Saturday 31 December 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Church/State Fundamentals: Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980)

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Church/State Fundamentals: Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980)
Dec 31st 2011, 15:00

Roger Florey, an atheist, filed suit against a local school district's holiday programs, claiming that singing of religious carols during Christmas concerts, like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful," were a violation of the separation of church and state. Although a U.S. District Court agreed that previous Christmas programs "exceeded the boundaries of what is constitutionally permissible under the Establishment Clause," it held that the school's policies were legitimate and acceptable. Florey appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read Article Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Is Atheism Logical?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Is Atheism Logical?
Dec 31st 2011, 12:00

Quite a few believers think it important to prove that atheism is illogical. I'm not sure why this is so -- after all, if they were consistent in their beliefs it wouldn't matter because their religion is centered on "faith," not logic. Strictly speaking they shouldn't need atheism to be illogical and, if it is, that shouldn't matter. Perhaps that's why they do such a poor job.

Hank Hanegraaff, a popular Christian apologist argues:

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God.

It's interesting that Hanegraaff would pretend to critique atheism while defining atheism so poorly. He has to know that most atheists and most comprehensive reference works don't describe atheism as a "world view" and most don't describe it as simply the denial of the existence of Christians' god. Atheism, if one looks carefully, is defined broadly as the absence of belief in gods -- that's what should be expected, if theism is simply the presence of a belief in some sort of god.

It is implausible that Hanegraaff doesn't know this. He might not agree with it, which wouldn't be a surprise, but why then wouldn't he try to make an argument for his position?

You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. ... The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.

I've dealt with just this sort of claim before and Hanegraaff is absolutely wrong that it isn't possible to "know" that something doesn't exist. Depending upon the circumstances and how the "thing" is defined, knowing that it doesn't exist is indeed possible.

Thus, even if atheism is defined as the denial of the Christian God and even if atheists are all certain that this god doesn't exist, this isn't an inherently impossible position. If this "god" is defined with qualities that contradict each other, then we can say for certain that it doesn't exist.

First, atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. ... Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral standards.

I'm always amused when I see such "arguments" used as a basis for insisting that there is something wrong with atheism. Even if we agree that atheism is a world view that denies the existence of the Christian God, so what if it can't adequately explain the existence of the world or natural laws?

Atheism also can't explain the reason there's always one sock missing in the laundry nor can it explain the in-field fly rule in baseball. So what? There are lots of world views that can't explain any of these things, either. The mere fact that something is a world view doesn't obligate it to explain things like the existence of the universe.

If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims of Jesus Christ.

There are so many Christians out there who seem to assume that the only reason why someone would be an atheist rather than a Christian is that they simply haven't been exposed (properly, of course) to the message of Christianity. Hanegraaff appears to be just such a Christian, acting as though the atheists he is talking about haven't already considered "the claims of Jesus Christ."

The truth is that many atheists (and most that I have ever met) have done exactly that. Indeed, that's what made them decide to reject Christianity, even if they were Christians at one point themselves. When atheists are approached with these levels of arrogance and ignorance, it's almost guaranteed to cause them to dismiss anything that the apologist is trying to say.

As a result, any Christian who is unfortunate enough to imagine that Hanegraaff's ideas are sound will ultimately do far more damage to Christian apologetics and the image of Christians than anything any atheist could dream up. Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but it does get tiresome to keep seeing nonsense like the above over and over.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Is it Absurd for God to Need a Day of Rest?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Is it Absurd for God to Need a Day of Rest?
Dec 31st 2011, 08:00

Does it make any sense the god of the Bible to need rest after six days of working? Is this inconsistent with other traditional ideas about the nature of God, or is there some way to read Genesis that would make sense of God needing to rest?

Share Your Ideas: Is it Absurd for God to Need a Day of Rest?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Murdered Popes

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Murdered Popes
Dec 31st 2011, 11:02

Today the Catholic Pope is a generally respected figure, but that hasn’t always been the case. Some have been very despicable people, involved in all sorts of nasty situations. Aside from those who were martyred during the earliest decades of Christianity, a number of popes have been murdered by rivals, cardinals, and even supporters.

Pontian (230 - 235): The first pope to resign was also the first pope we can confirm was killed for his beliefs. Earlier popes are listed as having been martyred for their faith, but none of the tales can be substantiated. We know, however, that Pontian was arrested by Roman authorities during the persecutions under emperor Maximinus Thrax and exiled to Sardina, known as the “island of death” because no one ever came back. As expected, Pontian died of starvation and exposure, but he resigned his office before he left so that there wouldn’t be a power vacuum in the church. Technically, then, he wasn’t actually pope when he died.

Sixtus II (257 - 258): Sixtus II was another early martyr who died during the persecutions instituted by emperor Valerian. Sixtus had been able to avoid participating in forced pagan ceremonies, but Valerina issued a decree that condemned all Christian priests, bishops and decons to death. Sixtus was captured by soldiers while giving a sermon and perhaps beheaded right there.

Martin I (649 - 653): Martin got off to a bad start by not having his election confirmed by emperor Constans II. He then proceeded to make things worse by convening a synod that condemned the doctrines of Monothelite heretics â€" doctrines adhered to by a number of powerful officials in Constantinople, including Constans himself. The emperor had the pope taken from his sick bed, arrested, and shipped to Constantinople. There Martin was tried for treason, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Rather than kill him outright, Constans had Martin exiled to the Crimea where he died of starvation and exposure. Martin was the last pope killed as a martyr for defending orthodoxy and Christianity.

John VIII (872 - 882): John was paranoid, though perhaps with good reason, and his entire papacy was characterized by various political plots and intrigue. When he feared that people were plotting to overthrow him, he had a number of powerful bishops and other officials excommunicated. This ensured that they moved against him and a relative was convinced to slip poison in his drink. When he didn’t die fast enough, members of his own entourage beat him to death.

John XII (955 - 964): Just 18 years old when he was elected pope, John was a notorious womanizer and the papal palace came to be described as a brothel during his reign. It is perhaps fitting that he died of injuries sustained when he was caught in bed by the husband of one of his mistresses. Some legends say that he died of a stroke while in the act.

Benedict VI (973 - 974): Not much is known about Pope Benedict VI except that he came to a violent end. When his protector, Emperor Otto the Great, died, the Roman citizens rebelled against Benedict and he was strangled by a priest on the orders of Crescentius, a brother of the late Pope John XIII and the son of the Theodora. Boniface Franco, a deacon who helped Crescentius, was made pope and called himself Boniface VII. Boniface, however, had to flee Rome because the people were so outraged that a pope had been strangled to death in such a manner.

John XIV (983 - 984): John was chosen by emperor Otto II, without consultation with anyone else, as a replacement for the murdered John XII. This meant that Otto was his only friend or supporter in the world. Otto died not long into John's papacy and this left John all alone. Antipope Boniface, the one who had John XII murdered, moved quickly and had John imprisoned. Reports suggest that he died of starvation after several months in jail.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles: Why Don't Atheists Believe?

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles
These articles are the most popular over the last month. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why Don't Atheists Believe?
Dec 31st 2011, 11:23

Multiple Gods and Religious Traditions:


It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Too Many Gods...

Contradictory Characteristics in Gods:


Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't. Contradictory Definitions of Gods...

Religion is Self-Contradictory:


No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising â€" but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions. Contradictory Religions...

Gods Are Too Similar to Believers:


A few cultures, like ancient Greece, have postulated gods which appear to be as natural as human beings, but in general gods are supernatural. This means that they are fundamentally different from human beings or anything on earth. Despite this, however, theists consistently describe their gods in ways that make the supernatural appear almost mundane. Gods share so many characteristics with humans that it has been argued that gods were made in the image of man. Gods Created in the Image of Man...

Gods Just Don't Matter:


Theism means believing in the existence of at least one god, not that one necessarily cares much about any gods. In practice, though, theists typically place a great deal of importance on their god and insist that it and what it wants are the most important things a person can be concerned with. Depending upon the nature of a god, however, this isn't necessarily true. It's not obvious that the existence or desires of gods should matter to us. God Doesn't Matter...

Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:


In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable â€" even an example to follow. Gods Behave Immorally...

Evil in the World:


Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods. Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible. Evil & Suffering vs. Gods...

Faith is Unreliable:


A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith â€" a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge. You Can't Rely on Faith...

Life is Material, not Supernatural:


Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are â€" our selves â€" is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong. Life is Matter...

There is No Good Reason to Bother Believing:


Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. The above are decent reasons for not believing and for questioning â€" and eventually leaving â€" whatever theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past. Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they may realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. Believers fail to meet this burden, though, and thus fail to provide good reasons to accept their claims. No Good Reason to Believe...

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday 30 December 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Poster: Vichy Democrats, God's Own Republicans, Torture Agreement

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Poster: Vichy Democrats, God's Own Republicans, Torture Agreement
Dec 30th 2011, 15:00

Now We Can All Sleep Safely, if Lightly: Vichy Democrats & God's Own Republicans have Bipartisan Torture Agreement
Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster:
Nazi Propaganda
Things have gotten pretty bad in America when it becomes unsurprising or even expected that Republicans would support authorizing the state to torture or abuse suspects detained under any circumstances. The sight of so-called "progressives" from the Democratic Party joining in, though, is enough to make even a cynical person weep with despair. When a political party stands behind the abandonment of the normal standards of morality or justice in the pursuit of political policy, then they stand behind moral evil. What does a political party stand for, though, when they are unable or unwilling to stand up against moral evil? Can they be described as standing for anything at all?

Read Article: Vichy Democrats & God's Own Republicans have Bipartisan Torture Agreement

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Why is Assertive Atheism More Common in America?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Why is Assertive Atheism More Common in America?
Dec 30th 2011, 12:00

There are more atheists in Europe than in America, but there seem to be more assertive "new" atheists in America than in Europe. Why does this difference exist? The answer is pretty simple: because there are so many more aggressive Christians in America who are trying to control the government and make the rest of us submit to their religious dogmas.

Many scholars, including philosopher Charles Taylor in A Secular Age, have documented the emergence of a new vision of western societies in the wake of the Protestant Reformation and the growth of modern nation states. Societies were no longer seen by most of their citizens as kingdoms under God but as societies of mutual benefit in which citizens use their rational minds to cooperate and improve their lives. When religions stood in the way of this by denying individual liberty and pleasure and by asserting that the purpose of life should be transcendent rather than earthly well-being, religions themselves became anti-social and even immoral.

We can partially explain strong atheist sentiment and activity as the result of religious threats to this secular vision of society. Supporting evidence is chronological and geographical. Chronologically, we find Sam Harris writing The End of Faith as a response to 9/11; strong atheists in the US picking up Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and joining atheist groups after the re-election of George W. Bush; and many Danes joining the Danish Atheist Society after the Muhammad cartoon controversy.

Geographical evidence can be seen in the contrast between the US and Denmark. In the US, where many Christian conservatives make no secret of their desire to govern by "Biblical" principles, we find hundreds of atheist organisations and thousands of people expressing the view that religion is immoral and to be combated through argument. In Denmark and Sweden, with little threat of politicians governing by religious principles, we find fewer atheist organisations and, in organisations that do exist, much less activity.

Source: New Scientist, March 26, 2011

There is a threat to democratic government, civil liberty, and freedom in America -- but it stems entirely from conservative Christians in America, not from Muslims in other countries. The only existential threat to America that has any significance lies with the worst that Christianity has to offer, and there's a lot more of that in America than in most other places.

That's why there is a much stronger reaction from atheists and secularists in America than in Europe. I'm sure that if American-style conservative Christians were more common in Germany and France, we'd be hearing loud criticisms from atheists and secularists there. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they might be even more forceful and aggressive than atheists in America.

We need more of a backlash against all authoritarian systems and authoritarian leaders, religious as well as secular. The fact of the matter is, though, that authoritarianism is far more prevalent within religious contexts in the west than in secular contexts -- it could in theory be otherwise, but right now it's not. So right now, if you agree that authoritarianism must be fought then the fight is primarily against traditional, orthodox, patriarchal religion.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What is Implicit Atheism?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
What is Implicit Atheism?
Dec 30th 2011, 08:00

Implicit atheism is the absence of theism or the absence of belief in gods without a conscious rejection of it. The term implicit atheism was coined by George H. Smith and is a type of atheism based on the reason why a person doesn't believe in any gods.

Read Article: What is Implicit Atheism? What is an Implicit Atheist?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles: Divorce Rates for Atheists

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles
These articles are the most popular over the last month. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Divorce Rates for Atheists
Dec 30th 2011, 11:12

Conservative Christians of all types, evangelical as well as Catholic, tend to link their conservative brand of their religion with proper moral behavior. By far the most popular context is marriage: they claim that a good, solid marriage is only possible when people acknowledge conservative Christianity's claims about the nature of marriage and gender roles. So why is it that Christian marriages, and especially conservative Christian marriages, end in divorce more often than atheist marriages?

The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians â€" exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.

11% of all American adults are divorced
25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce

27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced

The highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people. Nine states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Maryland) have the lowest divorce rates, averaging just 3.5/1000 people.

Barna isn't the only group to arrive at these numbers. Other researchers have also found that conservative Protestants get divorced more often than other groups, even more often than "mainline" Protestants. The fact that atheists and agnostics divorce less often than other religious groups was, however, surprising to many. Some have simply refused to believe it.

Credit should be given to George Barna, himself a conservative evangelical Christian, for at least trying to face up to these results and what they might mean: "We would love to be able to report that Christians are living very distinct lives and impacting the community, but...in the area of divorce rates they continue to be the same." According to Barna, his data raises "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families" and challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Born again adults who have been married are just as likely as non-born-again adults who have been married to eventually become divorced. Because the vast majority of born again marriages occurred after the partners had accepted Christ as their savior, it appears that their connection to Christ makes less difference in the durability of people’s marriages than many people might expect. Faith has had a limited affect on people’s behavior, whether related to moral convictions and practices, relational activities, lifestyle choices or economic practices.

Barna should, however, acknowledge that the divorce rates for conservative Christians are higher than for liberal Christians. He also doesn't take the further step of acknowledging that perhaps conservative Christianity and conservative religion in general are unable to provide a sound basis for marriage â€" that perhaps there are other, more secular foundations for marriage that conservative Christians are missing. What might they be? Well, an obvious possibility is treating women like fully autonomous equals in the relationship, something which conservative Christianity frequently denies.

The difference in divorce rates is particularly interesting given the fact that the Christians getting divorced in the highest numbers are among the same Christians who are most likely to raise an alarm about the state of marriage in society. They also tend to be the same Christians who want to deny gays the right to marry on the assumption that gay marriage is a "threat" to the institution of marriage. If marriage is in any danger in America, perhaps the threat comes from the unstable marriages of conservative Christians, not the relationships of gays or the marriages of godless atheists.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Catholic/Protestant Commands

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Catholic/Protestant Commands
Dec 30th 2011, 11:01

Different religions and sects have divided the Commandments in different ways â€" and this certainly includes Protestants and Catholics. Although the two versions they use are quite similar, there are also some significant differences that have important implications for the two groups’ varying theological positions.

Abbreviated Protestant Ten Commandments:

  1. You shall have no other gods but me.
  2. You shall not make unto you any graven images
  3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
  4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
  5. Honor your mother and father
  6. You shall not murder
  7. You shall not commit adultery
  8. You shall not steal
  9. You shall not bear false witness
  10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Abbreviated Catholic Ten Commandments:

  1. I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.
  2. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain
  3. Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
  4. Honor your father and your mother
  5. You shall not kill
  6. You shall not commit adultery
  7. You shall not steal
  8. You shall not bear false witness
  9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
  10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods

The first thing which to notice is that after the first commandment, numbering starts to change. For example in the Catholic listing the imperative against adultery is the sixth commandment; for Jews and most Protestants it is the seventh.

One other interesting difference occurs in how Catholics translate the Deuteronomy verses into actual commandments. In the Butler Catechism, verses eight through ten are simply left out. The Catholic version thus omits the prohibition against graven images - an obvious problem for the Roman Catholic church which is rife with shrines and statues. To make up for this, Catholics divide verse 21 into two commandments, thus separating the coveting of a wife from the coveting of farm animals. The Protestant versions of the commandments retain the prohibition against graven images, but it seems to be ignored since statues and other images have proliferated in their churches as well.

It shouldn't be ignored that the Ten Commandments were originally part of a Jewish document and they too have their own way of structuring it. Jews begin the Commandments with the statement, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides argued this was the greatest Commandment of all, even though it does not actually command anyone to do anything at all, because it forms the basis for monotheism and for all that follows.

Christians, however, just regard this as a preamble rather than an actual commandment and begin their lists with the statement, "You shall have no other gods before Me." So, if the government displays the Ten Commandments without that "preamble," it is choosing a Christian perspective of a Jewish perspective. Is this a legitimate function of the government?

Of course, neither statement is actually indicative of genuine monotheism. Monotheism means belief in the existence of only one god, and both of the quoted statements are reflective of the true situation of the ancient Jews: monolatry, which is the belief in the existence of multiple gods, but only worshipping one of them.

Another important difference, not visible in the above abbreviated listings, is in the commandment regarding the Sabbath: in the Exodus version, people are told to keep the sabbath holy because God worked for six days and rested on the seventh; but in the Deuteronomy version used by Catholics, the sabbath is commanded because "you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm." Personally, I don't see the connection â€" at least the reasoning in the Exodus version has some logical basis. But regardless, the fact of the matter is that the reasoning is radically different from one version to the next.

So in the end, there is no way to "choose" what the "real" Ten Commandments are supposed to be. People will naturally be offended if someone else's version of the Ten Commandments is displayed in public buildings â€" and a government doing that cannot be regarded as anything but an infringement of religious liberties. People may not have a right to not be offended, but they do have the right to not have someone else's religious rules dictated to them by civil authorities, and they have a right to ensure that their government does not take sides in theological issues. They certainly should be able to expect that their government won't pervert their own religion in the name of public morality or vote-grabbing.

« Ten Commandments: Catholic Version | Ten Commandments: Different Versions »

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Atheism is Based on Faith?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Atheism is Based on Faith?
Dec 30th 2011, 11:01

Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.

Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Thursday 29 December 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Philosophy Fundamentals: Biographies of Famous Philosophers

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Philosophy Fundamentals: Biographies of Famous Philosophers
Dec 29th 2011, 15:00

The history of philosophy is very much the history of individual philosophers: their ideas, their arguments, and the conversations they have had across time and cultures. A solid understanding of philosophy therefore requires a solid understanding of what individual philosophers have thought, written, and argued.

Read Article: Biographies of Famous Philosophers

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Biology & Religious Violence

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Biology & Religious Violence
Dec 29th 2011, 12:00

It is frequently argued that religious violence is simply an expression of human violence, thus even if religion disappeared we'd still end up with the same problems and same violence but with different justifications. There is surely some truth to this, but perhaps not as much as so many have assumed. A study of the biology associated with violence has revealed differences between faith-based violence and politically motivated violence.

The study in question comes from Jeff Victoroff and colleagues at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine. They, along with Samir Quota of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, asked some questions of young Palestinian boys in the al Shati ("Beach") refugee camp outside Gaza City then tested hormone levels in their blood. The results are interesting.

The researchers asked these boys if they agreed with two statements concerning "religiously conditioned political aggression":

  1. "Religious ends justify any means" (43% agreed)
  2. "Harming civilians is a justifiable tool in a Muslim arsenal." (22% agreed)
Those boys who agreed with the first statement also had higher testosterone levels (although there was no relationship with the second statement). Perhaps surprisingly, however, there was no correlation between conventional aggression and testosterone levels.

Conversely, there was no link between religious aggression and cortisol levels. Conventionally aggressive boys did, however, have low levels of cortisone.

Even stranger, there was no correlation at all between religious aggression and conventional aggression.

Source: Eiphenom

As Tom Rees points out, testosterone is not the "aggression hormone" that it is so often perceived to be. It is, instead more of a dominance hormone -- it's something that is produced when people are or at least feel like they are winning. Cortisol, in contrast, is a stress hormone -- it's produced when a person is under stress, worried, fearful, etc.

Having too much cortisol is bad, but having way too little can be even worse and when cortisol levels get really low we see a lot of aggression. It may be that when the body can't produce the sorts of cortisol necessary to deal with anxiety and stress, a person reaches for aggressive behavior as a compensation and coping mechanism.

So what does this tell us about the findings of the study? For one thing, it's clear that on a biological level religious aggression differs from secular aggression. Conventional, secular, and political aggression seem to be linked to a lack of cortisone and thus anti-social behavior generally. Faith-based aggression, however, is linked to testosterone and thus feelings of dominance over others.

Put another way, conventional violence seems to be more closely linked to someone thinking "I'm losing and I need to lash out in order to acquire some measure of control over my life." Faith-based violence seems to be linked to someone thinking "I'm a winner and I will lash out to assert my dominance over those who are inferior."

So it's not obvious that if religion suddenly ceased to exist, then all the violence we currently see being committed in the name of religion would just shift to being justified in the name of something secular.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: Weekly Poll: What Do You Think About the 'Bright' Label?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Weekly Poll: What Do You Think About the 'Bright' Label?
Dec 29th 2011, 08:00

Some non-believers have been promoting the use of the label "Bright" to describe atheists who adopt a naturalistic outlook on life. This has annoyed some -- including some atheists -- because it sounds arrogant. Many supporters of the "Bright" label insist that it isn't meant to imply anything inherently positive about non-believers or anything inherently negative about believers; others, however, seem to revel in the implication that theists are "dim."

It seems to me that people who truly wanted a neutral term would have picked a neutral word that wouldn't bring along problematic connotations. Ask anyone involved in marketing and they'll tell you how important it is to carefully choose your words -- even the sounds of the words, lest people be driven away unconsciously. I can't really believe that "bright" was chosen naively. I think that it was chosen because of the implications of intelligence and cleverness -- those who use it simply can't be unaware of this.

The idea that the label was intended to communicate positive connotations about members is reinforced by the fact that defenders try to associate it with positive qualities, not simply a neutral state of being. If "Bright" simply remained the absence of supernatural beliefs, it would go nowhere. "Brights" as a movement could never be limited to naturalism and naturalism alone because there is just not enough there. They have promote many other things: freedom, tolerance, compassion, skepticism, science, progressivism, and so on.

Being a "Bright" must, over time, come to include such positive qualities -- if not officially, then by default because naturalists who don't believe in those things will feel excluded from the movement and won't feel that "Bright" really applies to them, even if the official definition does. Adding such things could create a basis for a social and political movement around which people can form an identity. Then again, that's something we already have: secular humanism, and it has an established philosophy behind it.

Atheists want to form some sort of "identity" and some think that the term "Bright" will let them achieve that. The concept of "Bright" is too broad to achieve that, however. Just as there is no identity that can join all people who have supernatural beliefs, there is no identity that can join all people who lack supernatural beliefs. There is no social program that can be drawn from it, no political program, no ethical program, no leisure activities -- nothing at all.

Saying "she doesn't believe in anything supernatural" tells you almost nothing about a person. No necessary conclusions can be drawn from that particular bit of information -- likely conclusions, perhaps, but no necessary ones. Identity and unity need to be based on much, much more than the absence of supernatural beliefs. Thus the "Bright" label suffers from many flaws: it creates an unnecessary air of arrogance, encompasses too little to create much of a movement or identity, and will ultimately have to be expanded to the point where it looks the same as a category we already have. So what's the point?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Brumalia

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Brumalia
Dec 29th 2011, 11:01

Brumalia
Back to Last Page >     Glossary Index>
 Related Terms
• Christmas
• Saturnalia
• paganism
 

Definition:
Brumalia was a pagan festival held at the winter solstice from which some features of the celebration of Christmas seem to have been derived. The word bruma meant simply "shortest day," and referred to the Winter Solstice. Brumalia was generally held on December 25th, even though that was not technically the actual solstice.

Brumalia was immediately preceded by the festival of Saturnalia.

Also Known As: none

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Related Resources:

What is the Philosophy of Religion?
Sometimes confused with theology, the Philosophy of Religion is the philosophical study of religious beliefs, religious doctrines, religious arguments and religious history. The line between theology and the philosophy of religion isn't always sharp, but the primary difference is that theology tends to be apologetical in nature, committed to the defense of particular religious positions, whereas Philosophy of Religion is committed to the investigation of religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion.

Back to Last Page >     Glossary Index>

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Atheist New Year Resolutions

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Atheist New Year Resolutions
Dec 29th 2011, 11:01

Being an atheist doesn't require much effort. There aren't any creeds to memorize or religious services to attend regularly. So long as you don't believe in any gods, even if you never give the subject a second thought, you're an atheist. Never thinking about it may not be the best course of action in modern society, though. There are good reasons to think that making a conscious effort to be open and deliberate in your godlessness would be better for you and those around you. So perhaps it's worth considering some new year's resolutions related to being atheist, secular, and godless today.

Practice Skepticism and Critical Thinking

The most important principles which the godless should commit themselves to are skepticism and critical thinking. You don't have to be skeptical or a critical thinker to be an atheist, but a moral and relevant atheism is one that is founded on a habit of skepticism. One of the worst intellectual failings which people have is simply accepting as true whatever claims they hear, regardless of the logical or empirical support which the claims may (or may not) have. Skepticism means not accepting whatever we hear; critical thinking means examining claims and ideas to determine how valid they are.

Engage in Self-Reflection and Introspection

It's easy to be skeptical and critical of others' ideas, but harder to exercise the same scrutiny of things we already believe. If we engage in self-reflection and introspection, we can skeptically examine the ideas we have accepted uncritically for so long. If our own ideas can't stand up to the same criticism which we apply to others' ideas, we're behaving hypocritically. What's more, the better we understand ourselves and why we believe things, the better we might understand others as well.

Read, Study, and Learn

We never know enough â€" there are always new things to investigate. If we stop learning, then we stop growing and we lose the ability to improve or make better decisions about our lives. Too many people treat learning as something that ended once they left school; in reality, the learning we do at school should simply prepare us for learning the rest of our lives. Even if we don't have time for classes, we should commit to make an effort to read non-fiction on a variety of topics.

Be Open & Honest About Atheism

Many people are in the closet about being godless. This is often for good reasons, but being open, public, and unapologetic about one's godlessness is important: first, because it helps one feel more comfortable with oneself, and second, so that people can see that godlessness doesn't make one an immoral monster. Godless Americans should commit to setting a good example about what godlessness means, and should not imply that there is something shameful about it by keeping silent.

Engage People in Discussion

Godless atheists should commit to engaging religious believers in substantive discussions. These may obviously include discussions about religion, but should not be limited to that subject. We should engage others in conversations on philosophy, family, politics, and more â€" all from an explicitly godless perspective. We can make it plain that neither gods nor religion are needed in order to have credible, reasonable positions on various topics.

Be More Politically Active

Politics and religion in America have become deeply intertwined, but this might change if godless Americans commit to taking part in local politics. We shouldn't be pushy, but we also shouldn't hide the fact that we are godless. We can establish a godless perspective in the sphere of politics and help religious believers get used to the fact that we exist and that we matter. Godlessness can contribute to society and make a difference in all our lives.

Actively Promote Equality & Civil Rights

An important issue for all godless atheists is the status of civic equality and civil rights. The godless have often been victims of discrimination and prejudice and we should commit ourselves to the pursuit of equal civil rights for all. There must also be a moral component to this because in order to help improve society, the godless must promote a moral and just conception of our community. Equality and full civil rights must be established for all citizens, whatever their faith.

Defend the Separation of Church & State

One of the most significant issues which all godless Americans can agree on, whatever their political philosophy or beliefs, is the need to separate church and state. In no way should the coercive power of the government be brought to bear on behalf of any single religious group, belief, or tradition. Separating church from state means separating religious from civil authority; the godless accept the authority of civil leaders, but not the authority of religious leaders.

Godlessness for the Future of Society

Some apologists for the involvement of religion in politics point out that religion is here to stay and isn't going to give up its claims on having a public voice. This is true, but it's also true of the godless: we are here, we aren't going anywhere, and we aren't going to give up on our claims for full civil equality and the ability to participate in society alongside everyone else. We have something to offer public discussion and debate, but if we are going to participate we must do so in a positive and substantive way.

Having a "Godless New Year" isn't about celebrating the new year without gods or religion, because most people do that. Instead, it means making the new year genuinely new by doing something different and making a difference â€" both in our own lives as well as in the lives of others. We should have a godless new year by bringing godlessness to the attention of others and to the service of our communities. Godlessness may not be a philosophy or ideology in its own right, but a godless perspective on issues and life still has something to offer â€" if for no other reason than because it's so rare, relatively speaking.

There are godless people all around, contributing to society and helping to make their communities better to live in. Unfortunately, most aren't known as godless because they don't reveal what they really believe. The situation for atheists is not unlike that of gays: in the closet out of fear of what others will say. This must change â€" when it does, godless Americans should be able to contribute even more.

Godlessness, free from the ancient hatreds and absolutism of religious traditions, stands a chance at serving the interests of peace and harmony in a religiously diverse society. Being godless doesn't automatically make a person rational, reasonable, and peaceful, but religion often makes things worse. Committing to the principles above as part of one’s New Year’s resolutions is a good step toward the future.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions