Sunday, 1 January 2012

Agnosticism / Atheism: Debating Jehovah's Witnesses Unique Resurrection Doctrine & Afterlife Beliefs

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Debating Jehovah's Witnesses Unique Resurrection Doctrine & Afterlife Beliefs
Jan 1st 2012, 15:00

Millions of Christians look forward to an afterlife where they will be rewarded with a heavenly resurrection while the spirits of the wicked are punished in Hell. Jehovah's Witnesses, in contrast, don't believe in an immortal soul and most look forward to an earthly resurrection where their bodies will be restored to perfect health. Nearly everyone will be resurrected and given a second chance to prove their loyalty to God, which makes Jehovah seem kinder than the God of many Christians.

Read Article: Debating Jehovah's Witnesses Unique Resurrection Doctrine & Afterlife Beliefs

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: Chimpanzee Technology & Human Evolution

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Chimpanzee Technology & Human Evolution
Jan 1st 2012, 12:00

For a long time, it was a popular conceit that humans alone could produce tools and technology -- it was once regarded as something that defined humanity. Jane Goodall's research dispelled that myth nearly 50 years ago and since then we've not only found more evidence of tool use among primates, but ever more complicated technology that is passed down among individuals within groups. In fact, so much is being discovered that we may have to seriously reconsider some things about the nature of humanity.

Researchers use the term "tool kits" to describe the repertoire of tools used habitually by a group of chimpanzees. The tool kits of most chimpanzee populations consist of about 20 types of tools, which arc used for various functions in daily life, including subsistence, sociality, sex, and self-maintenance. This tool-kit size is relatively constant, whether the apes live in rainforest or on savanna, with one regional exception: The tool kits of three Ugandan populations (Budongo, Kanyawara, and Ngogo), all well-habituated, are about half the usual size, for reasons as yet undetermined.

The uses to which tools are put vary across chimpanzee populations. At Goualougo, Republic of Congo, the most commonly used tools are for extractive foraging, whereas at Ngogo, they are for hygiene and courtship. However, some tools are used by all chimpanzee populations: They all make leaf sponges to obtain drinking water, show aimed throwing of missiles, and communicate by drumming on tree buttresses.

Chimpanzees also use tool sets, that is, they use two or more tools in an obligate sequence to achieve a single goal. In the most impressive example, a chimpanzee population in Gabon uses tool sets of five objects: pounder, perforator, enlarger, collector, and swab to obtain honey. Other tool sets arc used to fish for termites or dip for army ants. all these tool sets must be used in the correct functional order to be successful. Some primatologists have argued that this necessity for sequential order is a sign of complex cognitive processes. ...

Among all animals, only chimpanzees appear to be able to use one type of mw material to make many kinds of tools (e.g., leaf as sponge, napkin, or fishing probe), or make one kind of tool from many raw materials (fishing probe from grass, bark, vine, and twig). Only chimpanzees have been shown to vary in their tool use at a multitude of levels, from individual, family, community, and population to subspecies. Chimpanzees also continue to yield new fonts of tool use from continuing study

Source: Science, April 30, 2010

The more we study other animals, the more we learn about ourselves because who and what we are evolved out of the same stuff as all the other animals -- especially primates. Of course, people keep finding new things that they want to attribute to humans alone. People focus on language, morality, and all sorts of behaviors that they insist characterize "humanity" and thus can't be found anywhere else in nature.

This is also a principal motivation behind the continued belief in "souls." Setting aside the lack of evidence of such things, even believers can't point to any basis for thinking that they exist only in humans. We have far deeper connections to nature than many people want to think.

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

Agnosticism / Atheism: Mailbag: Atheists Writing About Religion

Agnosticism / Atheism
Get the latest headlines from the Agnosticism / Atheism GuideSite. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mailbag: Atheists Writing About Religion
Jan 1st 2012, 08:00

From: Purdy
Subject: Just An Opinion

I've never seen anything more silly than a site expecting the reader to take seriously an article written about denominations and religion....WRITTEN BY A SECULAR HUMANIST AND ATHEIST! Amazing. You want to be percieved as a reliable source of information? Seems similar to an anti abortionist writing an encyclopedia treatice reproductive rights.

Let's take a close look at what Purdy is arguing here: because I am a secular humanist and an atheist, I cannot be considered a "reliable source of information" about "[Christian] denominations and religion." Because I am neither religious nor a theist, anything I write about religion or theism must be so tainted by bias, prejudice, and perhaps even hate, that my articles are completely unreliable -- much like articles about reproductive rights written by an ardent abortion opponent.

These are pretty serious accusations, but is there any merit to them? Is there any reason to think that reliable information about the history, philosophy, development, theology, and nature of religions can only come from a religious theist? In fact, a religious theist arguably has just as many biases and prejudices as irreligious atheists, but in the other direction. How trustworthy is a book on the history or communism written by a communist? It might be completely reliable, but because of the biases of the author it would be wise for readers to take the information with a grain of salt. Why can't we say the same about books on religion or theism written by religious theists?

Everyone has biases and prejudices. Because of this, no one should use just one source for information on a topic, especially a controversial topic where there has been a great deal of debate, disagreement, and conflict -- even violent conflict where people have died in large numbers. If I were in charge of putting together an encyclopedia on reproductive rights, I'd be sure to include articles from the perspective of abortion opponents. If I didn't, readers wouldn't get enough information in order to make their own decisions.

The articles I have here on religion and theism are indeed biased. I make no attempt to hide that bias, but I do attempt to be fair despite my biases. Because of both my efforts to be fair and my biases, I think that I provide a good source of information that can be placed alongside other sources -- usually from religious theists -- and thus help people develop a fuller, more accurate picture than they would be able to otherwise. There are lots of religious sites on the internet, including several here at About, all of which are written by religious theists from the perspective of religious theism and for religious theists.

This site provides a more independent, academic perspective on many of the same topics -- as well as some religion-related issues not usually addressed by believers. Even most atheist sites don't offer the same level of information on religious history, philosophy, and doctrines. I think that the material here is very reliable. I'm sure that there are errors because I'm not perfect, but those errors don't exist because I am a secular humanist or because I am an atheist.

I'm sure that Purdy isn't the only one who has had such a reaction to the material on this site, but if they wish to make their case they must demonstrate not only that I make consistent errors, but also that those errors stem from my being an atheist. Otherwise, they leave themselves open to the charge that they are simply anti-atheist bigots who are seeking to suppress an atheistic, secular, and humanistic perspective on religion and theism.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...

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

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Ethics: Descriptive, Normative and Analytic

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Ethics: Descriptive, Normative and Analytic
Jan 1st 2012, 11:01

Descriptive, Normative and Analytic Ethics

Categorizing Ethics & Morality

• Ethics & Morality
• Intro to Ethics & Morality
• How to Think About Ethics
• Normative Ethical Systems
• Ethical Dilemmas & Problems
• Philosophy
• Introduction to Philosophy
• Biographies of Philosophers
• Schools of Philosophy
• Branches of Philosophy
-->
• 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!

The field of ethics is usually broken down into three different ways of thinking about ethics: descriptive, normative and analytic. It isn't unusual for disagreements in debates over ethics to arise because people are approaching the topic from a different one of these three categories. Thus, learning what they are and how to recognize them might save you some grief later.


Descriptive Ethics
The category of descriptive ethics is the easiest to understand - it simply involves describing how people behave and/or what sorts of moral standards they claim to follow. Descriptive ethics incorporates research from the fields of anthropology, psychology, sociology and history as part of the process of understanding what people do or have believed about moral norms.

Normative Ethics
The category of normative ethics involves creating or evaluating moral standards. Thus, it is an attempt to figure out what people should do or whether their current moral behavior is reasonable. Traditionally, most of the field of moral philosophy has involved normative ethics - there are few philosophers out there who haven't tried their hand at explaining what they think people should do and why.

Analytic Ethics (Metaethics)
The category of analytic ethics, also often referred to as metaethics, is perhaps the most difficult of the three to understand. In fact, some philosophers disagree as to whether or not it should be considered an independent pursuit, arguing that it should instead be included under Normative Ethics. Nevertheless, it is discussed independently often enough that it deserves its own discussion here.

Examples
Understanding the how the exact same ethical question can be and is addressed in descriptive, normative and analytic ethics can be difficult until you have had some practice, so here is a series of easy examples which will help make the differences more clear.

-->

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: Baptist History

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Baptist History
Jan 1st 2012, 11:01

Baptists have traditionally been suspicious any ecumenical movements designed to mediate theological differences between denominations, even when it comes to other Baptists. Because of this Baptists have fractured into numerous divisions, sects, and groups. They may agree on many things, but their differences are enough to keep them apart.

Southern Baptist Convention: Established in 1845 in order to preserve a religious foundation for human slavery, it has grown to be among the most theologically conservative Baptist groups and, because of that, has also begun to move away from the tradition of individual authority by abrogating the power of individual churches in an attempt to maintain orthodoxy in the beliefs of members.

American Baptist Church: Originally known as the Northern Baptist Convention, it was established in 1907. It is currently the fourth largest group of Baptists in the United States and it is also the most liberal. It consists of a federated body of otherwise independent churches which are united in their belief in adult baptism (by immersion) and the independence of local congregations.

Although it originally consisted of around three-quarters the number of churches as the Southern Baptist Convention, through the 20th century the American Baptist Church was afflicted by divisions and schisms. Today, the Southern Baptist Convention outnumbers the American Baptist Church by at least ten-to-one. Other Protestant denominations which divided over slavery, but the Baptits have not and the current theological divide suggests that this won’t likely change any time soon.

National Baptist Convention: established in 1895 it is currently the largest black denomination in the United States. It, along with other independent African-American Baptist churches, was created by free slaves after the Civil War and have long played an important role in the political and social lives of African-Americans. Freed slaves were attracted to Baptist churches because of their evangelistic zeal, accessible theology, and an ecclesiology that emphasized individual freedom (political and spiritual) from white authority.

Independent Baptist Churches: There are several million Baptists in America who are “unaccounted for.” This means that they are not members of a known Baptist organization. Baptists have traditionally been suspicious any ecumenical movements designed to mediate theological differences between denominations, even when it comes to other Baptists, so it’s only to be expected that there will be Baptist churches who continue to be under the radar of religious surveys.

International Baptist Churches: Although Baptist churches can be found all over the world, in most places they are not as well organized as they are in America. For the most part the individual churches are scattered widely â€" so much so, in fact, that it often makes more sense to talk about continent-wide Baptist organizations rather than national or regional organizations. Even in England, where modern Baptists got their start, their numbers have been reduced to a few tens of thousands.

The one country outside of the United States where Baptists play a very public role is Russia, but that is also the country where their position is the most vulnerable. Baptists believe in evangelization but the Russian Orthodox Church objects strongly to “outsiders” who take away adherents.

« Divisions Among Baptist Churches | Baptists & Southern Baptists »

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: Astrology and Psychology: Why Do People Believe?

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Astrology and Psychology: Why Do People Believe?
Jan 1st 2012, 11:01

Astrology and Psychology

Why Do People Believe?

• Astrology FAQ
• What is Astrology?
• History of Astrology
• Who Cares?
• Critiques of Astrology
• Skepticism FAQs
• Astrology
• Alternative Medicine
• Repressed Memories
• New Age
-->
• 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!

Why do people believe in astrology? The answer to the question lies very much in the same realm as why people believe in just about any superstition. Astrology offers a number of things which many people find very desirable: information and assurance about the future, a way to be absolved of their current situation and future decisions, and a way to feel connected to the entire cosmos.

Astrology shares this with many other beliefs which tend to be categorized as "New Age," for example the idea that nothing in life is truly coincidental. On this view of life, everything which happens to us, even the smallest or seemingly most insignificant event, happens for some particular reason. Astrology then claims to provide at least some of the answers as to why they happen, and perhaps even a way to predict them in advance. In this way, astrology purports to help people understand their lives and the world around them - and who doesn't want that?

In a sense, astrology does work. As practiced today, it can work quite well. After all, most of those who visit an astrologer end up feeling satisfied and feeling that they have benefited. What this really means is not that astrology has accurately predicted the person's future, but rather it means that visiting an astrologer or having a horoscope cast can be a fulfilling and personally satisfying experience.

Think about what happens during a visit with an astrologer: someone holds your hand (even if only figuratively), looks you in the eye, and explains how you, as an individual, are actually connected to our entire cosmos. You are told how mysterious forces in the universe around us, far greater than ourselves, work to shape our intimate destinies. You are told relatively flattering things about your character and life, and in the end you are naturally pleased that someone cares about you. In the hectic and generally disconnected modern society, you feel connected - both to another human being and to the world around you.

Most likely, you even get some vaguely useful advice about your future. Daniel Cohen wrote in the Chicago Tribune in 1968 that:

The core of an astrologer's popularity stems from the fact that he can offer something that no astronomer or any other scientists can give - reassurance. In an uncertain time, when religion, morals and ethics are shattered so regularly that one hardly notices that they are gone, the astrologer holds out a vision of a world ruled by forces that operate with clockwork regularity.

In addition, astrology is glorifying. Instead of feeling himself a mere slave in the hands of different hostile forces, the believer is uplifted by his connection with the cosmos. ... The sort of misty character analysis that astrologers engage in cannot be considered proof at all. Who can object to a flattering description of themselves? One astrologer told me that under my hard exterior I was a sensitive person. How was I to reply to a statement like that? Could I say, "No, I am really a hardheaded clod"?

What we have, then, is personal advice and personal attention from a kindly authority figure. Planets? They don't really have anything to do with the matter - the planets are simply the excuse for the meeting. All the talk about ascensions and quadrants serve to make the astrologer appear to be an expert and authority figure, thus setting the stage for the quality of the encounter. In reality, the charts and horoscope are just smoke screens to deflect your attention from what is really going on, which is a cold reading. This is simply an old carnival trick, employed today with great success not just by astrologers, but psychics and mediums and hucksters of all brands.

None of this is to say that astrologers' advice is never any good. Like a telephone psychic, even though the advice is usually very vague and general, it can often be better than no advice at all. Some people just need another person to listen to them and show some concern for their problems. On the other hand, astrologers who recommend against particular marriages or projects because of the "stars" might be providing disastrous advice. There is, sadly, no way to differentiate between the two.

-->

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: Noah Sends a Dove from the Ark

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now
These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Noah Sends a Dove from the Ark
Jan 1st 2012, 11:01

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

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