Category Archives: Atheism

I post this article once a month, and the options have changed. Thanks for your support! The latest project Im working on involves a weekly Substack newsletter that sums up atheism-related news.

Over the past decade, what began as a personal blog has turned into a hub with several contributors and multiple posts per day. I create YouTube videos, put out a podcast each week, and have released books! More recently, I created a podcast about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In order to facilitate all of this, I have a Patreon page.

If youd like to help out, you can pledge a certain amount every month (with rewards along the way!) from as low as $3 a month.

As always, Im grateful for the kind words and support you all send my way. Its a pleasure being a source of information (and solace) for you, and I hope to continue it well into the future.

If Patreon isnt preferable for you, you can use a credit card through Venmo (My address: Mpromptu at gmail) or send mail to P.O. Box 9734 Naperville, IL 60567.

And for those who prefer to make a one-time donation only, since Patreon doesnt allow those right now, you can always give via PayPal:

Thank you!

Follow this link:
Please Support the Work I Do Through This Site - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Photo: Royal Society, entrance, by Tom Morris (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

In previous articles, Casey Luskin and I have responded to Darrel Falks review ofReturn of the God Hypothesisfor BioLogos (see here and here). Now I will address how he greatlydownplayed the dire implicationsof the 2016Royal Society meetingfor the state of evolutionary biology.

As a quick recap: the Royal Society assembled many of the leading evolutionary theorists to discuss the limitations of the standard evolutionary model (SEM) commonly known as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis and to propose how an extended synthesis could be developed to address the explanatory deficits. Inthe opening talk, organizer Gerd Mller stated that the SEM could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here,here):

This astonishing admission must be placed in its historical context for its implications to be fully appreciated. Since ancient times, philosophers and others have debated whether everything seen in the world was simply the product of natural processes or derived from the plans of a supreme intellect (here,here,here). The ancient form of the former belief is termed atomism, and it was motivated by the desire to discredit the commonly accepted view that the gods influenced the world. Mankind could then be fully liberated from the gods. The modern form is termed philosophical or scientific materialism.

This debate was reflected in the first-century writings of a prominent Christian leader, Paul, who authored a famous letter to the church in Rome.Early in the letter, Paul statesthat those who deny that the things that have been made reveal Gods invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature actively suppress the truth. As leading scholarCraig Keener explains, Paul was affirming the Greek philosophical schools (e.g., Stoics) who argued that the clear evidence of design in nature, particularly with the human intellect, point to a transcendent mind. At the same time, he was directly challenging the Epicurean philosophers who followed in the tradition of the atomists. One of their central beliefs was that evolution and a nascent form of natural selection justified ignoring the clear evidence for design in biology (here,here,here).

The atomist tradition receded into obscurity throughout the Middle Ages. It then reemerged during the Scientific Revolution with the success of physics and chemistry in explaining natural phenomena purely in terms of physical processes. It was further bolstered by the increasing popularity of skeptical and materialist philosophies.

The philosophy of materialism was embraced by Charles Darwin early in life. He hid this fact in his autobiography and instead portrayed himself as an honest seeker of truth. Yet his personal journals reveal that his intention from the beginning was to follow in the tradition of the atomists in purging teleology (aka design) from biology (here,here).

Toward this goal he imparted to natural selection God-like creative powers in order to replace the God of biblical tradition as the creator of life a view widely accepted at the time with a blind undirected process. This maneuver wasclearly describedby biologist Francisco Ayala:

It was Darwins greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process natural selection without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.

It allowed skeptics, like the ancient atomists, to ignore the clear evidence of design in life. This point is well articulated by atheist Richard Dawkins in his bookThe Blind Watchmaker:

The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesnt agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. (p. 4)

although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (p. 10)

But herein lies the problem. The Royal Society meeting exposed the reality, carefully hidden from the public, that leading evolutionary theorists recognize that natural selection has no real creative power. The current situation harkens back to the famous comment bygenetics pioneer Hugo de Vries:

Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

The obvious consequences of the public learning about the impotence of Darwins designer-substitute required the secular scientific establishment to engage in what public relations professionals term damage control. This process typically entails a carefully orchestrated reframing of the facts, commonly known as spin.

Darrel Falk, as one of their key ambassadors, dutifully repeated such carefully crafted statements as the following,

The point of that [Mllers] talk was not to suggest that the theory of evolution is in crisis, as I think he [Meyer] implies. On the contrary, the speaker was calling for an approach to evolutionary biology which is less gene-centric

No speaker at the meeting implied there was a hole in evolutionary theory that might require intelligent input. Quite the opposite actually there was a concern that the meetings intent might be misunderstood or misrepresented. The intent was methodological: heres how evolutionary biologists can develop a more thorough picture of how evolution works.

In all fairness, Falk and other public defenders of Darwin truly believe these statements since they interpret all discussions of evolution through the lens of scientific materialism. In other words, they assume on faith that evolution must be true, and so identify any deficiencies in the theory as representing mere unsolved problems. I also attended the conference, but I interpreted the content of the presentations within the broader scope of the history I just described. Within that context, the implications of what was said, and what was not said, reveal a much different story.

Natural selection is the only mechanism that even in principle could mimic the activity of an intelligent agent in creating anything of at least modest complexity and ingenuity. This conclusion is highlighted by the fact that speakers at the conference showcased every conceivable alternative mechanism that could potentially help fill the explanatory deficits of the SEM. But not one shred of evidence was presented that any of the extensions could perform any feat beyond such trivial tasks as increasing a plants height, changing the number of digits in an animals limb, or performing other slight modifications to preexisting traits.

The current state of evolution can be compared to the crisis astronomy would face if physicists discovered that gravity stopped operating beyond 10,000 miles past a celestial body. The loss of the only feasible mechanism that could explain the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies would result in absolute pandemonium and despair.

Most materialist biologists will not so easily come to terms with their true predicament since evolution operates not only as a scientific theory but as a sacrosanct creation narrative for secular society. Nevertheless, with natural selection off the table as a designer substitute, the only sensible interpretation that remains for the overwhelming evidence of design in biological systems is that life is the product of an actual designer (here,here).

Link:
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting - Discovery Institute

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...

(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26, c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past than a critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philosophical meaning; and though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be further viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowledge, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty" only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theistic interpretation of nature for its own justification.

The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarily follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, 'I have sinned but spare me

Epicurus, the founder of that school of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism.

The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialism were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.

Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to have exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.

REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de thologie, s.v. (a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr., London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, lehrbuck d. Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refuation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.)

APA citation. Aveling, F. (1907). Atheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

MLA citation. Aveling, Francis. "Atheism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Beth Ste-Marie.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Read the original here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Atheism

Im not religious. Im an atheist. This is a common statement today, especially in the West, but it is at heart an oxymoron. While atheism does not look like Christianity or Islam, the two largest religions in the world, atheism is a religion. This, of course, is a statement that has earned ridicule, slander and rage more than once. Many atheists will argue that the very definition of atheism is non-religious. While it is true that atheists do not believe in God, that does not mean that they are not religious.

Like any religion, atheism is somewhat difficult to accurately define. There will always be self-identified adherents who disagree with a single definition. Christianity, for example, could be defined as those who believe in Jesus Christ. This definition could also include, however, Christian Witches who see Christ as the God and another deity as Goddess. Most self-identified Christians, however, would not consider these Christian Witches to be true Christians. A more detailed definition of Christianity, however, could accidentally include Protestantism, for example, but exclude Catholicism.

Most definitions of atheism are rather simple, but they are widely accepted by both atheists and non-atheists. These definitions generally include what can be called the three tenets of atheism: 1) God or gods do not exist, 2) there is no life after death, 3) this material world is all that exists. Some self-identified atheists will accept that there are spiritual beings of some sort but reject any notion of a creator God or gods. Most atheists, however, reject any idea that there is a world beyond this one or beings beyond the natural. As such, the three fold definition of atheism is the one that will be used here.

Religious scholars have struggled for years to agree on a single definition that answers the question what is religion? Early attempts at a definition claimed that religion was simply a belief in God. This, of course, was not a definition that could encapsulate the religions of the East. Buddhism, for example, does not hold to belief in a single creator god, but no one today would claim that Buddhists are not religious. As such, the definition of religion continued to evolve over the years.

Based on some of the earliest definitions of religion, atheism is not a religion. Neither, however, is Buddhism, Hinduism, Goddess worship or, by some early definitions, Catholicism. Other early definitions, however, would also exclude atheism, but they would also count common superstitions, childhood nightmares, nationalism and the products of psychotic breaks or hallucinations as religions. Most people today would not call these religions either. According to later, more nuanced definitions of religion, however, atheism is a religion.

Frazers Golden Bough is an older work that studied religion and had a number of flaws, many of which are unsurprising in hindsight considering when the book was written. His definition of religion, however, continues to make its way into secular universities today.

Atheism fits Frazers definition of a religion. Most atheists believe in the proven laws of physics and scientific theories such as evolution and natural selection. These natural laws are beyond human control and are seen as controlling the material world.

Atheists do not believe that there is a divine. This, however, does not mean that James definition of religion does not hold true for atheism.

James makes it a point to explain that religion is about action as well as belief. Atheists do not believe in a god or in gods, and they act accordingly. So, they feel a lack of belief and experience only this world, which leads them to act as though there is no world but this one.

Note as well that James points out that these experiences are individual. A belief system does not need a structured hierarchy to be a religion. It just needs to be a collective set of beliefs and experiences. Those beliefs can certainly be a belief that this material world is all that exists, and those experiences can be the experience of a lack of any sort of divinity.

The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists. Many atheists would tack and this material world is governed by natural, understandable laws onto the end of that creed. This creed, when laid out in simple terms, looks a great deal like the tenets of any other religion. These tenets, then, are how atheists in general orient themselves in the world. These three beliefs govern atheists lives and are used to help them make sense of both everyday phenomenon and to study that which is not yet understood. In the same way as other religions, atheists work to fit the entirety of their experience into their worldview. What other people experience as miracles, atheists turn inside out in an effort to explain with natural law, and they insist that there is a way to explain the unexplainable with their creed. Other religions attempt to make sense of the world in the same way.

Symbols is a somewhat vague term, but the rest of the definition is clear. Religion is a pattern of thought in people that helps them understand the world and becomes so ingrained in them that anything else seems unnatural. This is atheism to a tee.

Atheism has conceptions of a general order of existence. Those conceptions are generally the natural laws that science has identified. Just like some of the basic tenets in other religions, most atheists do not question these basic underlying assumptions. They cannot bring themselves to question neither natural laws nor the idea that life is based solely upon them even when those natural laws have been shown to be flawed and imperfect. When confronted with that fact, atheists will do the same mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs that they accuse Christians of doing when confronted with an unpleasant Bible verse.

Atheists also fit the second part of Geertz definition perfectly. The moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. Atheists often claim that believing in deities is like believing in fairy tales. Their religion, the religion of atheism and natural law, is the only one that is rational or based in reality. Their beliefs, experiences and feelings seem to be uniquely realistic.

Atheism fits many theoretical definitions of religion, and it is also practiced like other religions. In daily conversation, atheism is equated with other religions. When asked, Are you a Christian? most atheists will respond with No, Im an atheist. Atheist, then, becomes a religious label just like No, Im a Buddhist. Atheists also evangelize, though they do not want to use that word to describe their conversion attempts. Evangelize is most commonly used in relationship to Christianity, but it can be used to describe other religions attempts to gain converts, and atheism aggressively seeks to create new converts. Many atheists feel a sense of obligation or desire to open peoples eyes to what they see as the folly of other religions. There is no difference between an atheist attempting to get a Jew to admit there is no God and a Christian seeking to get a Hindu to denounce the idea of reincarnation. Both people are trying to convert a person from one belief system to another. Atheists conversion attempts are also blatantly religious because they are focused on beliefs about and in God.

Like adherents of all religions, atheists run the gamut from moderate to zealous. Many atheists are happy to live out their beliefs quietly. Others, however, are zealots who insult, degrade and curse other religions. They see other religions as a plague on the earth that needs to be destroyed and replaced with worldwide atheism. Many of these are personally offended or angered by any signs of other religions, especially in a public area. As such, they seek to remove these reminders that other religions exist either through working to enact laws unfriendly to other religions or through vandalism and threats.

Atheists will also argue in favor of their beliefs until they are blue in the face, and they are often unable to bring themselves to empathize or understand the religious beliefs of another. This is because their own beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they struggle to contemplate that another set of beliefs might contain some truth. That isnt logical becomes much the same sort of rote response of denial that atheists mock when Christians claim something isnt in the Bible. Similarly, atheists will only accept what their religion values as proof. The rejection of all evidence beyond what their own belief system accepts is once again a sign of a zealous, and, in some cases, fanatical, religious adherent.

Atheism fits some of the most widely used and highly respected scholarly definitions of religion, and it also acts as a religion in practice. Atheism influences every aspect of its adherents daily lives just as Christianity or Buddhism does for Christians and Buddhists. It is not, however, often considered to be a religion. The most common misconception that keeps people from correctly labeling atheism a religion is the idea that religion is confined to beliefs in God, not beliefs about God or the actions taken as a result of those beliefs. Were religion merely beliefs in God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism would technically be the same religion, and no one with any sense is going to argue that those three are actually one religion. As such, perhaps it is time that the list of major world religions is expanded to include the latest serious player on the religious stage: atheism.

Read more:
Is Atheism a Religion? | What Makes Atheism a Religion ...

After turning to Christ, the secretary for an organization that is working to spread atheism in Kenya has stepped down from his post.

In what WNDdescribed as a "highly unusual announcement," the Atheists in Kenya (AIK) group said in a press release that Mr. Seth Mahiga is stepping down from his position because "he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya."

On Saturday evening, Mahiga, who has been a member of the organization for one and a half years, submitted his resignation, reports the Star.

The president of AIK, Harrison Mumia, expressed his gratitude to Seth for dedicating his time to the organization, and also wished him the best as he embarks on his next phase of life.

"We wish Seth all the best in his new found relations with Jesus Christ. We thank him for having served the society with dedication over the last one and half years," he said in the press statement.

Mumia then urged Kenyans interested in the position to send in their resumes.

"The position of the secretary of the Society has been rendered vacant. We are calling upon Kenyan atheists who would wish to join our Executive Committee to send their CVs," he wrote.

Since the beginning of AIK, the organization has fought against the inculcation of Christian values in the Kenyan school system, and on an annual basis advocates for the abolishment of the National Day of Prayer, reports UG Christian News.

According to NTV Kenya, the atheist organization urges Kenya to incorporate science and skepticism in its affairs, as well as a logical and humanistic approach to morality, citing the approximately 2.5 percent of Kenyans who claim having no religion or specifying no connection.

Christians are celebrating

After resigning, Mahiga's resignation generated various comments on social media, with the bulk of his fans thanking him for the daring choice. A few others suggested that Mumia do the same.

"Thank you God you have done it again. You changed Paul, you changed Zacchaeus the tax collector, you have now changed Seth Mahiga. May you also change our corrupt politicians," one Christian commented.

"Welcome to the world of reality and truth. The light shineth in the darkness and darkness cannot comprehend it!" Glory to Jesus," said another.

Mahiga further said in a church gathering, which was taped by Elevate TV Kenya and posted online by AIK, that he had been having personal troubles prior to deciding to step down as the organization's secretary, noted Eternity News. In the short video, the pastor is seen in the pulpit with Mahiga and the audience, encouraging everyone to offer God glory by saying "Hallelujah!" He then declared that "the Bible says: 'Every knee shall bow ...'"

Elevate TV postedthe same video on Facebook with the caption, "Seth Mahiga, former Atheist Secretary General, confesses Jesus Christ at Life Church International Nairobi after resigning."

According to Cultural Atlas, about 82% of Kenyans describe themselves as Christians, with the majority classifying themselves as Protestant or Catholic. There are 11.2% of the population that identify as Muslim, 1.7% as traditionalists, and 1.6% as "other."

See more here:
Atheist Group Announces Resignation Of Former Secretary. The Reason? 'He Has Found Jesus Christ' - Christianity Daily

Photo: Lawrence Krauss, in Science Uprising, Discovery Institute.

One of the ironies of the conversation between intelligent design advocates and proponents of aggressive scientific atheism is that ID, at its cutting edge, owes a great debt to the atheists. That cutting edge is represented by philosopher of science Stephen Meyers new book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.

As Dr. Meyer explains, the debt is twofold. First, biologist Richard Dawkins and others have a special talent for framing questions about how science may illuminate the ultimate question we can ask about life, the universe, and their origin. Dawkins is right that the question about Gods existence is also a question about science, and can be adjudicated as such. Second, it was a debate with cosmologist Lawrence Krauss that prompted Meyer to look more deeply into the evidence of physics and cosmology. That allowed him to draw those fields into the argument he had previously developed from biology which, in turn, permitted extending the case for intelligent design, in a generic sense, to the case for a personal God. So, everyone who cares about the most important mystery that humans can ever consider should say Thank you! to Dawkins, Krauss, and their associates. Watch:

Original post:
Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists - Discovery Institute

Im thrilled that atheist/agnostic, nonreligious Jews like me seem to be growing in numbers. Im concerned, though, that our full set of values is not made apparent by the new Pew Research survey of American Jews.

Pew splits the community between Jews by Religion and Jews of No Religion. It suggests an increase among Jews of No Religion to 27 percent of all Jewish adults, up from 22 percent in their 2013 survey, with a whopping 40 percent among Jews ages 18-29.

I was not surveyed. But had I been, I wouldve had a tough choice with the screening question used to make that determination. Pew asked, What is your present religion, if any?

Im strongly Jewishly identified and want to be counted as a Jew. But Im equally vocal about my atheism and humanism, and in some ways, those are the more marginalized identities in American society and need greater representation. Had I checked atheist, I certainly would have answered affirmatively to the follow-up question, Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish in any way (ethnically, culturally, family background)? A yes to that wouldve included me among Jews of No Religion.

Unfortunately, most of the questions posed by this survey will portray Jews of No Religion as less than, when compared with Jews by Religion. On average, Jews of No Religion are less Jewishly educated, less synagogue affiliated, less ritually practicing, less emotionally attached to Israel, place less emphasis on being Jewish or belonging to the Jewish people, care less about having Jewish grandchildren, and have fewer Jewish friends than Jews by Religion.

This narrative of less than emerges because Pew only measured activities and values cared about by the organized Jewish community and not necessarily by the broader Jewish population.

For example, one question not asked is how strongly Jews believe in the universal equality of all people. One indicator that Jews of No Religion would average more than Jews by Religion on universalism is the way we enact that value through our family configurations: Nearly 80 percent of married Jews of No Religion are intermarried (married to spouses who arent Jewish), and nearly 60 percent of Jews of No Religion were raised by intermarried parents.

As an intermarried Jew, I see universalism as a positive value. Most of the organized Jewish community is not universalist in approach, though, it is particularistic. And thus, the conflicting narrative.

Im strongly Jewishly identified and want to be counted as a Jew. But Im equally vocal about my atheism and humanism.

Pew found the individual rate of Jewish intermarriage remaining at a sky-high 72 percent of non-Orthodox Jews over the past decade. While the report does not share the outcome of such a rate, the result is that today in America, among households with at least one married Jew, there are hundreds of thousands more intermarried than so-called in-married (two Jewish spouses) households. A case can therefore be made that universalism is a Jewish value! Which may be one reason why affiliation rates with synagogues and other Jewish organizations remain low. Can the organized Jewish community better appeal to Jewish universalists?

Diversity is another value I believe in. Along with being religiously intermarried, Im interracially married; my wife is from Japan and our kids are mixed race. While the American Jewish community is still overwhelmingly white, Jews of No Religion are more than twice as likely as Jews by Religion to live in multiracial households. Thats something to celebrate! Jews of No Religion also have twice the rate of LGBTQ+ individuals than Jews by Religion.

While demographic studies cant measure such things, Im confident that Jews of No Religion are living their lives just as ethically as Jews by Religion. The great challenge to all religions in our increasingly secular world is the growing recognition that being religious doesnt automatically make you a better person (and neither does being atheist).

We know that Jews dont need religion to be good, because the Pew survey demonstrates that even among Jews by Religion, religious belief is significantly weaker than Americans in general. Pew asked whether you believe in God as described in the Bible, and only 33 percent of Jews by Religion said yes. While most Jews do believe in some other higher power or spiritual force, if that force is not a God that makes specific commandments about how to behave, why are most Jews good? Id argue its their humanistic values, even if theyve never heard the word humanist before.

Its humanism the innate human ability to make decisions based on reason, knowledge, empathy and consideration for whats best for most people that fosters the liberal political approach among most American Jews. For example, Jews overwhelmingly support gay marriage and LGBTQ equality. That was not dictated to us from on high, and it wasnt even the case a few decades ago. It is because of our growing humanism and despite our religious tradition that Jews have come to those conclusions.

So then why still be Jewish at all? Thats the question that some Jews of No Religion already have clarity about, with our continued Jewish identity and participation. For me, its about empathy fostered from being part of an at-times marginalized minority, even as I benefit from unsought white privilege. Its about knowing where I fit into the grand timeline of human history, and a fascination with the unique Jewish story. And its about family and celebration.

The organized Jewish community could be providing this and more to the Jews of No Religion it currently is not reaching, but first there must be a recognition and acceptance of the different yet equally valid set of values we hold. Were not less than. Our differences can be celebrated equally, if only the communal umbrella were stretched wider.

Continued here:
What it means to be a 'Jew of No Religion' it's not what you think J. - The Jewish News of Northern California

Several years ago, an atheist author named James Lindsay was putting out books and articles that were pretty uncontroversial, at least as far as atheism goes.

And then, at some point, he snapped and became one of those atheists whose every sentence includes a noun, a verb, woke, and cancel culture.

In 2017, he published an article with some colleagues (including fellow anti-woke activist Peter Boghossian) claiming to have exposed academic journals especially in the field of gender studies but that article was riddled with exaggerations and left out key details. It exposed nothing of significance.

Yet that didnt stop other members of the Intellectual Dark Web the same people often referred to as public intellectuals or science advocates from hyping it up. Thats nothing new. Those people bend over backwards to praise each other and act like all criticism against one of their own is illegitimate. (More recently, they defended Richard Dawkins after he faced a mild consequence for a transphobic tweet.)

Anyway, back to Lindsay. Hes the sort of guy beloved by the people who eventually go down YouTube rabbit holes into right-wing extremism. The sort of guy who describes himself as classically liberal as he pushes conservative propaganda. The sort of guy who advises atheist groups whose activism involves recruiting members at CPAC (the conference where attendees took pictures with a golden bust of Donald Trump).

And wouldnt you know it: Many of Lindsays biggest supporters are Southern Baptists who love that someone outside their bubble is promoting their own harmful views.

In an eye-opening article by Bob Smietana of Religion News Service, we find out that Lindsays anti-woke crusade is getting rave reviews from the most conservative members of the largest Protestant denomination in the country because they love that he routinely condemns feminism, social justice, and the fight to address racial inequalities. They like him because they get to act like their bigotry isnt merely an extension of religious extremism: Look, they can say, heres an atheist who also believes were onto something!

(This is the case even though Lindsays Ph.D. is in mathematics, not the subjects hes now talking about.)

In Southern Baptist circles, Lindsay has become a key critic of Resolution 9, a statement about critical race theory and intersectionality passed at the SBCs annual meeting in 2019. That resolution refers to those two theories as analytical tools that can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences. The resolution also says those theories are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin.

That resolution was mild, even for Southern Baptists. All it did was acknowledge that theres knowledge to be gained from understanding our nations racist past and the way peoples ethnic/gender/etc. background informs their lives.

But Lindsay said that resolution was some kind of woke infestation, aligning himself with the most conservative members of the SBC in the process.

Even more damning? Lindsay has close ties to a Christian Nationalist group called Sovereign Nations.

According to a report filed with the Florida secretary of state, [Sovereign Nations president Michael] OFallon is the owner and registered agent for New Discourses LLC, which runs the website that promotes Lindsays work. Lindsay is also featured in a series of videos about critical theory and the SBC, posted on the Sovereign Nations website.

Nothing like an atheist activist funded by a Christian Nationalist. Lindsay, whose allegiance to the truth shattered a long time ago, has no problem working directly with someone like OFallon (who spreads George Soros conspiracy theories) while basking in the praise of Southern Baptists.

As Smietana notes, if Southern Baptists wanted to have a dialogue about these issues, there are perfectly qualified people within their fold, including many of the Black believers who left the Southern Baptist denomination due to its racism. But instead of listening to criticism from within, people like Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, are promoting an atheist from the outside.

Mohler is so desperate for validation, hes turning to a known atheist hoaxer. And Lindsay is so desperate for approval, hes welcoming the love from religious conservatives.

Lindsay refused to speak with Smietana for his article. But he had no problem lashing out once it was published.

As Ive pointed out many times before, being an atheist doesnt mean youre a good critical thinker. Weve unfortunately seen many examples of that in recent years. You would think the outsized praise from the same people you once denounced would raise some red flags in your mind, but when youre a professional troll, Im sure its hard to notice.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Read the original here:
Southern Baptists Love This Atheist Who Trashes Feminism and Racial Justice - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

When MK Stalin took oath of office as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister on Friday, a minor change to the text of his oath was picked up by political observers in Tamil Nadu and beyond. Some were surprised, others, not so much. "I, Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, do solemnly swear by my conscience," Stalin said in Tamil, choosing to consciously and conspicuously remove "swear in the name of God" from his oath.

While many who followed the swearing-in from North of the Vindhyas were taken aback by the staunch atheism in Stalin's oath, journalists and political commentators in Tamil Nadu did not bat an eyelid.

After all, the atheism of the DMK and the Dravidian movement at large is probably its most well-known feature. Its reputation for shunning religion and rigorous upholding of secularism goes before it. Stalin made it clear that as the 11th Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and as a member of the "Dravidian stock" his updated Twitter bio carries that claim he was going to carry that flame.

EVR Periyar, Tamil Nadu's most famous atheist

Atheism in Tamil Nadu began with EV Ramasamy (more commonly known as Periyar), the founder of the self-respect movement which would go on to form the tenets of the Dravidian ideology. "He who created god is a fool, he who propagates god is a scoundrel, and he who worships god is a barbarian," said Periyar, who was the first known advocate of atheism in the Dravidian movement.

Periyar's outright rejection of 'God', though, must be seen from the prism of his rejection of religion in the context of caste hegemony. Periyar held the view that caste hierarchies were a product of exclusionist religions, which saw upper castes stomp down on marginalised communities owing to religious endorsements. He would go on to advocate destruction of idols and religious iconography, in the attempt to rid society of religion.

History books hold that Periyar's self-respect movement was a watershed movement in Tamil Nadu's political history. And although he never became the state's chief minister himself, Periyar's movement was the precursor to Dravidian politics, which birthed names like CN Annadurai, M Karunanidhi, MG Ramachandran, J Jayalalithaa and now, Stalin.

Ever since the DMK won its first election in the erstwhile Madras state back in 1967, religious abhorrence was par for the course. However, a relatively moderate stance (when compared to Periyar's strong views on religion) was consciously adopted by Tamil Nadu state's first chief minister, and DMK founder, CN Annadurai.

Annadurai's moderate atheism

"I am a Hindu sans the sacred ash, a Christian minus the Holy Cross and a Muslim without the prayer cap," Annadurai said while upholding his secular credentials, even as he came down heavily on religious superstitions, casteist exclusions and exploitation along caste fault lines.

Annadurai also legalised self-respect marriages in Tamil Nadu, first propagated by Periyar, which solemnised a wedding without the presence of an upper-caste priest to preside over the ceremony.

"I don't break coconuts to make an offering to Ganesh, nor do I break his idols," Annadurai has said in Tamil (loosely translated to English here), upholding a brand of secularism that did not hurt religious sentiment, as opposed to Periyar's extremist practices.

The 50s and 60s saw Tamil Nadu's figureheads, Periyar and Annadurai, as the yin and yang of a political environment that was still fiercely secular and atheist. However, things took a turn for the bold and brazen, when Karunanidhi assumed charge of the DMK.

Karunanidhi contends with Lord Ram

One of Karunanidhi's most brazen displays of his atheism came in 2007, when he held that faith and religious belief was getting in the way of development in Tamil Nadu.

Karunanidhi was addressing concerns that the much-vaunted Sethusamudram project would have to be shelved since it involved dredging the Adam's Bridge, connecting India and Sri Lanka. Hindus believe that the partly submerged limestone structures near Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu were built by Lord Ram.

"Who is this Ram? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this bridge? Is there any evidence for this?" Karunanidhi asked out aloud, while addressing a public gathering in Erode, one that would later go on to be steeped in controversy, for its alleged attempt to hurt religious sentiments.

Badgered for clarifications on his remarks, and his flagrant anti-faith outbursts, Karunanidhi later said, in a television interview: "I'm not against Ram, my conscience is my God."

Neither opposed to nor believe in religion: MK Stalin

What was admirable about the Dravidian political movement from Annadurai and Karunanidhi to Stalin is that personal and socio-political atheism notwithstanding, the party and political establishment have stoically refused to come in the way of religious ceremonies, processions and expressions of personal faith.

Karunanidhi himself, for all his rigorous atheism has participated in religious ceremonies of multiple faiths. Durga Stalin -- MK Stalin's wife -- known to be a devout temple-goer, has often prompted questions from journalists and observers as to how a party that has been stoically atheist is seeing families of its top leaders visit temples and perform rituals.

"I am not opposed to religion, but I don't believe in it," said Stalin in a television interview, on the recently concluded campaign trail for the 2021 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. "My wife goes to temples, and I don't stop her."

However, religious belief, endorsement and tolerance aside, MK Stalin chose to be stoically atheist on his big day, as he took the Chief Minister's oath of office, choosing to use his father's 'God' conscience. Given the Dravidian movement's stoic upholding of atheistic values, you can't help but feel that this atheism is not only par for the course, but also much needed in a socio-political environment torn apart by religious discrimination and exclusion.

Follow this link:
Not in the name of God: Why MK Stalin's atheism is par for the course - CNBCTV18

Sumit Paul

Nihaan hai har aurat mein ek maa ka dil/ Har soorat mein aurat pehle maa hai. Tariq Aurangabadi

So true. Embedded in every woman is the heart of a mother! I can vouch for the profundity of this line. Brought up as a motherless child, yet receiving motherly love from a host of wonderful women at every juncture of life, I could empathise with the eternal truth that a woman is first and foremost a mother. Studying in Iran and living at a boarding school in Tehran, my first experience of meeting a motherly woman happened when I met my wardens wife, Mrs Mehnaaz. She was a personification of all thats affable and angelic in this world. Ill ever cherish her beatific smile. Knowing that I lived alone and was a vegetarian, she used to cook vegetarian dishes for me and eventually turned a vegetarian, much to the amusement of her hardcore non-vegetarian husband, who was my warden at the hostel. Then came Mrs Shabihah Shaheen. She taught me English and was extremely patient with me. Every day, shed give me a chocolate bar. Shed be pleased as punch to hear me speak fractured English and would rectify my mistakes in Persian. Whatever little English I can learn in life, it's because of her indefatigable efforts. She had abiding faith in my abilities. I'm still in touch with her. Though quite old, she still visits India to meet me. Never in life did she ever impose Islam on me and always respected my atheism and non-religious existence.

At Ahmednagar in India, I met Mrs Shamim Baghban. She had a fashion boutique and was a designer. Shed always darn my clothes and stitch them. Whenever I used to offer her some money, she would say, Hum apne bete se paise nahin lete. My relationship with her is still intact. I make it a point to meet her whenever I visit Ahmednagar. In fact, I go there just to meet her.

Apart from these loving ladies, I met scores of wondrous and matronly women who mothered and shaped my life. My professor and mentor Dr Zaifa Ashraf was someone whose memories still warm the cockles of my heart. So is Mrs Meera Kulkarni at Ahmednagar. A woman is an epitome of love and affection. Motherly instincts come to a woman as naturally as fragrance to flowers. They (women) are ministering angels. Thats the reason nurses across the world are still women, because a sense of care and service is integral to their psyche and personality. Nature endows a girl child with intrinsic and implicit motherhood.

On the eve of Mothers Day, I bow before all these women and others who loved and mothered me in different phases of my life. Some have left the world and some are still with me. My deepest love and respect to all.

See the rest here:
Above all, she is a mother - The Tribune India