Monthly Archives: October 2021

Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from theInternational Humanist and Ethical Unionout on Tuesday.All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority.

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.With the exception of Pakistan, those countries all allow for capital punishment againstapostasy, i.e., the renunciation of a particular religion. Pakistan, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy, which can obviously include disbelief in God.

The study's interactive map gives a good, broad, overview of which countries punish apostasy and blasphemy by death (black), with prison time (red), or place legal restrictions on (non-)religious speech and thought (yellow):

The report is a more comprehensive version of a similar study released last year that identified just seven countries where atheists faced capital punishment, only half of this year's total. It alsofound much more widespread discrimination against atheists around the world. "Our results show that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheistsand freethinkers," the study explains, noting that laws in some countries prevent atheists from marrying, attending public school, participating as a citizen, holding public office, or just existing at all. The authors, citing a Gallup study, estimate that about 13 percent of the world's population is atheist, while 23 percent identify as simply "not religious."

Although not on the list of 13, Bangladesh receives some special attention in the report as a particular low-light. Several non-religious and atheist bloggers and journalists in the country have faced death threats and harassment this yearin the wake of a series of government prosecutions for blasphemy. One blogger, Ahmed Rajib Haider,was murdered with a machete outside of his home. The report also incorporates assessment of general free speech protections in each country. Russia earned significant criticism in part because of its anti-LGBT "propaganda" laws. And North Korea, an aggressively secular state, received the report's lowest rating of "Grave Violations."

Because of the U.S.'s strong constitutional free speech protections and lack of an official state religion, the country fared moderately well in the report, earning a "mostly satisfactory" rating. But the IHEU had some cautionary notes on how atheists are actually treated in the U.S., criticizing "a range of laws that limit therole of atheists in regards to public duties, or else entangle the government with religion to thedegree that being religious is equated with being an American, and vice versa." Those laws include constitutional provisions still on the books in seven states (Arkansas,Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) barring atheists from holding public office. The authors add:

While there is some legalremedy for clear religious discrimination by the government, it can often go unchallenged insituations where it is difficult, or personally disadvantageous or hazardous, to take a stand againstauthority, for example in prisons, the military, and even some administrative contexts.

So, which countries earned a somewhat elusive "free and equal" rating from the IHEU? The best-ranked countries included Jamaica, Uruguay, Japan, Taiwan, and Belgium.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

Go here to see the original:
There Are 13 Countries Where Atheism Is Punishable by ...

Studies have found that both atheists and agnostics are surprisingly knowledgable about a variety of religions. Which begs the commonly asked question: what is the difference between someone who defines themselves as atheist and a professedagnostic?

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesnt believe in a god or divinebeing. The word originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a-(without) andtheos(a god). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that its impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.

Agnosticism was coined by biologist T.H. Huxley and comes from the Greek gnstos, which means unknown or unknowable.

For example:

To complicate matters, atheists and agnostics are often confused with theists and deists.A theist is the opposite of an atheist. Theists believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Like a theist, a deist believes in God. But a deist believes that while God created the universe, natural laws determine how the universe plays out.

Deists are often connected to Isaac Newtons clockwork universe theory, which compares the universe to a clock that has been wound up and set in motion by God but is governed by the laws of science.

For example:

Religious or not, you likely say goodbye on a daily basis. But were you aware of the words holy history?

See the rest here:
Atheism vs Agnosticism: What's the Difference ...

The idea of American exceptionalism has become so dubious that much of its modern usage is merely sarcastic. But when it comes to religion, Americans really are exceptional. No rich country prays nearly as much as the U.S, and no country that prays as much as the U.S. is nearly as rich.

Americas unique synthesis of wealth and worship has puzzled international observers and foiled their grandest theories of a global secular takeover. In the late 19th century, an array of celebrity philosophersthe likes of Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freudproclaimed the death of God, and predicted that atheism would follow scientific discovery and modernity in the West, sure as smoke follows fire.

Stubbornly pious Americans threw a wrench in the secularization thesis. Deep into the 20th century, more than nine in 10 Americans said they believed in God and belonged to an organized religion, with the great majority of them calling themselves Christian. That number held steadythrough the sexual-revolution 60s, through the rootless and anxious 70s, and through the greed is good 80s.

Read: Elite failure has brought Americans to the edge of an existential crisis

But in the early 1990s, the historical tether between American identity and faith snapped. Religious non-affiliation in the U.S. started to riseand rise, and rise. By the early 2000s, the share of Americans who said they didnt associate with any established religion (also known as nones) had doubled. By the 2010s, this grab bag of atheists, agnostics, and spiritual dabblers had tripled in size.

History does not often give the satisfaction of a sudden and lasting turning point. History tends to unfold in messy cyclesactions and reactions, revolutions and counterrevolutionsand even semipermanent changes are subtle and glacial. But the rise of religious non-affiliation in America looks like one of those rare historical moments that is neither slow, nor subtle, nor cyclical. You might call it exceptional.

The obvious question for anybody who spends at least two seconds looking at the graph above is: What the hell happened around 1990?

According to Christian Smith, a sociology and religion professor at the University of Notre Dame, Americas nonreligious lurch has mostly been the result of three historical events: the association of the Republican Party with the Christian right, the end of the Cold War, and 9/11.

This story begins with the rise of the religious right in the 1970s. Alarmed by the spread of secular cultureincluding but not limited to the sexual revolution, the Roe v. Wade decision, the nationalization of no-fault divorce laws, and Bob Jones University losing its tax-exempt status over its ban on interracial datingChristians became more politically active. The GOP welcomed them with open arms. The party, which was becoming more dependent on its exurban-white base, needed a grassroots strategy and a policy platform. Within the next decade, the religious rightincluding Ralph Reeds Christian Coalition, James Dobsons Focus on the Family, and Jerry Falwells Moral Majorityhad become fundraising and organizing juggernauts for the Republican Party. In 1980, the GOP social platform was a facsimile of conservative Christian views on sexuality, abortion, and school prayer.

Read: Evangelical fear elected Trump

The marriage between the religious and political right delivered Reagan, Bush, and countless state and local victories. But it disgusted liberal Democrats, especially those with weak connections to the Church. It also shocked the conscience of moderates, who preferred a wide berth between their faith and their politics. Smith said its possible that young liberals and loosely affiliated Christians first registered their aversion to the Christian right in the early 1990s, after a decade of observing its powerful role in conservative politics.

Second, it may have felt unpatriotic to confess ones ambivalence toward God while the U.S. was locked in a geopolitical showdown with a godless Evil Empire. In 1991, however, the Cold War ended. As the U.S.S.R. dissolved, so did atheisms association with Americas nemesis. After that, nones could be forthright about their religious indifference, without worrying that it made them sound like Soviet apologists.

Third, Americas next geopolitical foe wasnt a godless state. It was a God-fearing, stateless movement: radical Islamic terrorism. A series of bombings and attempted bombings in the 1990s by fundamentalist organizations such as al-Qaeda culminated in the 9/11 attacks. It would be a terrible oversimplification to suggest that the fall of the Twin Towers encouraged millions to leave their church, Smith said. But over time, al-Qaeda became a useful referent for atheists who wanted to argue that all religions were inherently destructive.

Meanwhile, during George W. Bushs presidency, Christianitys association with unpopular Republican policies drove more young liberals and moderates away from both the party and the Church. New Atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, became intellectual celebrities; the 2006 best seller American Theocracy argued that evangelicals in the Republican coalition were staging a quiet coup that would plunge the country into disarray and financial ruin. Throughout the Bush presidency, liberal votersespecially white liberal voters detached from organized religion in ever-higher numbers.

Religion has lost its halo effect in the past three decades, not because science drove God from the public square, but rather because politics did. In the 21st century, not religious has become a specific American identityone that distinguishes secular, liberal whites from the conservative, evangelical right.

Other social forces, which have little to do with geopolitics or partisanship, have played a key role in the rise of the nones.

The Church is just one of many social institutionsincluding banks, Congress, and the policethat have lost public trust in an age of elite failure. But scandals in the Catholic Church have accelerated its particularly rapid loss of moral stature. According to Pew research, 13 percent of Americans today self-identify as former Catholics, and many of them leave organized religion altogether. And as the ranks of the nones have swelled, its become more socially acceptable for casual or rare churchgoers to tell pollsters that they dont particularly identify with any faith. Its also become easier for nones to meet, marry, and raise children who grow up without any real religious attachment.

Nor does Smith rule out the familiar antagonists of capitalism and the internet in explaining the popularity of non-affiliation. The former has made life more precarious, and the latter has made it easier for anxious individuals to build their own spiritualities from ideas and practices they find online, he said, such as Buddhist meditation guides and atheist Reddit boards.

Most important has been the dramatic changes in the American family. The past half century has dealt a series of body blows to American marriage. Divorce rates spiked in the 70s through the 90s, following the state-by-state spread of no-fault divorce laws. Just as divorce rates stabilized, the marriage rate started to plummet in the 80s, due to both the decline of marriage within the working class and delayed marriage among college-educated couples.

Read: The not-so-great reason divorce rates are declining

Theres historically been this package: Get married, go to church or temple, have kids, send them to Sunday school, Smith said. But just as stable families make stable congregations, family instability can destabilize the Church. Divorced individuals, single parents, and children of divorce or single-parent households are all more likely to detach over time from their congregations.

Finally, the phenomenon of delayed adulthood might be another subtle contributor. More Americans, especially college graduates in big metro areas, are putting off marriage and childbearing until their 30s, and are using their 20s to establish a career, date around, and enjoy being young and single in a city. By the time they settle down, they have established a routinework, brunch, gym, date, drink, footballthat leaves little room for weekly Mass. They know who they are by 30, and they dont feel like they need a church to tell them, Smith said.

The rise of the nones shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, the religious identity that seems to be doing the best job at both retaining old members and attracting new ones is the newfangled American religion of Nothing Much at All.

Does the rise of the nones matter?

Lets first consider the possibility that it doesnt. As Americas youth have slipped away from organized religion, they havent quite fallen into wickedness. If anything, todays young people are uniquely conscientiousless likely to fight, drink, use hard drugs, or have premarital sex than previous generations. They might not be able to quote from the Book of Matthew, but their economic and social politicswhich insist on protections for the politically meek and the historically persecutedarent so far from a certain reading of the beatitudes.

But the liberal politics of young people brings us to the first big reason to care about rising non-affiliation. A gap has opened up between Americas two political parties. In a twist of fate, the Christian right entered politics to save religion, only to make the Christian-Republican nexus unacceptable to millions of young peoplethus accelerating the countrys turn against religion.

Although it would be wrong to call Democrats a secular party (older black voters are highly religious and dependably vote Democratic), the left today has a higher share of religiously unaffiliated voters than anytime in modern history. At the same time, the average religiosity of white Christian Republicans has gone up, according to Robert P. Jones, the CEO of the polling firm PRRI and the author of The End of White Christian America. Evangelicals feel so embattled that theyve turned to a deeply immoral and authoritarian champion to protect themeven if it means rendering unto an American Caesar whatever the hell he wants. American politics is at risk of becoming a war of religiosity versus secularism by proxy, where both sides see the other as a catastrophic political force that must be destroyed at all costs.

The deeper question is whether the sudden loss of religion has social consequences for Americans who opt out. Secular Americans, who are familiar with the ways that traditional faiths have betrayed modern liberalism, may not have examined how organized religion has historically offered solutions to their modern existential anxieties.

Making friends as an adult without a weekly congregation is hard. Establishing a weekend routine to soothe Sunday-afternoon nerves is hard. Reconciling the overwhelming sense of lifes importance with the universes ostensible indifference to human suffering is hard.

Although belief in God is no panacea for these problems, religion is more than a theism. It is a bundle: a theory of the world, a community, a social identity, a means of finding peace and purpose, and a weekly routine. Those, like me, who have largely rejected this package deal, often find themselves shopping la carte for meaning, community, and routine to fill a faith-shaped void. Their politics is a religion. Their work is a religion. Their spin class is a church. And not looking at their phone for several consecutive hours is a Sabbath.

American nones may well build successful secular systems of belief, purpose, and community. But imagine what a devout believer might think: Millions of Americans have abandoned religion, only to re-create it everywhere they look.

Read more from the original source:
How America Lost Its Religion - The Atlantic

By Leah MarieAnn Klett, Christian Post Editor | Wednesday, October 27, 2021Eric Metaxas | The Christian Post/Sonny Hong

Eric Metaxas believes that culture is at a paradigm-shifting moment, with science and archeology increasingly pointing to the existence of God and those opposed to Christianity arent going to like it."

We've all lived at a time when not only is the trend that science is pointing us away from God, but we've been living for over 100 years with the narrative that says, science is fundamentally at odds with faith, that reason is at odds with religion, the Christian author, speaker and conservative radio host told The Christian Post.

The one thing everybody kept saying science is leading us away from religion. Ironically, in the last 50 years, precisely the opposite has happened. Science is leading us to God. It's big news."

In his latest book, Is Atheism Dead? Metaxas uncovers new evidence and arguments against the idea of a Creatorless universe. He draws on the insights of top scientists and five scientific discoveries to prove that atheism is untenable.

I am genuinely more excited about this book and about getting the information in this book out to people than I have ever been about any book I have written, the New York native told CP.

One archeological discovery Metaxas said particularly intrigued him was the reported discovery of the biblical Sodom. Some scientists have speculated that a city known as Tall El-Hammam was destroyed by a meteor and could actually be the site of Sodom, the ancient biblical city destroyed for its wickedness.

Most believers, and definitely most non-believers, don't know this information, and it's because we live in a media echo chamber that tends to filter out this kind of information. By the grace of God, I've been able to stumble on this stuff," he said.

Metaxas explained that the title of his latest book is based on the 1966 Time magazine article that provocatively asked Is God Dead?

Maybe the logical question in 1966 was, Is God dead? But the logical question, now that science itself is pointing to the existence of God, which sounds crazy but it's true, and nobody knows it maybe now's the time to write a book with the title, Is Atheism Dead?

Based on his research, Metaxas stressed that science, archaeology, and history dont just support Christianity they also undermine atheism.

This idea that data and science are at odds the biggest news is that not only is that not true, there are two things that follow, Metaxas explained. The second is, according to John Lennox ... it is actually atheism that is incompatible with science, which is a dramatic statement. The third thing, which nobody seems to know, but it's true, is that Christian faith led to modern science this is a historical fact; this is not some Christian gloss on history.

Science lately ... is discovering things about our universe, about the Earth, about human life, about cellular life that looks so fine-tuned, so perfectly calibrated that even atheists are being shaken. That's the one thing that they don't know quite how to handle it, he added.

The more advanced science gets, the more it points to the idea that there had to be a Creator who created the universe, Metaxas said, citing, for example, the complexity of water and plate tectonics.

Every believer needs to understand how freakish it is. I mean, for you to study science, the more you look, the more you just think, I almost can't bear this. The evidence of God is just everywhere I look, including things like water and erosion, he said. It makes you realize God is even more amazing than any of us could ever dream.

Metaxas expressed concern that some Christians today buy into a secular narrative that says its possible to believe in Jesus and the Bible until Scripture seems to contradict science.

That's not the kind of belief God is interested in, he stressed. He doesn't tell you to believe in something that is not true to the bottom. He is truth either Jesus rose from the dead bodily or He didn't. Either what the Bible says is true or it isn't. Either the Lord created the universe and every detail in it or [He] didn't. "

He added: "This idea that we would sort of put ... our faith as Christians kind of in a corner, we're participating in the marginalization of our faith. Our faith is supposed to touch everything: science, math, history. We need to be much bolder in saying, If this is true, it is true everywhere.

The Bonhoeffer,Amazing Graceand Martin Lutherauthor acknowledged that though science and archeology increasingly prove the existence of God, there will always be naysayers who refuse to acknowledge such truth.

I think in these last days, as things unravel around the world, God is shining His light brighter and brighter; He's allowing us to discover things via science and via archaeology it simply gets harder and harder to deny Him, Metaxas said. God will just keep pushing out this evidence .. but at the end of the day, it's got to be the Holy Spirit.

Though Is Atheism Dead was written for anyone eager to learn "with an open mind," it was primarily written for the Church, Metaxas said a Church he believes desperately needs to wake up.

In my Bonhoeffer book I deal with this the Church was slow to wake up, he contended. And that is a model of what not to do. If we do not wake up and fight and a lot of Christians have bad theology that says, Oh, I don't think I'm supposed to fight' not only is that not biblical, that's demonic. God pulled us to fight evil. He calls us to fight on our knees in prayer, but He also calls us to fight in all kinds of other ways.

Part of the reason I wrote this book also is to say to people, Hey, this is not a philosophy. Our faith is not a truth this is truth. And God is giving this to us so that we can be emboldened.'"

Metaxas said he believes God is going to turn things around but His Church has to fight and be armed with information.

On the science thing ... I'm thinking, tell me where I'm missing something here? I know I'm not, because I got all this information from scientists. So people are gaslighting us, that Christians have their weird views. It is nonsense. We have to be bold, we have to know what we believe, and we have to act. And, if you don't do it for yourself, do it for your kids and your grandkids.

More here:
Eric Metaxas on why atheism is 'incompatible' with science, why the Church must 'wake up' and 'fight' - The Christian Post

"Is Jesus Lord or is Caesar king?," Delano Squires asked Thursday on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," cutting to the heart of the parents vs. government debate that has set off a political firestorm at school board meetings nationwide.

"The question is, Is Jesus Lord or is Caesar king?," the "Fearless" contributor wondered. "And really, what we're seeing play out isthat tension between two competing authorities. [W]hat you see in Virginia, in New York City, in the upper northwest is school systems asserting authority that they do not rightfully have. Our children are not theirs."

ERIC METAXAS: IS ATHEISM THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM? HERE'S HOW RETREATING FROM FAITH MAKES US LESS FREE

Squires' pithy summary of the crux of the matter comes amid recent Fox News polling showing that Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin leads Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe 53% to 45%. Only a few weeks ago, the numbers were almost opposite with McAuliffe in the lead. Youngkin's surge follows McAuliffe's admission in a Sept. 28 debate, "I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."

Squires said he thinks that "most regular parents" realize the government "does not own their children." Instead, he said there is a "narcissistic classroom cosplay that involves two groups in the elite, privileged class: White liberals seeking absolution for sins that they didn't commit; and Black liberals seeking empathy for injustices that they didn't endure."

Squires framed teachers calling themselves "liberators and de-colonizers" as an act of narcissism.

The "bigger issue," he said, is the "struggle between our rights as individuals and the government's rightful authority." That boils down to a religious struggle, "particularly for Christian parents" like himself who have taken their children out of public schools to homeschool them.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Squires stood for parents' rights and mothers he dubbed "mama bears" resisting "race essentialism" and "radical gender theory." He also admonished fathers to do the same, "because for too long, fathers have taken a backseat when it comes to the education of their children."

Visit link:
Delano Squires hammers McAuliffe on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight': 'Schools asserting authority they do not have' - Fox News

Literally Ilm-ul-Kalam means the science of debate. The foremost aim of introducing this knowledge was the defense of religious doctrines by means of logic and rational arguments. Those who engaged in this discussion were referred to as Mutakallimun(those who practice knowledge of Kalam). The older history of Ilm-ul-Kalam is associated with the rationalist group Mutazilites that emerged at the beginning of second century. Later on two other school of thoughts established such as Maturidites and Asharites who represented the mainstream Sunni theology and viewed Mutazilites approach contrary to Islamic tradition and holy scriptures which brought many conflicts among themselves. I do not intend to indulge in this long historical discussion.

We know that Atheism has almost defeated all the religions except Islam because many intellectuals, even though non-Muslims they are, have admitted the rationality of Islam, the only religion goes hand in hand with science and also confronting contemporary models and alternatives. The weapon atheists use for demolishing religion is sciencenot science actually.but scientism, the attitude of extending scientific laws and consequences to ethical, social, philosophical and religious values. Scientism has to do nothing with science. It is the misuse of science for achieving personal desires. It can be classified as a religion like Darwinism, Naturalism, Socialism and Marxism etc. Even in America people celebrate Darwin's day. Is Darwin a single genius lived on the planet? There are certainly many more but why did not they get as much protocol? The reason is obvious. Atheists view Darwin their pseudo-prophet who proposed an alternative theory of creation which is the building block of atheism. The most important things of our life such as God, ethics and meaning etc, do not exist physically. Now what scientismists do, they reject all these metaphysical entities solely on the basis of science. They argue that these things cannot be verified by science and what cannot be verified by science do not exist. It is an explicit fallacy to study metaphysics using scientific spectacles. The very definition of inductive logic on which science is based, suggests that there is no certainty in the realm of science. The relation between premises and consequences is that of probability. The scientific method is limited to observation and experimentation. What lies beyond sensory perception science has no right to deny its existence. If it did so, it would be the violation of its basic definition. With the praiseworthy, attractive and astonishing achievements of science people started applying scientific method to categories that were before thought to be domains of philosophy and religion. Unfortunately, it has also brutally disrupted philosophy which resulted in movements such as logical positivism limiting the broader view and scope of philosophy to materialistic approach to make it parallel and compatible with current dominant methodology and worldview. They usually neglect the probability of variation in scientific assertions, even though it has been experienced many times in the history of science. Science may be a knowledge but not all knowledge is science. Scientists do an observation at different places and times and then broadens it universally, but if someone came up with a contradictory observation at any other place or time the previous one would be discredited because scientific claims are always exposed to falsely . A theory is said to be scientific if it is empirically falsifiable.We have to make religious community aware of the misuse of science. Scientism has made our youth agnostic and skeptic regarding their ethical, moral and religious values. To increase the rational potential of people to steadfast on their faith, the comeback of Ilm-Ul-Kalam is inevitable. If we did not take a positive step for its comeback and reformation, the young generation will fall in the quagmire of confusion and tension forever.

Writer is a student of Science, Philosophy and Theology

Email:------arafatfani439@gmail.com

Read the original here:
Why is the comeback of Ilm-ul-Kalam necessary ? - Brighter Kashmir