in the atheist community (and will do so more in a future blog post) and have noted that there are many different approaches and those in the same camps should not be working against each other or calling people “toxic.” Disagreement can and should be had, but this should be done in a constructive manner instead of levying personal attacks and stopping the efforts of those who are actually trying to educate and help those who are being defended.

More homosexuals and LGBT allies should be active within the atheist community and should be supporting each other. At a recent gay pride festival, the NEPA Freethought Society bought table space, handed out information, and tried to recruit members, but the efforts were unsuccessful and no new members were had. Why is this? Why aren't more gays working with atheists and joining atheist groups? Our concerns are very similar, we face similar challenges, and are “natural allies.”

Possible Reasons:

1. Apathy

Apathy is difficult to overcome regardless of what the issue is or what a group is. It can certainly be the case that may gays are apathetic to the concerns of atheists (or even other gays) and thus are not active in the atheist community. I find it impossible to be apathetic and feel obligated to blog, write articles, be active in the atheist community, educate, and be active in my local atheist group.

2. Defeat

This may be similar to apathy or might be the cause of apathy. Homosexuals (and atheists) face a great deal of nonsense and may feel like their actions might not change things because of the scope of the current problems. People, though, should not resign and should keep pushing on. Atheists and homosexuals, although still stigmatized, have progressed greatly and are continuing to progress. Instead of giving up or expecting others to take the lead, individuals should contribute and press on.

3. Fear

Fear is a huge problem because many homosexuals face the 'double closet' of being gay atheists and feel like they can't come out because of real consequences. Some homosexuals may be open, but are not openly atheist because, perhaps, they feel like they can't face the pressure from openly being a gay atheist. In many cases, people really cannot come out for good reasons, but this doesn't stop a person from acting anonymously by blogging, donating to organizations, coming to private meetings, or even one of these previous options.

Fear, apathy, and defeat should not discourage homosexuals from participating in the atheist community. I have said this many times in the past: many atheists are in the same corner as homosexuals. Help us as we help you so we can help each other.

Are my Examiner.com articles 'Anti-Catholic?'

My title for Examiner.com is "Scranton Atheism Examiner." My job is to report and publish stories that are interesting and relevant to atheists. My articles also have to have some sort of local angle to them. This is much different than my blogging in which I often, depending on the post, respond to arguments, try to persuade, or say what my opinion is. My Examiner.com position is very similar to that of a reporter for a local newspaper. Like me, local newspaper reporters simply report. When I publish my Examiner.com articles, I do my best to be as objective as possible and instead of giving my opinion on matters, I report and interview other people in order to obtain their opinions.

I've been extremely charitable in previous articles, especially my interview with Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV fame and the "Catholic Government" and "Angry Atheists" videos for which most atheists know him. While I disagreed with almost everything Michael Voris said in my interview, I continued doing the interview and reported what he said without arguing with him, reporting why he was wrong, etc. It was quite the lofty task, but I was able to do my job. Instead, or in addition to my article, I deliberately saved my criticism for a separate blog post.

Any commentary I add to articles, such as in my first article, "Priestly abuse: The Diocese of Scranton and beyond," is quite uncontroversial. In one of my most popular articles, "Atheists to protest Harrisburg mayor Linda Thompson," I left my 'strong opinions' about separation of church and state out of the article and pulled in outside opinion while again providing very uncontroversial commentary such as noting that Thompson should focus on her job responsibilities instead of acting like a preacher.

I linked one of my articles on the wall of a former co-worker of mine who lists herself as a Roman Catholic on Facebook. We worked together and both held the unique positions of Writing Center Tutors in which we would edit papers of students who would seek help. During some downtime at work, she and other co-workers would discuss everything from religion, politics, and college life. Although this former co-worker would not defend her positions after making very problematic claims (another word for an unhealthy diet is a vegetarian diet) and deflecting criticism about her problematic 'pro-gun' claims, I wouldn't think that linking an article on her wall would be an issue.

Since we were both English majors or minors of some flavor, I supposed that my linking of an article that I wrote on her wall would cause no problems; a former co-worker of mine would be able to see my work and hopefully be happy that I got a writing position. I was, of course, very wrong because she commented on my link seconds after I linked it saying, "Hey Justin. Would you mind not posting anymore anti-catholic articles on my wall? I don't post anti-atheist stuff on yours."

The article that I linked titled, "Amidst sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia, Bishop Bambera praises Rigali" mainly recounts recent and ongoing events surrounding the sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Reporting of events in an objective manner should not be considered "anti-catholic" like the commented claimed. If this were the case, every reporter who covers any sexual abuse within the Catholic Church (or at least in the Archdiocese) would be considered "anti-Catholic," but this is ludicrous because many of these reporters are themselves Catholic, "pro-Catholic," or neutral toward the events being reported. Just because an "anti-Catholic" person happens to report does not mean that the report itself is anti-Catholic.

The problem here, I think, might be that people who see negative brute facts about their religious institutions being reported might construe this as some sort of 'attack' on the institutions themselves. It might also be the case that people can't separate the writer from the reporting or they just didn't read the article. The article I wrote regarding the sex abuse scandal is no different than what local newspaper writers publish when they report; we're simply telling you the facts, pulling in outside commentary/opinion, and are being as objective as possible.

While some other writers or reporting organizations might be very biased and intentionally so, I do my best to be objective as possible and I believe, with a careful examination of my articles, that almost every rational person should agree with this assessment. Here's a breakdown of my article on the sex abuse scandal and Bambera:

Paragraph one is an introduction to the article and a fact; Bambera had nothing negative to say about Rigali even though he is embroiled in controversy.

Paragraph two consists of public factual information with attributed sources.

Paragraph three states information from Bambera's document.

Paragraph four is more reporting of public information and stating that the new replacement for Rigali is similar to Martino (that's also a fact with attributed sources.)

Paragraph five is a slight bit of commentary from me (which is quite uncontroversial, too) and statements of fact from SNAP with attributed sources.

Paragraph six states that the Diocese of Scranton is doing little about abuse (quite uncontroversial) and Bambera's recent document barely addresses it (fact, attributed).

Paragraph seven: I tried to interview Genello, but he didn't respond.

Paragraph eight: Comments from an NEPA Freethought member and commentary that is also quite uncontroversial.

While I try to take nothing to heart and disregard criticism that comes from people who aren't being rational about a specific topic are otherwise are ignorant, claiming that my article was "anti-catholic," besides being very wrong and misinformed, boarders on the line of very offensive. I intentionally made sure to do my best to be objective as possible and report and someone is basically coming out saying that I am not acting like a reporter.

After the initial comment of my article being "anti-catholic," the commenter's husband make what might even be a more ridiculous comment saying "Well, examiner does pay by the page view" that perhaps is insinuating that I'm merely linking my article just to get pageviews/money. This comment, also, is one that I take offense to. Money is not the goal of my writing and is not a top priority of mine. This blog, for example, is quite active and generates zero revenue for me. This blog is merely a personal page that I've been maintaining for about two years. When I applied for the Examiner.com position, my first thoughts included expanding my audience, being able to write for a more professional format, being able to write in a different manner, etc.

After giving my paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown and defending myself, the person's husband commented by saying "tl;dr" in a very immature and dismissive fashion. If someone is going to levy absurd claims that warrant long responses, long responses will be given...and they weren't even that long, anyway. Typing "tl;dr" in response to something someone else wrote, after levying absurd claims amounts to simply not answering any of the arguments and perhaps shows that you have no counter-argument or otherwise won't defend your position.

Next, the original commenter wrote, "Justin, I consider you a friend, but I would like for that to consist of more than your atheist evangelicalism." This comment immediately revealed a tremendous lack of understanding and perhaps is even worse than the "anti-catholic" comment...and showed that the commenter either totally ignored what I had to write in the thread of willfully ignored my counter-argument. How in the world is reporting about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church atheist evangelism [some might jest that this is a 'good argument' against Catholicism or otherwise that the church is good PR for atheists, but I digress]? What, also, is atheist evangelicalism?

One who understands what an atheist and what evangelism is should conclude that the terms, when put together, are incoherent (unless, of course, someone is joking such as Sam Singleton). One who talks about "atheist evangelicalism" shows that he/she has no idea what he/she is talking about. An atheist is one who lacks belief in any gods: nothing less, nothing more. How can one spread a lack of belief? Either way, my article should not be considered to be any sort of evangelism. When I noted this, the response was something akin to "spreading a belief to someone who doesn't believe can be called evangelism." This definition is far too general and would make all teachers evangelists, but this clearly is not the case.

Instead of jumping to conclusions and thinking that reporting of brute facts about the religious organizations you cherish or the people you defend are somehow "anti-catholic," time should be taken to evaluate the claims being made, verify that the cited attributions are accurate and fair, and also remaining open while you are reading. No matter what a person believes, it is very possible for someone to write an objective article and report.

Amidst sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia, Bishop Bambera praises Rigali

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Amidst sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia, Bishop Bambera praises Rigali." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Regarding Examiner.com linking

It has recently been brought to my attention that my linking of my Examiner.com articles on Facebook generate massive spam in others' news feeds because those who share mutual friends will apparently also see the link. I link my Examiner.com articles with friends on Facebook to share my work, generate discussion, etc and mainly post on profiles of those who interact with me, I am friends with in real life, or have a scarlet letter A in their profile picture.

I was unaware of this news feed spam because I've linked many previous articles that I have written and have received no complaints. Is this a new setting or something on Facebook (it changes quite daily) or is one person's settings showing the linking. If you are a Facebook friend of mine, do you see mass linkage on your news feed when I link articles?

If, after more feedback, it is the case that there is massive link spam, I'll simply private message over Facebook those who I have plenty of mutual friends with. Thanks for the feedback!

Revisiting Fatalism

In a paper I wrote for a metaphysics course that was later edited and posted here, I argued that fatalism, the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable, is true. In short, I argued that if an omniscient being exists, fatalism must follow. If an omniscient being exists, such a being would know everything that would happen in the future and these happenings must happen because the true beliefs of an omniscient being can not be falsified. I also took the fatalism argument one step further and argued that fatalism is true even if an omniscient being does not exist because truths about events that happen [in the future] can not be falsified. If you haven't read my paper or are unfamiliar with fatalism, I suggest that you do so before commenting on this post or otherwise even reading the rest of it because there has been much confusion from some people who didn't actually read what I wrote. Thinking some more about this issue, I'm unsure why people who would accept fatalism if an omniscient being exists would not accept fatalism if there were no omniscient being.

If an omniscient being exists, fatalism must follow. Said being would know everything there is to know and the beliefs that the being holds cannot be falsified. For example, if such a being exists and knows that you are going to eat pizza for lunch tomorrow, you can't do otherwise and said action was true before you are even born. At this point, it seems, no degree of free will is had. Many atheists accept this argument for fatalism, but when an omniscient being is taken out of the picture, they argue that fatalism is false. Why is this? While fatalism seems to be the case if an omniscient being exists and this is the case because the omniscient being's beliefs can't be falsified, it's also the case because there are truths about happenings in the universe. While these truths are not known when there is no omniscient being, they are still the case and can't be falsified.

In some follow-up criticisms to my paper, some people attacked my argument for fatalism if there is no omniscient being [logical fatalism] because, as presented in my paper, it relies on the law of the excluded middle (a statement is either true or not-true), but some of these people would accept fatalism if an omniscient being exists. Why is this the case? The person who accepts fatalism if an omniscient being is accepting the fact that there are truths about the universe that would be known by an omniscient being. Why, suddenly, if there is no omniscient being would this part of the argument not carry over to logical fatalism? Omniscient being or not, there is a collection of truths about the universe...and fatalism should follow because said truths can't be falsified. God or no god, it seems, fatalism must follow.

As always, feel free to comment here whether you agree or disagree. I don't want to go into too much here about fatalism (and didn't even mention determinism) because I've done so in my paper.

Pennsylvania's governor silent on Rick Perry's prayer event

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Pennsylvania's governor silent on Rick Perry's prayer event." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

"I used to be an atheist just like you"

Fellow atheists, in discussions with theists, have probably heard a theist, at some point, saying "I used to be an atheist just like you." This 'move' is quite common in discussions I have with Christians and very recently occurred twice from a born-again Christian who started believing in God after he supposedly got out of a coma following a car accident and here: from an organizer of a local Michael Voris speech. Atheists often accuse Christians of the No True Scotsman fallacy (and rightly so) when they try to claim that a person isn't a 'true Christian' because they hold differing beliefs or committed a heinous act. Can the No True Scotsman fallacy happen the other way around when atheists say something like "You couldn't have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity?" While people who used to be atheists convert to Christianity, an atheist 'like me' should never convert to Christianity as a result of a bad argument.

First, to say someone is an atheist is only to say that the person does not believe in any gods. Atheism does not guarantee that a person is properly skeptical (as opposed to not applying skepticism globally as in the case of 9/11 truthers, believers in ghosts, conspiracy theorists, etc who are atheists) and it does guarantee that an atheist really understands why arguments for gods fail or otherwise is able to pose counter-arguments. There are, of course, many atheists out there who never even really thought about belief in gods or understood why others believe. There are also atheists who I would wager are atheists for the wrong reasons (watch the Zeitgeist movie, for example, and you'll understand). There are also atheists who were raised in a secular household without religion. Not all atheists are "like me" in that they can understand arguments for gods and show why they are flawed; my route to atheism was a philosophical one and philosophy greatly informs all of my work. Joe Blow Atheist might not believe in any gods because he sees corruption within the church, but this is not a stellar reason to lack belief in any gods; a god might exist, but its followers might just be disobedient or the religion got many things wrong.

When Christians say that they were atheists just like me and then believe as a result of an argument from ignorance (I got in a car accident and survived, you can't explain that) or another weak reason, their critical thinking credentials are very questionable. Atheists like me recognize a bad argument for what it is and should never accept an argument from ignorance as a reason to believe in God. The Christians also aren't just like me because they haven't maintained a personal blog dealing with atheism, they haven't had 'training' in critical thinking and philosophy in the same way that I did in college, they haven't watched hundreds of debates and read many books dealing with skepticism, belief in god, and critical thinking. All of us simply come from different life situations and have very different backgrounds.

Christians see people like Lee Strobel who say "I used to be an atheist" and think that this somehow makes his arguments stronger, but this in no way does. It does not matter who is making the argument or what past beliefs a person had, but rather the arguments, evidence, and reasoning matters. For all (of most) of the "I used to be atheists out there," we can find people like myself who used to be Christians. This doesn't suddenly make our arguments stronger. Sure, we might be able to better understand the beliefs or why people believe because we were former believers or non-believers, but the arguments, evidence, and reason needs to be under scrutiny.

When Christians claim that they used to be atheists and then levy very poor arguments to support their positions, the 'atheists like me' should notice several red flags. If you were 'just like me' or even an atheist who can properly understand and defend his/her stances, you would never levy such bad arguments. There might be some exceptions, for sure, a failure in critical thinking, or some emotional reasons (although atheists 'like me' should still recognize bad arguments), but some exceptions ought not account for everyone. Can you really claim to be an atheist 'like me' and then spout bad arguments that are seen by atheists as tremendously fallacious? I know that my readers, if I posted why I suddenly came to believe in God, would eviscerate my arguments if they were bad ones and I'd consider what my readers have to say.

An atheist 'like me' going to or going back to Christianity, I would think, would be like an adult who went back to believing in Santa Claus. I understand why there is no good reason to believe in Santa and can pose several good reasons not to believe in Santa just like is the case with gods. Going back to Santa would be ridiculous, just like me going back to Christianity, unless, of course, there were a really good reason for me to believe that hasn't already been presented. The standard array of arguments for God are profoundly fallacious and have failed time and time again. These arguments have been taken apart again and again and apologists neglect to recognize this. For me to believe in Santa or God, there needs to be some new argument, reason, and evidence, not some of the same old stuff. My objections need to be addressed, also. I can't just go back. Here, I'm not comparing God to Santa as many Christians allege that atheists do quite often, but rather am positing an analogy.

Imagine, for example, if I started to posit reasons for belief in Santa such as "Well, the reason we haven't found him yet is because we think he is at the North Pole, but he really is at magnetic north and you can't disprove Santa." I should immediately recognize the first part of the argument ad-hoc and a non-sequitur. So what if we were looking at the North Pole? We should expect to find Santa in a different place...and what makes you think that he is as magnetic north, anyway? I should also recognize the "you can't disprove it" argument as an argument from ignorance; the inability to disprove something does not give us reason to believe that it exists. The "Magnetic North" argument is actually featured in this hilarious documentary that is made for parents to show their children when they question Santa. This short documentary is so similar to those who advocate intelligent design or otherwise deny evolution. You won't be disappointed.

I'm an atheist for what I consider to be the 'right reasons;' I understand why arguments for God fail and have several counter-arguments against belief in gods. Nothing should make me go back to belief on the basis of a really bad reason that, right now, I can recognize as being very bad. As I previously stated, I would believe if good argument, reason, and evidence were presented, but this has not been done. To you former atheists: you weren't just like me because if you were, you wouldn't accept bad arguments as reason to believe and you would not ignore what the atheists are saying about the arguments.

Toxic Atheists?

Here's a two hour and fifteen minute discussion about TTA's recent podcast titled "Militant Atheism." I was one of the co-hosts on this episode with Reap Paden. Also appearing were Ernest Perce, Jeremy Smith, Jason Fegely, Carl Silverman, and Al Stefanelli.

The Thinking Atheist recently released a podcast titled 'Militant Atheists' in which he called so-called 'militant atheists' toxic. He said that some militant atheists are 'confrontational to the point of being toxic...and dominated by anger. He said that they are defined by said anger and put everyone off. For the militant atheist, he says, there is always insults, negativity, and controversy among many other things. He says that other atheists represent him "especially if [they] put themselves out there." If you wear an atheist brand...you reflect on everybody." Later, he said that some militant atheists are "wildly immature" and are "a horse's ass." He says, "I'm talking about people whose every action is to get in people's faces." He says that those who post things five time a day aren't well-rounded or real people. "It's nothing but name calling." "They bullhorn themselves and repel everyone in their zipcode. They have no idea how to empathize with other people."

I was a huge fan of The Thinking Atheist and perhaps still am. Before I was able to watch this podcast, I got a phone call from a fellow 'militant atheist' who was telling me about how horrible TTA's video was. I was told that American Atheists and the FFRF were attacked. So, going into the podcast, I was sort of biased because I was looking for what TTA said to validate this. Also, with another bias, I was thinking that TTA would never attack FFRF/American Atheists because I see him as in agreement with both organizations. Unfortunately, I was disappointed because the TTA didn't deliver with this podcast; his message was very unclear, he changed his definitions/never really used a well-defined definition, seemingly changed his ideas with every caller, and was generally very confusing.

My first major problem with TTA's podcast is his definition or lack thereof. It is very important, when having discussions about problematic terms or terms that aren't agreed upon, to very clearly define the terms (especially when the term is quite understood at a large level and then you decide to apply a different definition). When I think 'militant atheist,' and even when others probably think of this term, they think of atheists who are very public and who also think that atheism is very important. For atheists with 'the movement,' militant atheists are generally considered to be public atheists and the term is not derogatory. For some religious people, militant atheist is a derogatory term. What does TTA exactly mean? He is seemingly equating 'militant atheist' with 'atheists who are dicks.' This, though, shouldn't be the case. Why must activist atheists all be thought of as dicks? I'm not dominated by anger, insulting people, always getting in people's faces, or wildly immature. Fellow atheists actually consider me mild!

TTA seems to be talking about 'people on the fringes' or is otherwise attacking a strawman. He mentions no specifics in his show, which is another big problem. When The Atheist Experience did a show called "Foolish Atheists," they had a specific atheist on the show and talked about how his actions were really stupid and believed that they made atheists seem to have no sense of humor or be viewed as litigious. TTA, though, did not mention specifics and grouped all activist atheists as militants who are toxic. A better idea, I think, for his show, would be "Tips for Atheists" in which he gives suggestions for atheists on what not to do, but this was not done. He seemed to group everyone together as toxic. He's confusing passion with toxicity, it seems. I'm quite passionate about what I do, but I'm no 'toxic' individual who is 'hurting the movement.' I've even wrote about 'tips for atheists' a while ago, but didn't levy personal attacks at other atheists or lump everyone into one group.

As atheists, we're going to disagree with what other do and will not all believe the same things about which complaints/issues are worth pursuing, how we are to present ourselves in the media, what our billboards will say, etc. If we disagree with other people, instead of calling them toxic, we should voice constructive criticism. Isn't that how skeptics and mature individuals are supposed to act? TTA gave no suggestions for how atheists should act and also did not address specific badly behaving atheists; this is not constructive. What TTA did was simply level personal attacks at atheists.

It's also fallacious, in many cases, to believe that since some individuals share certain beliefs or characteristics that one individual will poorly reflect on all of these individuals or also represent everyone. It is quite obvious, to every rational person, that the Muslims who flew into the Twin Towers do not represent all Muslims. It's also quite obvious that PETA members who advocate violence against animal testers do not represent all vegetarians. Why, then, should one atheist represent all atheists?

If someone thinks that all atheists represent all atheists or otherwise believes that the actions of one atheist will cause people to view all who are atheists, their thinking is fallacious. To address the first part, there are specific groups and organizations of atheists. Leaders of groups may represent others, but individual atheists who aren't leaders of groups (and even the leaders of the groups) don't represent every atheist. For example, if a leader of an Alabama atheist group comes out and says that all religious people must be mentally retarded, he doesn't represent me. He makes himself look bad and he diminishes the credibility of his group, but this should be no real reflection on me. I have addressed this topic before and do not support such thinking, so how can someone whose beliefs I already disagreed with represent me? Even if I didn't address this in the past, we have to first understand that all atheists believe all sorts of different things; what one atheist says doesn't represent every atheist!

To address the second point above and to draw an analogy, some people think that the Westboro Baptist Church makes all theists or Christians look bad, but this is fallacious thinking. We understand that WBC is 'on the fringes' and is their own group. If we look at WBC members and say, "You make my neighbor Jill the Christian look bad," we're employing faulty thinking. While people might think this is the case, it's still faulty thinking that needs to be addressed. In the same way, people might think that atheist x might represent me, but this just isn't the case. If I am a member, though, of a specific atheist group, and its leader says something really stupid, he/she might poorly reflect me and I should rebuke said individual (and perhaps I am obligated to, but that's a story for another day. You can't just go to the KKK Klambake for the free food).

It may be the case that some atheists who are out there are doing really, really, really stupid things like going to churches and standing on the top of their cars shouting "There is no God! All religious people are retarded and are abusing their children!" after placing some hate-filled information on the windshields of every car in a parking lot. People like this are behaving in a very dumb manner, I believe, and should be addressed by atheists. The actions of this person, though, should not reflect poorly on me. What do I have to do with said person? Just because we both lack beliefs in any gods does not mean that our respective actions make the other person look bad.

I chat with Ernest Perce/"TheSaintsRevenge" quite often. I disagree with some of his tactics. I also am quite frustrated with atheists who I don't consider to be philosophically informed and present really piss-poor arguments against religion/gods. I also don't like atheists who are well-informed and intelligent, but don't speak out (even if anonymously). I also get frustrated when atheists can afford to 'come out,' but don't. I don't though, call these people 'toxic' or 'harmful to the movement.' I raise complaints, give reasoned arguments, and constructively criticize these people. I also get really angry, especially when homosexuals accommodate religion or make excuses for the Catholic Church when their rights are being violated or otherwise are trying to stifle equality. I try my best to not be a "horse's ass" and be as calm as possible. Just because we disagree with others, no matter what the issue is, does not entail that we must be 'toxic.'

Militant atheists are angry for good reasons...and don't necessarily (and more often than not) scream in people's faces or otherwise 'be dicks.' It may be the case that some atheists act in stupid ways or put a silly message out that I might disagree with, but we shouldn't levy personal attacks at these people or lump everyone together in one group. There are militant atheists out there who have reasoned messages, are productive, and would do exactly what I would do. These people who are 'militant' are different than the other 'militants,' but I don't believe TTA made this distinction.

Today, Reap Sow, the person who runs Reap Sow Radio, asked for TTA to come on his show and clarify his stances, but he refused to do so. I would like The Thinking Atheist to clarify what he said in his podcast and point to specific examples of people who he thinks are 'toxic.' I would also think that constructive criticism, rather than levying personal attacks at people while using general terms, should be the first line of response to the people he disagrees with.

Assorted Music for Atheists

I frequently post music of all sorts on my Facebook page and would now like to have one long compilation post including various genres and artists. If you know of some songs that would fit in this post, please feel free to leave them in the comments section.

After Forever, a Dutch symphonic metal band, began a series of songs called "The Embrace that Smothers" that deals with the dangers of organized religion. Once the male vocalist, Mark Jansen, left the band and joined Epica, Epica picked up and concluded the series.

The lyrics of this song are part of a common rosary prayer. 'Mea Culpa,' a Latin phrase, means 'my fault.' The prayer, translated from Latin to English, is

"Oh my Jesus, dismiss our debts/guilts

save us from the fire below, lead to heaven
all souls, especially those,
who need your mercy the most

As it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever shall be, forever
and ever "

The series of songs repeats the theme of guilt that religious believers admit of. The 'cure,' to this guilt, of course, is devotion to Jesus (in the Christian tradition, at least) and prayer.

"Leaden Legacy" focuses on indoctrination and blind obedience to authority that is often the case within religious traditions.

Doomed to wander in repressed emotions
This imaginary refuge restrains me from awakening

Fear of penance
Doomed to sycophancy

Doomed to sycophancy...

Those who change religions or go from denomination to denomination, are not progressing, but rather are fooled into thinking that faiths are much different.

Those who separate and join the opposite
do not see that that will get them nowhere
Can't you understand it is a similar manipulation
Wake up and see the light

This theme repeats later in the song "The Divine Conspiracy" by Epica in which all religions might look different, but are all fundamentally the same.

"Follow in the Cry" conveys a message that religions operate on fear, power, and threats.

Fear is the doom, doom of us all
Instead of exterminating the weed
We allow it to overgrow our function

I embrace you, accept my soul
I shall make my life subordinate to you
Live like your rules and laws prescribe
and follow you wherever I go

Hang this heretic who's indulged in unchaste thoughts
Silence him such as the laws of the vellums prescribe
Pusillanimous massacres the order of the day
On behalf of power-hungry fundamentalists
Religious leaders might seem interested in saving souls and helping people, but many are really concerned with power.

Behind your facade hides an indomitable
lust for power and tyranny
Taking advantage of your pendencies

"Yield to Temptation" conveys a message that religion is harmful. Greed and self-denial cause the destruction of the truth.

The anathema's driving millions
together in the pustules of our earth
Greed and self-denial the cause of
unimpeded desecration of the truth

Indoctrination is another harmful aspect of religion

Captive in the shackles of this indoctrination
depraved souls wished to be pure
Delight in deformity the last convulsions
are building up a bridge to a new era
The assumption of a faded supposition
Never shall I be a marionette !

Cry for the Moon is largely about the rape and torture of children at the hands of Catholic priests.

Virginity has been stolen at very young ages
And the extinguisher loses its immunity
Morbid abuse of power in the garden of eden
Where the apple gets a youthful face

The song also conveys the message that religion is in opposition to common sense and that the stories within holy books are fairytales.

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself
behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

While religious leaders teach people to be moral individuals, they often are hypocrites.

Indoctrinated minds so very often
Contain sick thoughts
And commit most of the evil they preach against

Don't try to convince me with messages from God
You accuse us of sins committed by yourselves
It's easy to condemn without looking in the mirror
Behind the scenes opens reality
The voices of many abused children are often not heard and justice is very hard or impossible to attain. Religion is no cover for bad behavior.

Eternal silence cries out for justice
Forgiveness is not for sale
Nor is the will to forget

You can't go on hiding yourself
Behind old fashioned fairytales
And keep washing your hands in innocence

"Facade of Reality" has a very strong anti-religious message and contends that religion was created by people because of fear of death, want for power, and a justification for murder.

People created religious inventions
To give their lives a glimmer of hope
And to ease their fear of dying
And people created religious intentions
Only to feel superior and to have a license to kill

People created religious inventions
To give their lives a glimmer of hope
And to ease their fear of dying
And people created religious ascensions
To subject the others and to enslave, just to further enrich themselves



The song was written after 9/11 and because of 9/11 to address Islamic extremism.

It doesn't matter where we die
It doesn't matter that you cry
We will take you with us

Our desire to die is stronger
Than all your desire for life
There is no getting away from it now
Only true faith survives

Segments from a Tony Blair speech were used in this song.

This mass terrorism is the new evil
in our world today
For those people who lost their lives
on 11 September and those that mourn them;
now is the time for the strength to build
that community.
Let that be their memorial


The end of the song notes that religion is a "disgrace on the beyond that can never be undone" and perhaps poses a challenge for people to 'unmask' religion.

A disgrace on the beyond
That can never be undone
Who shall rise and unveil
The Facade of Reality?

We can either deceive ourselves by accepting the promises that religion has to offer or enrich ourselves by deciding for ourselves (and presumably not being a member of any religion).

Deceive yourself by yielding
to soft words that cause no pain
Enrich yourself with different views
Learned without disdain
Deceive yourself by yielding to soft words
Enrich yourself by making up your own mind



"Seif al Din" as an Arabic phrase meaning "sword of faith." This song, like "Facade of Reality," focuses on Islam.

The origin of a dogma
Placed in a new millennium
Vilified demons have been embraced
And given a warm welcome

Islam, the song says, is long standing as has little chance to go away. People, though, interpret the words of the Quran to gain power and exploit. Many have been misled by Islam and have believed falsehoods.

The Seif al Din
Hasn't got the ghost of a chance to rust
Because it has always been kept in shape
In serving the one Almighty

The rudiments have always been misinterpreted during history,
despite the good intentions of many disciples whose faithful belief was strong and unswayed.
Most leaders interpret the old words to their advantage in the attempt of gaining leadership and power
over those unfortunate enough to fall under their maliciousness and manipulative ways.
This misuse of trust will forever stain the pages of history,
echoing the exploitation and the frailty of decent
men carried away by nurtured rancour...

Perpetual distrust fed by a belief
In the malevolence of the others

The song ends with a great simple verse:

When beautiful unreality holds out its hand
It's better not to lose yourself in blind faith



"Death of a Dream" is a song about a religious person who discovered that she has been manipulated and lied to by religion.

I followed your rules
A willing fool
Branded by shame

My soul suffers from your hostile ways
I bear so many scars, hit me hard
Time to change we have to rearrange
For this has gone too far, way too far
Religious leaders restrict believers from worldly pleasures by interpreting verses in their favor.

Creating new laws and living by unwritten rules
Restricting us
Creating new spins on ancient creed to fit your views
Denying us

The song sends a strong message that religion breeds ignorance and is dishonest.

You created this world
Where honesty is not allowed
You created this world
Where ignorance is being taught

You created this world
Where I am all, you'll never be
You've been drilling these
Such falsely-based philosophies in me

You created yourself
Based on nothing else but lies
You created yourself
Where all your aspiration died

Once the person in the song finds that her beliefs lacked merit and there is no good reason to believe in any gods, she breaks from from religion and continues living.

The curtain has fallen
There's no one behind
Corrected one mistake
But I am still around

Our fight is over
My scars will leave a stain
You thought that it was all easy
But I will still remain

Your time is over
I'm taking what's mine
You thought that you could keep me
Under your thumb and mind

"Living a Lie" sends a strong message against prayer and religion.

Hope is a desert running dry
Deep inside
You refuse to face the facts
But pray for life
Find salvations in distress
We will wait
For the day you’ll break out and
Re-awake
And we wait for the day
To discover there’s no way
I can't wait at this rate
It’s too little and too late
To live this lie



"Fools of Damnation" is a song that casts religious believers as subservient fools to God.

You do believe, so let us pray
For all those fools that be

Fool
Dance with me again
I am your destiny
Mark my words, don't you ever disagree

Fool
Kneel for me again
I am your agony
Walk my way, I will never set you free

Kneel for me unknowing fool
Bow to the supremacy
Kneel for me unworthy pig
Die for the divinity

The song echoes the idea that religion is the opiate for the masses.

Believing is the cure
Religion is like opium
You'd better feed them all
Before they start eating you



"The Truth Beneath the Rose" is a song about the crusades in which a believer, the singer of the song, admits being fooled by leaders who endorsed holy wars.

Give me strength to face the truth
The doubt within my soul
No longer I can justify
The bloodshed in his name

I believed it would justify the means
It had a hold over me
Blinded to see
The cruelty of the beast
Here is the darkest side of me
(Forgive me my sins)
The veil of my dreams
Deceived all I have seen
Forgive me for what I have been
(Forgive me my sins)
Pray for me 'cause I have lost my faith in holy wars
Is paradise denied to me 'cause I can't take no more?

Killing can't save people and religious reasons can't justify holy wars.

I'm hoping, I'm praying
I won't get lost between two worlds
For all I've seen,
The truth lies in between
Give me the strength to face the wrong that I have done
Now that I know
The darkest side of me
How can blood be your salvation
And justify the pain
That we have caused throughout the times
Will I learn what's truly sacred
Will I redeem my soul
Will truth set me free



"Safeguard to Paradise" is a song about Islamic suicide bombers who have been deceived by leaders into thinking that suicide bombing is virtuous.

It’s the truth between his cunning lips
That hands him his suspicious alibis
Persuading with your force will never be the way
To our destiny

Suddenly we’ve lost the force
To close our cursed doors
No one seems to realise
That wolves are in disguise

Many virgins wait for him to come
Persuading with your force will never be the way
To our destiny
Our destiny

"And When He Falleth" is a song mainly about the problem of evil that features audible spoken words from "The Masque of the Red Death"

Some Lyrics and the spoken words:

"'Tis the Divine Comedy -
"'Tis the Divine Tragedy -
The fool and the mocking court;
The fool and the mocking court;
Fool, kneel now, and ring thy bells!
Fool, kneel now, and ring thy bells!
We hold the Earth fro Heaven away."
Make us guffaw at thy futile follies,
Yet for our blunders - Oh, in shame;
Earth beareth no balm for mistakes -
We hold the Earth fro Hell away."

[Male Voice]
That cross you wear around your neck;
is it only a decoration, or are you a
true Christian believer?

[Female Voice]
Yes, I believe - truly.

Then I want you to remove it at once!
- and never to wear it within this castle
again! Do you know how a falcon is trained my
dear? Her eyes are sewn shut. Blinded temporarily
she suffers the whims of her God patiently, until
her will is submerged and she learns to serve -
as your God taught and blinded you with
crosses.

You had me take off my cross because it
offended....

It offended no-one. No - it simply appears
to me to be discourteous to... to wear
the symbol of a deity long dead.
My ancestors tried to find it. And to open
the door that seperates us from our Creator.

But you need no doors to find God.
If you believe....

Believe?! If you believe you are...gullible.
Can you look around this world and believe
in the goodness of a god who rules it?
Famine, Pestilence, War, Disease and Death!
They rule this world.

There is also love and life and hope.

Very little hope I assure you. No. If a god
of love and life ever did exist...he is long
since dead. Someone...something rules in his
place.

[sung:]
"Believe? In a deity long dead? -
I would rather be a pagan suckléd in creeds outworn;
Whith faärytales fill'd up in head;
Thoughts of the Book stillborn."

"Shadow of annoyance -
Ne'er come hither!
...And when He falleth, He falleth like Lucifer,
Ne'er to ascend again..."

This song is about religious leaders who deflect blame from their own actions by using God as a justification for their behavior.

"God Said," from its own description, is "a satirical strike at religious zealots and extremists."



The title of this song is pretty self-explanatory.



"Extian" is a song that challenges religious supernatural claims and strikes at the hypocrisy of religious leaders.



"Stockholm Syndrome" sends a message that religion is imprisonment and also challenges the morality of religion.



"Rational Response" challenges frequent arguments levied by religious believers and contains an amazing refutation-rap to Pascal's Wager.



"Dear God" features several persons asking questions and making directly to God, but they can't believe.



"Ten Foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins" is a "song about anal sex and God."



"Hard Believer" sends a message that the Bible is not needed for one to have a successful, fulfilled life and morality need not be explained by religion.

Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society: A home for non-theists in NEPA

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society: A home for atheists in NEPA" Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Addendum to my Michael Voris Interview

Recently, I wrote an article for Examiner.com based on my interview with Michael Voris whom I briefly met in Wilkes-Barre after he gave a speech. I also got a picture with him. Voris is, hands down, my 'favorite Catholic' because he is very entertaining, consistent, and is a great look into what fundamental Christianity is like. In my Examiner.com article, I did not intend to counter Voris' arguments and only wanted to report. I was also quite limited in text. This blog post will be a refutation of Voris' arguments.

Regarding Voris' speech at Marywood University, I'm in agreement with Voris. The local diocese agreed to host Voris, so he bought a plane ticket and scheduled to fly on a certain date at a certain time. Before reserving speakers and before said speakers make plans to fly, the diocese should first do a quick background check on their speakers. In the case of Voris, it's quite easy to find his YouTube channel. The Diocese thought that he was "too insensitive" to people of other faiths...perhaps admitting that Voris is 'more Catholic' than members of the diocese. If you are a Catholic who believes that everything the Church says is true, you should not hesitate to say that those of other faiths and no faiths are wrong...and that's exactly what Voris does. While this exclusivist stance (my religion is right and all the others are wrong) may be morally repugnant and reek of absolute certainty, it is intellectually honest.

I think the best solution for the diocese would have been inviting Voris and then having a representative on-site to give a rebuttal after his speech. Voris certainly would have accepted this and the diocese could have not screwed him out of a plane ticket. Voris and those in the diocese both profess to be Catholic...and Voris really represents the Catholic viewpoint (despite some of his political opinions, evolution denial, etc). If they disagree with him, the way that they should have gone about disagreement was to have a rebuttal right after his speech.

In my article, Voris repeats the all-to-often "atheists can't make sense of morality if they don't believe in God." This argument is a really bad one that is quite insulting. It's quite obvious that atheists, just like everyone else, can be moral individuals (and are). When people raise this objection to atheists, I typically ask them, "If you suddenly came to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God, would you go out and commit genocide?" I've never heard one person say yes. It's clear, at least to me, that morality does not stem from belief in God; whether or not one believes in God is irrelevant to the question of morality. People are moral individuals mainly because they have empathy, morality is an evolutionary product, people want to see others prosper, people want to avoid punishment, etc.

We can talk of morality in a contingent sense in which morality only makes sense because sentient, conscious creatures exist. We realize, since others have the capacity to feel pain, be self-aware, experience deep emotions, etc, that we have moral obligations to others. When we self-reflect, we notice that other creatures have similar needs and wants as we do including safety, love, etc. Confucius, before Jesus, noted what should be the conclusion of these realizations: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."

Theists also have significant problems when they appeal to God as a lawgiver or some sort of moral standard to look up to. One of the biggest problems is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma which came from the writings of Plato. The problem is roughly this, updated to modern contexts: "Does God endorse that which is good or is that which is good good because God endorses it?" If God endorses that which is good, we need not appeal to God because there is some other standard by which the goodness is judged. If moral standards are good because God endorses them, then we have a "might makes right" problem and morality can be arbitrary; God can endorse any action such as torturing babies for the fun of it and because he would endorse it, the action would be good. Of course, torturing babies for the fun of it is not good, so this option can't work.

A theist might appeal to God's nature by saying "God's nature is good" or "God would never endorse evil actions," but this causes more problems. The "God's nature" objection delves deeper into the problem. By what standard is God's nature good? Is God's nature good because God endorses it or is God's nature good because God's nature endorses that which is good? For every "x" that a theist uses to answer the dilemma, they delve deeper into the problem. If a theist says that God would never endorse evil actions, this means that there is some outside standard to God that determines whether or not an action is evil (and thus God would not need to be part of the moral equation). This might also be problematic with God's omnipotence, but that's only a minor detail here.

Morality is a product of evolution and common sense. We realize that we need to work together and be nice to others on a very basic level in order for society to exist and to survive. We didn't need the ten commandments or the proverbial Mount Sinai to understand that murder and perjury are wrong. Morality is also a product of experience and socialization. We understand, through life experience, that we ought to behave in certain ways and not behave in certain ways in order to flourish. For more on the moral argument for God's existence, the Euthyphro Dilemma, and why people behave poorly, please click on the hyperlinks.

Responding to Voris, we can object to the actions of Hitler and the Nazis because we can understand why genocide is horrendous for several obvious reasons. We don't need a belief in God or some divine lawgiver to understand why genocide is wrong. We, as empathetic individuals, can understand that the Holocaust was wrong because innocent people are being deprived of basic human rights, murdered, tortured, forced to work in prison camps, etc. Only a psychopath or an extreme anti-Semite would believe that Hitler was justified in killing millions of people...and their 'opinions' do not matter in the moral conversations.

Voris poses several objections to atheists such as "they can't explain where the universe came from or explain love." Both of these objections are profoundly fallacious; they are arguments from ignorance and burden-shifting. The burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate God, not the atheist. If the atheist can't answer a question posed by a theist, this doesn't suddenly justify belief in God or make these position/argument justified.

This sort of thinking is similar to what 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust revisionists employ. If a person can't explain how a building would fall in a certain matter, the 'truther' thinks, then belief in a conspiracy is justified. The revisionists say, "No holes, no Holocaust" and find several 'problems' in the 'official explanations' of the Holocaust and because of this, they think that their arguments are justified, but this is not how argumentation works.

This is also a false dichotomy - one in which if you can't answer my objections, my side suddenly is justified. This sort of thinking also happens in the evolution/intelligent design 'debates.' The ID proponent says, "Look at blood clotting. You can't explain that." They think, just because the evolution proponent can't answer a question, intelligent design is suddenly justified. All that this means, though is "I can't explain one problem" and does not immediately defeat a position. Intelligent design, in this case, would only be justified in the ID proponent can make a case for why their position is the correct one.

Bill O' Reilly tried this sort of thinking in a recent discussion with David Silverman when he said, "Tides go in, tides go out. You can't explain that." O'Reilly thinks that just because an atheist can't explain the tides or, in a later video, "how the moon got there," that belief in God is justified. Voris is doing the same exact thing. You can't explain 'x' does not entail that an opposing position is automatically defeated.

Throughout history, we did not know how to explain phenomena such as thunder, earthquakes, disease, and seizures. In times past, people used gods to explain all of these, but we have now found naturalistic explanations and no longer need to assert God to explain what we previously did not understand. While we might not be able to understand "where the universe came from," this doesn't mean that we can justifiably say "God did it." Which God did it, anyway? How do we know the Christian god did it? Why couldn't some naturalistic explanation account for it? If we don't know how something works, we should be honest and say "I don't know" instead of jumping to supernatural conclusions. Why should we ever go from "I don't know" to "God did it?" This strategy, from theists, is often called "God of the gaps." Theists posit God into areas that are currently unexplained, but over time, God gets 'smaller and smaller' as new information is found.

"You can't explain love" is fallacious for the reasons I detailed above...and is even more silly. We actually can explain love...and it is a product of the brain. We're attracted to certain individuals and certain neurotransmitters in the brain emit hormones such as oxytocin. Attraction also is completely plausible within an evolutionary framework. While we can have sex with people we hate and don't need love for reproduction, this doesn't entail that love makes no sense within an evolutionary framework. Regardless, even if we can't make sense of love, this doesn't entail that God exists or that atheists are unjustified in their positions.

Voris believes that evolution is treated almost as dogma in the scientific community. "Dogma" is not a word that makes sense within the scientific community because theories are constantly put to the test and could be falsified when profound objections are levied. Scientists and non-scientists accept evolution because of the tremendous amount of evidence supporting it including be not limited to shared DNA, speciation, the fossil record, vestigial organs, etc. The idea that we descended from a common ancestor is a fact, not a dogma. Year by year, contrary to what Voris says, evolution becomes more and more justified. In the time of Darwin, sufficient evidence existed to substantiate evolution, but now -- with the fossil record, DNA, and answers to questions of 'complexity' -- the evidence for evolution is stronger and stronger. I'd like to know about the brilliant minds who shot holes through evolution...

Voris says, "How can you make life out of slamming rocks together" and immediately shows his ignorance of evolution. No scientists say that life emerged from "slamming rocks together." Voris conflates abiogenesis, the field in which life emerging from non-life is explored, with evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate disciplines...and just because we might not be able to explain how life came from non-life does not entail that belief in evolution is unjustified or belief in God is justified.

Voris' comments on homosexuality are completely unjustified. His statements endorsing 'curing homosexuality' are not endorsed by any credible psychologist or psychology association. People aren't gay because "something got off the rails somewhere," but rather because they were born that way. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or a product of bad life experiences.

I could have written objections to Voris' arguments in my Examiner.com article, but my intent was to report, not to raise objections to Voris. My article was, in no way, an endorsement of Voris. Many people understood that, but 'casual viewers' who didn't know me were unaware of this. Sorry for that! This post could have been much longer, but I simply wanted to get the basic objections out there.

Michael Voris' message to atheists: "You're wrong"

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Michael Voris' message to atheists: You're wrong." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

Atheists' aerial banners not welcome in Pennsylvania

I wrote a new article for Examiner.com titled "Atheists' aerial banners not welcome in Pennsylvania." Check it out here along with my other content!

Please subscribe to me on Examiner.com by clicking the "subscribe" button next to my name on Examiner.com articles.

---

This article was featured on American Atheists' website!