Tuesday 31 January 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Atheism Basics: Belief and Choice

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Atheism Basics: Belief and Choice
Jan 31st 2012, 15:00

Is belief really just a matter of choice? A lot of arguments from Christians seem to assume that it is - they tell atheists that they have "chosen" not to believe in God and that they must now "choose" to be a Christian. But what if belief (and therefore disbelief) really aren't "choices" after all?

Read Article: Belief and Choice

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: Jake Russel Wants You to Hate Atheists

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Jake Russel Wants You to Hate Atheists
Jan 31st 2012, 12:00

Do you hate atheists? If so, then OSU football player Jake Russell (#21, punter) might just want to be your friend. He recently posted to Twitter: "my roommate xxx xxx (look him up on Facebook) is an atheist, please show him some hate." I've removed the roommate's name for the sake of his privacy, though you can probably find it elsewhere by now.

I feel very sorry for Jake Russel's roommate. If I lived with someone who sent out a call to the world to show me some hate, and I'm a member of a minority group that has experienced violence at the hands of Christians, I'd fear for my safety.

The tweet was deleted later on by Mr. Russell, but not before it was captured for the entire world to see Mr. Russell's bigotry on display (see image below). Why did Mr. Russell want his 1,400+ followers to show some hate to an atheist? And what exactly does it mean to "show hate?"

Clearly concerned about the well being of Mr. Rouse, the screen capture was emailed to OSU Vice President of Student Life, Javaune Adams-Gaston. Mrs. Adams-Gaston assured American Atheists (via Greg Lammers, our Missouri State Director, who saw and reported the tweet) that the school will investigate the matter immediately. Thank you to Mrs. Adams-Gaston and The Ohio State University for not sitting idly by while this happens.

Source: American Atheists

Imagine if Jake Russel had sent out call that "my roommate is a Jew, please send him some hate" or "my roommate is a Muslim, please send him some hate," do you suppose there would be any debate about whether it was egregious and outlandish bigotry? I don't, and I'm pretty sure that the school administration would come down on him very, very hard for such statements.

But what will they do when the hate is being directed at atheists? Will they treat it as seriously as when the hate is directed at Jews or Muslims? Or will they regard it as a trivial matter, sending the message that the safety and welfare of atheists isn't very important? The latter has happened far too often.

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: Comment of the Week: Blasphemy & Slander

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Comment of the Week: Blasphemy & Slander
Jan 31st 2012, 08:00

Some religious believers think that they can use accusations of "blasphemy" to silence critics of their religion. One essential problem with making a legal case out of that, though, is the fact that if anyone is "harmed" by blasphemy, it's not the believers -- they are at best bystanders who are offended and merely being offended is no basis for any sort of legal complaint.

You only have a legal case if you can demonstrate real harm which the courts can remedy. And if anyone is "harmed," it's whatever god is being blasphemed against. So until the god or religious figure at issue comes along to testify in court about the harm they have experienced, no blasphemy case can go anywhere, can it?

P. Smith writes:

Ex-football player and overly protective father Craig James is running for office in the US senate. There is an urban legend that Craig James murdered five prostitutes while he was a student at SMU, one that is utterly false but continues to be told. If James sued those who spread the false story, claiming slander, would he have a case? Of course he would, it's as disgusting an accusation...

Now imagine that Craig James isn't the one suing to silence the rumours, one of his fans is (and really it's only win money). Does that case have merit? No. The only person who needs to file such a case is the falsely accused party. James is the only one who can claim slander and libel, not those who support him.

Now apply that to religion. Those who claim "blasphemy" are not the ones actually being insulted by the so-called "offensive words". Lawsuits should only be filed by the fictional beings like "god", not its fanbois. They should get their "god" to show up and speak for itself instead of claiming to speak for it. If "god" doesn't show up as a witness, all cases of "blasphemy" should be thrown out.

[original post]

I wonder how many religious believers will accept the analogy between blasphemy and libel or slander? Perhaps not many, but the principle of "harm" is still key. The only way they can justify using the power of government to suppress blasphemy is if they can argue that being offended is sufficient "harm" to warrant government intervention.

But in that case, they can't prevent others from making the same claim against them. If the government can step in to prevent them from being offended, then the government can step in to prevent me from being offended. And let me tell you, I may find myself offended several times a day, every day. Do religious believers really want to open that can of worms?

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: Barack Obama's Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism: Most Popular Articles
These articles are the most popular over the last month. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Barack Obama's Religion
Jan 31st 2012, 11:39

Barack Obama's religious background is more diverse than that of most prominent politicians, but it may prove to be representative of future generations of Americans who grow up in an increasingly diverse America. His mother was raised by non-practicing Christians; his father was raised a Muslim but was an atheist by the time he had married Obama's mother. Obama's step-father was also Muslim, but of an eclectic kind who could make room for animist and Hindu beliefs. Neither Obama nor his mother were ever atheists, but she raised him in a relatively secular household where he learned about religion.

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama writes:

I was not raised in a religious household. For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. However, in her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.

On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.

As a child in Indonesia, Obama studied for two years at one Muslim school and then two years at a Catholic school. In both places he experienced religious indoctrination, but in neither case did the indoctrination take hold: during Quranic studies he made faces and during Catholic prayers he would look around the room. Eventually, Barack Obama abandoned this non-conformism and skepticism to be baptized as an adult in the Trinity United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ emphasizes the freedom of the individual conscience over adherence to creeds or hierarchical authority. This is similar to traditional Baptist Christianity and something that is honored more in theory than in practice when it comes to the Southern Baptist Convention. Several historical creeds and catechisms are used by the United Church of Christ as statements of what their faith, but none are used as "tests of faith" which a person must swear upon.

A 2001 study by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found the denomination's churches are fairly evenly split between conservative and liberal/progressive beliefs. Official policy statements from the church leaders tend to be more liberal than conservative, but the denomination is organized in such a way that disagreements by individuals churches are allowed. For example, the United Church of Christ is the largest Christian denomination to come out in favor of "equal marriage rights for all," which means full marriage rights for gay couples, but there are many individual churches which do not support this.

Other famous members of the United Church of Christ include Barry Lynn, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, Howard Dean, and Jim Jeffords.

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: Jesus Curses the Fig Tree

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Jesus Curses the Fig Tree
Jan 31st 2012, 11:07

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Compare: Matthew 21:18,19

Jesus, Curses, and Israel

One of the more infamous passages in the gospels involves Jesus’ cursing of a fig tree for not having any fruit for him despite the fact that it wasn’t even the season for fruit. What sort of petulant individual would deliver a gratuitous, arbitrary curse? Why would this be Jesus’ only miracle in the environs of Jerusalem? In reality the incident is meant as a metaphor for something larger â€" and worse.

Mark isn’t trying to tell his audience that Jesus was angered at not having figs to eat â€" this would be very strange, given that he would have known that it was far too early in the year for that. Instead, Jesus is making a larger point about Jewish religious traditions. Specifically: it was not the time for Jewish leaders to “bear fruit,” and therefore they would be cursed by God never to bear any fruit ever again.

Thus, instead of merely cursing and killing a lowly fig tree, Jesus is saying that Judaism itself is cursed and will die off â€" “dry up at the roots,” as a later passage explains when the disciples see the tree the next day (in Matthew, the tree dies immediately).

There are two things to take note of here. The first is that this incident is an example of the common Marcan theme of apocalyptic determinism. Israel is to be cursed because it “bears no fruit” by not welcoming the Messiah â€" but clearly the tree here isn’t being given the choice to bear fruit or not.

The tree bears no fruit because it is not the season and Israel does not welcome the Messiah because that would contradict God’s plans. There can be no apocalyptic battle between good and evil if the Jews welcome Jesus. Therefore, they must reject him so that the message can more readily spread to the Gentiles. Israel is cursed by God not because of something they willfully chose, but because it’s necessary for the apocalyptic story to play out.

The second thing to note here is that incidents like this in the gospels were part of what helped fuel Christian antisemitism. Why should Christians harbor warm feelings towards Jews when they and their religion have been cursed for not bearing fruit? Why should Jews be treated well when God has determined that they should reject the Messiah?

The larger meaning of this passage is revealed more fully by Mark in the following tale of the cleansing of the Temple...

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: Jesus Leaves Capernaum

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Jesus Leaves Capernaum
Jan 31st 2012, 11:07

29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. 32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. 33 And all the city was gathered together at the door. 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him. 37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. 38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. 39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
Compare: Matthew 8:14-17; Luke 4:38-41-44

Jesus Heals a Fever

Note carefully where they stayed while they were in Capernaum: the house of Simon’s mother-in-law. Who was Simon? He is better known as Simon Peter, the man who in Catholic tradition became the first pope. At least some of Jesus’ disciples were married, including the one who is believed to have been instructed by Jesus to found his church.

Simon Peter’s mother-in-law is the first person to be healed of something other than possession by an unclean spirit. She has a fever which Jesus takes away; later he would also heal the lame, blind, and deaf, demonstrating increasing power over physical ailments. This woman is described here as “ministering” to Jesus and his apostles after being healed, but this can be better translated as “serving.”

Thus, immediately after the woman comes out of a fever she goes about serving a group of healthy men. Jesus would later be depicted as emphasizing the importance of serving others, but this scene suggests that this standard doesn’t apply when women are around to do the serving, regardless of their physical condition. True, women’s subservient status was the norm for this culture, but isn’t Jesus supposed to transcend culture?

At this time Jesus’ fame appears to be spreading â€" the more he heals people, the more he is talked about and the more people come to him to be healed as well. How many? There is no way to tell, but the numbers don’t matter to Mark. This isn’t a historical record, remember, it’s a theological tract.

We see that Jesus won’t let the spirits speak anymore because, once again, they know who he is â€" but is he deliberately trying to hide his identity? Why would he want to keep that secret from people if knowledge of him is so important for salvation? Then again, maybe he isn’t the important one â€" maybe at the time it was simply the act of repentance and belief in God that was sufficient.

Eventually, it seems Jesus tires of all the attention and goes off to pray in a solitary place. He doesn’t go out in public to pray where everyone can see him and he doesn’t attempt to lead everyone in a mass prayer; instead, he does it quietly where he can be alone with his thoughts. But why does he instruct his companions that it’s time to move to the next town when there are still people in Capernaum to be healed? Don’t the locals count just as much as others?

True, he does say that he wants to move on so that he can preach in other places, and it does make sense that he would want to spread his message as far and as wide as possible â€" but if that is the primary goal, why spend so much time healing people when he could be speaking and traveling? Why not just drive out a couple of demons in order to prove his credentials, deliver his sermon, and then move on? And we still don’t learn what, exactly, he is preaching at all of these synagogues.

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: Gay Marriage vs. Interracial Marriage: Why is One a Threat & Other a Right?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Gay Marriage vs. Interracial Marriage: Why is One a Threat & Other a Right?
Jan 31st 2012, 11:07

A lot of people oppose the legalization of gay marriages because they believe that it poses a serious threat to the institution of marriage itself. What is most disturbing about this position, and what should be disturbing for them as well, is just how similar their arguments are to the ones which were used to oppose interracial marriages and to support anti-miscegenation laws. Both sets of arguments also tend to be religious. What really separates them from the racists of the past?

Opponents of gay marriage and equality for gays always deny that there is any sort of parallel between their position and the racism of America’s recent history. The simple truth is, though, that we see the same dubious arguments about alleged harm to children, the unnaturalness of the unions, the importance of tradition, and the need to avoid social strife which racists used to use against gay marriage and even against desegregation. Given just how different being gay is from having black skin, we have to take seriously the possibility that such arguments are more about some underlying social and cultural fear of the bigots themselves and the minority being targeted is more a target of opportunity.

It’s especially sad to see black Christians using these arguments. First, it reveals extreme and inexcusable historical ignorance because they have no idea the degree to which they are parroting arguments once used by White Supremacists against their parents and grandparents. Second, it reveals quite a bit of religious ignorance because they don’t recognize the degree to which the arguments of White Supremacists were just as religious in nature as their own arguments against gay marriage. This is why both racial and gay liberation have depended on religious criticism: so long as religion provides the structure and ideology behind oppression, freedom for the oppressed requires undermining support for that religion.

How easy would it be for black Christians to remain devoted to Christianity if they had to face, directly and without excuses, the culpability of Christianity for the oppression of their ancestors? It might in fact be very difficult, which could be a reason why the extent of the sincere religiosity among white Christians who have oppressed blacks and used religion to justify that oppression isn't exactly a common or popular topic for pastors in black churches. Talking too much about that might reveal the weaknesses and flaws in their own theology.

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: Glossary of Religion and Philosophy: Index

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Glossary of Religion and Philosophy: Index
Jan 31st 2012, 11:07

Glossary of Religion & Philosophy
Main Index

Both religion and philosophy are filled with jargon - words which have specialized meanings in those disciplines and which may not be immediately understandable to the average person. Sometimes, the specialized meaning of a word can be very different from how that word is used generally, leading to real confusion.

It is not always possible to avoid using jargon in the articles on this site, and it is my hope that by defining the words here they will be made clearer. In addition, you may well find some of these terms in various books or journals and, so, this site should serve as a resource when you come across terminology which is unclear.

In depth and breadth, this glossary stands somewhere between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Some terms are explained in just a couple of sentences whereas others are explained in many paragraphs. In addition, there are often links to more detailed articles elsewhere on the site, providing even more information. Finally, with each definition there are links to the definitions of related terms, allowing you to explore the glossary through linked concepts.

New terms are added regularly, and current terms are expanded upon as I come across information. This is all dependent upon what I am reading at the time and what topics I am currently researching. If you would like to see any terms have new information added, or if there are terms you would like to see included, you should email me to let me know.

This is the main index for the agnosticism / atheism site's glossary on religion and philosophy. There are nearly 2500 words so far in this glossary, so it has been organized in a variety of different ways - hopefully one will be most convenient and useful for you.

Full Listing
This is the entire list, on one page. This is the place to look if you have no idea what you want because every word is on this page. But with so many words, it's a huge page - about 200K - so click with caution! (nearly 2500 entries)

Religion & Philosophy: General
This is the list of words dealing with general philosophical and religious concepts, from abandonment to Zeno of Elea! (over 650 entries)

Judaism
Here is the list of terms which are specific to Judaism and Jewish traditions, from Aaron to Zohar! (over 150 entries)

Christianity and the Bible
Here is the list of terms which are specific to the Christianity, Christians and the Bible, from abbess to Ulrich Zwingli! (nearly 800 entries)

Islam
Because most of the terminology in Islam is based upon Arabic, it can be difficult for non-Arabic speakers to fully understand. This listing should help in that. (nearly 250 entries)

Eastern Religions
Words related to Hindusim, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and more - from abhiseka to Zen (over 150 entries)

Aesthetics & Art
Here are all of the words dealing with the history of art and the philosophy of aesthetics - from Art Deco to the uncanny! (over 60 entries)

Logic
Terms and concepts relating to logic and logical arguments - from Accent Fallacy to the verifiability! (over 100 entries)

Political Philosophy
A variety of terms dealing with politics and the law, from Anarchism to Utopia! (over 100 entries)

Evolution & Creationism
Learn more about the terminology used in biological evolution, as well as in debates over creationism and evolution - from abiogenesis to Young Earth Creationism! (over 50 entries)

Skepticism & the Paranormal
Learn more about the terminology dealing with paranormal beliefs like astrology, alternative medicine, spiritualism and more. acupressure to the Zodiac! (over 180 entries)

Bibliography
A list of sources

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

Monday 30 January 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Favorite Agnostic / Atheist Ad of 2011

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Favorite Agnostic / Atheist Ad of 2011
Jan 30th 2012, 15:00

Yes, atheist ads are still in the news and they are still getting a lot of attention. I think they might also be getting better, too, as more organizations are getting involved and people are getting more creative. Whatever you think of them, they definitely create conversation. But which one was your favorite atheist ad last year? Nominate your favorite ad for the 2012 Readers' Choice Awards!

Submit Your Nomination: Favorite Agnostic / Atheist Ad of 2011

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: Muslim Raped Women for Being Out Late

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Muslim Raped Women for Being Out Late
Jan 30th 2012, 12:00

In London, a man named Sunny Islam has been jailed for sexually assaulting at least four women over the course of several months, all because he wanted to "teach them a lesson" for being out too late alone. One of his victims was just 15. Sunny Islam insists that he's a practicing, observant Muslim and I believe him -- this sort of sexual assault is consistent with how some other Muslims have sought to punish women for getting out of line.

At Woolwich Crown Court, Judge Patricia Lees sentenced Islam to a minimum sentence of 11 years before he is considered for parole. She told him: "The nature and extent of these offences drives me to the conclusion that you represent an extreme and continuing danger to women, particularly those out at night."

Judge Lees said: "You told her you were going to 'teach her a lesson'. Those words are a chilling indictment of your very troubling attitude towards all of these victims. You seem to observe women out at night as not deserving respect or protection."

Source: The Telegraph

Since Muslims say they "respect" women and that the heavy restrictions placed upon them by Islam are designed to "protect" them, it might appear as though such sexual assaults are completely inconsistent with the principles being espoused. But they aren't, really, because underlying those principles is something even more fundamental: a dehumanization of women which inculcates in men an almost total disregard for the interests or dignity of women.

The dehumanization of any group is almost inevitably followed by violence towards them. Quite often that's one of the purposes of the dehumanization, too. Once dehumanized, a group cannot make any claims on being treated with dignity, being treated as equals, having real rights at all, etc. Of course they will experience violence -- physical, mental, psychological, and sexual.

Not all Muslim men rape, obviously, and few would come right out to say that it was a good thing for these women to be raped. But how many have said or thought something along the lines of "she was asking for it" when a woman was assaulted after being out late? How many have engaged in such "blaming the victim" rhetoric?

When you blame the victim, the perpetrator is (at a minimum) blamed less, and perhaps not blamed at all. Once you have fully adopted the perspective that the victim deserves blame, how much more of a step is it to conclude that the perpetrator deserves praise? And from there, how much more of a step is it to become the perpetrator yourself?

This isn't a problem unique to Islam. However, the greater extremes to which Islam can currently go to dehumanize and oppress women probably makes the problem worse in Islam than in most other religions.

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: Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Book of the Week: Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism
Jan 30th 2012, 08:00

Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism
Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com
Anyone studying religion is immediately and unavoidably faced with a difficult dilemma: believers report that their religion is a source for morality and values in their lives - and there are many examples of religion inspiring good behavior - but at the same time religion is also demonstrably a source for violence, terrorism, war, and evil. What is it about faith that it can inspire so much negative behavior even while being promoted as a force for good? What is the connection?

Book of the Week: Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism

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: Hermes / Mercury: 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 // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Hermes / Mercury: Images of Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art
Jan 30th 2012, 11:07

Hermes / Mercury

Ancient Greek Mythology, Religion, Art

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art of Hermes »

Hermes / Mercury

Hermes was one of the few gods for whom no temples were dedicated. His cult statues were, instead, placed everywhere else for the use of travellers and merchants. Pausanias writes "Right at the very entrance to the Akropolis [of Athens] is a [statue of] Hermes called Hermes Propulaios (of the Gateway)." Hermes statues were much more common in the Arcadia region of Greeece.

Hera

A specific type of statue, known as Hermai, was simply a block of marble showing his head (bearded) and male genitalia at the base (Hermes was generally treated as a phallic god, evidently because of his association with fertility and luck). Some Herma also had a female head on one side.

Although scholars once thought that the god Hermes was named after this statue, that is no longer accepted. Worship of Hermes goes back at least as far as the Bronze Age and his existence is attested to in Linear B tablets from Crete, Thebes, and Pylos). Originally a herma was a square or rectangular stone used to mark boundaries. They were also used in front of houses to ward off evil (thus marking a spiritual boundary)

Pausanias writes that "The Athenians are far more devoted to religion than other men ... they were the first to set up limbless Hermai." All around Athens there were Hermai set up outside houses for good luck. Pausanias also wrote: "At the Arkadian gate [of Ithome, Messenia] leading to Megalopolis is a Herma of Attic style; for the square form of Herma is Athenian, and the rest adopted it thence."

Hera

According to historical reports, hermai all over Athens were defaced just before the fleet set sail in 415 BCE to besiege Syracuse during the Peloponnesian War, perhaps to incite bad luck on the voyage. If that was the reason, it may have succeeded because the Athenians lost badly outside of Syracuse.

Festivals in honor of Hermes were called Hermoea and cults dedicated to him were especially popular in the Peloponnese. There was even an oracular ritual that occurred in front of a pillar of Hermes at Pharae, but the oldest cult of Hermes may have been at Athens where an ancient statue dedicated to him existed on the Acropolis. Athenians celebrated a young boys' festival called Hermaia.

« Back to Last Page | Photos: Mythology, Religion, Art of Hermes »

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 29 January 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Baalbek: Temple of Jupiter Baal: Site of Worship of Canaanite God Baal

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Baalbek: Temple of Jupiter Baal: Site of Worship of Canaanite God Baal
Jan 29th 2012, 15:00

Baalbek Temple of Jupiter
Image Source:
Library of Congress
Ancient records have nothing at all to say about Baalbek, it seems, though human habitation there is quite old. Archaeological digs reveal evidence of human habitation at least back to 1600 BCE and possibly going to 2300 BCE. The name Baalbek means "Lord (God, Baal) of the Beqaa Valley" and at one time archaeologists thought that it was the same place as the Baalgad mentioned in Joshua 11.

Read Article: Baalbek, Temple of Jupiter Baal (Heliopolitan Zeus): Site of Worship of Canaanite God Baal

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: Newt Gingrich: There is a War on Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Newt Gingrich: There is a War on Religion
Jan 29th 2012, 12:00

During a recent appearance on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, Newt Gingrich explained why he thinks he's getting more popular among evangelical voters despite being a Catholic, a serial adulterer, and divorced. It's because he more than any other candidate understands that there is a "war on religion" out there and he's willing to do battle on evangelicals' behalf.

I think the two key appeals are passion -- I think they instinctively can tell that I care so deeply of this country and the future of their children and grandchildren -- and second, I think the sense that I understand that there's a war against religion, and that I'm prepared...to actually fight back for the first in their lifetime and take on the judiciary when it's overreaching and when it's trying to drive God out of life.

Source: Crooks & Liars [emphasis added]

First, I think we probably need to understand that Newt Gingrich doesn't really believe there is a "war on religion" -- or if he does, that he thinks it's a bad thing. He surely doesn't think that there is any kind of "war" targeting Buddhism, Hinduism, or Judaism in America. If there is a "war" targeting Islam, he's probably be happy to join it.

No, when he says "religion" he only means "conservative evangelical Christianity." That's where he's getting the support, after all, and this is a group which considers itself to be perpetually persecuted. Conservative evangelical Christians do imagine that they are being targeted in a war and they will surely support any politician willing to pander to their martyr complex.

Second, the only "war" that might credibly be claimed to exist is a "war" on religious and Christian privilege. Neither Christians generally nor conservative evangelical Christians in particular are being discriminated against, harassed, threatened, or otherwise being excluded from political, social, or cultural life. Quite the contrary, in fact: Christians wield all or nearly all of the levers of power in society while atheists are consistently harassed and threatened.

So if Newt Gingrich is offering to ride into battle on behalf of evangelicals in this "war," it means he's offering to defend their unjust privileges -- privileges that they only ever acquired through the abuse of power in the past. Preserving such unjust privileges means opposing basic principles of civil equality and equal justice. So that's basically Newt Gingrich's political platform: "a vote for me is a vote to preserve white male Christian privilege 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: Mailbag: Insidiousness Nature of the Cult of Atheism

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mailbag: Insidiousness Nature of the Cult of Atheism
Jan 29th 2012, 08:00

From: Brooks A.
Subject: Nothing

I'm not so sophomoric as to point out that the suffix "ism" by definition entails "indicating a belief or principal" (or am I?). I will instead point to the fact that it's true neither in practice nor in the abstract, and that I don't think atheists agree with you. Atheism, ... is the active belief that there is no God. In fact, atheism is such a fervent belief system that it is predicated on the existence of beliefs systems that holds that there is/are gods/ a God, and subsequently that it is wrong.

In order to stake this claim, atheists attempt to presuppose that a lack of existence in God is man's default condition, and, for that matter, that not holding a belief is man's default condition, both of which are, of course, simply not true.

Starting out with such a significant error about such basic English does not bode well... but I provided Brooks with a link to an explanation I already have on this site about how and why the English suffix "ism" does not always entail a beliefs or principals. I also provided links showing that atheist writers today do indeed define atheism much the same way I do as well as explanations for how atheism is defined. In other words, I provided information refuting all of Brooks' false assertions.

I did not, however, bother with the rest of his email. Someone who can't handle basic English isn't going to be able to handle anything more substantive, so it would be a waste of my time.

Brilliant. You told me my English is wrong, then proceeded to forward me to a bunch of other meaningless drivel you've produced. I can't believe you have the courage to put such profoundly mind-numbing material on the internet for everyone to see with your name attached to it. Ignorance truly is bliss...

The funny part is that I made a slew of typos in an effort to hurry up and dissect your Swiss cheese of an argument, but you pointed out sentences where there actually isn't anything wrong with my English. I must admit that it is a little comforting to know that you didn't just write down something stupid, but that you were actually were an idiot in the end.

No, I pasted in links to material which provides Brooks with correct information on matters where his English is wrong. Like, for example, his ignorance about what "ism" means in English. It's pretty basic English, really, and not something that's a matter of debate. Brooks either didn't read what I provided or he lacks the character necessary to admit that he made an error about how "ism" is defined.

Either way, it's a demonstration that I was right to regard going any further as a waste of time.

And it's such a simple, tiny matter too. A person who can't comprehend what "ism" means, doesn't care what "ism" means, and/or lacks the character to admit what "ism" means is a person who won't be able to comprehend more complex issues, won't care about the truth on more complex issues, and/or won't have the character to ever admit error or ignorance on more complex issues.

When someone is so dismissive about simple, basic, undisputed facts like the definition of an English suffix, it's easy to regard all the insults as just a further expression of their real character. Such insults say far, far more about Brooks than they do about me, much less about anything I've written.

After coming back with quotes from Wikitionary and Diciontary.com about how "ism" is "really" defined as referring to "belief, principle, doctrine, theory, system, practice," Brooks wrote:

Shall I continue? Would you like to offer your own definition for ism? Just a general rule about debating - don't reference "material" that you've written when trying to show that someone is wrong. I don't care that you wrote a few crappy articles on the matter and that 7 or 8 "modern atheist scholars" think you believe - my point is that you are incorrect. What you've written has nothing to do with my character, as it is crap in the most objective of senses.

Another arrogant atheist with no real grip on what he believes - what a surprise!

Yes, he does need to continue - but with a comprehensive, unabridged dictionary. That he starts and stops with the most superficial and basic of resources speaks volumes about the sort of "research" he is capable of. That, in turn, effectively undermines whatever credibility he thought the rest of his conclusions might have.

Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary, shall we? I just provided an overview, so as not to tax him too much...

1. Forming a simple noun of action (usually accompanying a vb. in -ize), naming the process, or the completed action, or its result (rarely concrete); as in agonism, aphorism, baptism, criticism, embolism...

1.b Applied to these, though with affinities to 2, are words in which -ism expresses the action or conduct of a class of persons, as heroism, patriotism, despotism...

2. Forming the name of a system of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, etc., sometimes founded on the name of its subject or object, sometimes on that of its founder. ... Arianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Calvinism...

2.b More of the nature of class-names or descriptive terms, for doctrines or principles, are agnosticism, altruism, animism...

3. Forming a term denoting a peculiarity or characteristic, esp. of language, e.g. , colloquialism, modernism, newspaperism...

In English, the suffix "ism" is not used solely to denote a philosophy, doctrine, or system. That is indeed one of it's uses but it's not the only one. What's more, the OED doesn't even list that as the first and primary use.

This is a fact and it is indisputable. Brooks would know that if he had done more than the most superficial of research. In fact, he'd know that if he had simply bothered to follow the first link I gave him - no one faced with words like "astigmatism" and "metabolism" could honestly continue to maintain that "ism" only ever denotes philosophies and doctrines.

So, once again, Brooks either didn't follow the link or he did but immediately refused to admit error. Either way, there was no point continuing. A person with good character and respectable intellect is one who will consider what others say, who will take time to do serious research, and who is able to admit to error. Brooks has not only demonstrated none of those qualities, but he has managed to demonstrate the exact opposite - and all of them around the otherwise simple question of what "ism" means.

If you think atheism falls within the same category of usage as metabolism or astigmatism, then we really aren't going to get anywhere with this. They end with the suffix "ism" because they contain the same set of characteristics that are endemic to all uses of "metabolism", or diagnoses of "astigmatism". Regardless, atheism IS used in the since that it is both doctrinal and that it is shared amongst a thread of all people who actively believe that God does not exist.

Ah, so now when faced with direct citations from the OED, Brooks is forced to reveal the truth that he has been avoiding: he lacks the character to admit error. What he should have done is simply admit to being wrong about how "ism" is defined then try to argue that "atheism" still falls within a particular category of "ism".

And so I didn't bother reading past the above. He doesn't do research. He doesn't pay attention to what others have to say. He doesn't allow that he might not know everything already and so might still have something to learn from others. Thus no conversation he starts is started honestly and cannot proceed in anything like a serious, substantive manner.

Haha this still hasn't addressed any of my emails. I didn't ignore the facts - you said that my definition of the suffix ism was a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of English and I merely showed you some examples of where ism can be defined as referring to a system of beliefs or practices. I can write a lengthy email on "ism" if you'd like and explain how your use of it in likening "atheism" to "astigmatism" is a bastardization of the suffix, but I thought it was obvious and I'm more interested in you addressing my points.

I thought you might ignore my points but I didn't realize you'd take time to write me emails to divert the topic. It's clear that you're just a coward - you'll make a great professor at a community college someday.

Now Brooks is lying. Allow me to quote him:

...the suffix "ism" by definition entails "indicating a belief or principal"

Brooks is not saying that "ism" can refer to beliefs or practices. Brooks' assertion is much simpler and very straightforward: "ism" entails beliefs or principals. This means that "ism" always denotes beliefs or practices (entail: transmit, as an inalienable inheritance, of qualities or conditions).

I pointed Brooks to an explanation of why that was a mistake on his part, with examples that made the mistake clear. Brooks proceeded to describe that explanation as "meaningless drivel". When confronted with the fact that the OED says the same thing, Brooks pretends that he believed all along that "ism" can refer to many different things with "belief or principle" being just one of them.

It's both amazing and sad all at once.

Regardless, it's why it's pointless for me or anyone to ever waste time engaging someone like Brooks on anything more substantive. If he can't get "ism" correct and/or can't admit that he was mistaken in limiting "ism" to just "belief or principal," it's not possible for him to contribute substantive or honestly on any more weighty matter.

As to my sharing his ridiculous twisting and dodging on this simple matter with all the site's readers....

And knock yourself, as long you you keep my name private. ...I'm going to assume that I've completely shattered your ridiculous conception of the term "atheism" and everything that goes along with it. The fact that you've evoked words like "moral character" and "privilege" is hilarious, and if you want to run a website spreading idiotic ideas, I suppose that is your right, but it makes you an idiot publicly rather than just privately - the latter being more preferable in your case, I would think.

So you see, I was only trying to help you.

Boy, do I feel "shattered." It's so nice of Brooks to want to "help" me, but to be honest we could all do with a lot less such "help".

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: Marriage: What is Marriage?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Marriage: What is Marriage?
Jan 29th 2012, 11:07

What is Marriage?:


Marriage is an institution which can be found in every human culture. Although the forms and rules differ, marriages always involve some form of legally legitimized sexual relationship. Traditionally, marriages have had a religious basis. In the modern, industrialized West, marriage is based on a legal contract. In the Bible, women occupied an inferior social position to the nearest male relations â€" fathers, brothers, or husbands. Marriages were usually arranged in the Bible by the parents.

Biblical Marriage:


In the Bible, the relationship between Israel and God was likened to that of a marriage: one based upon a covenant between two unequal parties. The “marriage” between Israel and God was expected to be monogamous and mutual faithfulness was required from both sides â€" otherwise, the relationship might be ended.

What is Levirate Marriage?:


In Judaism, a levarite marriage involves a widow marrying her brother-in-law. The Latin word levir is the equivalent of the Hebrew yabam, which means brother-in-law.

What is Celibacy?:


Celibacy is the state of abstaining from sexual intercourse and/or from marriage, usually in the context of holding some religious office or for private spiritual reasons. The label “celibate” is usually only applied, however, to those who have taken sacred vows of celibacy as part of an act of renunciation. Celibacy has been practiced by a wide variety of religious groups across the globe, but not by all. In early Christian tradition, celibacy was seen as superior to marriage.

What is Muta?:


Muta is the word for a temporary marriage, the duration of which is stipulated by contract. Only Twelver Shias recognize muta marriages, although evidence suggests that it was practiced followed by many before Islam appeared. Muta marriages continue to be legal in some Muslim areas, but they are denounced by many orthodox clerics as little more than formalized prostitution â€" and indeed, a muta mariage might be limited to just a night or a few hours.

What is Polygamy?:


Polygamy is any marriage which involves more than two people. Polyandry involves one woman and multiple husbands while polygyny involves one man and multiple wives. Polygamy used to be common in the ancient world and was supported in most religions. Polygamy is obviously endorsed in the Bible, but it’s unclear to what degree it might have been limited to the upper levels of society. Monogamy seems to have become standard by the Roman Era.

What is Bigamy?:


The word bigamy comes from the Greek bis, which means “two” and gamos, which means “marriage.” Legally, it refers to the act of contracting a marriage when one is already married. In church tradition, however, it has also been used when a person contracts a valid marriage after the death of their first spouse (although this position is not currently reflected in civil law). Concubines, however, were traditionally accepted in the earliest Bible stories.

What is Endogamy?:


Endogamy is the practice of tribal groups limiting marriage to members of the group and prohibiting marriage outside the group (exogamy). Endogamy is more common in socially stratified societies, and is most common among aristocratic and ruling classes. European royalty traditionally limited marriage to other members of royalty and denigrated marriage to “commoners,” even if of the same nationality. The purpose of endogamy is to preserve the “purity” of bloodlines which might become “polluted.”

What is Exogamy?:


Exogamy is the practice of tribal groups which limit marriage only to members outside of the tribal group and prohibit marriage inside the group (endogamy). Of course, the definition of what actually constitutes “one’s own group” varies widely, although there is some universal agreement that this group includes members of the immediate family â€" parents, children and spouses. Endogamy appears to have been the practice in the earliest biblical narratives; exogamy among just Jews was common later.

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