David G. McAfee's Blog

Christian Evangelism is a common practice in the United States and throughout the world. Whether it comes in the form of missionaries who travel to underdeveloped nations to convert natives or door-to-door solicitors who hope to convince you of their “Truth” in your own home, it affects almost everyone. In many areas, you can’t even stay in a hotel without a Gideon-sponsored Bible in the nightstand. But how do you respond?

You could debate with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have in-depth discussions with the Mormons, and annotate hotel Bibles with plot holes and original criticisms, but now there’s something much easier and more effective. I’ve put together some of the best arguments and most damning biblical contradictions from my first book, Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings, into a four-page flyer that serves as a response to common Christian arguments. At very least, you might encourage a few believers to think and research their faith… and researching is never a bad thing!

Download the free pamphlet here: Disproving Christianity Flyer

Sitting in my hotel thinking about making a sheet with contradictions from Disproving Christianity to slip into Bibles.

David G. McAfee is a Religious Studies graduate, journalist, and author of The Belief Book, a children’s book explaining the origins of beliefs and religion, and Mom, Dad, I’m an Atheist: The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-believer. He is also an editor for Ockham Publishing and a contributor to American Atheist Magazine. McAfee attended University of California, Santa Barbara, and graduated with bachelor’s degrees in English and Religious Studies with an emphasis on Christianity and Mediterranean religions.

Atheists Should Stop Trying to Destroy Religion

By David G. McAfee, author of The Belief Book

I’m an atheist who studies religion. You might think that seems contradictory, but to me it makes all the sense in the world. I’ve never been religious, but I have always enjoyed learning about how religions start and spread, how they interact with and influence one another over time, and the psychology behind the ideas themselves. I’m incredibly interested in beliefs and myths and understand that there are good and bad aspects of faith, so imagine my surprise when people assume I want to “destroy,” “obliterate,” or “abolish” religion altogether just because I’m not a believer.

I partly understand the assumption because I know a lot of non-believers who want to do exactly that. I’ve heard people, who often call themselves “anti-theists” and who others might call “Fundamentalist Atheists” or “New Atheists,” refer to religion as a “cancer” that they want to surgically remove from humanity. But calling religion a cancer implies that it is always bad in all circumstances – that it isn’t beneficial to anyone and is dangerous in all its forms. Can we really say that’s the case for religion?

Rape or religion?

I consider myself a fan of a number of works written by Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and author often referred to as one of the “Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse,” but he said something I think was off in a 2006 interview with The Sun Magazine. He is quoted as saying, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.” He went on to explain that “more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than any other ideology.”

While I agree with Harris that religious extremism is dangerous, I don’t think religion itself is inherently evil and I certainly wouldn’t say it’s worse than rape. Religion isn’t a crime or a violation – it’s a tool. It’s been used to justify violence and bigotry, yes, but (due to the contradictory nature of holy texts) it’s also used at times as a means to promote well-being and reinforce positive ethics.

To answer the rape or religion question simply, think about all of the instances in which you think rape is completely acceptable and then compare that to the number of times when religious people are harmless. Think of your friends or relatives who quietly practice a religion without affecting others because it makes them feel good or because it provides a sense of community. Rape always causes harm – there are times when religions do not.

Wiping out religion.

While Harris’ scenario was hypothetical, magical, and – he admitted – inflammatory, there are many people who actively seek to destroy faith-based belief systems entirely. Some anti-theists hope to outlaw faith by enacting some sort of (unenforceable) thoughtcrime legislation, others think ridicule alone will completely eradicate supernatural beliefs, and a small number of these anti-theists want to end religion so badly that they see violence as the answer.

Recently, I was approached by a self-described anti-theist who suggested that killing every single religious person – man, woman, and child – was a viable “cure for religion.” This would be almost negligible if it were just a one-off occurrence, or if the person was saying it for shock value, but I’ve heard this proposal a number of times and this particular individual stressed his military background and demanded a logical rebuttal to his position. I told him that killing all religious people to end religion isn’t just a disturbing thought, it also wouldn’t work.

The urge to believe.

As someone who studies comparative religion, the idea of obliterating faith-based practices through genocide is especially confusing. It is well established that religion itself is a cultural universal and that it likely has or had evolutionary benefits, so why wouldn’t new religions arise after the mass deaths? History and anthropology tell us that new systems would arise, and they would look a lot like the old ones with different names and stories.

You can’t remove religions by force, either by banning them or by killing those who believe, because the feelings and circumstances that caused us to create them have remained largely unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. The urge to believe still exists inside the minds of people, as does our desire to know “the unknown.” The fact is that we will probably never completely outgrow religion. We are prone to superstition, organization, and wishful thinking — and religions are often forged when those tendencies are realized.

Pascal Boyer, Henry Luce Professor of Individual and Collective Memory at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, says his research suggests that “atheism will always be a harder sell than religion because a slew of cognitive traits predispose us to faith.”

Is Religion on the Ropes?

The Pew Research Center recently released a report indicating that “the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing.” This is good news because it shows that people are less likely to identify with a restricting dogma, but it doesn’t mean religion is coming to an end any time soon. In fact, more than 70 percent of American citizens still identify as Christians while the “unaffiliated” make up only 22 percent and atheists only three percent.

That isn’t to say religion will always be as strong as it is today, however. Tufts University Professor Daniel C. Dennett, another one of the so-called “Four Horsemen,” recently argued that “the future of religion is bleak.” I agree with the thrust of his article – that there is a rising tide of secularism in the age of information – but even he clarifies that this won’t mean an end to religion.

“If this trend continues, religion largely will evaporate, at least in the West,” Dennett wrote. “Pockets of intense religious activity may continue, made up of people who will be more sharply differentiated from most of society in attitudes and customs, a likely source of growing tension and conflict.”

What can we do?

So, if you can’t enact a successful prohibition on religious ideas, and it won’t work to kill all believers, how do we fix the issues that stem from or are justified by religion? We work to reform religion – to fight against the aspects of it that are harmful and allow people to practice those that aren’t – and promote secular religious education to help people better understand religions and how they arise.

I, for one, don’t hate religion. It’s not that black and white for me – I don’t have to either endorse all actions done in the name of religion or condemn its practice entirely. I hate religious extremism, but I don’t hate meditation or meditative prayer; I hate that religious ideals have consistently impeded science and invaded secular governments, but I don’t hate food drives and soup kitchens; I hate the “God is on our side” mentality and that millions of people think that religion is necessary to live a happy and moral life, but I don’t hate peaceful religious practices or people who happen to believe differently.

Are all religious people extremists? Are they all against science and in favor of knocking down the wall of separation between Church and State? Do they all hate people who believe differently because they’re evil? The answer, in each case, is “No.”

Fundamentalism as a common enemy.

Religion is not something you can simply erase; it’s an integral part of our history and (for better or worse) it will help shape our future. Religion was man’s first attempt to explain the unknown and it continues to be an inspiration for major (charitable and horrific) acts around the world every day, so it will likely exist for the foreseeable future. But does it have to exist in a stagnant state as it has for thousands of years? Many people, whether they identify with a tradition or not, think we can change religion for the better.

When reformation (and not extermination) is the goal, we atheist activists can find common ground with many believers. I know many Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who would agree that fundamentalism within their respective religions is a problem that needs to be stopped – just as most atheists I know would never advocate violence against believers.

There are other areas of agreement between the rational but largely silent non-religious and religious majorities. I think most religious people and most non-believers, for instance, oppose things like Young Earth Creationism being taught in science class and are in favor of things like same-sex equality. If we work with open-minded religious people, we may be able to reduce religious extremism without eliminating anyone’s freedom to believe or worship and without killing anyone. I think it’s worth a shot.

Ultimately, you have to decide: do you think belief in god(s) is our biggest problem right now? Or organized religion? Or, like me, do you see scientific illiteracy and civil rights as the key issues?

Can we debate religion in a friendly manner?

David G. McAfee is a Religious Studies graduate, journalist, and author of The Belief Book, a children’s book explaining the origins of beliefs and religion, and Mom, Dad, I’m an Atheist: The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-believer. He is also an editor for Ockham Publishing and a contributor to American Atheist Magazine. McAfee attended University of California, Santa Barbara, and graduated with bachelor’s degrees in English and Religious Studies with an emphasis on Christianity and Mediterranean religions.

MANILA, Philippines — I recently traveled more than 7,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean to an island country in Southeast Asia. The thousands of islands that make up the Philippines were beautiful, but I didn’t come to enjoy the view: I was invited to speak at the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society’s second annual convention.

The conference began on Sunday, May 31, in the morning. I arrived in Manila the night before after 24 hours of flights and a layover in Tokyo, so I was understandably in need of rest. This wasn’t just my first trip to the Philippines – it was also my first time leaving the country – so I clearly underestimated the difficulty of the flights or overestimated my ability to deal with them.

In any case, despite the fact that I was jet lagged and running on almost no sleep, I woke up when it was time to see the speakers give their presentations.

The Speakers.

The PATAS organizers did a great job of finding speakers to give beneficial and interesting talks at the event. I hadn’t heard of many of the other speakers, but that is part of what I liked about it. I was able to meet new people and even be introduced to some new ideas.

One of my favorite speakers was Red Dela Dingco Tani of Filipino Freethinkers. He shared advice for atheists who recently adopted the position and counseled them against burning churches and “slapping priests.” Considering these were real world examples of atheist fundamentalism and potential violence, and not merely abstract possibilities, I greatly appreciated this part of his talk.

A conference selfie with Red Tani.

I also especially enjoyed the presentation by Professor Eric Manalastas, a psychologist specializing in LGBT psychology who discussed social stigmas related to sexual minorities, and the talk by Rodion Herrera. Herrera, the Head Astronomy Lecturer at Voyager, talked about the importance of scientific literacy around the world by telling his own autobiographical tale.

I was scheduled to speak second-to-last, so I had the benefit of seeing everyone’s presentations first. I spoke about my background and on why, how, and when to educate children about religion. There should be a video released in the near future, after which I’ll update my Facebook and this page.

My talk for PATASCON2015

The People.

I was impressed with a lot of things in the Philippines (not the traffic or the food), but what set this trip apart for me was simple: the people. Every person I spoke with was friendly and understanding. They were cheerful and polite and made me feel incredibly welcome.

I arrived back in Los Angeles on Monday morning, rounding out the busiest weekend of my life, but I still can’t stop thinking about the kindness and generosity of the PATAS members and other conference attendees who made me feel like part of the family.

One of the great people I met!

One of the great people I met!

Now that I’m back home, I’m going to relax a little before my next event. For that trip, I’ll be heading to San Antonio, Texas!

Thanks for reading,

David

*** If you want to book me for a speaking engagement, please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at David@DavidGMcAfee.com.

 I belong to a minority group of people that many others think of as immoral or “sinful.” Members of this group often looked at scientific evidence, as opposed to cultural norms, to reach their current position. People in this group are also regularly forced to conceal or disguise their views for fear of judgment based solely on (undeserved) social stigmas. I’m not talking about being an atheist, childfree by choice, or even a feminist… I’m talking about the fact that I’m in a non-monogamous, “open,” relationship.

What does this mean?

An open relationship could mean just about anything, as it is interpreted by the participants, and non-monogamy refers to a whole host of lifestyles and relationship dynamics. For me, however, it’s pretty simple: I am socially monogamous and sexually open. I have a long-term partner to whom I am dedicated, but I’m not limited to one woman sexually. I don’t have multiple girlfriends and I’m not going to marry anyone – let alone have more than one wife.

This isn’t what every non-monogamous person does, but it’s what I’m doing now and I am happy. I take proper precautions to avoid sexually transmitted infections and pregnancies, all people involved are consenting adults who are made aware of the situation, and it has actually brought me closer to my partner. If we are happy, safe, and more honest in life, then nobody will care what we do, right? Wrong.

Reactions.

Publicly acknowledging my open relationship is still new to me–I haven’t really spoken to many people about it and I only changed my “relationship status” to reflect the change a little more than a week ago. Even after such a short time, however, I’ve already had some interesting responses. The first notable message was from someone who said he and his wife are themselves in an open relationship and that “being able to articulate this without stigma is often difficult.” I immediately thought of the similarities between the negative stereotypes associated with non-traditional relationships and those atheists face in many regions – and how I might be able to help.

The second jarring reaction I received after I mentioned non-monogamy as “natural” was from a Christian apologist with a podcast. In response to what he called an “endorsement of non-monogamous relationships,” the apologist said, “Add that to the list that includes things like abortion, infanticide, incest, etc.” He continued to compare non-monogamy, consensually sharing multiple sexual or romantic bonds, with bestiality, sex between humans and non-human animals.

In case that wasn’t bad enough, the third response I’ll mention really missed the mark. This comment came from a Facebook friend who saw my relationship status change and implied that I was seeking sexual favors online. He thought the fact that I was honest about the type of relationship that I have, and that my relationship isn’t similar to his traditional paradigm, meant that I was soliciting my fans for sex. He even compared my status change, which was for the sake of transparency and is only visible to my friends, with Richard Carrier’s recent blog post. In that entry, Carrier, an atheist author who is polyamorous, asks his fans if they want to go on a pre-planned date with him.

Needless to say, I was confused by the onslaught of assumptions and accusations. I have never lied to my partner about my feelings and I’ve never acted unethically by treating my fan page like a dating website, so it’s difficult for me to see these as anything more than uninformed attacks. In fact, in my mind, I’m not doing or saying anything that crazy. I’m simply acknowledging what scientists have known for a long time: human beings don’t naturally mate for life.

What does science say?

Richard A. Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, recently pointed out that infidelity “lurks in your genes.” He noted that, while for some people one partner is perfectly fine, for others “sexual monogamy is an uphill battle against their own biology.”

“Sexual monogamy is distinctly unusual in nature: Humans are among the 3 to 5 percent of mammalian species that practice monogamy, along with the swift fox and beaver — but even in these species, infidelity has been commonly observed,” Professor Friedman wrote in a piece for the New York Times.

Noted relationship advice columnist Dan Savage has a similar view, also rooted in scientific understandings of human biology. He told astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson in a recent interview that, “we are not naturally monogamous; it is a difficult struggle for us.”

“No primates with testicles our size are monogamous, sexually monogamous,” Savage said. “The truth is if you make a monogamous commitment to someone you love, you will still want to have sex with other people. You will refrain from it. It will be difficult.”

Savage went on to reference sex writer Chris Ryan in saying that, in many cultures, adultery is met with the death penalty. We can’t say monogamy comes naturally to us as a species if we have to kill to enforce the rule, he argued.

“Well, no other species has to be threatened with death to do that which comes naturally to it,” Savage told Tyson during the interview. “We don’t point guns at dolphins and say swim. Right? But we point guns at each other and say don’t cheat.”

Forget what you’ve been told.

A lot of people are more comfortable sweeping subjects like this under the rug. They think that, because we have always been told things are one way, that there are no other options. But studying other regions of the world will tell you that many things are cultural and not so black and white. In many cases, we are governed not by facts but by social lies: rules, codes of conduct, or ideas that guide how we behave but are based on self-deception.

For example, do you think the color pink is really a feminine color? Do you agree that other cultures might find it masculine or even gender neutral? The fact is that we are told pink is a “girl” color and that blue is for boys, but those perceptions come from marketing – not reality. It is now a powerful connection in our minds, but that doesn’t make it an objective truth.

“Cheating” is another social lie – this one formed as a result of our jealous nature. We are told our loved ones are our property, that we shouldn’t share them with anyone else, and that cheaters deserve the worst possible punishments. These ideas are reinforced by movies, television, and other media, and are attached to religious views and marriage vows. These pre-conceived notions of what it means to cheat have even caused millions of divorces and even murders. But I don’t “cheat” on my partner because I don’t think we have to use society’s definition. I think cheating should be defined by the participants of any specific relationship and be based on desires and comfort levels.

Savage argues that social lies that surround cheating exist because we are given unrealistic relationship standards from day one.

“What we said, what we believed, what we’re told as children, is one day you’ll grow up and fall in love with someone and you’ll make a monogamous commitment to them, and that means you’re in love with them,” Savage said. “And when you’re in love, you won’t want to have sex with other people.”

But we know that, for many people, this just isn’t true. For them, no matter who they are with, sexual monogamy will always be a problem. Because humans are among a number pair-bonding animals that often have sex outside of their partnership, Savage and others often refer to us as a “monogamish” species.

Why speak out?

Non-monogamy is extremely common among humans and throughout the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t stop people from treating it like a perversion. In fact, according to a 2013 Gallup poll, 91 percent of Americans find marital infidelity “morally wrong.” That is higher than the percentage of people who opposed polygamy, human cloning, and suicide, according to the poll.

Savage says the negative stereotypes are reinforced by the fact that we only hear about the bad non-monogamous relationships and not the good ones.

“If a three-way or an affair was a factor in a divorce or breakup, we hear all about it,” Savage wrote. “But we rarely hear from happy couples who aren’t monogamous, because they don’t want to be perceived as dangerous sex maniacs who are destined to divorce.”

With all the negativity surrounding non-monogamy, despite the fact that it is such a natural and recurring concept throughout history, many people have decided to hide their true colors to satisfy the moral majority. But that doesn’t really solve anything for anyone else in that position. It won’t make it easier for them to talk about the issue because the social stigma remains strong. When asked why it’s important to speak out about this topic, I can’t help but think back to a quote from Mom, Dad, I’m an Atheist:

“By telling people you don’t believe, you’re making it a bit easier for the next person who has to. You are making it that much easier for the next generation and helping to change the (very false) perception of atheism as something that is anti-god or even pro-evil. More than anything else, coming out as an atheist gives you the opportunity to educate believers — to show them that it is entirely possible to be morally good without believing that we are being policed by an all-knowing deity.”

I think similar reasoning can be applied to this subject.

I cheated and this is my punishment.

By David G. McAfee, author of��The Belief Book

April 19 ��� The former leader of the now-defunct Hindu Temple of Georgia was sentenced April 13 to more than 27 years in federal prison after being convicted on more than 30 felony counts, including bank fraud, tax fraud, bankruptcy fraud and obstruction.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia sentenced Annamalai Annamalai, who was convicted on 34 felony counts after a two-week jury trial in August, to 27 years and three months in prison. Judge Batten also ordered him to not to engage in any ���spiritual service for compensation.���

Prosecutors say Annamalai, who also goes by Dr. Commander Selvam and Swamiji Sri Selvam Siddhar, charged his followers fees in exchange for ���spiritual services.��� The adherents typically paid via credit card and Annamalai charged the cards multiple additional times without authorization, according to John A. Horn, Acting U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia.

���Annamalai perverted the sacred institution of religion by using it as a vehicle for greed and personal profit,��� Horn said in an April 13 statement. ���He convinced his victims that they had a problem in need of spiritual guidance, and then took advantage of their vulnerabilities for personal financial gain. The sentence rendered against him is lengthy but just and fair considering the irreparable harm he caused to his victims.���

Disputed Charges.

The prosecution says Annamalai made multiple false charges to his followers��� credit cards and, if they disputed the transactions, he submitted fraudulent supporting documents to credit card companies. Annamalai then filed ���spurious lawsuits��� against those who challenged the dubious charges, according to the U.S. Attorney���s Office.

Annamalai is further accused of manipulating audio recordings to make it appear as though his victims had agreed to the unauthorized charges. Annamalai then sent the altered recordings to police departments that were investigating criminal complaints levied against him, according to the government.

Annamalai Convicted.

Annamalai was convicted Aug. 25 of bank fraud, tax fraud, money laundering and bankruptcy fraud in connection with the temple���s petition for bankruptcy protection in 2009. Annamalai concealed funds from creditors by diverting credit card receipts and the temple���s donations to a bank account in a different name, prosecutors say.

Annamalai was also found guilty of three counts of obstruction and false statements in relation to a grand jury investigation into the bankruptcy case. The defendant sent a fake e-mail to a special agent at the Internal Revenue Service pretending to be a witness in the criminal investigation and sent false affidavits to the grand jury and the bankruptcy court, according to the indictment.

On April 13, almost eight months after Annamalai was convicted, Judge Batten sentenced him two 27 years and three months in prison. In addition to the prison term, the judge ordered the defendant not to charge for spiritual services and not to file any more frivolous, abusive or malicious lawsuits.

Judge Batten also recommended to the Bureau of Prisons that Annamalai be housed in a ���Communications Management Housing Unit,��� where his telephone calls and electronic communications will be closely monitored.

Veronica F. Hyman-Pillot, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation, said the sentence is a ���vital element in maintaining public confidence in our legal and financial system.���

���Annamalai Annamalai, a self-proclaimed ���child prodigy��� and ���priest,��� received his fate today for the fraud that he perpetrated on the faithful followers that believed in him,��� Hyman-Pillot said. ���This defendant utilized the nation���s financial system to steal money from unsuspecting victims and then used the money for his own personal benefit.���

By David G. McAfee

Bio: McAfee is a Religious Studies graduate, journalist, and author of The Belief Book, a children���s book explaining the origins of beliefs and religion, and Mom, Dad, I���m an Atheist: The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-believer. He is also an editor for Ockham Publishing and a contributor to American Atheist Magazine. McAfee attended University of California, Santa Barbara, and graduated with bachelor���s degrees in English and Religious Studies with an emphasis on Christianity and Mediterranean religions.

Annamalai Annamalai Gets 27 Years

As many of you may know, while I always redact the identifying information of people who send me private messages, I���ve often posted public discussions on social media without censoring the names of participants. This was never an attempt to ���shame��� people who disagree with me, and in fact I applied that policy equally to ���debate posts��� as well as ���featured comments��� and other regular features on my Facebook page, but I don���t control the actions of others. And because of abuse I���ve personally witnessed, I���ve decided to start removing all name data from my posts.

Renewing the Focus.

Many people on Facebook and elsewhere are perfectly capable of being respectful even when names are present, but my hope is that this policy change will mean other readers will be able to focus on the content and not on levying personal attacks and judgments.

I���ve often stated that I prefer the emphasis be on arguments being presented, but I also don���t believe in censoring comments of those who might have a different approach. As a result, some people have insulted discussants and (in rare instances) even sent them personal and threatening messages. I want to put a stop to that.

If you think you need��additional advice on��respectfully��discussing hot-button issues like religion and skepticism, feel free to check out my essay on the topic published by the Friendly Atheist.

This is a Good Thing.

I am happy about this new direction because I think, in the long run, it will help keep people from being attacked or abused. Oftentimes these people are guilty of nothing more than having a different viewpoint and expressing it, but the ���us vs. them��� mentality in all of us can overcome the desire for rational dialogue.

By removing the names from my posts, fans and readers won���t have a choice. They won���t be able to visit my interlocutors��� pages or send them messages or insult their looks: they will have to focus on debunking their arguments.

I���ve already taken the first step by removing all debate posts that include the full names of people other than me. Over time, I will be reposting some of the most popular discussions with the name information removed because of the importance of the ideas themselves.

Thank you.

I want to thank everyone who has suggested this move in the past. It took me a few years to make the change, but that���s because I thought my intentions were what was important. I assumed that it was enough to post occasional reminders to treat other page members with respect. I believed posting public comments publicly and posting private comments privately was the ���right��� thing to do. I was wrong.

Thank you all for your continued support and I hope we can all work together to renew the focus on arguments and evidence.

Respectfully yours,

David

How to Have a Friendly (and Effective) Religious Debate

Religious Studies Grad, Artist Team Up To Teach Children about Beliefs

Secular author David G. McAfee and illustrator/writer Chuck Harrison worked together on ���The Belief Book��� ��� an interactive children���s book that helps to teach kids (and kids at heart) about critical thinking, the origins of beliefs, and religions.

February 7 ��� Religious Studies graduate and skeptical author David G. McAfee teamed up with Chuck Harrison, an illustrator and writer, to create The Belief Book, which helps kids of all ages on their journey toward understanding the world���s most important beliefs and how they are formed. Children young and old who embark on this quest will learn many things they may have always been curious about, including where the first ideas of ���gods��� came from and how the earliest religions were created and spread.

This first-of-its-kind children���s book has mental exercises and puzzles that can help anyone understand what beliefs are and how they affect everyone and everything. More importantly, The Belief Book outlines the difference between good beliefs, which are supported by evidence, and bad beliefs, which are based on emotion or biases.

With interactive activities and vivid illustrations, The Belief Book teaches children how to examine evidence and form their own ideas. They will learn the importance of definitions, of language in general, and of the scientific method. The book strives to show readers how to think about things in a way that will get them to the right beliefs, and not just which facts to memorize.

Readers will look at some of the most important questions ever asked, including ���Where do we come from?��� and ���Who made us?��� and ���Why can���t I have ice cream for breakfast?��� By the time they are done with the book, children will not only understand the answers to many of their biggest questions, but they will also see why their questions ��� and all questions ��� are so incredibly important.

The Belief Book

For interviews or questions, contact:

David G. McAfee | PO Box 9661 | Canoga Park, CA 91304 | United States | David@DavidGMcAfee.com

About David G. McAfee: McAfee is a Religious Studies Graduate, journalist, and the author of two other titles: Mom, Dad, I���m an Atheist: The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-believer and Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings. He is also a contributor to American Atheist Magazine and an editor for Ockham Publishing. McAfee attended University of California, Santa Barbara, and graduated with bachelor���s degrees in English and Religious Studies with an emphasis on Christianity and Mediterranean religions. He believes strongly that religious education and history should be taught in public schools, including and especially in the United States of America ��� where general knowledge about those topics is severely lacking. It is only by understanding how the religious systems work, and not by ignoring them completely, that McAfee says we can help others to make rational decisions about them.

About Chuck Harrison: Harrison is an illustrator and writer who lives with his son called Puff and his cat named Monkey in New York. His caffeine fueled works have been printed by DC Comics, Color Ink Book, The South Wedge Quarterly and in many other fine publications. Everything else you may wish to know about him can be discovered at iLikeChuckHA.com.

I have always been fascinated by people who claim to have supernatural or mystical abilities, including so-called psychics. While I can���t say I was ever a believer, the idea that some people could read others��� thoughts or see the future has interested me all my life. In an effort to learn more about this phenomenon I studied cold and hot reading tactics and, when reading about them wasn���t enough, I even implemented those methods myself as Suroh the Seer. But that still wasn���t enough. I wanted to find out even more about the people who claim to have these fantastic abilities, so I did the next logical thing: I asked them questions.

I decided to interview a psychic in my area and, after some online research, I stumbled across ���spirit psychic��� Noah Alvarez. Alvarez advertises that he is an internationally known psychic medium with a sixth sense, specializing in counseling and ���healing.��� I chose Alvarez as my first interview subject primarily because of his dozens of five-star reviews. Clients insisted that Alvarez���s readings were ���dead on��� and ���the real deal��� but, perhaps just as importantly, they said he was friendly, open, and transparent. For my purposes, that���s ideal.

I met Alvarez at 10:00AM on a Saturday at his psychic studio in Chatsworth, Calif. Noah greeted me and my first impression was that his reviewers were right: he was personable, friendly, and empathetic. I also took a moment to scan his studio, which featured a number of (often conflicting) religious and spiritual symbols. There were dozens of Buddhist statues and monuments and relics ��� something you might expect from a psychic who also calls himself the ���American Buddha��� ��� but there was also a single dramatic statue of Jesus Christ being tortured on the cross. Understanding that Noah was likely trying to appeal to as broad a base as possible in his work, I proceeded to the back room for our discussion.

McAfee:�� Are your readings for entertainment purposes only? Or are you a legitimate psychic, able to accurately describe future or current events that are verifiably beyond your knowledge?

Alvarez: Sure, absolutely ��� I don���t consider what I do for entertainment at all. I do parties, but still I���m giving readings and tapping into people���s energy.

McAfee: Do you think you were born with your psychic powers, or is this something you developed later in life? Is it something that everyone is capable of ��� or maybe just a lucky few?

Alvarez: I think everyone is capable of it. We call it a sixth sense for a reason. I feel, just as there are physical senses that we tap into, there is an extra layer ��� a spiritual sense. Everyone can do it and I teach people how to do it. I think it���s more just opening a channel and, once you know what that is like, it���s easier to start practicing tapping in. I think everyone has that gift and, for me personally, I think I was born with the channel open. Other people may need practice or need help opening that channel.

McAfee:�� Can you describe the process or mechanism by which you reach your psychic conclusions? Do you see images, do you ���feel��� answers, do you dream the future?

Alvarez: It���s just a sense of knowing. It comes in the back of my mind just from a distant place. It���s not an audible voice and I don���t usually get visions for people. My readings are usually based on the questions people ask. So, I let people come in, I sit down, I���m just being very comfortable. In my readings, it���s not so much about a test ��� ���What do you know? What can you see?��� ��� and I always tell people that. And it���s not so much about a prediction. It���s more about seeing through how people make their decisions, seeing through who they are, to see exactly how things will unfold for them. So, it���s just a sense of knowing and I take my time and I breathe through it. It���s letting go of fear. Just ���What do I feel about this person?��� And it���s been accurate ��� it���s been good.

McAfee: I personally am a very scientific-minded person and I���ve never felt that I had psychic abilities. But I do have ��� I call them ���Aha!��� moments or epiphanies. I have moments where I���m sitting and thinking and I have deep clarity that I would describe as a ���sense of knowing.��� ��I look to science to explain how that happens and I know a lot of different explanations for how we can have those feelings. Is it possible in your mind that this is what you���re feeling and that it���s not literally a psychic power ��� that it could be something that���s already scientifically explained?

Alvarez: I believe it���s the exact same thing. I consider myself a spirit scientist, so I absolutely believe the laws of physics come into play here. The laws of the brain and the mechanisms, a mini model of the universe in your mind, I���m an avid believer and studier of all that stuff. So, I think it���s the same thing. I think people try to separate ���spiritual occurrences,��� which I think is just another word for your own brain and your own physical abilities as a human being to connect to other human beings. I think it���s absolutely a biological thing that we���re all connected. So, it helps when you have that understanding to let go and relax and just, in a personable way, in an energetic way, in an intimate way, be able to connect to people. So, I definitely think it comes from the same place.

McAfee:�� How accurate are your readings? Do you think you���re able to give an estimated percentage of ���hits��� over misses, for instance?

Alvarez: Sure. I would say, for specific questions asked, hit or miss, ���Does it happen exactly so?��� I would say with direct predictions I���m about 85 percent accurate. And I will say that any of the inconsistencies ��� some of that comes from me, just being human. I don���t think that I���m a god in any sense and I always tell people that ��� I���m accountable��� so, 85 percent and I believe that a little bit of that percentage of inaccuracy comes from people changing their mind ��� waking up one day and taking a totally different path ��� and that���s OK.

McAfee: When you make these direct predictions, is that something for which you use exclusively your subconscious mind to make these guesses? Or do you think you use logic, too? I can look at a person and I can judge who they are and I can say, ���You���re more likely to succeed in this. You look organized. You look ready to do it.��� Is that something that comes into your mind?

Alvarez: Absolutely. And I think a lot of people coming into a reading don���t know that���s OK to do as a psychic. I think unrealistic expectations make people a ���believer��� or someone that thinks it���s just a cold reading. I lay it all on the table. I���m a very intellectual person, I���m a very left-brained person, and I think sometimes that���s why I���m able to do so well ��� because people trust that. I���m not trying to say I���ve got this amazing gift that I���m just going to tell you everything that���s going to happen. I do look at a person, I do read, I take cues, but I tell them that. So, they have a choice. Do you want my rational understanding, as well? Or do you just want me to tell you what I feel? I give people a choice of what they want me to access and how.

McAfee: To me, your readings sound a lot like something a counselor ��� like a psychologist ��� could and does do regularly. Aside from the fact that you probably don���t have a psychology degree, is there anything that you would say definitely differentiates your work from that of a psychologist?

Alvarez: Yes. The big difference for me is there is that specific information that comes from no prompting. If someone sits down and says, ���Just tell me about me. Tell me about what���s been going on.��� I don���t think just a person that doesn���t have that sixth sense open, just a regular psychologist, is able to pull that information just off of a ���cold read.��� I don���t think it���s a bad thing ��� I think 50 percent of the work that I do is actually looking into a person���s life without any information. The other 50 percent ��� people want a psychologist, they want a therapy session and I tell them that. ���I don���t think you���re here for me to tell you information you didn���t know, I think you wanted validation.��� And it���s easy for me to do that. I think what I try to do that sets me apart is be totally transparent about that. Fifty percent comes from a gift of just innately seeing what���s going on more than the average person and 50 percent is my ability just to connect to people in general ��� being able to read them.

McAfee: In regards to mediumship and ���crossing over,��� that���s something that ��� scientifically ��� has never been shown to exist. Do you think it���s possible that there isn���t an afterlife and that, when you���re trying to connect with people who have crossed over, what you���re doing is the same thing you do when you���re talking to people ��� just thinking of things?

Alvarez: In my experience, I don���t advertise mediumship ��� ���come and let me channel your people.��� For me it always comes very naturally. I may say I���m feeling a father energy coming forward and they may never have said anything or mentioned they wanted mediumship. So, I only speak of it or even bring it up if it naturally comes forward. I don���t like to advertise that because I don���t know ��� and I wouldn���t claim to know.

McAfee: Just to be clear: it is possible then that you really aren���t channeling people?

Alvarez: I believe that I am channeling. I absolutely do believe that. I don���t believe in a heaven or hell but���

McAfee: Could you be wrong about your belief?

Alvarez: I don���t feel that I���m wrong about people being able to connect with sentient energy outside of this earth dimension ��� outside of human life here. I have had experiences personally ��� human and non-human ��� and I have too many people coming to me with these experiences. I absolutely do believe I channel people who have died.

McAfee: I think it���s entirely possible that that could be the case ��� that you���re communicating with something outside and that it���s a real connection. But, as a scientific-minded person, I also think it���s possible that it���s completely internal ��� that it���s something psychological that affects both you and the people you���re reading. You list your personal experience and other people���s testimonies but there are just so many things in this world that have personal experiences and testimonies that we choose to reject ��� the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, regular alien visitation, etc.

Alvarez: I agree with you. I love these dialogues because I don���t sit on the ���spiritual��� side. I absolutely love this conversation. I do believe that a lot of what I���m doing as a psychic is a natural, mental connection. Telepathic ��� I don���t think it has to mean more than what people try to put on it. I���m able to have conversations with people where I���m reading their mind. I���ve said statements that they said an hour before meeting me ��� and that���s been validated. But I don���t think it���s special ��� I think it���s a natural, human occurrence. I think anyone can do it. I think d��j�� vu, I think saying the same thing at the same time, it all comes from that same energy of connecting.

McAfee: And it couldn���t be just a coincidence?

Alvarez: I think it���s an energetic tapping in. I think you���re tapping in to the energy of something. What my clients expect of me is to genuinely connect to them ��� and that���s what I feel that I do. And with mediumship, I don���t look for spirits or humans, I feel that ��� when it comes forward naturally ��� I could be saying exactly what they need to hear at that moment. But I believe it���s authentic that my gift would allow me to do that for them.

McAfee: Do you think some so-called seers are faking it? What percentage of practicing psychics would you consider completely legitimate?

Alvarez: Like in any profession, you have people that will take advantage. I use the automobile industry. When your car breaks down and you���re desperate, you���ll go to anyone and they can tell you anything ��� and you���ll pay what you need to pay to get it fixed. The same thing happens with psychics. I myself, personally, don���t feel the need to mislead anyone. I feel people are coming for the ���truth��� as I see it with the energy work and consecration that I do and they trust that opinion. There are plenty of ���psychics��� who just call themselves psychics because it���s an easy job. People will come because they���re emotional. For me, I���ve always loved people ��� I���ve always been a talker and a counselor by nature, so it���s no surprise I found myself here. I couldn���t give you a percentage because I think it happens in any profession. It���s just when you���re dealing with emotions, people that have died, it���s a lot more intense so people look at it as a lot worse ��� and I���d say it is.

McAfee: Did your family introduce or reinforce your belief in psychic phenomena?

Alvarez: No. Both of my parents are heavy orthodox Christians ��� non-denominational. They don���t accept what I do and they feel I manipulate people. They���ve never had a reading from me and never seen any of my work. Naturally, they���re afraid of psychics. For me personally, I wouldn���t be able to do this if I felt that it was wrong in any way. I just wouldn���t be able to deal with all the stuff I deal with personally if I felt it was wrong ��� if I didn���t feel I was truly helping people.

McAfee: Do you feel a sense of responsibility that comes with your abilities? Have you ever considered them a burden?

Alvarez: Absolutely. I get people that call me and I do readings for free, my clients become friends ��� it���s more of a life-guidance and they trust me to stay with them. But they change their minds all the time ��� people are so inconsistent that I���ll tell them, ���This reading is based on where you are now and the things we talk about are based on you being healthy. If you have a break down and change your mind, the things I say are not going to happen.��� So, it is about guidance. It is about someone that���s clear, unafraid of the world, unafraid of death, unafraid of pain ��� I���ve been through a lot��� homelessness, family abandonment, all that stuff. I understand pain, so I reach people on that level. I think that most people that come for a psychic reading ��� they���re in pain. They need counseling but they want that spiritual guidance and that intuitive ��� there���s an energy that knows what���s going on with me outside of what I���m telling people.

McAfee: Have you had your powers tested under laboratory conditions? Would you be willing to undergo such testing?

Alvarez: I would be willing. I���m fascinated and interested myself to see where I fall. Because I���m so honest with my clients about what I can see and what I don���t and have them tell me when I���m wrong, and because I���m consistently validated, I want to know scientifically how it works. I don���t know and I don���t claim to know.

McAfee: What was your most impressive vision or reading? Have you foretold any large-scale events?

Alvarez: Yeah, the day before the Boston bombing. I was sitting with my fianc��e in our apartment and I just felt ��� a lot of times you just feel an urge to do weird things, and I tell people if you think you���re psychic to be as weird as you���re intuitively feeling you are. So, my mind ��� or that voice ��� was telling me to get a piece of paper and a pen and just do something. I wrote ���Boston Boston Boston Boston��� ��� I could not stop writing ���Boston��� for like 20 minutes. I think I still have the piece of paper. So, I was energetically tapping into something bad that was going to happen but I didn���t write ���Boston bombing��� or ���a bombing is going to happen.��� A lot of times that���s what it is ��� your subconscious is tapping into something somewhere else.

McAfee: I personally think that would be compelling evidence. The problem, though, is that most people do what you did ��� they write it down but then just tell it as a story later. If you were writing ���Boston Boston Boston Boston��� and you really had a sense that there was something important about it, then you should have dated it, recorded it with a video, and told everyone you knew ��� if you cared about scientific evidence.

Alvarez: I didn���t know what was going to happen ��� I did feel it was bad, a very bad sense, and I did feel it was a specific energy trying to reach me. I honestly felt it was a human being that had died, a grandfather figure, that was trying to get a message to someone that was probably in Boston. I have no affiliation with Boston, never thought about Boston outside of a history class, and had never been there. So, to me and to the witness, it was very important. I didn���t know what it was and I think many people do that.

McAfee: Have you ever worked with a law enforcement department or other crime-solving outfit? If so, what were the results?

Alvarez: Finding lost people, I have no ability to do. Spirits don���t come to me, the dead don���t tell me where they are, and I would be too intimidated and too afraid to put my own reputation on the line. I think fear holds people that genuinely have a gift back because we don���t understand it and because people generalize it. I would be too afraid to put myself on the line to even test that where results are demanded. One on one it���s a lot easier because you���re able to connect personally and people will trust you on a personal level. I have had several people come to me when their child has ran away and I���ve been instrumental in helping them and they were clients I had already seen, so the connection ��� my relaxed energy ��� that openness has allowed me to be very instrumental��� even a missing dog one time.

McAfee:�� Are you familiar with the practice of ���Cold Reading���? Do you ever use this method with your clients?

Alvarez: I���ve never studied cold or hot reading, I don���t read psychic books, I don���t follow any of the big psychics that have been proven or disproven, I���ve just come into it on my own. So, I understand what those terms are but I���ve never tried to do them. When someone sits down or calls me on the phone without ever seeing them, and I���m able to say things that connect with them instantly, that���s all that matters to me. Whether it���s something that is general or very specific, my concern is serving the person and their need right at that moment with as honest and accurate information as possible.

McAfee: Have you ever gotten an important reading wrong? Is there a danger of causing real psychological or physical damage?

Alvarez: There���s so much danger and that���s why I���m always as open as possible. I���m always as honest as possible. If someone asks me something and I have no idea how to even process it, if I can���t feel anything I���m confident about, I���ll tell them I have no idea and I don���t think you should be going to ask another psychic that question either. Have I been wrong? I���ve been wrong about small things. There have been two or three times when I���ve been wrong and the people themselves admitted, ���I totally didn���t follow any of the things we talked about. I took another path��� or ���Something happened and I didn���t respond the right way.��� So, it���s very validating for me��� but yes, you know there���s a bit of danger, but I think it falls more with mediumship ��� people that have crossed over and the expectation there of connecting. But I���m always very realistic.

On Nov. 16, I spoke for Houston Oasis, a freethought community in Texas. It was my first experience with what the media has labeled an “atheist church.” I didn’t know what to think before, but now I know that this group is nothing like a church. There was no charismatic pastor-figure, no prayers or hymns, and no rituals. It is a large group of like-minded thinkers who meet weekly and provide free daycare. Here is my presentation on how to discuss controversial topics in a friendly and effective way.

In February, I launched a public funding campaign with the goal of purchasing copies of Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings for distribution in hotels, libraries, book stores, and more. Thanks to all of you, we reached (and surpassed) our $1,500 goal and I am now reaching out to hotels in my local area in hopes of getting their permission to place copies alongside their Bibles in each hotel room.

Here is the first draft of the letter I intend to send to hotel owners:

Dear hotel proprietor or manager,

I hope you’re well. I’m writing today to inform you of an outreach campaign aimed at providing a balance to the types of information available to hotel patrons.

As you are likely aware, the evangelical Christian group Gideons International is well-known for its efforts to ensure Christian Bibles are distributed in great numbers to hotels all over the world. While I understand that the group’s intentions are likely positive, as a non-Christian and advocate for secularism, I can’t help but see how diversity in reading material would be beneficial for everyone involved.

One option to address this disparity would be to allow other religious organizations to place their sacred books, too. Admittedly, this move may not be very practical. A second action, of course, would be to remove the religious reading material altogether. This would buck tradition, I’m sure, but would keep any group from being excluded and would enable you to perhaps allow Christian patrons to “opt in” to having a Bible placed in their nightstand. If neither of those methods work for you, and you sincerely seek to address this issue, you could also provide secular material to go alongside the Bibles already available.

As the result of a public funding campaign, I’ve recently purchased more than 300 copies of Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings, a critique on biblical literalism with an admittedly provocative title. The book cites chapter and verse throughout and examines the world of Christianity while attempting to refute many of its key principles. Because of the generous donations of hundreds of secular activists and fellow non-believers in the area, I am able to offer you free copies to accompany the Bibles, if you so choose.

Regardless of your action or inaction on this matter, I hope to hear your thoughts on this important and controversial issue.

Yours in reason,

David G. McAfee

Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings