Wednesday 29 February 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Forum Discussion: Prove the Existence of a Historical Figure

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Forum Discussion: Prove the Existence of a Historical Figure
Feb 29th 2012, 08:00

When atheists express doubt over the existence of Jesus, a common rejoinder from Christians is to ask if atheists can prove the existence of any famous person from ancient history. If there is no better proof for the existence of someone like Plato or Alexander the Great, then why express any serious doubt over the existence of Jesus? The problem with this argument is that the evidence for other commonly accepted figures from ancient history isn't as poor as it is for Jesus -- and, moreover, no one is basing their lives or souls on the existence of any of them, either.

A forum member writes:

Aside from the assertion that people with supernatural abilities don't exist, there is a reasonable argument against the existence of Jesus based on the lack of contemporary biographers, the lack of Roman records detailing the adventures of this charismatic fella, contradictory accounts and so on.

I was curious as to if there was any other famous historical figure who also has dodgy evidence regarding his/her corporeal presence, but since he/she didn't ascend into heaven as god or turn Evian into a Chablis, is not scrutinized with such exacting rigor and is considered to be real.

My first thought is: no. But I could be wrong.

I don't think that there are any examples of this, either -- but even if there were, what would the impact be? In most cases, it wouldn't matter much at all. No one's life would be devastated or significantly changed if something like this happened. Can you think of any historical figures that would fit in this category? If so, comment here or post in the forum.

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: Does God Exist? Arguing for and against Gods

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Does God Exist? Arguing for and against Gods
Feb 29th 2012, 11:08

Does God Exist?

What are Arguments for or against gods?

-->
• Site Resources
• Main Site Index

• What is Atheism?
• Religion & Theism
• Skepticism & Logic
• Arguments for / against Gods
• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Religious Timelines
• Hate Mail
• Glossary
• Book Reviews

-->
• Chat Room
Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!
• Discussion Forum
Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

One of the most common discussions on this site is, unsurprisingly, about the possible existence of any gods. "Does God Exist?" is a common topic not just around here, but all over. Most assert that some god definitely exists, a few question that claim, and fewer still aggressively assert the opposite.

In all such discussions, you will find the same basic arguments repeated over and over. There is a limited number of arguments offered for and against the existence of gods, although there are certainly variations and ways to make old arguments look new. For that reason, it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the most common - this will make it easier to deal with them when you encounter them.

What is God?
Because of the fundamental importance of this one issue to all general discussions between atheists and theists, it is critical that those who participate in such discussions have a better understanding of just what it is they are talking about and why. After all, what's the point of debating the possible existence of "God" if no one has tried to come to some sort of agreement as to what they mean by "God"?

Highlights:
•  God is Omnipotent
•  God is Omnibenevolent
•  God is Omniscient

Debating the Existence of God
It doesn't make a great deal of sense to start debating the existence of God before having a clear understanding of the nature of this debate itself. Being clear on what is being debated (God) is certainly vital, but no less vital are questions like whether there is any point to the debate in the first place, the "ground rules" for this debate, and the purpose for debating. Without having those in place, you're much more likely to just talk in circles and never get anywhere.

Highlights:
•  Does God Matter?
•  Burden of Proof
•  Why Debate God?

Arguments for Gods
Review of various arguments commonly used to support the existence of gods: cosmological arguments, design arguments, ontological arguments, and more. How are they structured and are any of them valid?

Highlights:
•  What is the Cosmological Argument?
•  What is the Argument to Design?
•  What is Pascal's Wager?

Arguments against Gods
Review of various arguments commonly used to deny the existence of gods. None of them can disprove the existence of all possible gods, but they can be used to question the existence of very specific gods.

Highlights:
•  A Perfect Creator?
•  Omniscience vs. Free Will
•  Omniscience vs. Humanity

-->

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: Raising Godless Children

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Raising Godless Children
Feb 29th 2012, 11:08

Should I Raise my Kids as Atheists?:


Christians raise their children as Christians, Jews raise their children as Jews, and Muslims raise their children as Muslims, so doesn't it make sense that atheists raise their children as atheists? That might seem to be the case, but it doesn't make much sense after all. Children are already born as atheists â€" they have to be taught to believe in gods and to adopt religious beliefs. If you don't tell them that they should believe those things, then you are simply maintaining the status quo. In so far as it is even possible to raise a child "as" an atheist, nothing further is required. Raising Kids as Atheists

Infants and Uninformed Children are Atheists:


Do infants and very young children qualify as atheists? Most atheists will say so, working from the definition of atheism as “lacking belief in gods.” Theists tend to reject this definition, even if they don’t use the narrow definition of atheism as “denial of gods.” Why? If infants lack belief in the existence of gods, they can’t be theists - so why not atheists? Children are Born Atheists

Should Atheists Hide Religion From Their Children?:


Because most atheists are not religious, it is understandable that most atheists aren't going to make an effort to raise their children in an explicitly and deliberately religious environment. Atheists are likely to raise their children to be Christians or Muslims. Does this, then, mean that atheists are also trying to keep religion away from their children? Are they afraid of their kids possibly becoming religious? What are the consequence of hiding religion from someone? Hiding Religion from Children

What Should I Tell My Kids About Religion?:


When children are raised in a religious environment, what they are taught about religion is relatively obvious and organized â€" but what about kids raised in a non-religious environment? If you aren't specifically teaching your kids to believe in any gods or to follow any religious systems, then it may be tempting to just ignore the topic entirely. That, however, would probably be a mistake. Teaching Children About Religion

Godless Children & Family Religious Traditions: What Should Atheists Do?:


A difficult issue for godless parents raising their children without religion is the religious traditions in their extended families. If the parents themselves were raised without gods or religion, this isn't an issue, but most do come from at least marginally religious families which have at least a few religious traditions, even if it's merely to attend religious worship services on major holidays. The more devout a family is, the more difficult it may be to exclude yourselves and your children. Godless Children & Religious Traditions

Teaching Kids About Skepticism & Science: What Should Atheist Parents Do?:


Parents raising their children without gods or religion should teach them how to be skeptical, how to engage in critical thinking, and how to fairly apply the standards of reason and skepticism to religious and paranormal claims which they might encounter. They should also learn how to do so without necessarily attacking those who hold these beliefs. Sometimes there will be people who should be criticized personally, but it should not be the first or only tactic adopted. Teaching About Skepticism & Science

Godless Children and the Future of Atheism: Raising Godless Children:


It's a simple fact that the godless children being raised by atheists today are likely to be at the forefront of atheism in the future. What's not so simple is what godless parents are going to do about this - what do they want for their children, what sort of atheism do they want their children to express, and what sort of atheism do they want to see develop in the future. This, by extension, should affect what sort of community and society they live in in the future as well. Godless Children and the Future of Atheism

America's Godless Public Schools:


One of the preeminent battlegrounds for the Christian Right’s war on modernity is America’s secular public school system. The Christian Right cannot stand the fact that instead of infusing the entire curriculum with their brand of conservative Christian principles, the government maintains a neutral stance on religion with a secular system. The godlessness of America’s public schools is an advantage, not a defect. Public schools should be secular, not extensions of religious institutions. Godless Public Schools...

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

Tuesday 28 February 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Defense of Godless Liberalism: Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and America

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Defense of Godless Liberalism: Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and America
Feb 28th 2012, 15:00

Godless liberalism might be defined as a liberal or progressive political perspective which doesn't rely on gods, divine revelation, or religion for its values, ideas, or policies. Because liberalism is hated by America's Christian Right, and godlessness is hated even more, the label godless liberalism is usually used as a form of attack or insult. Yet the label must be reclaimed because there is nothing about godlessness, liberalism or the combination which deserves derision or hostility.

Read Article: Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and 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: HIV & Islam

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
HIV & Islam
Feb 28th 2012, 12:00

There is a growing epidemic of HIV in Islamic nations and the reason is largely Islam itself. The taboo against homosexuality and gay sex is so strong that political and cultural leaders are in denial about the problem -- and they don't seem much interested anyway in helping gays who are suffering from HIV.

What's more, those suffering have a strong incentive to be in denial themselves and not seek what little treatment options are available.

They report in PLoS Medicine that the arrival of HIV in the gay community has been relatively recent compared with other regions of the world, but warn that it is on the rise. In Pakistan, for example, the prevalence of HIV in transgender male sex workers rose from 0.8 per cent in 2005 to 6.4 per cent just three years later.

A problem in much of the Islamic world is that male gay sex is illegal. That and homophobia hamper efforts to contain the virus by making gay men too scared to seek help. Abu-Raddad says that governments are managing "to deal with [HIV] discreetly" by inviting nongovernmental organisations to provide testing, counseling and treatment for gay men.

Source: New Scientist, August 6, 2011

Religion kills, but it doesn't always kill directly and overtly. Sometimes religion kills indirectly, as for example when a religious ideology prevents a person from doing what's obvious and necessary to preserve life or to save lives.

There are lots of examples of this when it comes to diseases -- especially diseases which religious leaders claim are some sort of punishment from God. There are also lots of examples when it comes to oppressed minorities who have attracted the ire of religious leaders.

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: Secular Holidays for Atheists

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Comment of the Week: Secular Holidays for Atheists
Feb 28th 2012, 08:00

There's regularly discussion about creating secular holidays for atheists -- holidays that aren't based on religion or superstition. But perhaps there are already plenty of secular holidays out there? One reader provided a list of such secular holidays to argue that we already have a bunch.

What do you think?

Bill writes:

January 13 -- Ernestine Rose's Birthday
January 29 -- Thomas Paine's Birthday, Freethinkers' Day

February 12 -- Charles Darwin's Birthday, Darwin Day

March 14 -- Albert Einstein's Birthday, Pi Day
March 16 -- James Madison's Birthday, Freedom Of Information Day
March 16-22 -- Sunshine Week

April 1 -- April Fools' Day
April 12 -- Cosmonauts' Day, Yuri's Night
April 22 -- Earth Day

May's 1st Thursday -- US National Day Of Reason

June 21 -- World Humanist Day

July 1 -- Chevalier De La Barre Day
July 4 -- US Indivisible Day

August 11 -- Robert Ingersoll's Birthday, Ingersoll Day

September's Last Full Week -- Banned Books Week

October 12 -- Freethought Day

Novermber 7 -- Marie Skłodowska-Curie's Birthday
Novermber 7 -- Carl Sagan's Birthday
November's Last Full Week -- Church/State Separation Week

December 10 -- Human Rights Day
December 23 -- HumanLight
December 25 -- Isaac Newton's Birthday, Crispness, Newtonmas

[original post]

So, what do you think about these holidays -- do you think they are good holidays for atheists? Do you already celebrate any of them? If so, how? If not, why not -- what do you think these days lack that holidays need?

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: Religion in Syria - Ethnic and Religious Opposition Movements

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Religion in Syria - Ethnic and Religious Opposition Movements
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

Syria
Ethnic and Religious Opposition Movements
• Flag of Jordan

Country Flag of Syria
• Related Pages
• Index
• Ancient Syria
• Muslim Empires
• Umayyad Caliphate
• Post-Umayyad
• Ottoman Empire
• Religious Life
• Islam
• Shia
• Ismailis
• Sunni
• Druze
• Yazidis
• Alawi
• Judaism
• Christianity
• Religious Opposition

Data as of April 1987

• Related Topics
• Islam FAQ
• Religion Around the World
• 2003 Report on Religious Liberty in Syria

Rivalry among the country's various religious and ethnic minorities has been a perennial source of instability in Syria. During the 1980s, the primary cause of conflict was domination of top-level political and military posts by the minority Alawi community to which Assad belongs.

More worrisome perhaps was intra-Alawi friction. For example, some Alawis honored the memory of former political figure Major General Muhammad Umran, assassinated in Lebanon in 1972, reportedly by Syrian agents. Likewise, some Baath Party members remained loyal to the faction Assad overthrew in his 1970 Corrective Movement. This group, named the 23 February Movement, supported ex-Party Secretary Salah Jadid, ex-president Nureddin Atassi, and ex-prime minister Yusuf Zuayyin - all three of whom were incarcerated in Syria. Assad has repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, attempted to negotiate with these figures, offering them freedom in return for their approval of his government. In many respects, the Assad regime was more concerned with the activities of the 23 February Movement than with the open revolt of the Muslim Brethren. Whereas the fundamentalists carried out terrorist attacks, the 23 February Movement staged several well-planned but abortive coup attempts in the 1980s and, because Umran and Jadid were Alawis, threatened to split the Alawi community.

On the other hand, Sunni Islamic fundamentalists have posed the most sustained and serious threat to the Baath regime. The government referred to these militants as the Muslim Brethren or Brotherhood (Ikhwan al Muslimin), although this is a generic term describing a number of separate organizations. The most important groups included the Aleppo-based Islamic Liberation Movement, established in 1963; the Islamic Liberation Party, founded in Jordan in the 1950s; Shabab Muhammad (Muhammad's Youth); Jund Allah (God's Soldiers); and At Tali'a al Muqatila (The Fighting Vanguard), established by the late Marwan Hadid in Hamah in 1965 and led in 1987 by Adnan Uqlah. The At Tali'a al Muqatila group, which did not recognize the spiritual or political authority of the exiled veteran leader of Syria's Sunni fundamentalists, Issam al Attar, bore the brunt of the actual fighting against the regime. In the early 1980s, the Muslim Brethren staged repeated hit-and-run attacks against the Syrian regime and assassinated several hundred middle-level government officials and members of the security forces and about two dozen Soviet advisers. The armed conflict between the Muslim Brethren and the regime culminated in full-scale insurrection in Aleppo in 1980 and in Hamah in February 1982. The government responded to the Hamah revolt with brutal force, crushing the rebellion by killing between 10,000 and 25,000 civilians and leveling large parts of the city.

On the third anniversary of the Hamah rebellion in February 1985, the government announced an amnesty for Muslim Brotherhood members. About 500 of the Muslim Brethren were released from prison, and those who had fled abroad were encouraged to return to Syria. As a result of the amnesty many members of At Tali'a al Muqatila surrendered to government authorities.

Following the Hamah uprising, extremist antiregime Muslim groups in Syria seemed fragmented and presented little threat to the Assad regime. The next series of major antiregime terrorist attacks occurred when a truck exploded in northern Damascus on March 13, 1986, followed by explosions on buses carrying military personnel on April 16. A Lebanese, claiming he had been sent by the Iraqi government, publicly confessed to the March incident and was hanged. Outside observers, however, were unable to verify his or Iraqi complicity. Other potential instigators included Lebanese Christian groups (in retaliation for the Syrian role in artillery shelling and car bomb explosions in East Beirut), PLO factions such as al Fatah, and Israel.

Despite these dangers to Syrian internal security, the overall situation in the mid- and late 1980s was stable compared with the situation between 1946 and 1970. The traditional centers of dissatisfaction - students, labor unions, and dissident Communist Party organizations - were thoroughly infiltrated by Syrian security personnel and in early 1987 posed no significant threat to the government. However, Syrian society is a mosaic of social groups whose interests and loyalties have often conflicted. President Assad, more than any leader in the Syria's modern history, has been able to focus these conflicting interests and loyalties on national goals. Nevertheless, centrifugal forces, such as sectarianism, persisted in this volatile Arab nation, and the armed forces will probably long remain the ultimate arbiters of power.

Library of Congress Country Studies

-->

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: C.S. Lewis and Naturalism

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
C.S. Lewis and Naturalism
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

C.S. Lewis wanted to explain nature on the basis of his supernatural god; as a consequence, naturalistic explanations for nature represented a major threat â€" just as it does for contemporary apologists. Lewis argued against naturalism in a variety of contexts. It plays an important role not just in his discussions about morality, but also in his arguments about the nature of reason.

In his book Miracles, Lewis argues against naturalism by saying “If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total System.” This isn’t necessarily true. Lewis was aware of advances in physics which revealed that events on the quantum level were probabilistic rather than deterministic, but he regarded this as a reason to think that there exists something more than “Nature” rather than as a reason to think that maybe nature isn’t quite what he (like others) assumed it to be. He rejected the findings of science because they conflicted with his assumptions.

Lewis appears not to have understood that some events and systems are, even in principle, not explainable despite being entirely natural. No one disputes that the weather is completely natural, but while weather events can be predicted to varying degrees of accuracy, it’s not possible even in principle to explain every facet of them because they are too complex, chaotic, and probabilistic.

Part of the problem is that Lewis adopts a very limited, narrow understanding of naturalism. For Lewis, naturalism is the same as determinism. Thus, what we encounter is a tactic which Lewis uses continually: the construction of a false dilemma fallacy in which he presents the “wrong” option in an unfavorable and incorrectly defined way against the “right” option which, he hopes, will seem more reasonable against his straw man. The idea of a third option, like rejecting both extreme determinism and supernaturalism, is never entertained.

From this inauspicious beginning, things only go down hill. Lewis argues that nature cannot explain the existence of Reason:

“A strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, p. 209)”

In other words, because atoms are not themselves rational, then they alone cannot be responsible for rationality because such an irrational foundation cannot be a reliable basis for rational thinking. This absurd reasoning would preclude atoms being responsible for anything at all â€" atoms aren’t visible to the naked eye, so how could they produce anything visible? It’s known as the fallacy of composition and is just one more example of Lewis constructing fallacious arguments in the apparent hope that no one would notice.

On February 2, 1948, G.E.M. Anscombe read a paper to the Oxford Socratic Club criticizing this section of C.S Lewis’ book, identifying several serious weaknesses. According to George Sayer, a friend of Lewis, he recognized that his position was soundly refuted:

“He told me that he had been proved wrong, and that his argument for the existence of God had been demolished. ...The debate had been a humiliating experience, but perhaps it was ultimately good for him. In the past, he had been too proud of his logical ability. Now he was humbled ....’I can never write another book of that sort’ he said to me of Miracles. And he never did. He also never wrote another theological book. Reflections on the Psalms is really devotional and literary; Letters to Malcolm is also a devotional book, a series of reflections on prayer, without contentious arguments.”

Lewis never publicly acknowledged his defeat, but he did respond. The relevant chapter was renamed from “Naturalism is Self-Refuting” to “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism.” Some statements were revised and he removed the egregious claim that “We may state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.”

These revisions are not enough to salvage his argument because its flaws are fundamental. Lewis relied, for example, on a bizarre epistemology, according to which knowledge can only be attained indirectly by inferring from sensory perception to the objects supposedly lying behind them. Because of this, he felt that reliable knowledge depends upon logical reasoning â€" that we cannot come to have true, justified beliefs about the world without it.

This is a peculiar and extreme form of rationalism, but it’s not an epistemology which is compatible with modern science and thinking. It doesn’t enjoy wide currency today, even among Christians who ostensibly accept Lewis’ apologetics. If they do not accept the epistemological assumptions he uses, though, they cannot also accept his theological conclusions which they find so appealing.

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: America, a Christian Nation?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
America, a Christian Nation?
Feb 28th 2012, 11:08

Myth:
The Supreme Court has ruled that this is a Christian Nation

Response:
There are many Christians who sincerely and even vociferously believe that America is a Christian Nation. One argument they offer on behalf of this is that the Supreme Court has official declared America to be a Christian Nation. Presumably if America is officially a Christian Nation, then the government would have the authority to privilege, promote, endorse, support, and encourage Christianity. All other religions, and secular atheism in particular, would be "second class" citizens.

This misunderstanding is based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Holy Trinity Church v. United States, issued in 1892 and written by Justice David Brewer:

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

The case itself involved a federal law which prohibited any company or group to prepay the transportation costs of a non-citizen coming to the United States to work for that company or organization, or indeed even encourage such people from coming here.

This was challenged by Holy Trinity Church, which had contracted with E. Walpole Warren, an Englishman, to come and be a rector for their congregation. In the decision, Brewer found that the legislation was overly broad because it applied to much more than it should have. He did not, however, base his decision on the idea that, legally and politically, the United State is a "Christian Nation."

Quite the contrary, because the things Brewer lists as indicating that this is a "Christian Nation" he specifically labels as "unofficial declarations." Brewer's point was merely that the people in this country are Christian â€" thus, it seemed unlikely that the legislators actually meant to prohibit churches from inviting famous and prominent religious leaders (even Jewish rabbis) from coming here and serving their congregations.

Perhaps realizing how his phrasing could create mischief and misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...]

Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Justice Brewer's decision was not, therefore, any attempt to argue that the laws in the United States should enforce Christianity or reflect solely Christian concerns and beliefs. He was simply making an observation which is consistent with the fact that people in this country tend to be Christian.

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 27 February 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Does God Exist? Debating God: Foundations for Atheists and Theists Debating the Existence of God

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Does God Exist? Debating God: Foundations for Atheists and Theists Debating the Existence of God
Feb 27th 2012, 15:00

Debates between atheists and theists over the existence of God are common, but really good and productive debates are rare. I'm not talking about the formal, professional debates between trained debaters; I'm talking about more personal and private debates -- serious discussions between serious people. What can be done to improve their quality and ensure that time isn't wasted?

Read Article: Foundations for Atheists and Theists Debating the Existence of God

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 Occurs Faster Than You Think

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Evolution Occurs Faster Than You Think
Feb 27th 2012, 12:00

Traditionally scientists have thought that evolution occurs very gradually with perhaps some occasional (relatively) rapid changes. The fossil evidence certainly suggests a gradual process and it makes intuitive sense because genetic shifts in populations require generational changes. But more and more scientists are concluding that evolution occurs very, very rapidly as a rule.

Wherever biologists look closely, they are seeing populations in which evolution is occurring right now, not static populations that are simply waiting for some sort of pressure to force them to start adapting. Accepting that evolution occurs rapidly, though, will require a change in how evolution itself is understood.

Reports of rapid evolution go back a surprisingly long way. It turns out that British entomologist Albert Farn wrote to Darwin in 1878 to point out that darkly coloured annulet moths were becoming more common than lighter moths in areas blackened by pollution (Current Biology, vol 20, p R95). This was nearly 20 years before it was first suggested that the famous peppered moths were turning black for the same reasons.

In 1897, it emerged that several insect populations were becoming resistant to insecticides. By the 1930s, more examples had surfaced, such as scale insects developing resistance to hydrogen cyanide.

Over the following decades, biologists stumbled upon more and more examples. A few became famous, such as the peppered moth, but all were regarded as curiosities. "People went, 'wow, that's amazing, that must be the exception'," says Michael Kinnison of the University of Maine in Orono, one of the first researchers to set out specifically to look at evolution in action.

Today, there are probably thousands of examples, and a growing number of biologists think that far from being an exception, rapid evolution is common. "Wherever people look for it, it's there," says Kinnison. "Very fast change can occur in very short periods." And thanks to advances in genetics, we are beginning to understand how it is possible.

Source: New Scientist, April 2, 2011

As more examples of rapid evolution are turned up, the more we'll have to face concluding that it may be the "norm" rather than the exception. It probably shouldn't be too surprising because the slower evolution is, the harder it will be for life to adapt to changes in the environment. Rapid evolution has a lot of benefits.

And contrary to what Evolution Deniers insist, this isn't just about shuffling around existing genetic diversity. Rapid evolution also includes the development of new genetic mutations that aid in survival. What's more, it also means the development of entirely new species -- again, contrary to the ideology of those in denial about evolution.

While rapid evolution usually involves existing mutations, new ones can play a role too. For instance, the mosquito Culex pipiens evolved resistance to organophosphate insecticides when an unusual mutation produced several copies of one gene, enabling it to make more of an enzyme that could break the pesticides down. This new mutation has spread worldwide (Nature, vol 350, p 151).

In the right circumstances, even new species can evolve in next to no time. In 1866, farmers in the US reported that an unknown maggot was attacking their apples, a crop introduced two centuries earlier. Entomologist Benjamin Walsh suggested that the "apple maggot" was a strain of the native hawthorn fly that had switched diets. Walsh had previously suggested this kind of process could lead to speciation.

We now know that Walsh was right. Genetic studies have shown that the hawthorn fly appears to be in the process of splitting into two species (Annual Review of Entomology, vol 47, p 773). What's more, the parasitic wasps whose larvae feed on the maggots are also splitting into two species (Science, vol 323, p 776).

More examples keep turning up. A species of fish in a lake in Nicaragua has split in two in only 100 years. The new variety has evolved a narrower, pointier head and fatter lips, ideal for nibbling insects from crevices. The original variety has sturdier jaws and extra teeth to crack snail shells. Lab studies suggest the strains do not mate with each other even when put together, which would mean they are on their way to becoming separate species.

So why does evolution appear to be so slow over the long term? It may be that rapid shifts in one direction then in another direction seem to disappear when viewed over a long time period. The fossil record provides us with just a small sample of everything that's lived and, what's more, may only be providing us with something akin to the "average", such that any extreme shifts that occur in shorter time periods are cancelled out.

Put it all together and the picture of evolution that is emerging is radically different to the way most people envisage the process. As Kinnison puts it, the popular view of evolution is upside down. People think evolutionary changes are imperceptible in the short term but add up to big changes over millions of years. In fact, the opposite is true. It now appears that organisms evolve very rapidly in response to any changes in their environment, but in the longer term most evolutionary changes cancel each other out.

So the longer the period you look at, the slower evolution appears - a phenomenon first pointed out in 1983 by Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Science, vol 222, p 159). At the time nobody believed it, but "people have recognised now that it was a very insightful piece of work," says Hairston.

"I think a superficial reading of the fossil record has given us a misleading picture of the evolutionary process," says Gingerich. "The changes seen over long intervals of geological time are not representative of what happens on a generation-to-generation timescale."

This is especially true of long periods with little or no evolutionary change. The conventional explanation for this stasis has been that evolution is usually slow because selection is usually weak. "But this is perfectly consistent with strong selection, providing it fluctuates," says Graham Bell of McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Assuming it is right, this new picture of evolution should perhaps come as no surprise. We have always known that the "march of progress" is an illusion, that evolution is a random process with no purpose. Rather than going somewhere slowly, evolution usually goes nowhere fast.

I'm sure that there is still a lot about evolution that we don't understand yet, but one thing seems clear: every time we do learn something new about evolution, the less compatible it becomes with traditional western theism and theistic religion. Apologists keep trying to match their religious ideology to whatever science is discovering, but that's a losing game in the long run. If religious apologists had any legitimate claim to independent knowledge or facts, they wouldn't have to keep reinterpreting their texts and traditions.

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: Sexual Shame: An Urgent Call to Healing

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Book of the Week: Sexual Shame: An Urgent Call to Healing
Feb 27th 2012, 08:00

Sexual Shame: An Urgent Call to Healing
Image courtesy
PriceGrabber.com

Questions about sexuality are fundamental to the health and welfare of Christian communities - the problem is, few Christians seem to realize this. Sexuality has become a proverbial elephant sitting in the room: no one can help but see it, but no one wants to acknowledge it, either. This, however, is part of what leads to scandals, abuse and worse. The more Christians suppress frank talk about sex and sexuality, the more they raise the risk of sexual problems for individuals and the community.

Book of the Week: Sexual Shame: An Urgent Call to Healing

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: Undermining Abortion

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Undermining Abortion
Feb 27th 2012, 11:07

The Christian Right's War on Abortion and Women's Choice:


The most important issue for the Christian Right is criminalizing abortion. There is disagreement on the penalties for abortion (few want to treat it as murder, despite the rhetoric) and whether there should be exemptions (like for rape, incest, or the health of the mother), but there is agreement that abortion must end. There is no prospect of a total ban any time soon, so in the mean time they work on undermining it and hindering women's ability to actually obtain an abortion.

Parental & Spousal Notification, Consent:


One means for undermining a woman's right to obtain an abortion is to deny her the ability to make the decision on her own. Minors are required to obtain permission from their parents or, in their absence, a judge. Adult women are required to at least notify their spouses â€" which, in some cases, is effectively the same as having to obtain permission. Women are thus informed that they can't be trusted to make these decisions without adults or men providing input and advice.

Forced Counseling & Unscientific Advice:


Another example of not trusting women to make decisions about abortion is the requirement that they go through counseling before undergoing the procedure. Required counseling assumes that women haven't given serious thought to all their options already. Sometimes, they are even plied with unscientific and false information, for example about when the fetus might start experiencing pain. The entire purpose of these laws is to prevent women from choosing an abortion, not to educate and inform.

Waiting Periods for Abortions:


Distrust of women's ability to make decisions about having an abortion is also the basis for requiring waiting periods: women who come to an abortion clinic are forced to return days later to actually get an abortion. The ostensible reason is to give women time to reconsider their decision, as if they hadn't already thought deeply about it. The practical effect, surely recognized by those in charge, is that many women are unable to return and never get an abortion at all. That's the point.

Abortion Clinic Restrictions & Intimidation:


If there are no clinics providing abortions, then women won't end up having abortions. Anti-choice activists know this very well and have invested tremendous resources into protesting at clinics. Women are too intimidated to go. Healthcare professionals are too intimidated to go to work. Doctors are too intimidated to go into providing abortions â€" fewer and fewer even learn to do them. Some states only have one clinic left. Some clinics have no permanent doctors.

Restrictions on Abortion Funding:


Many forms of basic healthcare are funded, at least in part, by the government. Funding for abortion is banned, however. Even if someone works for the government, they won't get help paying to abort a fetus with fatal birth defects. The lack of funding for abortions can easily put them out of the reach of poor women who are likely seeking abortions because they cannot afford to care for more children. Ultimately, the state pays more to help these families.

Fetal Abuse Laws:


The Christian Right has demonstrated growing interest in "protecting" fetuses from various sorts of abuse. They want laws that treat attacks on women that lead to the death of the fetus as murder cases. They want to punish women who drink, smoke, or do drugs while pregnant. The point of all this is to establish in the law that a fetus is a person with rights â€" especially a right to live. If it's murder to attack a woman and kill her fetus, why not when a doctor kills the fetus in an abortion?

Limiting Valid Reasons & Times for Abortions:


Short of criminalizing abortion completely, an important goal for the Christian Right is to have severe restrictions on when abortions can be performed and the reasons for which legal abortions are allowed. Initial steps would be to limit abortions to just the first trimester and to exclude women who want an abortion for "frivolous" reasons. Slow, small steps would lead us up to these changes and, over time, perhaps to eliminate abortion entirely.

Restrictions on Contraception:


The right to abortion and the right to contraception are more tightly connected than most people realize. Both are based on a right to privacy and control over one's body, so attacks on one implicate the other. The Christian Right focuses on abortion, but they have been paying more attention to contraception. This is not a truly separate issue for them â€" it's all part of a larger assault on sexual liberty in modern society.

A Right Which Can't be Exercised is Not a Right:


The consistent theme of all Christian Right polices on abortion is to undermine or eliminate the ability of women to exercise their right to obtain an abortion. Anti-choice activists certainly won't deny this, since their long-term goal is to end legalized abortion completely. We should, however, contemplate what this means for the right to have an abortion itself.

Imagine if voting booths were only open for one hour a day and located far away from population centers. This wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution, so technically people would still have the right to vote, but what good is a right that you cannot exercise? For a significant number of women around the country, abortion services are as inaccessible as those hypothetical voting booths. Over 80% of all counties in America have no abortion services, so women have to travel some distance just to consult with a doctor â€" a significant hardship for poor women in rural areas. Then, they may be told that they have to return after a “waiting period” which government officials decided was necessary.

If women are denied the opportunities and resources to have an abortion, to what extent are we justified in saying that they have a right to an abortion in the first place? To make the right to abortion a genuine right, the government would have to assume the duty of protecting it â€" and that would arguably include ensuring that women have the resources and opportunities to get an abortion if that is what they wish. Even many supporters of abortion rights may balk at the prospect of the government helping to finance abortions, but that calls into question whether they really support abortion rights in the first place.

If someone only supports the “right” to abortion for women who can afford it, can afford the travel, and can afford the waiting times, isn’t that a bit like supporting the “right” of people to vote if they can afford to the costs of time and money to travel to distantly-located voting booths?

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 26 February 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Baalbek Temple of Jupiter Baal (Heliopolitan Zeus)

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Baalbek Temple of Jupiter Baal (Heliopolitan Zeus)
Feb 26th 2012, 15:00

Baalbek Temple of Jupiter
Left Photo Source: Jupiter Images
Right Photo Source: Wikipedia
It is fitting that for the largest temple complex in the Roman Empire, Caesar would have the largest temples constructed. The Temple of Jupiter Baal ("Heliopolitan Zeus") itself was 290 feet long, 160 feet wide, and surrounded by 54 massive columns each of which were 7 feet in diameter and 70 feet tall. This made the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek the same height as a 6-storey building, all cut from stone quarried nearby. Only six of these titanic columns remain standing but even they are incredibly impressive. In the above picture, the right-hand color image shows just how small people are when standing next to these columns.

Read Article: Baalbek Temple of Jupiter Baal (Heliopolitan Zeus)

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: Evangelicals as Witch Burners, Demanding Human Sacrifices

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Evangelicals as Witch Burners, Demanding Human Sacrifices
Feb 26th 2012, 12:00

Conservative and evangelical Christians around the world are obsessed with homosexuality -- and with sex in general, it seems. These Christians are convinced that biblical injunctions against gay sex or any sort of "wrong" sex means that the civil law should be used against homosexuals in society. They are increasingly intolerant of gays within their churches and one has to wonder where it will all lead.

Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, wrote something in the Guardian a few years ago which still resonates:

Evangelicals define themselves by a love of the Bible. It is thus a tragedy for all Christians that they are now seen as the nasty party. Indeed, some moderate evangelical churches have become so concerned about the association between "evangelical" and a narrow theological chauvinism that they are thinking of dropping the word. They are right to be worried, for in recent years a virulent form of rightwing Christian fundamentalism has infiltrated the evangelical movement. And they are obsessed with gay sex. ...

The contortions some will resort to in order to keep their denunciations of gay sex alive are astonishing. When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, suggested that the church might change its mind on homosexuality just as it had on slavery, the evangelical English Churchman hit back with an editorial justifying slavery as "a form of social security for which many starving people today would be grateful". One diocesan bishop apparently believes that homosexuality is caused by demons in the anus. Some single clergy have received excrement through their letterboxes.

...What they really want is a return to the Anglican church of the 16th century. It's a world of anti-Catholicism and heresy trials: what has been done to my friend Jeffrey John is the modern equivalent of burning witches and heretics.

The conflict within the Church of England is becoming more and more contentious over time. One of the consequences is that people are coming to see the evangelical Christians as representative of bigotry and intolerance rather than of social welfare and concern, which used to be the case.

This change seems to be in large part due to significant shifts within the evangelical movement, shifts that are causing them to move more and more to the right, theologically and socially. This, in turn, is increasingly out of step with the rest of British society which has continued on a liberal course. It's also increasingly out of step with American society, though in America the liberal course has been travelled more slowly.

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