Monday 31 October 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Back of the Bus: Gays Demand Equal Rights & Dignity, Not Special Rights

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Back of the Bus: Gays Demand Equal Rights & Dignity, Not Special Rights
Oct 31st 2011, 15:00

Back of the Bus: Gays Demand Equal Rights & Dignity, Not Special Rights
Back of the Bus
Anti-Prop 8 Protest in Pittsburgh
Photo � Bonnie Cline, 2008

So-called "gay rights" aren't special rights or special privileges for gays. On the contrary, they're about ensuring that gays have the same fundamental rights as everyone else and no one else has special privileges. Using the phrase "gay rights" obscures this fact and allows some to misrepresent the subject. Similarly, gay marriage is really just about marriage generally and ensuring that it is treated as the fundamental right for everyone just as the Supreme Court has declared it to be.

Read Article: Back of the Bus: Gays Demand Equal Rights & Dignity, Not Special Rights

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: Evolution of Multi-Cellular Organisms & Social Cohesion

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Evolution of Multi-Cellular Organisms & Social Cohesion
Oct 31st 2011, 12:00

The origin of multi-cellular organisms out of single-celled organisms and of social groups out of lone individuals have both been important areas of study. They might also be more closely linked than anyone realized: recent research indicates that yeast cells will form clumps because those clumps confer advantages for the individuals. Those clumps are analogous to social groups as well as a precursor to multi-cellular life.

In yeast, simple mutations that alter the completion of cell division or prevent final digestion of the cell wall are sufficient to cause yeast to form aggregates or clumps of cells. Indeed, wild yeast grow in such multicellular forms, although common lab strains have been selected to grow as individual cells.

Mathematical modeling and experiments show that when concentrations of sucrose are limiting, growing in clumps is advantageous because the cells secrete the enzyme invertase, which splits sucrose into the glucose and fructose the yeast use to fuel metabolism. Thus, it pays to be near other cells to have access to the sugars that are available in their immediate vicinity.

In their experiments, clumps of yeast cells grew in concentrations of sucrose that were too low to support the growth of equivalent numbers of individual cells. Furthermore, clumping also helped cells compete with "cheater" yeast cells, which freeload off other cells and do not make any invertase themselves, thus gaining a small survival advantage.

Source: Science, September 9, 2011

So it sounds like there is a selective, evolutionary advantage for loner cells to join up with others and form colonies -- colonies which, over time, develop specialization and eventually multi-cellular life. Sounds an awful lot like the advantages that exist for lone humans to join up and form communities. People can survive when alone, but they are much more likely to survive and even thrive when in groups.

Maybe there is a drive towards group-formation that exists within us at even a cellular level.

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: Book of the Week: True Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Book of the Week: True Religion
Oct 31st 2011, 08:00

True Religion
Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com

Religion, especially wen it's fundamentalist or fervent in nature, has seen explosive growth in recent decades. Many observers have found this to be strange because of the great scientific, social, and political progress made made in secular circles. What could be going on? What are people looking for that they don't find in secularism?

Book of the Week: True 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's Hot Now: Halloween

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Halloween
Oct 31st 2011, 10:04

Halloween
Back to Last Page >     Glossary Index>
 Related Terms
• saints
 

Definition:
Halloween, also known as All Hallow's Eve, is a Christian festival which occurs on October 31st, the evening before All Saints day, November 1st. Over time it absorbed the Celtic New Year's festival which occurred on the eve and day of Samhain and that is responsible for many of the more secularized customs in observance of Halloween in the United States. Through much of continental Europe Halloween is observed with masses and prayers at the graves of deceased relatives. In the United States and Great Britain it is observed with the practice of children dressing up in colorful costumes and going from house to house to receive candy.

Also Known As: All Hallow's Eve

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Related Resources:

What is Christianity?
What are the various Christian groups, denominations, sects and heresies? What are some key concepts in Christian theology? What are some of the most important events in Christian history? All of this and more are covered in the Christianity FAQ.

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.

What is Theism?
What is the difference between monotheism and monolatry? Between pantheism and panentheism? How about between animism and shamanism? Or theism and deism? What the heck is henotheism?

What is Religion?
A system of human beliefs, ideals and practices which is harder to define than it may at first appear. Read more about how dictionaries, scholars and others have tried to define and explain 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: Statue of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Erected in 1998 at York Minster

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Statue of the Roman Emperor Constantine, Erected in 1998 at York Minster
Oct 31st 2011, 10:04

Constantine ascended the throne of an empire that was fragmented and in disarray. Maxentius, son of Maximian, controlled Rome and Italy, proclaiming himself emperor in the West. Licinius, the legal emperor, was restricted to the province of Illyricum. Maxentius' father, Maximian, tried to overthrow him. Maximin Daia, Galerius' Caesar in the East, had his troops proclaim him emperor in the West.

Overall, the political situation couldn't have been much worse, but Constantine kept quiet and bided his time. He and his troops remained in Gaul where he was able to strengthen his base of support. His own troops proclaimed him emperor in 306 in York after he succeeded his father, but he didn't push for this to be recognized by Galerius until around 310.

After Galerius died, Licinius gave up trying to take control of the West from Maxentius and turned East in order to overthrow Maximin Daia who had succeeded Galerius. This, in turn, allowed Constantine to move against Maxentius. He defeated Maxentius' forces multiple times, but the decisive battle was at the Malvian Bridge where Maxentius drowned while trying to flee across the Tiber.

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: Thinking from A to Z

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Thinking from A to Z
Oct 31st 2011, 10:04

Compare Prices

Critical, skeptical thinking often isn't easy. It's not that it's unnatural, but more credulous attitudes are easier to adopt and maintain because they take less work. Skepticism requires some training, patience, and above all practice. Most of those who seek out such training and practice are involved in scholarly studies like philosophy, but everyone could benefit from them as well. Where does one start?

Summary

Title: Thinking from A to Z
Author: Nigel Warburton
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 0415222818

Pro:
•  Handy, easy to understand, and accessible for ordinary readers
•  Communicates the nature of common fallacies in a manner that is engaging rather than dry
•  Nice text for any class on critical thinking and writings skills

Con:
•  No bibliography or index

Description:
•  Large number of basic fallacies and flaws in reasoning, arranged in alphabetical order
•  Concise reference that steers clear of jargon and technical terminology
•  Good reference for people needing information on fallacies and arguments

Book Review

There are a lot of books out there designed to teach people how to think more critically, but most are a bit dense and complex for the average reader. One, Thinking from A to Z, by Nigel Warburton, goes a bit further than most in making the material accessible to a wider audience.

Warburton, a Lecturer in Philosophy at the Open University, designed his book to be a short encyclopedia of basic errors and fallacies often encountered in people's reasoning and arguments. It isn't an exhaustive or a definitive compendium, but it does touch upon many if not most of the issues and problems people are most likely to encounter. He also offers advice on ways to critique such errors when they are encountered and how to avoid committing them yourself. Just as important, the explanations and examples that Warburton provides are clear, understandable, and largely jargon-free (in fact, he makes a point of avoiding too much use of Latin terminology).

He even gives a number of errors unusual names so that they might be a bit more memorable to the average reader. There is the problem of humptydumptying, whereby a person gives an unusual and private meaning to a word with a more common and public definition and thus causes unnecessary confusion. Then there is the Van Gogh Fallacy which occurs whenever someone says something like "Van Gogh was poor and misunderstood in his lifetime, yet he is now recognized as a great artist; I am poor and misunderstood, so I too will eventually be recognized as a great artist."

As entertaining and engaging as the descriptions are, it isn't enough that a person simply sits down and reads about these various errors in reasoning. Even the most rigorous training is insufficient without adequate practice alongside - and that means that people who buy this book in the hopes of learning how to think more critically will have to make the effort to practice as well.

Thinking from A to Z

Thinking from A to Z, by Nigel Warburton

In this case, practice involves reading others' arguments more carefully in the deliberate effort to identify fallacies, flaws, and errors. There is no shortage of source material - just about any speech given by a politician or pundit is likely to have several clear problems just waiting to be identified. The goal is, of course, to get to the point where you don't have to read with the purpose of finding flaws; eventually, you should notice them without having to hunt.

Perhaps the principle drawback of Warburton's book is that it doesn't really do anything to help you with that practice. Also, if you see something in an argument that looks fishy to you, there really isn't any way for you to look it up in the book to see if there is an entry on it. Then again, helping you practice your critical thinking skills isn't the purpose of this book - it's to give you some of the basic tools you need in order to practice. For further help in that task, you'll have to look elsewhere. But if you are interested in improving your ability to think and reason skeptically, you'll need to start somewhere, and this book is a great aid in that.

Compare Prices

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

Sunday 30 October 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Halloween in Schools: Do Halloween Celebrations Violate Church/State Separation?

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Halloween in Schools: Do Halloween Celebrations Violate Church/State Separation?
Oct 30th 2011, 15:00

Halloween has traditionally been celebrated in schools with kids dressing up in costumes, holding costume shows, and participating in a variety of activities relating to Halloween images of skeletons, pumpkins, ghosts, witches, and so forth. Lots of things have changed in the last couple of decades, though, one of which is a growing number of religious challenges to Halloween celebrations in public schools. Are there any genuine church/state issues that schools should worry about?

Read Article: Halloween in Schools: Do Halloween Celebrations Violate Church/State Separation?

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: Conservative Evangelicals Questioning Literal Adam & Eve

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Conservative Evangelicals Questioning Literal Adam & Eve
Oct 30th 2011, 12:00

Adam & Eve
Adam & Eve
Photo: Rob Melnychuk /
Digital Vision/Getty

There's a bit of controversy developing in conservative evangelical colleges and universities. Apparently, some professors actually doubt the literal truth of Genesis, at least where the story of Adam & Eve is concerned. It's sad that this is any sort of controversy or debate at all -- it's a sign of just how regressive Christianity in America has become that any Christians would feel the least bit hesitant to publicly accept and acknowledge any facet of scientifically proven reality.

"Evangelicalism has a tendency to devour its young," says Daniel Harlow, a religion professor at Calvin College, a Christian Reformed school that subscribes to the fall of Adam and Eve as a central part of its faith.

"You get evangelicals who push the envelope, maybe; they get the courage to work in sensitive, difficult areas," Harlow says. "And they get slapped down. They get fired or dismissed or pressured out."

Harlow should know: Calvin College investigated him after he wrote an article questioning the historical Adam. His colleague and fellow theologian, John Schneider, wrote a similar article and was pressured to resign after 25 years at the college. Schneider is now beginning a research fellowship at Notre Dame.

Several other well known theologians at Christian universities have been forced out; some see a parallel to a previous time when science conflicted with religious doctrine.

"The evolution controversy today is, I think, a Galileo moment," says Karl Giberson, who authored several books trying to reconcile Christianity and evolution, including The Language of Science and Faith, with Francis Collins.

Giberson -- who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia -- says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it."

Source: NPR

No one who grounds their beliefs on science and reality accepts that the Genesis account of creation is literally true -- that position is limited solely to those who place religious ideology ahead of reality. This is perhaps one reason why we have this conflict described above: theologians and others who teach at conservative evangelical institutions are expected to put their religion ahead of reality just like the most ignorant and misled of believers.

But some can't quite do it. To one degree or another they have created for themselves a life of learning and scholarship, In such a context, it's difficult to hold back and limit oneself to only those ideas and conclusions which have the approval of ecclesiastical leaders.

Reactionary forces within conservative evangelical Christianity have not remained silent, of course. The "dissidents" insist that Christians need to accept reality in order for Christianity or Christians to have any sort of respectability in the modern world. Christian Right leaders, though, don't want "respectability" -- they just want to rule.

"This stuff is unavoidable," says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. "Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have."

"If so, that's simply the price we'll have to pay," says Southern Baptist seminary's Albert Mohler. "The moment you say 'We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,' you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of the world."

Mohler and others say if other Protestants want to accommodate science, fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if their faith unravels.

It's important to remember that Christians are taught in the New Testament that they will be persecuted for their faith. Many treat disrespect as a form of just such persecution -- and any persecution is a sign that they are on the right track. So for such evangelical Christians, losing the "respect of the world" is a validation that their reality-denying faith is correct, not an indication that they require any correction.

So for Harlow and others to talk about "respectability" is probably a mistake -- one that I'm surprised a person with this sort of background to make. At the very least the words would have to be chosen much more carefully if they wanted to raise the issue. But I'm not sure that even raising the issue is the right thing to do.

I doubt that these "dissidents" will make much, if any, headway within either their institutions or within evangelical Christianity generally. Their best arguments are scientific and that a reasonable person should accept the conclusions of the best science we have. None of that will be convincing to the average conservative evangelical in the pews.

This means that their churches won't budge. Since the churches fund the colleges, universities, and other institutions, then the institutions can't budge without the the board of directors being fired or the funding being withdrawn.

So one way or another, the deliberate ignorance that Christians leaders have fostered for decades in their followers will prevent much progress from being made. The best that can be hoped for is a gradual erosion of some of the ideological supports of the science-denying ignorance at issue. How that will happen I'm not sure, but I think that's where Harlow and others need to focus.

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: Atheists Converting to Islam

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mailbag: Atheists Converting to Islam
Oct 30th 2011, 08:00

From: "A'isha"
Subject: None

i would just like to say that after reading your site about critising Islam, i have now become and ever stronger muslim and am convinced that Islam and the Holy Quran are the total word of God-your arguments are feeble and unconvincing and rather amusing at times

It's not at all unusual for someone to write and say that they disagree with my arguments - unfortunately, what is also not unusual is the fact that those writing generally fail to explain why, exactly, they disagree. Take A'isha for example: if my arguments are so feeble and even amusing, it should be easy for her to offer rebuttals, explaining where and how I went so horribly astray. But she doesn't do that. In fact, she doesn't even say what arguments are feeble and amusing - she just makes the assertion and moves on.

How, then, can I possibly take her email seriously? Most people, when they learn that they have made an error, would like to learn where that error lies. After all, without such information it's impossible to make corrections, isn't it? Most theists who write to complain to me, however, don't do this - it's as if they've never heard of the concept of "constructive criticism." Of course, if I were feeling ungenerous, I would suggest that perhaps there aren't any serious errors that they could identify and rebut with a logical argument, but they didn't want to let that stop them from writing to complain anyway.

But I won't do that.

p.s- many of my atheist friends are now muslims

I find this very interesting because I certainly haven't heard of many atheists converting to Islam - it would be an unusual occurrence. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of Muslims leaving Islam behind in favor of atheism or other religions.

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: Most Popular Articles: Arguments for Gay Marriage

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles
These articles are the most popular over the last month. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Arguments for Gay Marriage
Oct 30th 2011, 10:32

Defending Gay Marriage:


Debates over gay marriage involve both legal and social arguments, for and against. Legal arguments on behalf of gay marriage tend to get more attention because it should be a matter of basic civil and equal rights. Even if gay marriage were harmful, the equality and dignity of gay couples should be respected, though it’s not true, or at least not demonstrable, that gay marriage would be harmful. On the contrary, there are good reasons to think that legalized gay marriage would benefit us all.

Gays as Individuals Will Be Better Off:


Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement (women, for example, can actually be worse off in some ways), but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live.

Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:


Perhaps the most important aspect of marriage is that it establishes a legal and social relationship which makes it easier for people to “be there” for each other â€" economically, emotionally, and psychologically. Most of the rights and privileges that go with marriage are, in fact, ways to help spouses support each other. Married couples are thus much better off than unmarried couples, giving relationships the ability to grow stronger and deeper.

Families with Gay Members Will Be Better Off:


Because gays can’t marry, it’s very difficult for partners to help each other in difficult situations like medical crises. The burden of support and decision-making typically falls in the laps of other family members when it should fall to one’s chosen life partner. If people know that they can rely upon their relative’s spouse, they can be far less anxious about what will happen to their loved one â€" not just in the context of a crisis, but in general, too.

Children of Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:


The Christian Right would deny gays the ability to adopt or raise children, but that’s an impossible goal. Children are already being born to, adopted by, and raised by gay couples in increasing numbers. Children in stable, married households can be better off than those who aren’t because both parents can handle decision-making and parenting without worry. Opponents of divorce often cite the negative effects on children; the same can be said against bans on gay marriages.

Communities with Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:


Married couples can help and support each other in a variety of ways because laws and regulations are written to help that happen â€" for example, people are able to take time off to help their hospitalized spouse. Gay couples who cannot marry don’t receive the same help, so much of what gay partners would do for each other must be shouldered by the community at large, unnecessarily draining resources. By solidifying relationships, gay marriage can help stabilize a community overall.

Gay Marriages Will Help Stabilize Society Generally:


Conservatives who usually oppose gay marriage argue, correctly, that stable families are a cornerstone to a stable society. Families are the smallest social unit in society and trends in the family inevitably affect trends in society as a whole â€" and vice-versa, of course. Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. Ensuring that gay relationships are stable and receive support will benefit the stability of society overall.

Gay Marriage Could Benefit Marriage Generally:


Opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it’s hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don’t take marriage seriously â€" and that’s already too common with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models.

Marriage is Better than Civil Unions:


Some opponents and supporters of gay marriage support civil unions as an alternative, but that’s a mistake. For marriages to continue as a stabilizing force in society, they must be genuine marriages â€" not "marriage lite" that carries some benefits without all the responsibilities. Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for everyone else and this “marriage lite” will be more of a threat to marriage than gay unions could possibly be.

The Future of Gay Marriage in America:


Opponents of gay marriage appear willing to do anything at all to stop it â€" and the reason is that cultural, social, and political forces in America are moving almost inexorably towards the legalization of gay marriage. Sooner or later, marriage for same-sex couples will be as legal and recognized as marriage has traditionally been for heterosexual couples. Major steps in this process have already occurred in other Western nations, and some minor steps are being made in this direction within America itself.

Opponents of gay marriage appear to recognize this â€" they seem to realize that the cultural, social, and political forces are against them. This is why they are so determined to enact federal laws, and perhaps even constitutional amendments, to prevent gay marriage from being recognized or legalized anywhere in the United States. If cultural, social, and political forces were on their side, this wouldn’t be necessary. What is the future of gay marriage in America? Full legalization and recognition, just as is the case today with interracial and interfaith marriages.

It will take a long time for this to occur â€" even interracial and interfaith marriages continue to be looked down upon by many in America today. Not even racial integration and equality have come as far as they ideally should have. All of these have been opposed by the same religious and political forces which currently oppose gay marriage, so there is every reason to think that they will have the same success in hindering gay marriage.

This means that even after gay marriage is legalized, social and political barriers will continue to be thrown up in front of gay couples and their supporters. In the long term, though, these barriers will fall apart because the bigotry and animosity towards gays will lose the sort of support they currently have. Perhaps progress will be even faster because of the progress made with other minorities thus far in America.

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: Punishing Lust and the Lustful

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Punishing Lust and the Lustful
Oct 30th 2011, 10:04

Lust is the desire to experience physical, sensual pleasures (not just those which are sexual). Desire for physical pleasures is considered sinful because it causes us to ignore more important spiritual needs or commandments. Sexual desire is also sinful according to traditional Christianity because it leads to using sex for more than procreation.

Condemning lust and physical pleasure is part of Christianity's general effort to promote the afterlife over this life and what it has to offer. It helps lock people into the view that sex and sexuality exist only for procreation, not for love or even just the pleasure of the acts themselves. Christian denigration of physical pleasures generally, and sexuality in particular, have been among some of the most serious problems with Christianity throughout its history.

The popularity of lust as a sin can be attested by the fact that more gets written in condemnation of it than for just about any other sin. It's also just about the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins which people today, including Christians, continue to regard as sinful. We regularly hear people complain about "inappropriate" sexual behavior, but when was the last time a Christian leader spoke out against pride, envy, gluttony, or even anger?

In some places, it seems that the entire spectrum of moral behavior has been reduced to various aspects of sexual morality and concern with maintaining sexual purity. This is especially true when it comes to the Christian Right - it's not without good reason that nearly everything they say about "values" and "family values" involve sex or sexuality in some form.

Lustful people, those guilty of committing the deadly sin of lust, will be punished in hell by being smothered in fire and brimstone. There doesn't appear to be much connection between this and the sin itself, unless one assumes that the lustful spent their time being "smothered" with physical pleasure and must now endure being smothered by physical torment.

This image appeared in 1496 in Le grant kalendrier des Bergiers, published by Nicolas le Rouge in Troyes, France. It looks remarkably like it should be the punishment for the deadly sin of greed: being boiled in oil.

Further Reading:

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: Reference Books on Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Reference Books on Religion
Oct 30th 2011, 10:04

Although people usually go to dictionaries first when they need a definition, specialized reference works can have more comprehensive and complete definitions - if for no other reason, than because of the greater space. These definitions can reflect greater bias, too, depending upon the author and the audience that it is written for.

Global Philosophy of Religion, by Joseph Runzo

Genuine religion is fundamentally a search for meaning beyond materialism. ...A World Religious tradition is a set of symbols and rituals, myths and stories, concepts and truth-claims, which a historical community believes gives ultimate meaning to life, via its connection to a Transcendent beyond the natural order.

This definition starts off as “essentialist,” asserting that the essential characteristic of a religious belief system is the “search for meaning beyond materialism” â€" if true, however, it would include a multitude of personal beliefs which would never normally be classified as religious. A person who simply helps out in a soup kitchen would be described as practicing their religion, and it isn’t helpful to classify that as being the same sort of activity as a Catholic Mass. Nevertheless, the rest of the definition which describes “world religious traditions” is helpful because it describes the variety of things which make up a religion: myths, stories, truth-claims, rituals, and more.

The Handy Religion Answer Book, by John Renard

In its broadest sense, the term “religion” means adherence to a set of beliefs or teachings about the deepest and most elusive of life’s mysteries.

This is a very short definition â€" and, in many ways, it isn’t very helpful. What is meant by the “most elusive of life’s mysteries?” If we accept the assumptions of many existing religious traditions, the answer may be obvious â€" but that is a circular path to take. If we make no assumptions and are trying to start from scratch, then the answer is unclear. Are astrophysicists practicing a “religion” because they are investigating the “elusive mysteries” of the nature of the universe? Are neurobiologists practicing a “religion” because they are investigating the very nature of human memories, human thought, and our human nature?

Religion for Dummies, by Rabbi Marc Gellman & Monsignor Thomas Hartman

A religion is a belief in divine (superhuman or spiritual) being(s) and the practices (rituals) and the moral code (ethics) that result from that belief. Beliefs give religion its mind, rituals give religion its shape, and ethics give religion its heart.

This definition does a decent job of using few words to encompass many aspects of religious belief systems without unnecessarily narrowing the scope of religion. For example, while belief in the “divine” is given a prominent position, that concept is broadened to include superhuman and spiritual beings rather than simply gods. It is still a bit narrow because this would exclude many Buddhists, but it is still better than what you will find in many sources. This definition also make a point of listing features typical with religions, like rituals and moral codes. Many belief systems may have one or the other, but few non-religions will have both.

Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions

A definition that has received reasonable acceptance among scholars is as follows: religion is a system of communal beliefs and practices relative to superhuman beings.

This definition is that it doesn’t focus on the narrow characteristic of believing in God. The “superhuman beings” can refer to a single god, many gods, spirits, ancestors, or many other powerful beings which rise above mundane humans. It also isn’t so vague as to refer simply to a worldview, but it describes communal and collective nature which characterizes many religious systems.

This is a good definition because it includes Christianity and Hinduism while excluding Marxism and Baseball, but it is lacking any reference to the psychological aspects of religious beliefs and the possibility non-supernaturalistic religion.

An Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilius Ferm

A religion is a set of meanings and behaviors having reference to individuals who are or were or could be religious. ...To be religious is to effect in (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern.

This is an “essentialist” definition of religion because it defines religion based upon some “essential” characteristic: some “serious and ulterior concern.” Unfortunately, it is vague and unhelpful because it either refers to nothing much at all or just about everything. In either case, religion would become a useless classification.

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: Natural Disasters Test Our Faith?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Natural Disasters Test Our Faith?
Oct 30th 2011, 10:04

When asked whether God uses natural disasters as a way of testing people's faith, quite a few Americans agreed: 16% completely agreed and 24% mostly agreed that natural disasters can be a test from God. Slightly more Americans disagreed, even though there are plenty of examples in the Bible of God uses disasters, illness, and other ills to test human faith.

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 "Natural disasters are God's way of testing our faith," people responded:

  • Completely Agree: 16%
  • Mostly Agree: 24%
  • Mostly Disagree: 20%
  • Completely Disagree: 29%
  • Don't Know / Refused: 3%

The idea of God testing a person's faith has a lot of support in Christian theology so it's no surprise that it's a relatively popular belief. At the same time, though, this belief requires also believing that God causes widespread death, destruction, and suffering just to put humans through a little test.

It would be difficult to argue that such behavior is consistent with being even a little bit good, never mind perfectly good. In fact, this is arguably worse than the idea that God punishes entire nations for the sins of a few citizens â€" a position that has a bit less support among Americans.

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

Saturday 29 October 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism: Parapsychology: Our Malleable Memory and Parapsychology

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Parapsychology: Our Malleable Memory and Parapsychology
Oct 29th 2011, 15:00

A good example of just how malleable our memory was provided by psychologist Ulric Neisser, a professor at Emory University in January 1986 when the space shuttle Challenger blew up just after lift off. The day after this disaster, Neisser conducted an experiment in which he gave students in his freshman psychology class a questionnaire about the explosion. The results were quite surprising.

Read Article: Our Malleable Memory and Parapsychology

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: Girl Scouts & Feminism

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Girl Scouts & Feminism
Oct 29th 2011, 12:00

For many years now the Girl Scouts have been a target of attacks by the Christian Right. Some of the attacks have been quite vicious; all have been lies. Sort of. The specifics of the attacks have all been lies, but there thing which most bothers the Christian Right about the Girls Scouts is essentially true. The Girls Scouts teach girls to be independent, strong, and to value themselves. The Christian Right would rather that girls be taught to be dependent, submissive, and see themselves as inferior.

Conflict is inevitable.

The problem isn't just that the Girl Scouts practice a brand of girl empowerment so middle-of-the-road it's rarely even labeled as feminism, let alone radical feminism. The larger problem with this storyline is the idea that the Girl Scouts' focus on girl empowerment is anything new. Progressivism was baked into the Girl Scouts from the beginning, a fact that's particularly obvious when you compare the organization to its more conservative counterpart, the Boy Scouts.

...The Boy Scouts still employ a nostalgic worldview, while the Girl Scouts focus more on keeping with the times. A quick overview of the Girl Scouts website shows the organization's pride in its lobbying efforts on behalf of girls, and a wide range of published research addressing 21st century concerns such as body image, bullying, and yes, sexual health--with an emphasis on waiting for sex until maturity. (The Boy Scouts by contrast produce publications that shy away from these more provocative concerns and instead emphasize themes such as respect for elders and church attendance.)

So, yes, the Girl Scouts could be described as feminist, but only in the most moderate sense of the term. It's telling that Christian right critics avoid dealing directly with the group's "go girl!" brand of empowerment, choosing instead to promote lurid tall tales. Maybe their tactic amounts to a tacit acknowledgement of just how mainstream the Girl Scouts' feminism is, and just how far from the mainstream the anti-feminist views of the Scouts' Christian right critics have become.

The Girl Scouts focus on building self-esteem, teaching girls to care for their health, and promoting educational opportunities that help the girls' economic futures. Its Christian right critics cling to a tradition where women exist primarily to serve. If this tradition conflicts with the Girl Scout mission to help girls "develop their full individual potential," well, no wonder Bob Knight, the former Concerned Women for America anti-feminist organizer, had to spin that mission as "narcissistic devotion to self."

Source: Slate

It has to be emphasized that the "feminism" of the Girl Scouts is about as minimal as it can get. Indeed, it would only be singled out for the label "feminism" in a society where even the mildest and most basic feminism is still controversial. The essence of feminism is nothing more than the proposition that women are human beings -- equal human beings and not inferior in any way to men.

Sadly, that simple proposition is anathema to the Christian Right.

Now when even the mildest and simplest form of feminism is anathema to the Christian Right, this has to raise serious questions about all their other complaints involving feminism... and indeed, just about anything else. You have to wonder about how much their judgement can be trusted, not to mention their rhetoric and propaganda.

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: Errors in Genesis about Having Plants Without Sunlight

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Errors in Genesis about Having Plants Without Sunlight
Oct 29th 2011, 08:00

Genesis shows God creating plants on the third day despite the fact that the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't depicted as being created until the fourth day. Plants need photosynthesis to survive and photosynthesis doesn't occur without sunlight, thus the Genesis account of creation contradicts what we know from science.

Read Article: Errors in Genesis about Having Plants Without Sunlight

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: Christian Existentialism

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Christian Existentialism
Oct 29th 2011, 10:04

The existentialism we see today is rooted most prominently in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard, and as a consequence, it might be argued that modern existentialism started out as being fundamentally Christian in nature, only later diverging into other forms. It is thus important to understand Christian existentialism in order to understand existentialism at all.

A central question in Kierkegaard’s writings is how the individual human being can come to terms with their own existence, for it is that existence which is the most important thing in every person’s life. Unfortunately, we are as if adrift in a infinite sea of possible modes of living with no secure anchor that reason informs us will provide certainty and confidence.

This produces despair and anguish, but in the midst of our “metaphysical sickness” we will face a “crisis,” a crisis which reason and rationality cannot decide. We are forced to reach a decision anyway and to make a commitment, but only after making what Kierkegaard called a “leap of faith” â€" a leap that is preceded by an awareness of our own freedom and the fact that we might choose wrongly, but nevertheless we must make a choice if we are to truly live.

Those who have developed the Christian themes of Kierkegaard’s existentialism explicitly focus upon the idea that the leap of faith we make must be one which causes us to surrender ourselves totally to God rather than to insist on a continued reliance upon our own reason. It is, then, a focus upon the triumph of faith over philosophy or intellect.

We can see this perspective most clearly in the writings of Karl Barth, a Protestant theologian who was among the most faithful to Kierkegaard’s religious intentions and who can be looked upon as the starting point of explicitly Christian existentialism in the twentieth century. According to Barth, who repudiated the liberal theology of his youth on account of the experiences of World War I, the anguish and despair we experience in the midst of an existential crisis reveals to us the reality of the infinite God.

This is not the God of the philosophers or of rationalism, because Barth felt that rationalistic systems of understanding God and humanity had been invalidated by the destruction of the war, but the God of Abraham and Isaac and the God who spoke to the prophets of ancient Israel. Neither rational grounds for theology nor for understanding divine revelation should be sought after because they simply don’t exist. On this point Barth relied on Dostoyevsky as well as Kierkegaard, and from Dostoyevsky he drew the idea that life wasn’t nearly as predictable, orderly, and reliable as it appeared to be.

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: Harry Potter & Witchcraft

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Harry Potter & Witchcraft
Oct 29th 2011, 10:04

Harry Potter Promotes Wicca

J.K. Rowling has denied that she is using the Harry Potter books to promote witchcraft, but she says that she doesn’t believe in witchcraft “in the sense” that critics complain about and that she doesn’t “believe in magic in the way” she describes it in her books. This leaves open the possibility that she does believe in witchcraft and magic in some other sense. Her ex-husband has stated that Rowling’s plan to write 7 books is based upon her belief that the number 7 has magical associations.

J.K. Rowling has also said that she has engaged in extensive research into mythology, folklore, and occult beliefs in order to provide material for her books. She has said in an interview that a third of the creatures or spells in the Harry Potter books “are things that people genuinely used to believe in Britain.”

The mixing of reality and fantasy in Rowling’s books is dangerous. Other literature certainly uses witches and wizards as characters but they are either “evil” characters, they clearly exist in an un-real world, and/or they aren’t human beings. The world of Harry Potter, however, is supposed to be the same as our world. Witches and wizards are mostly good, positive characters, and they are all human beings.

The Pagan Federation in Britain has reportedly appointed a special youth officer to deal with the flood of inquiries from children who love the Harry Potter books. Children have more trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy than adults; because the Harry Potter books appear so rooted in real life, many may believe that the magic in the books is real and will therefore explore witchcraft, Wicca, and paganism. Even if J.K. Rowling didn’t set out to deliberately promote witchcraft, she certainly sympathizes with it and those sympathies have led to her create a dangerous series of books that imperil the youth of today, threatening to lead them into satanic, evil practices.

Harry Potter is not Wiccan

It is difficult to connect anything in the Harry Potter books with actual religious practices followed by people today or with witchcraft as it has been actually practiced in the past. J.K. Rowling has done a lot of research on what people used to believe, but not all of those beliefs were held by the same people at the same place and at the same time â€" in other words, many of the beliefs are disparate components of different systems and mythologies.

Unfortunately, Christians have a habit of misrepresenting this as if Rowling were describing real beliefs of people today. A good example of this is Richard Abanes who, in his book Harry Potter and the Bible, starts out by citing the quote that a third of the creatures and spells “are things that people genuinely used to believe in Britain.”

Later he goes references it again, but in his own words: “approximately one-third of what she has written is based on actual occultism” and later a third time, “up to one-third of the occultism in her series parallels information Rowling uncovered during her personal studies of witchcraft/magick.”

This transformation of Rowling’s actual words into something radically different seems to be characteristic of how the Christian Right approaches the issue: take a small, harmless truth and twist it until it’s unrecognizable, but now supports your position. There’s a tremendous difference between studying things people “used to believe” and engaging in “personal studies of witchcraft/magick.” Abanes himself notes that “magick” is an exclusively religious word and, therefore, shouldn’t imply that it relates to ancient beliefs in centaurs or love potions.

I don’t think that this tactic can be regarded as fair or honest, thus rendering the entire Christian case against Harry Potter little more than rhetorical sleight-of-hand. If the Harry Potter books are not promoting what actual witches do and believe, either today or in the past, then how can they promote “witchcraft”?

Resolution

In one interview, J.K. Rowling said, “People tend to find in books what they want to find.” That certainly seems to be the case with her own Harry Potter series of books: people who are looking for something dangerous easily identify material that threatens their religious beliefs; people looking for entertaining children’s literature find engaging and fascinating stories. Who is right? Are both right?

The case made by the Christian Right against the Harry Potter books only appears reasonable when they successfully twist words or superimpose new meanings on the language of the books which is not warranted by the text itself. Conservative evangelicals, for example, treat the character Dobby the house-elf as a demon because of their own personal definitions of an “elf” that is “impish.” This reading requires them to ignore what the text actually says about Dobby, though, which doesn’t describe him as demonic in the least.

The Harry Potter books “promote” a fantasy world where witches and wizards exist alongside regular, “real” people. This fantasy world includes aspects of the world we all live in, aspects of ancient folklore and mythology, and ideas of witchcraft that J.K. Rowling herself has created. One of the ultimate achievements in fiction is to create a fantasy world that feels real to readers, and that’s just what J.K. Rowling has managed to do.

This fantasy world does not “promote” witchcraft any more than it promotes going to centaurs for astrological readings, using three-headed dogs to guard your basement, or delivering mail to friends via pet owls. Similarly, Tolkein’s books don’t promote combat with trolls or stealing carrots from a local farmer. Such events are merely the fabric of a fantasy world through which entirely different things are being promoted â€" things that will be missed by people who are so obsessed with the fabric used that they fail to see the images being woven in it.

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