NEPA BlogCon Guest Post (On Civility, Rationality)

I authored a guest post for an upcoming conference, NEPA BlogCon 2012, at which I will be speaking. Discussed -- re-posted below -- are my thoughts concerning civility and the need for rational thought. Enjoy.

--

Justin Vacula here. I’ll be speaking at NEPA BlogCon 2012 on the ‘Using Media Effectively’ panel representing the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast which I host.

The NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is the official podcast of the NEPA Freethought Society – a local social, educational, philosophical, and activist group of non-religious persons predicated on community and support. For those unfamiliar, the term ‘freethought’ is used to describe inquiry which values logic, reason, and critical thinking rather than dogmatic thinking or belief held on the basis of mere authority.

I have discovered that podcasting is much more difficult than blogging – which I also engage in – because of the preparation involved, coordinating schedules with guests and my podcast’s media producer Jason Gogola, and the technical work (including the often tedious editing which is a precursor to publishing). The final product, though, is well worth it.

Ideas which I discuss and make available for discussion online, whether through blogging or podcasting, include discussion of the separation of church and state and arguments against religious belief – two topics which are seen by some as controversial. Although I will be bold and critical, it is with great care that I discuss these ideas. I do not dismiss arguments for religious belief out-of-hand or heap abuse on religious individuals, but rather explain my positions and respond to arguments in good faith. (Challenges, too, are always welcome and valued!)

A major goal of my work, whether it be blogging or podcast, is to attack ideas rather than persons. Many who hold cherished beliefs, especially of a religious nature, unfortunately see disagreement as disrespect and an attack on one’s character. Some even go as far as saying that religion shouldn’t even be discussed.

Discussions about religious belief can often be quite intimidating for some who have not thought deeply about particular issues or otherwise see religious belief as an important part of their lives. I was formerly a Roman Catholic who believed that people offering criticism of religion were agents of Satan, so I can understand where people are coming from. I have obviously since greatly and happily departed from that position.

One of my podcast episodes with special guest Dr. Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor at Portland State University, titled “Practical Strategies to Combat Faith” encourages people to engage in civil discussion [about religion] and model the sort of respectful discourse one wishes to see from others. Non-religious persons, Dr. Boghossian and I both contend, should express a willingness to change positions on any and all issues while encouraging others to hold this attitude of ‘epistemic humility.’ The same could be said for religious persons.

In discussions involving people I disagree with, I frequently highlight the importance of conversation. It is through civil and critical engagement with ideas that we can learn about others, work to dismiss stereotype-laden ideas we have, challenge our own beliefs, explore ourselves, and determine whether there are good reasons for holding particular beliefs. After all, the Bible, in 1 Peter 3:15, encourages persons to prepare reasons for their beliefs and treat others with gentleness and respect. Even atheists such as myself can agree with that sentiment!

If beliefs are justified and true, one should have nothing to fear in regards to critical engagement. If our beliefs happen to be unjustified and false after examination, we will have made progress while hopefully acquiring justified true beliefs.

My podcast allows for – as opposed to blogging — a a more intimate and thorough discussion of ideas which viewers can interact with. I encourage persons of all backgrounds and beliefs to listen. Topics such as morality, faith, race, separation of church and state, the workplace, counseling, melodic death metal, the military, comedy, and gender – no matter what one’s interests may be – should appeal to a wide audience.
I hope to see you at NEPA BlogCon 2012. I’m honored to speak at this very unique local conference which will hopefully be the first of many.

Speech: "Reframing the Discussion" - Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia

I was invited to speak for the Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia on 6/24/12. I've finally uploaded the speech to Youtube. I was initially considering uploading this speech as an episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast which I host, but due to the bi-weekly release schedule and many episodes recorded but not yet released, I uploaded on Youtube. This speech is an interactive one; instead of me speaking for 45 minutes, audience members offered questions for discussion during the speech. Enjoy!



Here is the speech's blurb:

"Secular individuals face many challenges when disputing supernatural-based belief systems and reaching out theists of various stripes. Problems may arise during any sort of conversation or transmission of information because many people -- rather than looking at conversation and disagreement as a positive learning experience -- see disagreement, even when respectful, as a negative thing which should be avoided. Secular individuals should benefit from countering these ideas by modeling positive conversational skills and being respectful in discussions with those who disagree on various issues while still employing an effective hard-hitting approach regarding challenging of ideas. Respectful disagreement can be had and should be encouraged by secular individuals who hope to educate others and challenge others' beliefs."

Religious Campuses panel - SSA 2012 annual conference

I was invited to be one of the four panelists for the 'Religious Campuses' panel at the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 annual conference. I spoke about my experience as an atheist at King's College (the Catholic university I attended for undergraduate studies) and Marywood University (the Catholic university I am currently attending as a graduate student).


In addition to the expected informative nature of this unique panel discussion, many laughs were had by the audience. One of the funniest moments of the panel discussion, at least on my behalf, might have been my recounting an interesting experience [around the 28-minute mark] in which I -- a vegetarian -- objected to the 'hostage situation' concerning King's College dining services facilities locking meat products in coolers during Lent (forbidding employees from preparing and serving meat products apparently was not enough).


This panel was an interesting opportunity for me to speak about something quite different than what I usually address; instead of writing and/or talking about philosophy, church/state issues and activism, and the other 'usual stuff,' I spoke of my experience as an atheist on religious campuses and my attempts to start SSA groups. There isn't too much on this blog about my efforts to start an SSA group at King's College (I should have better documented this) and there are few posts relating to my efforts at Marywood University.

Here's the Youtube description of the panel/video:

SSA Board President [Evan Clark] moderates this panel on the challenges posed to SSA affiliated student groups at religious college campuses. Justin Vacula of Marywood University, Branden King, Harrison Hopkins of Presbyterian College, and Andrew Tripp of DePaul University offer up their own stories and some advice to other students in similar situations.

Questions from moderator and audience (paraphrased)
 (4:18) Why did you attend a religious university?
 (6:15) What inspired you to start a Secular Student Alliance group?
 (8:55) How did you start to form an SSA group? How did your school react?
(16:25) Who have been your biggest allies concerning the formation of your SSA groups?
(22:17) Once your groups were accepted or denied, what was the reaction?
(30:40) What advice do you have for students who want to start SSA groups?
(34:28) How do you find atheistic students to help you form groups?
(36:40) What were the responses of other student groups on campuses?
(40:52) What portion of what you do is currently focused on education and de-conversion? Ideally, what portion of efforts do you think should be focused on education and de-conversion?

Full audio and some text from my HACS talk

On July 17 of 2012, I appeared as a special guest for a philosophy class titled "Atheism and the New Atheism" for students at Holy Apostles College and Seminary - an evangelical Catholic university in Connecticut. More details are here. I delivered an opening speech and participated in a question and answer session which followed. The entire event lasted one hour and thirteen minutes.

As promised, the full audio of the event was released and has been made available to the public thanks to Dr. Mahfood. Stream the audio here or download the ZIP file here. The audio is unfortunately spotty at points. I may release a re-mastered version of the audio at a later date.

A text version of my speech can be read here:
Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech

Timestamps:
     (0:00 - 0:25)          Introduction by Dr. Mahfood
     (0:25 - 0:47)          Opening prayer by Dr. Chervin
     (0:48 - 1:50)          Introduction of Justin Vacula by Dr. Mahfood
     (1:50 - 17:50)        Opening speech from Justin Vacula
     (17:51 - end)          Question and answer session

Some of the questions and sentiments (paraphrased) in the question and answer session:
(18:13) Do you use science to determine what is true and false?
(20:33) What good reasons would be sufficient [for you to believe in God]?
(23:30) Do you only believe in something when all the contrary arguments have been resolved?
(27:06) Is there an objective standard for belief or do you have a personal standard?
(29:08) Do you believe something can be universally true?
(30:16) Are you dogmatically opposed, given your commitment to naturalism, to supernatural explanations?
(37:20) Would a supernatural experience lead you to belief in God?
(39:00) Are you looking for hard evidence to believe in God?
(40:52) What about faith?
(42:05) Discussion about the problem of natural evil and omni-attributes
(46:55) Theodicy: This is a fallen world/God's goodness was evident, but is no longer
(49:20) Theodicy: There is a good that supersedes an evil world. Perhaps suffering leads to good beyond   this earth? Perhaps suffering is just a prelude to the afterlife?  
(52:00) Theodicy: Evil serves a purpose. We see examples in this world in which suffering is required to achieve certain ends.
(54:00) Omni-attributes seem to be a different matter from God existing.
(55:48) Are you an agnostic?
(59:40) Theodicy: Eternal happiness, in light of limited suffering in this world, seems not to be a problem.
(1:01:43) What about metaphysical arguments for God's existence?
(1:04:00) Your philosophical studies seem to start with the Enlightenment. What about before that?
(1:10:45) How do you know that your reason without faith fulfills you?

Humanism letter to the editor published

Bumper sticker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation

During my stay in Columbus for the Secular Student Alliance's 2012 annual convention, a local newspaper published a letter to the editor I had written concerning humanism and the (lack of) efficacy of prayer and supernatural pleas in regards to a pious pastor who attempted to address the problem of violence in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I have addressed this pastor, Rev. Michael Brewster, in previous posts on this website. Below is the letter.

Real solutions for real problems
Soon after Rev. Michael Brewster of Mount Zion Baptist Church commented about the shooting death of local youth Tyler Winstead – appealing to God to stop the violence in this community and talking about “employ(ing) the weapon of unconditional and radical love for humanity” – I called these comments vapid and a failure because they did not offer earthly solutions to earthly problems. 

As an atheist, and more specifically a humanist, I view these comments as contributing nothing to combat very real problems that ought to be addressed by human action. 

Humanists and atheists don’t look to “supernatural solutions” for earthly problems, but rather look to earthly solutions for earthly problems. Real action from people on their feet, rather than those in prayerful kneeling, is required for change. We find no good reason to believe that prayer solves any problems or that any gods – if they exist – intervene in human affairs. 

It is wonderful that Rev. Brewster recently has taken action by holding community meetings in conjunction with the “Building Bridges” initiative. It seems that many people in this community have realized that prayer is not sufficient to deal with our earthly problems. 

For those who believe that God only helps those who help themselves, it seems evident that people helping themselves can’t be distinguished from God helping people. And we all know which one is the more reasonable explanation.

Radio appearance discussing upcoming college talk

Reap and I at American Atheists' 2012 Annual Convention

I appeared on the June 27, 2012 episode of Reap Sow Radio to discuss my upcoming speaking engagement for a college-level philosophy course at Holy Apostles College and Seminary -- a fully-accredited evangelical Catholic university -- titled "Atheism and New Atheism." For my initial comments and more information about this upcoming speaking engagement, read the corresponding blog post on the matter that has also been reproduced on the Freedom From Religion Foundation's website. 

Download or stream the episode here.
(Warning: NSFW - Some language)

I start talking about the class and much more-- for about twenty minutes -- around the 35 minute mark.

Enjoy...and check out Reap's podcast, "The Angry Atheist," which has more than 85 episodes -- a new atheist in almost every episode -- featuring Todd Stiefel, Peter Boghossian, my friend Trinity, Bridget Gaudette of the new Secular Woman group, Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta, Emily Dietle, my friend and fellow NEPA Freethought Society member Karla Porter, D.J. Grothe, and many more! I was even on in June 2011! [Sorry, can't get everyone here.]

Atheists with 'atheists in foxholes' banner again booed in Memorial Day parade

                                                             Photo Credit: Carl Silverman

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Atheists with 'atheists in foxholes' banner again booed in Memorial Day parade." Within the article are linked videos of people booing the marching atheist troupe.

Here is the first paragraph of the article:

Members of Pennsylvania Nonbelievers – a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization devoted to delivering information for rational and critical thinking comprised of atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, secularists, and humanists – recently marched in Annville, Pennsylvania's 22nd annual Memorial Day parade holding a banner reading, in part, “Remembering all who bravely served, including atheists in foxholes.” While some onlookers of the parade were visibly indifferent or even supportive, some responded to the presence of Pennsylvania Nonbelievers members and their marching troupe with audible booing and unsupportive hand gestures.

For the rest of the article and the videos, read the article in its entirety on Examiner.com.

Reframing the conversation: Theism, atheism, and more

This post should be the first in a series of a general 'umbrella topic' of "Reframing the Discussion." I hope to talk more about this topic in future posts, podcast episodes, and speeches dealing with the sub-topics of how to be a better communicator, engage in a genuine conversation, and change perspective of how people view disagreement and discussion in order to encourage others to view disagreement and discussion as a positive 'thing.'

In previous months -- and especially following a wonderful discussion I had with philosopher Peter Boghossian (discussion is now available here) -- I have been really interested in the general topic of how a person can effectively communicate with others and what -- if there is an 'answer' -- is the 'best way' to engage a person whom one happens to disagree with whether a discussion is regarding what one considers a 'heated topic' or something as non-controversial (or what one would think would be non-controversial) as how science informs philosophy/how philosophy informs science. I don't think there is just one way to be an effective communicator...but I also don't think that any given way of communicating messages to others is permissible simply because there is not just one way to be an effective communicator; some methods of communicating can rightly be labeled as ineffective.

Every so often, 'turf wars' of sorts are present in the secular community in which people argue that since -- as some assume -- people can't or won't 'change their minds' on some issues, people should have no problems or moral qualms about flat-out insulting theists, attacking individuals with clear malice, and dropping any intentions of education. [Education, though, admittedly ought not always be the overt or latent goal because satire, blasphemy, etc. may be appropriate in many cases...] Theists will likewise be uncharitable to secular individuals; it works both ways (as some commonly say "There are asses in both camps.") I note this as a rationale for authoring this post in which I will use an encounter I had with two people today -- regarding a topic totally unrelated to secularism or theism -- to illustrate some points and later return to issues of atheism and theism later in this post.


Earlier today while I was waiting for a bus to arrive, I heard a woman openly talking about how she is upset because she, on her account, had to quit a job she had (assisting disabled persons in an assisted living facility) because the hourly pay was too low leading to her -- instead of working in a field or a place of employment she wanted to work in -- working in a field she was not interested in.

I responded to her expressing a concern and said, at one point, that it is too bad that persons in helping professions often get paid very little compared to some persons in other professions. Soon after I said this, an elderly man interjected and asked me if I was "for socialism." I said, "Excuse me?" (because I didn't understand why he said that) and asked him to clarify what he meant by that. Instead of responding to my question and having what I consider to be a fruitful conversation, he continued saying, "I made 40 [dollars] an hour before I retired. Did I make too much money?" Once again, I asked him to clarify what he was saying...and the man simply walked away.

As you might have thought (or might have been lead to believe because the lead-in to the previous paragraph), this is not a good way to express disagreement with someone or have a conversation. From the looks of it, it seems that this man wasn't interested in actually learning something about my position, understanding my position, or having a discussion. Instead, the man seemed to have jumped to conclusions, distorted my reasoning (without even, of course, identifying what it was), and just 'pulled a hit-and-run'.


A productive way to start a conversation, before jumping to conclusions about a position one might endorse or what a person believes, is to ask some questions. In this case, questions like a very general and elementary introduction to a conversation would be "Why do you think people in helping professions should earn more money?" and "Do you believe that all workers should earn roughly the same amount of money?" [attempts to gauge what a person believes by directly identifying what one thinks the person believes]

Following these questions, I would be able to identify my position, learn something this man believes, the man could learn something I believe, and so much more. Reflection on an issue like this (and so many others) might be very valuable because humans have blind spots, people may introduce something a person hasn't thought of, and -- quite optimistically -- we can both work toward reaching justified true beliefs (or perhaps something like that).

Returning to the secular/theist angle...if persons enter conversations viewing conversations as learning opportunities or opportunities to educate and have the intention for the 'other' to walk away with a positive impression of someone whom they disagree with [rather than having someone walk away even more 'polarized'], both 'camps' can learn much about being effective communicators in, as I call it, 'reframing the discussion.' Two indications of being a critical thinker -- no matter how smart someone is or no matter how confident a person may be about the beliefs they hold -- are a willingness to consider others' points of view and engage in discussions with people with whom they disagree.

Like it or not (and you should like it), there is much that secular individuals can learn from theists. Theists are not, as some unfortunately seem to caricature all too often, people who can add nothing to conversations about even religion because their theological assumptions are unwarranted (although, as most theists and atheists reading this would likely agree, people like Pat Robertson -- for instance -- seem to show a tremendous disregard for truth and say really stupid things regarding certain topics).

I will admit, when I first considered myself to be an atheist, I was filled with too much unwarranted confidence without experience and deep reflection [at least compared to where I am at now] and my approach was pretty shitty. After much engagement with academic theists, more investigation of 'better arguments' (as opposed to arguments that even academic theists consider to be quite silly and, to borrow a phrase I have heard from some, 'infantile'), and some fruitful discussion with lay theists, I consider myself to be a much more learned individual and a more effective communicator. There is also thankfully still much more to learn!

Reframing the discussion as a positive encounter, of course, shouldn't mean that everyone should jump to unreasonable conclusions of 'all beliefs are of equal weight because there is no such thing as truth and perception is reality,' 'people's beliefs should be immune from criticism' or assent to the commonly uttered phrases of "I have the right to my own opinion" or "You should respect my beliefs" as genuine reasons for people to hold beliefs or otherwise, as previously mentioned, be immune from criticism [click the hyperlinks for my thoughts on these topics]. I have 'belief intolerance,' as funny as it sounds (and how very uncontroversial it should be) in the case that truth exists, people can (and are) be wrong about certain matters, and the simple fact that someone holds a belief is justification for holding a belief. I don't, as some diversity proponents unfortunately do -- as I will plainly put -- commit intellectual suicide by sabotaging one of the chief aims of higher education which is leading students to justified true beliefs with an acknowledgment that truth exists.

What then is the moral of this story? The next time you happen to disagree with someone about a matter -- instead of jumping to conclusions and not having a genuine conversation with the intention of learning something or communicating an educational message -- try to ask some questions, not be a hostile person, and assume you know what people believe before you happen to ask. Although it may seem to be a cliche of sorts, I find truth in the phrase 'you never know what you can learn from others or how you can influence others.'

Of course everything can't be fully explained and I didn't consider everything possible in this post so, as always, feel free to comment on this post and please post with the intent to have a genuine discussion and such.  : )

New video episodes of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast available!

Returning from a hiatus, the NEPA Freethought Society is providing new and old viewers alike with THREE new episodes! Watch below:

'Respecting beliefs' (and right to opinion and taking offense)

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

'Religion and the workplace' discussion with Karla Porter

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

Interview with melodic death metal band Ethereal Collapse

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

'Pro-Reason' Reason Rally article in Scranton, PA newspaper

Rich Howells -- writing for Go Lackawanna in Scranton, PA -- has authored a wonderful 'pro-reason' Reason Rally article!

From the article,

Like it or not, secularism is on the rise, but that isn’t some sort of storm cloud warning or preachy threat – we’re just letting everyone know that we’re here, proud of who we are, and willing to be good without the fear of penalty in the afterlife. All it takes is a simple Google search to see all the negative press the Reason Rally has received. If you disagree with our philosophies then there’s likely little I can do to change your mind, but think for a moment about why these cynical attitudes towards atheists prevail.

Read the full article here.

Richard Wade has some kind words about me

Richard Wade -- writing for the Friendly Atheist blog -- graciously talked about the time we spent together at American Atheists' 2012 convention. He had some very kind words about me and included me amongst prominent atheists such as PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Jen McCreight, Hemant Mehta, Daniel Fincke, and Ed Brayton who are "unashamedly, upapologetically, wonderfully, inspiringly, courageously arrogant" hoping that he can "can emulate just a small portion of [our] energy, [our] integrity, [our] determination, and [our] demanding, unrelenting compassion."

Read Richard's blog post, "I hope I Have Become More Arrogant," for the full post. Thanks Richard!

COLTS bus driver to be disciplined

Three days ago, I had authored a post which had concerned threats/harassment/intimidation I had received from a person representing himself as a County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS) bus driver named Daniel Wittenbreder (who indeed exists). Daniel, writing on my Facebook profile, had posted "DONT YOU EVER SHOW YOUR FACE ON MY BUS YOU LITTLE PUNK" and told me "try it..." when I had said, "So, if I went on your bus at COLTS, would you refuse me?". Daniel, between both his profile and my profile, also had some choice phrases for me including "little punk," "you should be ashamed of yourself," "the lord jesus christ will take care of you," and an "atheist puke with an axe to grind."

These comments, coming from someone representing himself as a bus driver for an entity which receives state, county, and federal funding are completely unacceptable. While one could argue that comments like this are simply 'taking a stand' or 'expressing free speech,' the line is crossed when a person represents himself as a COLTS bus driver and expresses willingness to deny services on a public transit system...and that is why I filed this complaint. Atheists -- or anyone else because of religious belief or lack thereof -- should not have to experience this intimidation.

After I had received these messages from Wittenbreder, I had filed a police report with my local police department concerning Wittenbreder's comments. This morning, I received a message from COLTS' solicitor:

We have received your complaint about Daniel Wittenbreder. Mr. Wittenbreder’s comments to you on Facebook were not authorized by COLTS and they are inappropriate. He will face discipline by COLTS for making them if it is proven he actually made them. He has been informed not to deny you service on a COLTS bus because of your atheist beliefs or any other beliefs you have. He is to refrain from communicating with you concerning your privileges and/rights to utilize the COLTS bus services. If you are denied service on a COLTS bus or someone threatens to deny you service on a COLTS bus, please advise me immediately. Thank you.

While COLTS did not do the right thing concerning the refusal of the "Atheists." bus ad sponsored by American Atheists and the NEPA Freethought Society, COLTS has done the right thing in not standing for intimidation toward its customers. Hopefully COLTS will take another step in the right direction and authorize the "Atheists." ad!

The "Atheists." bus ad controversy is a free speech issue, not a religious argument

Arguments regarding the truth value of religious claims have entered the controversy surrounding the "Atheists." bus ad (see comments here) and some atheists in the comments section of the linked Times-Tribune article have taken the bait from some religious commenters who have levied personal attacks against atheists or otherwise have argued that there is good reason to believe that the Christian god exists. While I relish debates/discussions regarding the truth-value of religious claims [and have participated in a live recorded formal "Does the Christian god exist?" debate myself], view these discussions as very important, and encourage others to participate in said discussions, let us not be distracted from what the real issue is here surrounding COLTS: freedom of speech.

Whether a person happens be to be atheist, a theist, or something else should have no bearing whatsoever on rational arguments dealing with the issue of whether a bus company which receives state, federal, and county funds should (or otherwise be legally required to) provide equal access to citizens using advertisement space on their buses.

Since COLTS is not allowing the NEPA Freethought Society to advertise -- especially considering that our message is content-free -- it seems quite obvious that freedom of speech is being abridged and COLTS is not allowing equal access for citizens to advertise on their buses. Equal access is what a pluralistic society should aim for rather than selective speech. Unfortunately, it's all too often that atheists get 'the short end of the stick.'

In October of 2011, I authored a post for American Atheists' "No God Blog" titled "Equality for Atheists in the 'Marketplace of Ideas'" which is very relevant to the current situation with COLTS. I wrote that atheists have been facing discrimination in current times even when messages are 'really tame.' Whether we [atheists] march in Memorial Day paraders, fly banners in the month of July, or have billboards saying "Good Without God," I wrote, "the cacophony of complaints can be heard from Christians who want to censor us [atheists]."

Ending this post, I wrote

Atheists should have the same rights as Christians to present their ideas – within reason – in pluralistic societies. Messages should simply not be censored because those in a position of privilege and power happen to disagree, have negative impressions of atheists, or whatever reason. [...] [C]ensorship and exclusion is often the ‘order of the day.’ Silencing your‘opposition,’ though, is the coward’s way out.

Unfortunately, COLTS doesn't seem to understand that some people might hold beliefs that others might disagree with and, living in a pluralistic society, most of us have come to the very reasonable conclusion that persons simply have to 'deal with it' (and perhaps just 'grow up' and realize that this world is full of people who disagree) and government entities may not discriminate simply because they happen not to like a message (or content-free message).

It would be one thing if the NEPA Freethought Society wanted to advertise for the KKK or Aryan Youth (which we never would do, but let's consider this for the sake of argument), but this simply is not the case. We want to simply say, "we exist" and provide an audience with websites for our organizations. Atheists in Northeastern Pennsylvania and the rest of this world should not feel alone when vibrant communities of atheists exist. Is this too much to ask? Apparently, for COLTS, this fear(?) of a public debate about issues is a good enough reason to discriminate against atheists who want to advertise on buses and this public debate fear (?) outweighs all other concerns of [freedom of speech]. Shall this be the standard we live by a pluralistic democratic society?

While discussions about the truth value of religious claims are important (and certainly can and should be had), it's important -- for both theists and atheists -- to not consider this an issue of religious debate, but rather see it as a free speech issue. Whether you are an atheist or not or whether you like the fact that we intend to advertise or not, you should -- as you are a member of a pluralistic democratic society who presumably values your own free speech rights -- agree that COLTS should allow the really, really, really inoffensive "Atheists." ad and stand up for free speech...because that's the real issue here at the core of things.

The wonderful irony of the whole COLTS situation, as I posted as a Facebook status of mine, is that their refusal of the "Atheists." ad -- on grounds that it would cause a debate about public issues and that said debate is impermissible -- drew even more attention to the issue and actually started a debate about public issues! Even better than that, the refused ad -- probably because COLTS happened to refuse it -- has been featured in local and national news including the front page of Scranton's own Times-Tribune. COLTS' refusal has utterly backfired and the NEPA Freethought Society-- and everyone who stands in solidarity for freedom of speech -- is winning this war.

When liberty seems out of reach, we'll fight for our freedom of speech!

For more 'backstory' on the "Atheists." bus ad controversy before this post, please visit this link. Thanks for your support!

Presentation - 11/10/11 'The Luzerne County Holiday Display Incident

I was invited to speak at PA Nonbelievers' 11/10/11 meeting in Lemoyne, PA.

In my presentation, "The Luzerne County Holiday Display Incident," I discussed the church/state battle I was involved with in 2009, the importance of secular activism, my hate mail, and much more.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the 'incident,' I filed a church/state complaint in 2009 regarding a religious holiday display at the Luzerne County, PA courthouse. I quickly became "the third most hated person in Luzerne County" (according to a local DJ), received a tremendous amount of hate mail from the community at large including persons whom I attended college and high school with, and ultimately was successful in upholding church/state separation.

Thanks so much to the receptive audience at to PA Nonbelievers for having me.

Video to come!

PowerPoint URL:
https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AUrJ2NxBfCDbZGhzNjdrcmNfMGNxcnZwY2M2

Foundation Beyond Belief: A Charity that Atheists (and everyone else) Can Support

At any given moment, one can consider the breadth of ongoing issues in the world whether they be children dying in Kenyan famines, psychics deceiving and taking money from persons in difficult times, discrimination facing the LGBT and atheist communities, or the current ratio of wealth of CEOs to the median-wage worker in the United States and feel tremendously overwhelmed. As very limited humans, we can't possibly address every issue because of financial limitations, educational limitations, lack of a platform for speech or audience, confidence, and many other issues. While one person -- or one group of persons -- can't possibly solve or address every issue in the world, individuals can use their talents or donate money (if they are able to do so) to causes they view (and are evidentially-based) as effective.

In the area of charitable aid, not everyone has disposable income to offer to worthy causes and

charities. While making large donations can obviously be more helpful than making smaller ones, smaller donations -- even at the level of a mere five dollars a month that persons would probably never miss -- can be helpful - and especially when five dollars accumulates when multiple persons donate. Similarly, those who don't have a massive amount of wealth, yet have disposable income that they can afford to part with, can donate to charities.

Atheists often ask questions such as "Which charities should I donate to?" and are hesitant to donate because many charities have religious components that they do not wish to support.

A growing organization that humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious folk can support -- and is specifically tailored to the non-religious -- and donate to is the Foundation Beyond Belief. Their website notes,

Foundation Beyond Belief is a 501 (c)(3) charitable foundation created to focus, encourage and demonstrate humanist generosity and compassion. [...] Carefully selected for impact and efficiency, our favored beneficiaries may be founded on any worldview so long as they act in accordance with humanist values including mutual care, responsibility, and free inquiry and do not proselytize.

One of Foundation Beyond Belief's current initiatives, among others, is to address what is being called the world's "worst humanitarian crisis" in the Horn of Africa. The most severe drought in sixty years in the Horn of Africa prompted the UN to make a formal declaration for famine in Southern Somalia - the first such declaration in twenty years. Tens of thousands have died and eleven million people are currently at risk for starvation.

Foundation Beyond Belief offers many options for those who wish to donate: persons can donate anywhere from five dollars a month to one thousand a month or send one-time donations. According to their website, Foundation Beyond Belief

select[s] and feature[s] ten charitable organizations per quarter, one in each of the following cause areas: health, education, poverty, environment, children, human rights, animals, peace, challenge the gap (charities based in other worldviews), and Foundation Beyond Belief itself. Members join the Foundation by signing up for a monthly automatic donation in the amount of their choice, then set up personal profiles to indicate how they would like their contribution distributed among the ten categories.

Being able to choose exactly where your money goes is a wonderful component of being a member of Foundation Beyond Belief. Many say that they don't wish to donate to issues taking place outside of America, contribute greatly to administrative costs of charities, or contribute to causes they might not support. Fear not, Foundation Beyond Belief allows you to allocate your donations.

Foundation Beyond Belief is working with groups such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF USA), ActionAid USA, and War Child to raise awareness in the non-theist community of the ongoing drought and famine in the Horn of Africa. Foundation Beyond Belief is also currently working with Operation Wildlife, Islamic Relief USA (as per their challenge the gap initiative), HeartStrong, Adopt-A-Classroom, and Polaris Project.

While I don't have a large amount of disposable income, I am a member of Foundation Beyond Belief and donate five dollars a month that I will never miss! Why don't you become a member?

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.

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.

A Critical Defense of Critical Thinking

This post is a follow-up to my "Preaching to the Converted" post.

While I get very mad when people promote anti-intellectualism, make really bad arguments, give cover to the extremist religious people, and say phrases like "everything happens for a reason" using a post-hoc ridiculous rationalization for any given event to generate false hope, but what's been annoying me recently is the flurry from atheists, theists, and everyone else in between objecting to what I'm promoting: critical thinking.

People tell me that philosophy and promoting intellectual values is a waste of time for various reasons, but I'm going to defend what I do because if I can't, my work truly is pointless...and that's not the case.

Many people have the false belief that people won't listen to arguments because they already have their minds "made up," but a problem with this belief is that many people will and can change. Some people, when they face facts, decide not to rationalize anymore and accept reality. Former evangelical ministers, for example, have "transformed" into atheists who publish books, give speeches at conventions, and host atheist television shows. Some people, of course, are deluded beyond belief and hold on to their notions of a less than ten thousand universe and the conversations might be pointless, but this isn't the case with all discussions by any means.

At a young age, especially while attending college, students learn new information and should face a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance in their classes because ideas presented will undoubtedly conflict with their beliefs. Outside of college, people interact with others on the internet and hear opinions that they don't agree with. Although some people may isolate themselves, it's very difficult to do so on the internet because people from all sorts of perspectives congregate and share ideas.

Many people often hold beliefs merely because of tradition are simply haven't critically examined the issues or read arguments from both sides. This is easily evidenced by theists who fail to follow the great advice (besides the setting the Lord in your heart part, whatever that exactly means) of 1 Peter 3:15 and present horrible arguments like Pascal's Wager, make appeals to ignorance, and make other ridiculous claims. I could probably defend Christianity better than 75% (let's just throw a number out there) of the Christians at my school. Unfortunately, religious beliefs are often bound to the individual and make up who they are. People mistakingly believe that they have experienced divine intervention they've had what they interpret to be extraordinary situations, use personal anecdotal stories to justify their beliefs, and find intentional agency to bolster their irrational ideas.

Regardless of the surmountable challenges that face skeptics, people change...and the skeptics among us can put the wheels of critical thinking in motion.

I would imagine that any given society would be much better off if it values rationality, critical thinking, evidence-based decision making, intellectualism, and philosophy. Critical thinking and the associated motions leads to advances in technology, science, medicine, and societal health among many other things. A more rational society is always a better society. How can we ever possibly say something like "There is too much rationality in society?" There simply isn't enough rationality when 41% of the American population believes in ESP, 42% believe in devil possession, 32% believe in ghosts, 24% believe that aliens have visited the earth, 21% believe that people can talk to the dead and get responses (100% can talk to the dead, of course), about 50% are creationists, and 25% believe in astrology [statistics from p.6 of this book].

Can we possibly make an argument that belief in such things is making this world a better place to live in? Wouldn't we all be better off if people applied skepticism to all claims and had a passion for searching for the truth so that they can arrive at a position in which they proportion their beliefs to the evidence? We'd be better off if we hold as many justified beliefs as possible and have our beliefs reflect reality. As you certainly know, beliefs inform actions and actions can harm others, as I've previously discussed.

Discussing important issues in an open forum where criticism is welcome and people are open with their ideas is great for making sure that our arguments are accurate. Constructive criticism ought to lead to our positions being more justified. If we're able to deal with and counter objections while holding true to the maxim that the truth is more important than what we "want to believe." I want to be as correct as possible with all of my stances and delight in the opportunity for being "proved wrong." I'll be wrong today and be right tomorrow.

Critical thinking skills provide us with a needed armor that defends us against being conned, swindled, or taken for a ride by others who want to take advantage of us and exploit us. Arguments and advertisements are everywhere ranging from politics to the supermarket. People want to take your money and persuade you to waste it on overpriced bullshit bottled water, for example. Politicians want your vote. People want you to buy expensive shoes. Colleges want to lure you in and take your money... If we're able to critically examine what we're faced with, we'll be much better off.

It greatly saddens me when people who hold many of the positions I hold and have the "toolset" for critical thinking object to my work and feel that it's a total insignificant waste of time. This is more annoying that Pascal's Wager by far because there is tremendous wasted potential. Imagine an unattended baby is drowning in a lake. You see the baby drowning, you have the ability to save the baby, and you won't be harmed by doing so. Your clothes might get wet or you'll just have to jump in naked, but this really shouldn't matter because your actions would save a life. Perhaps you don't want to be famous when you save this baby, so you can simply be anonymous...

I don't expect everyone to host a blog, spend a tremendous amount of time debating people, linking on Facebook, or anything else, but anyone can contribute by encouraging people to think about issues, providing your own point of view, and encouraging others to voice their feelings. We critical thinkers have the ability to influence others and make this world a better place and all that it costs is a bit of time and effort.

Even if other people don't or won't change their minds, your ideas can provide inspiration for others, bolster others' arguments, and possibly force people to moderate extremist/absolutist unwarranted stances. There's also the chance for people to change their minds in the future. In the case of my blog and other sites focused on critical thinking, people have resources if they want to utilize them in the future.

Promotion of critical thinking is not a waste of time at all.

Richard Dawkins Foundation - Charity for Haiti

Copied from http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

You can donate there via PayPal.

Non-Believers Giving Aid: a religion-free way to help disaster victims

Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) has set up a dedicated bank account and PayPal facility to collect donations to non-religious relief organizations. This new account is in the new name of Non-Believers Giving Aid, with all of the money donated being distributed to disaster relief.

Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:

1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.

2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
It goes without saying that your donations will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations. In the case of Haiti, the two organizations we have chosen are:

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
International Red Cross

You may stipulate using the dropdown menu which of these two organizations you want your donation to go to; otherwise, it will be divided equally between them.

Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves.

Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity. Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.

Nations with more atheists are Most Peaceful

Studies can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18373331/The-Chronic-Dependence-of-Popular-Religiosity-Upon-Dysfunctional-Psycho-Sociological-Conditions

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies "

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures