Sunday 31 July 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Nihilist Philosophy: Moral Nihilism

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Nihilist Philosophy: Moral Nihilism
Jul 31st 2011, 15:00

One primary understanding of nihilism which existed even within early Russian Nihilism and has continued down through today is the idea that moral norms, but especially traditional morality, cannot be justified by any rational or scientific standards. As a consequence, they have no 'reality' - they do not exist anywhere except in the minds of people and hence do not really 'exist' at all.

Read Article: Moral Nihilism

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: Religious Freedom for Christians, Not for Others

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Religious Freedom for Christians, Not for Others
Jul 31st 2011, 12:00

In Independence, Virginia, Laura George wants to build a "Peace Pentagon" -- a retreat where leaders from different religious traditions can meet to discuss their differences. Unfortunately the local fundamentalist Christians are outraged at the prospect of non-Christians coming in and interacting with Christians as if they were equals.

Laura George had secured permission for her building plans, but that permission was quickly revoked after a meeting where local Christian bigotry was laid bare for the world to see.

It's not uncommon for spiritual groups to face resistance from the local community, whether over parking, traffic, noise or other concerns. Whether the board in Grayson voted on zoning concerns -- supervisors did not comment on the case -- one thing is certain: The surrounding community did not welcome George's idea.

"I'm glad it didn't come," Rhonda James of Mouth of Wilson said. She added that everyone she knows opposed the Oracle Institute because, they believe, it seems to question the word of God in the Bible. "I'm a Christian, fundamentalist Christian, and so are most people in the area."

Eddie Roland, pastor of Brush Creek Baptist Church, stood up at the meeting with his Bible in hand and said the proposed center "stands against the word of God. I believe it's contradictory to it. I believe it's diametrically opposed to what this book right here stands for."

At one point a supervisor reminded speakers that they could not vote based on religious reasons. Some supervisors said it didn't seem consistent with the community, it could ruin the views along the river and asked about the road leading into it. One proposed rejecting it for the health, safety and welfare of the county.

The supervisors voted against the center, including one who had previously approved it in his role on the county planning commission.

Source: The Washington Post

It's hard not to see local politicians here grasping at straws for any legal-sounding excuse they can find to oppose the project. Unfortunately, the rank bigotry of the residents will make it harder for them to convince others that their decision was neutral and fair. Even other conservative Christians can see that what's going on is wrong -- and it's the Rutherford Institute of all places that's helping Laura George:

It's clearly a violation of the First Amendment, said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil liberties group that is helping George.

"There's just a lot of hate out there. The fear that someone like this coming into the county with 10 cabins on the water is going to do something dramatic to the community . . . this is part of the religious wars we're seeing, no doubt about that," he said.

It's significant I think that no other conservative Christian legal organizations have stepped up to do the right thing in this case. There are several that proclaim their fidelity to principles of religious freedom, but you never see them even so much as issue a press release in defense of non-Christians shoe rights are being infringed upon, much less offer advice and services.

This makes them little different from the bigots in the story above: concerned with religious liberty for Christians but not at all with the religious liberty of anyone else. In the end, that means they don't really care about religious liberty at all -- they only care about their own tribe's privileges no matter what happens to anyone else.

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: Mailbag: Religion, Politics, and the Bible

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Mailbag: Religion, Politics, and the Bible
Jul 31st 2011, 08:00

From: "Alice"
Subject: interesting.....

[R]eligious beliefs do not have anything to do with politics, so the right for women to vote is political, not religious. Since a Christian man, one who believes in the scriptures, must think of his wife as an equal, there would be no problem in submitting to his decisions, since they would be Godly.

Actually, a Christian man doesn't have to think of his wife as an equal - he is commanded to love her, but you can love someone while considering them an inferior. After all, does Jesus consider humans to be his equal? Of course not - so it would be quite easy for Christian men to learn to treat their wives as inferiors who need to be guided and saved from the sins of the world. What would they need with the right to vote? Humans don't get to vote on who will be God, do they?

Moreover, there is no reason to think that every decision made by even the most devoted Christian man will necessarily be "Godly." Christian men are sinners too, and even if they were somehow able to resist temptation and avoid sin, they are still fallible. So one way or another, they will make bad decisions either out of sinful desire or fallible reasoning - two things which are presumably not very "Godly," right?

In addition to commanding that wives submit to their husbands, the Bible also says that women should not teach and not have authority over men. So why is Alice presuming to teach me about Christianity? Isn't voting the exercise of political authority? Does Alice believe that no women should become pastors or even elected representatives? What about female managers in the work place? All of this goes hand-in-hand with women submitting to their husbands because it expresses that idea that women must always submit to male authority - in the home, in the church, and in society generally. If that isn't an "inferior" status, I'm afraid I don't know what is. It certainly isn't a status most men would choose for themselves, so it's hypocritical of them to instruct women that they should be happy accepting it.

Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL ancient literal translation of scripture. And perhaps you should read the ENTIRE bible, instead of taking things out of context.

Actual ancient literal translation? There are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to begin. It seems as though Alice thinks that a literal translation of an ancient text communicates exactly the same things as the original text - thus, a literal translation of the Old Testament into English is a good as God speaking in English.

That's simply not true. In fact, literal translations are often very poor translations. Assuming that it is possible to translate all of the little nuances and connotations from one language into another (and it rarely is), such translation will not be literal in any way. Translators have a tough job, and it is even tougher when translating out of an ancient language because it is much more difficult to figure out what you may or may not be missing.

It's always interesting to be told that I shouldn't "take thing out of context" because, quite frankly, everyone does it. Conservative evangelicals don't admit they do it, of course, but they most definitely do. Any time they quote a verse at you, they are trying to communicate an idea which doesn't quite jibe with ideas expressed elsewhere - and that means they are taking that verse out of context, exactly as they accuse others of doing.

When they say "you took that out of context" what they really mean is "you are focusing on verses and ideas that I disagree with." You will never be "in context" unless you accept their theology and their doctrines, which of course is just an example of Begging the Question.

As a matter of fact, my husband doesnt believe in God either, like you, he sees himself as too self important to believe there is a power greater than his own.

Alice doesn't know me, so she shouldn't presume to suggest that I see myself as "too self-important to believe there is a power greater than my own." Alice's husband may be an atheist as a consequence of delusions about his own self-importance, but I've never encountered an atheist like that and I would go so far as to say that it's a relatively rare phenomenon in the atheist community.

But seriously, the Bible doesn't instruct women to only submit to Christian husbands - it instructs women to submit to their husbands, period. So Alice must submit to her husband and if she doesn't like the fact that he isn't a Christian, well she'll just have to learn to love it. After all, the Bible counsels against divorce right along with female leaders and uppity wives.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...

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: Entrance to the Temple of Bacchus

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Entrance to the Temple of Bacchus
Jul 31st 2011, 10:01

Consisting of temples to the developing Roman trinity of Jupiter, Bacchus, and Venus, the Roman temple complex at Baalbek is based upon an earlier, existing sacred site dedicated to another triad of deities: Hadad (Dionysus), Atargatis (Astarte), and Baal. The transformation from a Canaanite religious site to a Roman one began after 332 BCE when Alexander conquered the city and initiated a process of Hellenization.

What this means, in effect, is that three Canaanite or Eastern deities were worshipped under Roman names. Baal-Hadad was worshipped under the Roman name Jove, Astarte was worshipped under the Roman name Venus, and Dionysus was worshipped under the Roman name Bacchus. This sort of religious integration was common for Romans: wherever they went, the gods they encountered were either incorporated into their own pantheon as newly recognized deities or they were associated with their current deities but as simply having different names. Because of the cultural and political importance of people's deities, such religious integration helped smooth the way for cultural and political integration as well.

In this photo, we see what's left of the entrance to the Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek. If you look closely, you'll see a person standing near the bottom center of the image. Notice just how large the entrance is when compared to the height of a human being and then remember that this is the smaller of the two temples: The Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") was much larger.

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: Troy Map: Images of Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Troy Map: Images of Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art
Jul 31st 2011, 10:01

Troy Map

Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art in Troy »

Troy Map

 

Before 3500 BCE Greece looked like much of the rest of Europe: mud-brick houses and simple painted pottery. Because of Troy, however, the influence of the East began to take hold and a new sort of civilization began to develop, characterized most obviously by stone fortifications on various hilltops with clusters of farms and merchants in the surrounding area. These citadels were serviced by new crops like olives and grapes, there was new technology for the creation of hard metals, and new animals grazing in the pastures.

Troy

It should not be said that Troy is specifically responsible for this incredible transformation, but it was in a position to facilitate it. Through Troy passed many of the raw materials needed by civilizations in the East, through Troy passed techniques and ideas that helped the development of the West. Troy became a major center of commerce and an inspiration to the backwards farmers on the Greek peninsula.

Before long, Greek powers were imitating Troy. No longer typical Neolithic settlements, the Greeks soon developed larger citadels similar to what their traders found in Troy. Cities were built in a similar manner, eastern deities were incorporated into local pantheons, metal and goldsmiths attempted to imitate the handiwork of what came out of the East. The Aegean region was being transformed permanently, and in ways that would have momentous effects on the later history not only Greece, but all of Western Civilization.

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art in Troy »

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: Americans Believe God Controls Everything

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Americans Believe God Controls Everything
Jul 31st 2011, 10:01

Americans tend to believe that everything is under God's control and thus everything that happens must happen according to God's wishes. According to a 2011 PRRI poll, 35% of Americans completely agreed that God controls everything and 21% mostly agreed. That leaves only 34% who disagreed at all. The belief that God controls everything that happens carries significant consequences for other beliefs about the world and politics.

The Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service conducted a survey on Americans' views about God in the wake of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. When asked how much they agree or disagree with the statement "God is in control of everything that happens in the world," people responded:

  • Completely Agree: 35%
  • Mostly Agree: 21%
  • Mostly Disagree: 17%
  • Completely Disagree: 17%
  • Don't Know / Refused: 2%

The belief that God is in control over everything follows naturally and logically from some basic Christian doctrines, biblical verses, and popular attributes ascribed to God. It would be difficult for most Christians to believe that God created everything, that God has a plan for everything, and that God is omnipotent without also concluding that on some level God is ultimately in control of everything.

At the same time, though, believing that God controls everything carries with it serious implications that few Christians are willing to accept. It means, for example, that God is also responsible for everything â€" and that includes everything bad, like natural disasters. You can't be in control without also being responsible and you can't be responsible for everything without also being responsible for everything bad.

The logic is airtight, but it has little impact on the large numbers of Christians who simply deny that God has any responsibility for anything bad, even if they say in the next breath that God is in control and has a plan. Christians cannot abandon the idea that God is in control, but they also cannot abandon the idea that God is perfectly good. So they just adopt mutually contradictory beliefs about God and pretend that the problems don't exist.

This survey was by the Public Religion Research Institute was done with phone interviews of 1,008 adults between March 17 and March 20, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3%.

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: Troy Map: Images of Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Troy Map: Images of Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art
Jul 31st 2011, 10:01

Troy Map

Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art in Troy »

Troy Map

 

Before 3500 BCE Greece looked like much of the rest of Europe: mud-brick houses and simple painted pottery. Because of Troy, however, the influence of the East began to take hold and a new sort of civilization began to develop, characterized most obviously by stone fortifications on various hilltops with clusters of farms and merchants in the surrounding area. These citadels were serviced by new crops like olives and grapes, there was new technology for the creation of hard metals, and new animals grazing in the pastures.

Troy

It should not be said that Troy is specifically responsible for this incredible transformation, but it was in a position to facilitate it. Through Troy passed many of the raw materials needed by civilizations in the East, through Troy passed techniques and ideas that helped the development of the West. Troy became a major center of commerce and an inspiration to the backwards farmers on the Greek peninsula.

Before long, Greek powers were imitating Troy. No longer typical Neolithic settlements, the Greeks soon developed larger citadels similar to what their traders found in Troy. Cities were built in a similar manner, eastern deities were incorporated into local pantheons, metal and goldsmiths attempted to imitate the handiwork of what came out of the East. The Aegean region was being transformed permanently, and in ways that would have momentous effects on the later history not only Greece, but all of Western Civilization.

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art in Troy »

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: Exterior of the Temple of Bacchus

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Exterior of the Temple of Bacchus
Jul 31st 2011, 10:01

Because of its size, the Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") receives the most attention. A second massive temple is located on the site as well, though, the Temple of Bacchus. It was constructed in the late second century during the reign of emperor Antoninus Pius, much later than the Temple of Jupiter Baal.

During the 18th and 19th century, European visitors referred to this as the Temple of the Sun. This was probably because the traditional Roman name for the site is Heliopolis, or "city of the sun," and this is the best-preserved temple here, though why this is the case is not clear. The Temple of Bacchus is smaller than the Temple of Jupiter, but it's still larger than even the Temple of Athena on the Acropolis in Athens.

In front of the Temple of Jupiter Baal is a massive main court where public worship and ritual sacrifice occurred. The same is not true of the Temple of Bacchus, however. This may be because there were no large public rituals associated with this god and thus also no large public cultic following. Instead, the cult around Bacchus may have been a mystery cult which focused on the use of wine or other intoxicating substances in order to achieve a state of mystical insight rather than the usual sacrifices which encourage public, social unity.

If this is the case, though, it's interesting that such a massive structure was built for the sake of a mystery cult with a relatively small following.

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

Saturday 30 July 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Morality of War: Just War Theory

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Morality of War: Just War Theory
Jul 30th 2011, 15:00

There is a tradition in Western religion and culture of differentiating between "just" and "unjust" wars. Those opposed to war in principle will surely disagree that any such distinction can possibly be made, but the basic ideas involved seem to present a plausible argument that there are times when war is, at the very least, less just and as a result should receive less support.

Read Article: Morality of War: Just War Theory

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: Dangerous Plants for Food? Errors in Genesis About the Safety of Eating Plants

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Dangerous Plants for Food? Errors in Genesis About the Safety of Eating Plants
Jul 30th 2011, 08:00

According to Genesis, God created every plant for human consumption. We know, however that some plants are poisonous and will kill us. In fact, we knew that some plants are dangerous even before modern science -- thus we've known for a long, long time that Genesis is wrong on this point. It's simply an error to claim that every plant is safe and appropriate for us to eat.

Read Article: Errors in Genesis About the Safety of Eating Plants

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: Baalbek Trilithon

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Baalbek Trilithon
Jul 30th 2011, 10:00

At 290 feet long, 160 feet wide, the Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") in Baalbek, Lebanon, was created to be the largest religious complex in the Roman empire. As impressive as this is, one of the most impressive aspects of this site is almost hidden from view: beneath and behind the ruined remains of the temple itself are three massive stone block called the trilithon.

These three stone blocks are the largest building blocks ever used by any human beings anywhere in the world. Each one is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weigh around 800 tons. This is larger than the incredible columns created for the Temple of Jupiter, which are also 70 feet tall but measure a mere 7 feet -- and they weren't constructed from single pieces of stone. In each of the above two images, you can see people standing by the trilithon to provide reference for how large they are: in the top image a person is standing to the far left and in the bottom image a person is sitting on a stone about in the middle.

Beneath the trilithon are another six huge building blocks, each 35 feet long and thus also larger than most building blocks used by humans anywhere else. No one knows how these stone blocks were cut, transported from the nearby quarry, and fit so precisely together. Some are so amazed at this feat of engineering that they have created fanciful tales of the Romans using magic or that the site was created centuries earlier by an unidentified people who had access to alien technology.

The fact that people today are unable to imagine how the construction was accomplish is not license to make up fairy tales, though. There are so many things which we today can do which the ancients couldn't even imagine; we shouldn't begrudge them the possibility that they could do a thing or two which we can't figure out yet.

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: Baalbek Stone of the Pregnant Woman

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Baalbek Stone of the Pregnant Woman
Jul 30th 2011, 10:00

The Baalbek trilithon is a set of three massive stone blocks which are part of the foundation of the Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") in Baalbek. They are so large that people cannot imagine how they were cut and transported to the site. As impressive as these three stone blocks are, though, there is a fourth block still in the quarry which is three feet longer than the blocks in the trilithon and which is estimated to weigh 1,200 tons. Locals have named it Hajar el Gouble (Stone of the South) and Hajar el Hibla (Stone of the Pregnant Woman), with the latter apparently being the most popular.

In the two photos above you can see just how large it is - if you look closely, each image has one or two people on the stone to provide reference. The stone is at an angle because it was never cut away. Although we can see that it was cut to be made part of the Baalbek site, it remains attached at its base to the underlying bedrock, not unlike a plant which still has roots in the earth. No one knows how such a massive stone block was cut so precisely or how it was supposed to be moved.

As with the trilithon, it's common to find people claiming that since we don't currently know how the ancient engineers accomplished this or how they planned on moving this massive block to the temple site, that therefore they must have employed mystical, supernatural, or even extraterrestrial means. This is just nonsense, however.Presumably the engineers had a plan, otherwise they would have cut a smaller block, and an inability to answer the questions right now simply means that there are things we don't know.

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: Baalbek Trilithon

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Baalbek Trilithon
Jul 30th 2011, 10:00

At 290 feet long, 160 feet wide, the Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") in Baalbek, Lebanon, was created to be the largest religious complex in the Roman empire. As impressive as this is, one of the most impressive aspects of this site is almost hidden from view: beneath and behind the ruined remains of the temple itself are three massive stone block called the trilithon.

These three stone blocks are the largest building blocks ever used by any human beings anywhere in the world. Each one is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weigh around 800 tons. This is larger than the incredible columns created for the Temple of Jupiter, which are also 70 feet tall but measure a mere 7 feet -- and they weren't constructed from single pieces of stone. In each of the above two images, you can see people standing by the trilithon to provide reference for how large they are: in the top image a person is standing to the far left and in the bottom image a person is sitting on a stone about in the middle.

Beneath the trilithon are another six huge building blocks, each 35 feet long and thus also larger than most building blocks used by humans anywhere else. No one knows how these stone blocks were cut, transported from the nearby quarry, and fit so precisely together. Some are so amazed at this feat of engineering that they have created fanciful tales of the Romans using magic or that the site was created centuries earlier by an unidentified people who had access to alien technology.

The fact that people today are unable to imagine how the construction was accomplish is not license to make up fairy tales, though. There are so many things which we today can do which the ancients couldn't even imagine; we shouldn't begrudge them the possibility that they could do a thing or two which we can't figure out yet.

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: Baalbek Stone of the Pregnant Woman

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Baalbek Stone of the Pregnant Woman
Jul 30th 2011, 10:00

The Baalbek trilithon is a set of three massive stone blocks which are part of the foundation of the Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") in Baalbek. They are so large that people cannot imagine how they were cut and transported to the site. As impressive as these three stone blocks are, though, there is a fourth block still in the quarry which is three feet longer than the blocks in the trilithon and which is estimated to weigh 1,200 tons. Locals have named it Hajar el Gouble (Stone of the South) and Hajar el Hibla (Stone of the Pregnant Woman), with the latter apparently being the most popular.

In the two photos above you can see just how large it is - if you look closely, each image has one or two people on the stone to provide reference. The stone is at an angle because it was never cut away. Although we can see that it was cut to be made part of the Baalbek site, it remains attached at its base to the underlying bedrock, not unlike a plant which still has roots in the earth. No one knows how such a massive stone block was cut so precisely or how it was supposed to be moved.

As with the trilithon, it's common to find people claiming that since we don't currently know how the ancient engineers accomplished this or how they planned on moving this massive block to the temple site, that therefore they must have employed mystical, supernatural, or even extraterrestrial means. This is just nonsense, however.Presumably the engineers had a plan, otherwise they would have cut a smaller block, and an inability to answer the questions right now simply means that there are things we don't know.

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 29 July 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Atheists More Liberal than Evangelical Christians

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite.
Atheists More Liberal than Evangelical Christians
Jul 29th 2011, 08:00

Political liberalism among atheists in America stands in stark contrast to the political conservatism of Christians, and especially the political conservatism of evangelical Christians. This means that the conflicts between atheists and evangelical Christians are not just about the existence of or and reasonableness of Christian beliefs, but also a host of political and social issues.

Read Article: Atheists More Liberal than Evangelical Christians

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: Myth: Atheists Choose Atheism

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Myth: Atheists Choose Atheism
Jul 29th 2011, 10:01

Myth: You choose to disbelieve in God (and you should choose to believe in God).

Response: I frequently hear the claim that atheists choose atheism, usually for some morally blameworthy reason like a desire to avoid taking responsibility for their sins. My response is basically the same every time: You may not believe me, but I didn't choose any such thing, and I can't just 'choose' to start believing. Maybe you can, but I can't. I do not believe in any gods. Evidence would make me believe in some god, but all the playacting in the world isn't going to change that.

Why? Because belief itself simply does not appear to be a matter of will or choice. A real problem with this idea of "voluntarism" in beliefs is that an examination of the nature of holding beliefs does not lead to the conclusion that they are very much like actions, which are voluntary.

When an evangelist tells us that we have chosen to be atheists and that we are deliberately avoiding belief in a god, they are not entirely correct. It isn't true that one chooses to be an atheist. Atheism â€" especially if it is at all rational â€" is simply the inevitable conclusion from available information. I no more "choose" to disbelieve in gods than I "choose" to disbelieve in elves or than I "choose" to believe that there is a chair in my room. These beliefs and the absence thereof are not acts of will which I had to consciously take â€" they are, rather, conclusions which were necessary based upon the evidence at hand.

However, it is possible that a person may wish that it not be true that a god exists and, hence, has directed their research based on that. Personally, I have never encountered anyone who has disbelieved in the existence of a god based simply on this desire. As I myself have argued, the existence of a god doesn't even necessarily matter â€" rendering the truth emotionally irrelevant. It's arrogant to simply assume and assert that an atheist is being unduly influenced by some desire; if a Christian sincerely believes it is true, they are obligated to demonstrate that it is true in some particular case. If they are unable or unwilling, they shouldn't even consider bringing it up.

On the other hand, when an atheist argues that a theist believes in a god simply because they want to, that isn't entirely correct either. A theist may wish it to be true that a god exist and this could certainly have an impact on how they look at the evidence. For this reason, the common complaint that theists are engaging in "wishful thinking" in their beliefs and examination of evidence may have some validity but not in the exact way that it's usually meant. If an atheist does believe that some particular theist has been unduly influenced by their desires, then they are obligated to show how this is so in a particular case. Otherwise, there's no reason to bring it up.

Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism.

This is why I have always said that the fact that a person is a theist is less important than whether or not they are skeptical about claims â€" both their own and others'. This is also one reason why I have said that it is more important to try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply "convert" them to atheism.

It is not uncommon for a person to realize that they have simply lost the ability to have blind faith in the claims made by religious tradition and religious leaders. They are no longer willing to shut away their doubts and questions. If this person then fails to find any rational reasons to continue believing in religious dogmas, those beliefs will simply fall away. Eventually, even the belief in a god will fall away â€" rendering that person an atheist, not by choice but instead simply because belief is no longer possible.

Read a more detailed examination of Beliefs and Choices.

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: Myth: Atheists Choose Atheism

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Myth: Atheists Choose Atheism
Jul 29th 2011, 10:01

Myth:
You choose to disbelieve in God (and you should choose to believe in God).

Response:
I frequently hear the claim that atheists choose atheism, usually for some morally blameworthy reason like a desire to avoid taking responsibility for their sins. My response is basically the same every time: You may not believe me, but I didn't choose any such thing, and I can't just 'choose' to start believing. Maybe you can, but I can't. I do not believe in any gods. Evidence would make me believe in some god, but all the playacting in the world isn't going to change that.

Why? Because belief itself simply does not appear to be a matter of will or choice. A real problem with this idea of "voluntarism" in beliefs is that an examination of the nature of holding beliefs does not lead to the conclusion that they are very much like actions, which are voluntary.

When an evangelist tells us that we have chosen to be atheists and that we are deliberately avoiding belief in a god, they are not entirely correct. It isn't true that one chooses to be an atheist. Atheism â€" especially if it is at all rational â€" is simply the inevitable conclusion from available information. I no more "choose" to disbelieve in gods than I "choose" to disbelieve in elves or than I "choose" to believe that there is a chair in my room. These beliefs and the absence thereof are not acts of will which I had to consciously take â€" they are, rather, conclusions which were necessary based upon the evidence at hand.

However, it is possible that a person may wish that it not be true that a god exists and, hence, has directed their research based on that. Personally, I have never encountered anyone who has disbelieved in the existence of a god based simply on this desire. As I myself have argued, the existence of a god doesn't even necessarily matter â€" rendering the truth emotionally irrelevant. It's arrogant to simply assume and assert that an atheist is being unduly influenced by some desire; if a Christian sincerely believes it is true, they are obligated to demonstrate that it is true in some particular case. If they are unable or unwilling, they shouldn't even consider bringing it up.

On the other hand, when an atheist argues that a theist believes in a god simply because they want to, that isn't entirely correct either. A theist may wish it to be true that a god exist and this could certainly have an impact on how they look at the evidence. For this reason, the common complaint that theists are engaging in "wishful thinking" in their beliefs and examination of evidence may have some validity but not in the exact way that it's usually meant. If an atheist does believe that some particular theist has been unduly influenced by their desires, then they are obligated to show how this is so in a particular case. Otherwise, there's no reason to bring it up.

Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism.

This is why I have always said that the fact that a person is a theist is less important than whether or not they are skeptical about claims â€" both their own and others'. This is also one reason why I have said that it is more important to try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply "convert" them to atheism.

It is not uncommon for a person to realize that they have simply lost the ability to have blind faith in the claims made by religious tradition and religious leaders. They are no longer willing to shut away their doubts and questions. If this person then fails to find any rational reasons to continue believing in religious dogmas, those beliefs will simply fall away. Eventually, even the belief in a god will fall away â€" rendering that person an atheist, not by choice but instead simply because belief is no longer possible.

Read a more detailed examination of Beliefs and Choices.

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: Saint Philip the Apostle

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Saint Philip the Apostle
Jul 29th 2011, 10:01

Philip is listed as one of Jesus' apostles in all four apostolic lists: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts. He plays the largest role in John and appears little in the other gospels. The name Philip means "lover of horses." Writings attributed to Philip the Apostle played an important role in the development of early Christian Gnosticism. Gnostic Christians cited Philip's authority as justification for their own beliefs via the apocryphal Gospel of Philip and the Acts of Philip.

Philip is described in the Gospel According to John as being skeptical at first about following Jesus, only agreeing to do so after Nathanael tells him the Jesus is the Messiah. Philip is depicted as pragmatic other times as well and he is the one approached by Greeks seeking to speak with Jesus. It is possible that Philip was originally a follower or disciple of John the Baptist because John depicts Jesus calling Philip out of a crowd attending John's baptisms.

One Christian legend says that Philip and Bartholomew were crucified by the pagan governor of a city in Phrygia after he killed a serpent, but an earthquake caused the people to demand the release of the two apostles. Bartholomew survived, but Philip didn't make it. Another story says that Philip married, had children, and was buried in Hieropolis with this daughters -- both still virgins. If virginity was such a prize that they thought it important, why did Philip take the virginity of the woman he married?

Read More: Saint Philip the Apostle

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: Commandments, Behavior, Belief

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week
Commandments, Behavior, Belief
Jul 29th 2011, 10:01

There are lots of debates over the cultural and political status of the Ten Commandments, but in all of those debates there is a common assumption that devout religious people are already following them and everyone else should start. Is it true, however, that religious people currently follow the Ten Commandments with any degree of consistency?

Jews presumably do a fair job at trying to follow their Decalogue, but it’s Christians â€" and conservative evangelicals in particular â€" who do the most to promote these laws in civil society, so perhaps we should focus on them. When we do, we find something interesting: not only do they not consistently follow the commandments, but in fact a couple are broken so regularly and casually that it doesn’t even appear as though anyone really tries.

The second commandment, at least according to Protestants, is a prohibition against “any graven image, or any likeness of any thing.“ The more literally one reads this, the more that would have to be forbidden: crosses, crucifixes, statues of Jesus, status of saints, icons of any sort, even photographs and realistic paintings. Muslims adhere to such a rule strictly, and as a consequence, artistic decoration consists of abstract design rather than the human figures that one typically sees in many churches.

Most Christians today, if they accept this commandment at all (it’s not included on Catholic lists), don’t interpret it literally. At most they read it to mean that one shouldn’t make any idols designed to represent God (although statues of Jesus, who is also God, are somehow exempt from even this most mildest of readings). Once we allow this commandment to be interpreted mildly or metaphorically, however, what’s to stop us from doing the same with the others? Should the commands not to kill or steal be read metaphorically?

Even more significant is the breaking of the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments require that people work for six days and then rest on the seventh, which is Saturday. This is what Jews and some small Christian groups do. Almost all contemporary Christian denominations have placed their sabbath on a Sunday, however, which is the first day of the week.

This might not seem like such a huge issue â€" after all, Christians are still working six days and resting one, which is one of the points of this commandment. Another point of the commandment, however, is to commemorate God who worked six days and rested on the seventh; Christians who don’t rest on the final day of the week are quite simply getting things backwards. God certainly didn’t start off the grand task of creating the universe by taking a coffee break.

Furthermore, Christians today don’t adhere to the prohibition on working as strictly as orthodox Jews. Christian may go to church services and they may not go to the office, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t work. On the contrary, most do quite a bit of work on their sabbath: yard work, house work, school work, etc. Very few Christians actually refrain from any work whatsoever, and I doubt that you will find many who go to the same lengths as orthodox Jews who refuse to drive, turn on lights, light stoves, etc.

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