Category Archives: Atheism

Society

19:39 03.05.2017(updated 19:47 03.05.2017) Get short URL

A recent editorial that appeared inthe New Scientist (NS) magazine shortly beforeEaster 2017, laid outthe argument that atheism is just another religious disguise.

The author, Graham Lawton, deputy editor ofNS, himself an atheist, said that being one put him ina group that many people mistrusted or discriminated against.

Lawton's view was not an isolated one, asColin Hart, Director ofthe Christian Institute, a nondenominational Christian charity committed toupholding the truths ofthe Bible, believes that atheism has not been helped bymilitant campaigners likethe scientist Richard Dawkins who is also the author ofthe book, The God Delusion.

Mr. Hart believes that Dawkins' hostile rhetoric has alienated asmany people asit has won over.

So why have atheists fallen away fromthe "progressive" movement?

Paul Z. Myers, a lecturer fromthe University ofMinnesota also an atheist agrees that Richard Dawkins is correct insaying that atheism is as 'intellectually rigorous asit has ever been" and believes his viewpoints are just assound aswhen he published The God Delusion, however Myers is concerned that the movement has lost its way.

"My concern is that we have lost the heart ofthe cause and all the New Atheist movement is aboutis saying that God doesn't exist and that's not enough," Mr. Myers told Sputnik.

"The New Atheist movement was established onthe basis that there is no God and that is not really something that reaches outand grabs people. I think we have squandered the effort todevelop a deeper meaning. If there is no God, we need a better foundation formorality, we need human interactions and atheists just haven't grasped that yet," Mr. Myers added.

Mr. Myers' views are not isolated. Colin Hart also feels the atheist movement has somewhat lost its way and this is downto the fact that Dawkins and his peers have given it a bad name.

"There is no meeting ofminds. In Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he claims its child abuse if you bring upa child tobelieve inGod and he argues that it's worse thanthe sexual abuse that took place inthe Catholic Church," Mr. Hart told Sputnik.

"Yes, I think he [Richard Dawkins] puts people off," Mr. Hart added.

This viewpoint was echoed byMr. Myers, who claimed that many people had fallen away fromthe New Atheist movement which once upona time was considered progressive.

"What is happening is that a number ofus are falling away and it's because the New Atheist movement doesn't give us that peace. Some people tried tostart a new movement called Atheism Plus, inan effort tocombine concern forour social needs and it got shattered bythe New Atheist asit was seen asrepelling. People don't want torepeat the same mistake, Mr. Myers told Sputnik.

He argues that the movement has also become associated withIslamophobia, which has unfortunately put people off.

"The New Atheist movement was driven bythe September 11 attacks, butnow it's evolved intosomething else that says, we hate those people withforeign ideas,' and this is not what atheism is all about," Mr. Myers added.

However, others have called Dawkins and his atheist followers an "intellectual bunch ofmen," who are a necessary part ofthe debate astheir aim is toquestion and challenge religious groups.

Sources that have supported the movement believe it has driven solid debate amongstatheists and people fromall religious backgrounds.

Sputnik reached outto the Richard Dawkins Foundationfor their views onthe New Atheist movement, however atthe time ofthis article being published, no response had been received.

Read more:
The New Atheist Delusion: Dawkins and Movement 'Lost the Heart of the Cause' - Sputnik International

In this 2015 file photo, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI meets with seminarians from the Diocese of Faensa-Modigliana, Italy, in the Vatican Gardens. (Diocese of Faenza-Modigliana)

Blogs | May. 1, 2017

Benedict XVI Warns of Dangerous Situation With Radical Atheism and Radical Islam

In a new message addressed to a conference sponsored by Polands president, Benedict warns this contrast creates a dangerous situation for our age.

Pope Emeritus Benedict discussed the joint perils posed by radical Islam and radical atheistic secularism in a message he sent to a conference held April 19 in Warsaw, Poland, on the topic of his thinking about the concept of the state, held to coincide with his 90th birthday. Benedicts comments were delivered to the conference by Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio, papal nuncio to Poland.

Here is the text of the pope emeritus comments, which were made in Polish and translated for the Register:

I was greatly moved, gratefuland happy to learn that an academic conference on the topic of The Concept of the State From the Perspective of the Teachings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (Pojcie Pastwa w perspektywie nauczania Kardynaa Jzefa Ratzingera/Benedykta XVI), attended by the representatives of Polands government and Church and organized under the patronage of the president of the Republic of Poland, was held to coincide with my 90th birthday.

The topic of the conference brings government and Church officials into common dialogue on a topic that is of key significance to the future of our [European] continent. The contrast between the concepts of the radically atheistic state and the creation of the radically theocratic state by Muslim movements creates a dangerous situation for our age, one whose effects we experience each day. These radical ideologies require us to urgently develop a convincing concept of the state that will stand up to the confrontation between these challenges and help to overcome it.

During the agony of the previous half-century, Poland gave the world two great figures Cardinal Stefan Wyszyski and Pope St. John Paul II who not only reflected upon these issues, but also carried within themselves suffering and vivid experiences; thus they continue to give us guidelines for the future.

I give my blessing to all of you and would like to express my sincere gratitude for the work that you do in these circumstances.

Benedict XVI Vatican, April 15, 2017

Translated for the Register by Filip Mazurczak

Originally posted here:
Benedict XVI Warns of 'Dangerous Situation' With Radical Atheism and Radical Islam - National Catholic Register (blog)

A recent survey on religion caused a stir when it revealed that many Americans lack some basic knowledge about their own religious faiths. Another provocative finding indicated both atheists and agnostics are surprisingly knowledgable about a variety of religions.

This prompts us to address a 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 + theos a god.

(You may also be interested in our explanation of what amen, one of the key words of faith and prayer, literally means. The answer is here.)

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 if divine beings exist.

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

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.

(One place where science and spirituality intersect is the concept of the God Particle. Learn what that means, here.)

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, where the universe is compared to a clock that has been wound up and set in motion by God but is governed by the laws of science.

Are there any questions of religion or spirituality you would like us to define or explore? Let us know.

Older Article

Next Article

Read this article:
How do atheism and agnosticism differ? | Dictionary.com Blog

A printer-friendly PDF version of this document is available here.

It is a frequent rejoinder and polemic hurled about by religious apologists. Yes, certain murderous excesses like crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts may have been committed by the religious, but they pale in comparison to those done in the cause of atheism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot-strident atheists all whose famines, wars, genocides, and purges created magnitudes more dead. Consider, for example, these words from militant Christian cheerleader, Dinesh DSouza:

These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

As a student of Soviet history and communist ideology (MA in Russian Studies, Georgetown University), I was surprised to encounter such accusations when I first heard them. Never in my studies had I come across this view, neither in the scholarly literature nor in the classroom. Some might dismiss this as simply evidence of the universitys deeply liberal and secular bias, yet scholars of a conservative bent, such as Hannah Arendt and Richard Pipes (with whom I tended to agree), were a core part of my curriculum. My graduate studies were also completed at a university founded and run by Jesuits, not exactly proponents of skepticism.

It is not difficult to see why todays religious apologists are so eager to impugn atheism in this way. Skepticism and secularism, if not outright rejection of religion, are growing in increasing favor among nations and regions where age-old religious traditions have kept them employed. Mass terror attacks, suicide bombings, and intractable religious strife have coalesced to focus hard attention, once again, on the seamier side of faith. Religious belief is thus on the defensive. Unable to wholly reject the skeptics barbs, its apologists consequently respond with this moral equivalency argument. Bad things have been done in religions name, they acknowledge, but worse have been done by those who have none. Apparently, religion is to be preferred because it has produced fewer horrors than the alternative.

Behind all the noise generated by religions apologists, is there perhaps a grain of truth? If there is, I have not uncovered it. In fact, I know of no reputable historian of the communist experience who believes atheism plays any meaningful role, much less the actual basis. (Its come to my attention that Dr. David Aikman is a Russian historian and Christian apologist who believes there is a connection. See my responses to him here and here). Arendts Totalitarianism, which stands as the definitive account of the philosophical origins of the totalitarian mind, never once mentions atheism. Those who suggest a connection between atheism and communist atrocity are in the decided scholarly minority. Could the historical revisionism be another example of their long-practiced art of pious fraud?

What lies behind the seductive appeal of their thesis is the notion conceit, really that one cannot be moral without belief in some Supreme Moral Lawgiver. As a Christian apologist explains,

No matter how sincerely I believe I am right about some moral decision, the true test is in the origin of that belief. And God is the only universal and absolute origin to all morality If we dont believe we are created by God, but simply highly evolved animals, and if we believe we have accountability only to society, then there is no end to the depths of depravity that we can go in our search to justify our actions. Corrosion of morals begins in microscopic proportions, but if not checked by a standard beyond ourselves, it will continue until the corrosion wipes away the very foundation of our lives, and we find ourselves sinking in a sea of relativity.

Unfortunately, this claim simply has not been borne out in practice, and is soundly refuted in the skeptical literature. The vast number of non-believers who lead ethical lives as well as the notable cases of high-profile believers who dont demonstrates that god-belief makes one no more or less moral. A growing body of scientific evidence posits an explanation why: morality likely has a biological basis. Many theists, such as the renowned Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, counter that the basis is of divine origin, a natural law written upon mans heart by God (Romans 2:14-15). Perhaps, but in claiming such a law, religions apologists have unwittingly undermined their argument that atheism inevitably leads to the depths of depravity. Did atheists somehow figure out a way to overrule an act of God?

With that said, I now debunk the thesis that atheism lies at the bottom of the previous centurys brutal regimes. I start with Hitlers Nazism, for which there is virtually no basis at all.

Although outside my area of expertise, the suggestion that atheism played any part in shaping the policies of the Third Reich is simply beyond the realm of historical plausibility. For starters, there is the well-documented mingling between Christians and the Nazis, the democratic election of whom could not have been achieved without the formers support. Next, if any doctrine can be said to have inspired Nazi genocidal anti-semitism, one need look no further than that which was enunciated by one of Germanys most celebrated Christian theologians, Martin Luther, in his On the Jews and Their Lies. Finally, Nazis identified themselves as implacable foes of the emerging ideology to their east. As Hitler himself stated,

For their interests [the Churchs] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life. (emphasis mine)

Further reading: Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Nuff said. Below are the main reasons why the alleged atheism = despotism charge is false.

Communism served as the core ideology, with some modification and variants, for the worlds socialist despotisms. It is, according to a chief proponent, the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. How such conditions would come about was a subject of much debate (and conflict), but Karl Marxs and Friedrich Engelss vision (i.e., Marxism) held primary sway among the doctrines adherents.

Marx and Engels manifestly asserted that the necessary pre-condition for any communist society was the abolition of private property, which they identified as the key institution responsible for subjugating the working class, the proletariat. The elimination of private property was thus the main demand of the communist. How dirty private property is to the communist mind is difficult to relate, but consider this: for all its vaunted market reforms, it was only four years ago that Chinas ruling Communist Party finally endorsed private property in the countrys constitution. The few socialist hold-outs such as Cuba and North Korea have not even gone that far.

Marx and Engels did not craft their theories from whole cloth; rather, their views were drawn from a hodge-podge of 19th century economists, political scientists, philosophers, and historians, from Adam Smith to Immanuel Kant. Theists frequently cite the work of Ludwig Feuerbach on Marxs thinking, particularly his The Essence of Christianity, which argued that God is really a creation of man. But the influence is overplayed and critical departures papered over. For Marx, religion is the result of mans conditions, not their source, something which he criticized Feuerbach for failing to realize. Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the religious sentiment is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society. Feuerbach believed that the idea of God alienated man, while for Marx, it was the social conditions which alienated.

Another doctrine said to heavily influence Marx is materialism. Theists claim that materialism, which holds that everything in existence is derived from matter, logically leads to amorality since there is no reason to act good. This objection is odd, since many of these same theists believe acting good matters for naught in obtaining heaven; it is belief in and utterance of the correct doctrines which decides. But fundamentally, the accusation fails because it confuses ontology with ethics, what is with what ought to be. As we are almost daily reminded by suicide bombers, religious belief is no barrier itself to murderous brutality (if not a catalyst for it).

In any case, theists misunderstand the materialism of Marx and Engels, who, more precisely, believed in historical materialism. Historical materialism asserts that the development of a human society its economics, politics, history is derived from its production relations. A fuller treatment of the topic is beyond our scope, but it should be clear that Marx and Engels had a specific conception of materialism in mind, one that is far from widely held, even among materialists.

Rather than the lynchpin of communist ideology, as the theistic apologists would have us believe, atheism enters by way of a deep ambivalence toward religion, which Marx and Engels saw as a by-product of oppressive social conditions. Other influences, however, played a stronger role, both in communist ideology and practice.

One such influence was the critique of private property put forward by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. His What is Property?, which famously declared that property is theft, was the key work in convincing Marx that private property should be abolished. Where did Proudhon himself get this idea? As he wrote, My real masters, those who have caused fertile ideas to spring up in my mind, are three in number: first, the Bible; next, Adam Smith; and last, Hegel. (emphasis mine) Understandably, Christian apologists fail to mention Proudhons influence on the development of communism, if they are even aware of it at all.

An important component of communist practice is the belief that the morality of an action is determined solely by whether it advances the cause of the proletarian revolution. In other words, the ends justify the means when the end is the supremacy of the working class. While Marx and Engels occasionally spoke of independent morality based on human dignity, later communist theorists like Leon Trotsky dismissed this view. As Nicholas Churchich writes in Marxism and Morality, For Trotskydeceit, violence and murder, if they serve the proletarian political ends are perfectly moral and should be employed without hesitation. Communists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot followed this ethic unwaveringly.

There is more to be said about the fabric of thought which comprised communisms tapestry, particularly its tremendously varied strands, including explicit Christian expressions, but I think the point is more than established:atheism is a peripheral and even unnecessary component of communist ideology.

We saw above that communism as expressed by Marx and Engels included an anti-religious bent. Theistic apologists, in a sleight of hand, conflate this anti-religiosity with atheism, though the connection between the two is tenuous at best. To be sure, atheists are sometimes anti-religious, but their opposition is usually to the type of domineering religion which seeks to force non-believers to adhere to its metaphysical and theological claims. Atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in god(s), does not inevitably and logically lead to anti-religiosity. To buttress the point, consider deism, which has long disparaged organized religion.Todays secular societies, which include significant numbers of atheists, are wholly tolerant of religious believers as long as these believers keep their faith-based dogmas and conflicts out of the realm of public policy.

Today, we find it difficult to relate to the minds of 18th and 19th intellectuals, many of whom viewed religion as a force for ill in society. We and our immediate ancestors were not subject to its endless wars, its hostility to liberty and democracy, its thought control, and its support for despots and tyrants, when not ruled by the churchs version of the same. But centuries ago, in Marxs time, the landscape of recent history was vastly different. Many, including Marx and those who followed him, viewed organized religion with some justification as a reactionary and tyrannical institution, which severely discredited religions metaphysical claims. In Russia, for example, where an attempt to build a communist society was first undertaken, the Russian Orthodox Church had remained a central pillar supporting the corrupt and in-bred tsarist autocracy long after similar religious influence had waned in other parts of Europe. Its support for the White Army in the civil war which followed the communist takeover of 1917 no doubt cemented Bolshevik belief that the Church was counter-revolutionary and dangerous, to be eradicated at the earliest opportunity.

Marx believed that religion would fall to the wayside as the conditions which gave rise to it succumbed to historys inevitable march toward a communist future. Vladimir Lenin, however, reflecting on the failure of Marxs predictions, believed that this future could be obtained by a forced march, through a state-directed eradication of bourgeois institutions, like religion, and the creation of a socialist, heavy industrial economy. Only in this way could the proper proletarian class consciousness develop and communism finally arise.

Anti-religiosity found in socialist states had its genesis in Marxism, but it was Lenin (and later, Stalin) who gave it full flower, as part of a radical transformation of society along communist lines and as a reaction to the pre-revolutionary past. Unable to demonstrate the necessary links between atheism and this unprecedented type of revolution, religious apologists thus erroneously conflate atheism with anti-religiosity, as well as ignore the historical circumstances which gave the latter special potency and allure.

A salient feature of all the 20th centurys communist dictatorships was the widespread and indiscriminate use of terror against any opposition, both real and perceived. Virtually no one was spared, up to and including members of the inner circle of the ruling clique. The reasons are rooted in the dogmatism of Marxist-Leninist ideology, in the political cultures inherited by the new regimes, but mostly in the fact that all power was centralized under a single, unaccountable ruling party or individual. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously put it. Whenever such totalitarian dictatorship arises, regardless of its ideological, political, or social character, tyranny is the inevitable result. The only variable is its extent.

Believers make much hay over religious persecution under socialist regimes, and indeed, they suffered heavily. But they ignore the fact that everyone else suffered too, including other communists and workers. Of most significance was ones class background, which communists believed determined ones reaction to the revolution. The stance was summarized thus:

Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of [Lenins] Red Terror.

Under the hyper-paranoid atmosphere of Stalins reign in the 1930s, even this distinction fell away, as identification of enemies of the state became a mandate against which almost no one was safe (e.g., the Great Purge). This form of political terror was long practiced before Stalin and Hitler; consider, for example, the Catholic Churchs inquisitions against heretics. But the key difference, the special condition which drove the 20th century communists like Mao to such murderous ends, was the belief, in Stalins words, that terror is the quickest way to a new society. The vast swathe of murder committed in the name of this new society gives lie to the claim that it was merely a religion-free one that was sought

Indiscriminate terror as a political means to bring about the communist future is neither accounted for nor explained by religious apologists. If the motivator of communist despots was atheism, then one would expect exclusive attention paid to believers an impression they strive mightily to establish. But, as we have seen, the impression is a gross distortion of historical reality. Nothing was done in the name of atheism, but in the name of the proletariat and a new communist order. This is why not only believers were tyrannized, but peasants, land owners, workers, ethnic nationalities, factory owners, intellectuals, members of rival communist organizations, and even the regimes own founders. All were trampled under communisms march.

A final point. As mentioned, communist regimes did target believers for persecution, but its application was not consistent. In the Soviet Union, some churches and faiths were especially brutalized, but others, like Islam, experienced official co-option from agencies such as Spiritual Administration of the Muslims. As the Soviet Union entered the second world war, the Russian Orthodox Church was enlisted to support Stalins government in the countrys defense support which it unreservedly granted by naming Stalin as divinely appointed, just as it had done under the Russian tsars. Later years saw a waxing and waning of official toleration for religion, until the Gorbachev era, which lifted a great many restrictions. If theists wish to claim religious oppression under communism as a natural outgrowth of atheism, they need to explain the variety and inconsistency of this oppression as well.

As I alluded to above, the patterns of persecution experienced under 20th century despotism bear striking resemblance to those committed by religion. This is no accident or coincidence. There are at least four common features which religion and communist dictatorships share that explain why.

The first similarity is belief in some dogmatic truth. Marx and Engels believed they had discovered immutable historical laws, scientific in their predictive power, the correctness of which there was no doubt. This gave them, and their communist followers, tremendous confidence in the future; the fall of capitalism and subsequent rise of communism were historically inevitable. As Lenin described:

Marxs theory is the objective truth. Following the path of this theory, we will approach the objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic premise, a single essential part, without deviating from objective truth, without falling into the arms of bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.

This statement of unalloyed dogmatism is precisely echoed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which many Christian organizations mandate its members affirm:

Holy Scripture, being Gods own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by his Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as Gods instruction, in all that it affirmsThe authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bibles own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church.

The second similarity is hostility to liberty and independent thought. Although some faith traditions have largely embraced the ideals of freedom, a good many other traditions remain anywhere from fair-weather friends to implacable opponents. It is true that some of libertys most stoic defenders and foes of tyranny are numbered among the religious, but it is also true that this is a relatively recent development. Most of humankinds most brutal and backward institutions, such as slavery, were long zealously supported by the religious, who drew inspiration from their divinely annointed books. As Thomas Jefferson, a deist, observed, In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. The major religions censorious inclinations are well established, and continue even today, with some authors paying with their lives for daring to challenge religious orthodoxy. Such practices and beliefs are mirrored in the practices of the 20th century despotisms, which regulated and constrained the lives and thoughts of its citizens to a degree never seen before.

Yes, this hostility is universal throughout history, but the communist despotisms and religion share common reasons. First, their practitioners believe they possess an absolute truth, an inerrant paradigm, opposition to which is inexcusable (Romans 1:20) or a sign of mental illness. Second, both hold a supremely negative view of human nature a nature which must be restrained and molded for the greater good. Third, their revered works lack any explicit rational or defense of human liberty, but offer plenty of material to challenge it. Given these attributes, there is thus little wonder why communism and religion share a common heritage of reaction against the march of human freedom.

A third shared trait is unquestioned obedience from the top. When the leader has spoken, those below are obligated to follow whatever edicts or commands that were issued. Consultative or deliberative bodies there may be, but they do not set policy or mandate a vision. This is because only the leader is believed to be imbued with the right (often mystical) qualities, enabling him to chart the true path and avoid error. Setbacks or failures are always the fault of subordinates, who are either purposely undermining orders or lack sufficient ability and will. It takes long periods of time before mistakes are rectified, because information flows only from the top down, and because admitting them punctures the aura of infallibility upon which the power of the leader strongly depends. Usually reform comes only after he has passed away or been removed. Dissent is severely limited and punished.

A fourth commonality is the promise of a perfected existence. Theists have their heaven; communists have their utopia. Whether achieved in this life or the next, both hold out hope for a future which not just surpasses but transcends the present, mundane world. The utility of this promise is powerful and multi-faceted, spurring true believers to acts of incredible heroism and sacrifice, but also to abject evil, because no effort is justifiably spared in order to achieve the glory that awaits. The striking feature of the promise is that it is offered completely on faith. Besides mythical stories buried in some far distant past, its propagators can point to no evidence that their nirvanas are true. The inability to verify their claims redounds to their benefit, since the conditions for attaining the new existence can be altered at will, much to the profitability of church and/or state.

And what would the carrot be without the stick? Rejection of the gospel truth is an intolerable affront, punishable here and now in some labor or re-education camp, or after death in a lake of fire for all eternity. Utopia if youre with us, hell if youre not.

The four commonalities above explain why the behavior of the 20th century despotisms closely models that of many religions. Besides todays communist regimes, which others are the most conservative and oppressive? Not secular societies, but those ruled in accordance with religious doctrines.

Experience has demonstrated time and time again, when reality and faith diverge, religious believers often alter reality to conform to faith. The desperate claim that atheism produced the 20th century despotisms is another unfortunate example, and cynical in its attempt to divert attention from religions own historic crimes, which assuredly have been committed in accordance with its creeds. If anything, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler should serve warning to the dangers of religion, which equally seeks to impose a version of its own unassailable dogmas on the rest of us.

Read more:
Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities? | Making ...

The mayor of San Antonio, Ivy Taylor, made headlines recentlyduring a mayoral candidate forum. She was asked about systemic generational poverty in her city and what she thought caused it. Mayor Taylor replied, "To me, it's broken people...people not being in a relationship with their Creator. Basically it was godlessness which caused poverty, in her view. Whether this was a deflection or her actual belief isnt clear. But that she thought this would be an acceptable answer tells us something about how agnostics, atheists, and those questioning faith, are regarded in American society.

Another controversy in a similar vein, was when the Pope spoke out, saying it is better to be a good atheist than a fake Christian. This emphasizes Catholicisms focus on good works as the path to salvation over pure faith, as Protestants believe. Christianity is the largest world religion, followed by Islam which is growing, but not as fast as the third place contestant, no religion, the fastest growing faith category in the world. Around 7% of the global population is atheist and if we include the non-religious, its 16.5%.

A recent Gallup Poll suggests one in 10 Americans dont believe in God, a small but significant milestone. Over one-third of millennials polled were religiously unaffiliated. On another front, according to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who identify as Christian dropped 8% between 2007 and 2014.

Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is well-known for his non-belief. On this side of the pond, two researchers say, there's a stigma against atheism. Getty Images.

No religious affiliation or nones, are the second largest faith category in North America today. Theyve been growing steadily for decades now. About 25% of the entire US population are among the unaffiliated. While in the past several years, the number of atheists has doubled. Most are white, male, and highly educated. 56% are politically liberal. People of color, women, and the less educated tend to be more religious.

Some experts say there are even more atheists that arent accounted for. A recent study at the University of Kentucky finds a lot of what they call closet atheists." Researchers Will Gervais and Maxine Najle say theres a lot of stigma surrounding atheism. Several polls have shown that people find atheists less trustworthy, even immoral. As a result, many lie to the pollster because they feel uncomfortable sharing their true feelings, Gervais and Najle say.

Pews 2014 Religious Landscape Study, found that those who self-identified as atheists mostly kept it to themselves. Two-thirds said they seldom, if ever, discussed their point of view. In the same survey, 51% of Americans said theyd be less likely to support an atheist candidate for president.

That number declined from 63% in 2007. Even so, there are no atheists in Congress today. Only one House member Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), is religiously unaffiliated. Perhaps even more thought provoking, a 2014 Boundaries in the American Mosaic Survey, found that 42% of US adults said that atheists dont share the same vision for America as they do.

Despite the image of atheists being outspoken, a new study finds that there may be just as many "closeted" ones. Getty Images

According to Gervais and Najle, atheism in the US may be as high as 26%, more than double Pews findings. The results of this study are being published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. Pew had it at nine percent. A 2016 Gallup poll says 10% of Americans are atheists. But Gervais said, We can say with a 99 percent probability that its higher than [11 percent].

He and Najle decided to use a unique method known as the unmatched count technique," to eliminate any stigmatization from the study. They created a survey and gave it to 2,000 US adults. These were two nationally representative samples. Rather than come right out and ask the respondent their beliefs, participants were given a list of statements. These included, I have a dishwasher in my kitchen, I am a vegetarian, I enjoy modern art, and I own a dog. One group however confronted an additional statement, I believe in God.

Each participant wrote down the number of statements that were true for them. Since both groups had around the same number of dog owners and vegetarians, the researchers could estimate how many didnt believe in God. In this way, by taking off the social pressure, they arrived at a more accurate number, Gervais and Najle argue.

On the other hand, the director of Pews religion polling efforts Greg Smith, was skeptical of the findings. I would be very reluctant to conclude that phone surveys like ours are underestimating the share the public who are atheists to that kind of magnitude, he said.

Secular Sunday Assembly, an atheist church in England. Getty Images.

A lack of faith has been hard to study. Besides the stigma, the variety of labels and categories has expanded over time. They sometimes identify as agnostic, a skeptic, undecided, non-affiliated, or even a humanistthose who are good without God. Then there is a segment who simply refuse to be labeled. This wide differentiation may obfuscate "nones" actual numbers.

Another issue that might make them less visible is that there is no traditional, overarching institution to organize, cater to, and represent atheists. The Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation may be changing that. Stephanie Guttormson is the operations manager for the latter. She told National Geographic, Organizing atheists is like herding cats. But she added, Lots of cats have found their way into the 'meowry.'

There are websites, agnostic and atheist discussion boards, and Meetups for those who are on the skeptical side of things. Theres even a place for those who would like to continue taking part in some kind of ritual, without receiving dogma. In England, the Secular Sunday Assemblysomething of an atheist church, has caught on. The idea has taken by storm, and similar institutions now dot North America.

To hear about this growing atheist church movement, click here:

Read the original post:
Study Contends There Are Twice as Many Atheists in America as Polls Show - Big Think

A recent study suggested that the common figure for atheism in America about one in ten is likely an underestimate. Operating on the theory that there are many atheists "in the closet," the study tried to sneak in questions about belief in God that would reveal those hesitant to identify as atheists. A Barna Group researcher confirmed that atheism is likely underreported, but not exactly in this way.

"If, by atheist, we mean a lack of belief in God or gods, then yes, there would be many more people who are atheistic than the small percentage who say they believe 'there is no such thing as God,'" Brooke Hempell, vice president of research at the Barna Group, told PJ Media.

Atheists may not be willing to identify themselves as such or to respond point blank that they do not believe in God, University of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle suggested. "There's a lot of atheists in the closet," Gervais told Vox. He argued that "if they knew there are lots of people just like them out there, that could potentially promote more tolerance."

Data for disbelief in God prove quite hazy. The Pew Research Center found that around 3 percent of Americans say they are atheists, but around 9 percent say they do not believe in God or in a universal spirit. When Gallup asked the question bluntly "Do you believe in God?" in 2016, it found 10 percent of respondents said no.

But there is a stigma against atheism, or so Gervais and Najle suggested. Even atheists tend to believe that people who do not believe in God are less moral. "We'll give participants a little vignette, a story about someone doing something immoral, and probe their intuition about who they think the perpetrator was," Gervais told Vox. "And time and time again, people intuitively assume whoever is out there doing immoral stuff doesn't believe in God."

Due to this stigma, "we shouldn't expect people to give a stranger over the phone an honest answer to that question," Gervais added.

The University of Kentucky psychologists have submitted their results to the journalSocial Psychological and Personality Science. In their study, Gervais and Najle polled two separate groups of 1,000 Americans each.

The researchers asked the first group to identify how many statements like "I am a vegetarian" or "I own a dog" or "I have a dishwasher in my kitchen" were true for them. Respondents merely wrote down the number of statements that fit them.

For the second group, the researchers included the statement "I believe in God."

By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and Najle estimated how many people did not believe in God. Their study assumed that the two groups of 1,000 had roughly the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so forth. Therefore, the difference in the numbers of statements applying to each group would reflect the number of atheists.

View post:
There Are More Atheists Out There Than You Think - PJ Media

An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist Alliance of America

CW, you are the CEO and Founder of the Philosophical Atheism online community. How did this idea come about?

I wanted to create a forum for people to discuss complicated philosophical concepts based in reason, evidence, understanding, and proper argumentation. We also joke, laugh, and educate ourselves as we go. I am excited that it has become so popular. We have a lot of fun and learn a lot about life while doing it.

How do you believe the two relate? Is there a need for atheists to be philosophical and for philosophers to be atheists?

To be without religion is a beginning, but to better navigate life without a god or gods, we need a decent philosophy to live by. Some atheists are nihilists, while others are humanists. I prefer to say that we all create meaning for our own lives, as we see fit. To do this, we need good philosophy and there is plenty for us to learn. Philosophical Atheism helps people do this.

What does Philosophical Atheism do to promote its values?

We constantly encourage people to question their beliefs. We have recently partnered with the Atheist Alliance of America to make a better world based on our shared values. Their vision is to transform society into one that supports a worldview based on reason, empiricism, and naturalism.

You were a conservative Christian for 17 years. How, and why, did you become an atheist?

I read the Bible many times. I used to proselytize to people and became quite adept at Christian apologetics. I had to do this because it kept me believing. However, by continuing to defend in my gut what I felt were faulty thinking processes, I acknowledged much about the psychology behind many believers that disturbed me. With this in mind, I increased my understanding of psychology, philosophy, and other religions, including Eastern ones. This led me to know that my feelings were correct and had clear, valid reasons for why these people were wrong. This research also helped me understand why their actions played out the way they did. It was liberating, but also difficult because I had to leave everything I knew. Philosophical Atheism was a creation of this transition, to help others avoid floundering as long as I did before my own de-conversion.

You are also at the Executive Director and Director of Social Media of the Atheist Alliance of America (AAoA). What are the main goals of the AAoA as well as its largest activities and initiatives?

As I mentioned before, AAoAs vision is to transform society into one that supports a worldview based on reason, empiricism, and naturalism. To achieve this, we are working on uniting as many of the atheist communities in the Unites States as we can. For those who do not join us, we will still strive to support when needed. We want to provide a service to the atheist community and the general public that helps them both understand and value logic as a proper reasoning process to build their world view upon. This includes spreading values based off secular humanism, which promotes equal rights for all, based upon our status as humans and not god or gods people may or may not follow.

Which do you think are the main challenges that atheism faces in todays world?

I think the main challenge is the fact that we have to be called atheists at all. Atheism is an off switch to a widely accepted epidemic of people believing in a god or gods without proper foundations of reasoning, evidence, and understanding. They do not seem to understand that you cannot start with a conclusion, then build evidence backwards to support that claim. It leads to many gaps in knowledge unknowingly built upon fallacies like confirmation bias or gods being accepted as an explanation for missing pieces in our understanding of the cosmos (also known as god of the gaps). Moving forward with evidence not based on a pre-determined conclusion helps to show us that there are many things we still do not know, but, if you are like me, would love to find out. There are many things we do not yet understand about ourselves and our cosmos, but I find no fear in that; I actually find it quite thrilling. We have to stop thinking as a species that we must have answers to all of lifes questions. This is our biggest problem and why atheism exists in the first place, because people decided that they must know things they cannot.

What do you think is the best response to religious fundamentalism?

I think the best response to fundamentalism is through education, with the goal of changing peoples hearts and minds. We should help people realize that they are pretending to know things they cannot possibly know and that it is okay not to have answers for some of the most difficult existential questions. To start this, we first need to reach the more reasonable liberals and moderates. They are the ones, through their silence or support, who provide fundamentalists with credibility, that people must respect peoples beliefs no matter what. One of the biggest mistakes we make is giving beliefs unassailable rights, instead of people, which place them beyond the scope of criticism. Beliefs are not people; people are not their beliefs. This is how fundamentalism is allowed to run rampant. Moderate believers dont want to call into question what may be wrong about their own reasoning processes.

What is the best piece of advice you would give to people who are unsure about their faith and are now balancing between theism and atheism?

I would encourage them to explore other religions. Many of them contradict each other. Rather than thinking that one of them must be right, I encourage them to accept the more likely possibility that they could all be wrong. Also, to start realizing that the reason something must be called faith is because it is not knowledge. This is a huge red flag in itself that invites more investigation.

Finally, how can one contact you to learn more about your projects, initiatives, and how to join or donate to AAoA and Philosophical Atheism?

For more information please contact me at cw.brown@atheistallianceamerica.org, visit philosophicalatheism.com,and to help support our cause please consider a donation or signing for a membership atheistallianceamerica.org/membership/.

More:
An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist ... - Conatus News

The mayor of San Antonio didnt say atheism leads to poverty, despite several media reports characterizing her recent comments that way.

During a candidates forum earlier this month, Mayor Ivy Taylor, a Democrat, was asked by the SA Christian Hope Resource Center, a charity working to make individuals financially self-sustaining, what she believes are the deepest systemic causes of generational poverty in San Antonio.

In response, Taylor shared her faith in God and her belief that, without God, people are broken.

Since youre with the Christian Coalition, Ill go ahead and put it out there that to me,its broken people, the mayor said. People not being in a relationship with their Creator and therefore, not being in a good relationship with their families and their communities and not being productive members of society.

I think thats the ultimate answer, sheadded, later saying she tries to be an example to those around her.

As mayor, though, Taylor said thats not something I work on.

And despite the numerous reports on her comments, very few coveredthe practical issuessheaddressed next.

I see education as the great equalizer, she said. And so, for a variety of reasons you know, wanna talk about school districts, or economic segregation we just have not provided the same opportunities for people to have access to high-quality education that puts them on the path for careers in every single part of San Antonio.

I see that as being one of the systemic causes, she continued.

Teen pregnancy, the mayor argued, is also an issue that leads to poverty.

And that kind of goes hand-in-hand with education because when people are parenting early, Taylor said, that usually means they dont have the opportunity to complete their education, so it ends up being a vicious cycle.

However, the Democrat said shes received some pushback from those who characterize the issue of teen pregnancy as a moral or religious one. Taylor said shes tried to frame it as an economic development issue because those who cannot complete their education are generally underemployed or unemployed.

Later in the discussion, Taylor opened up more about her faith: I am a born again Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ.I draw very heavily on that as far as the strength to do this job.

She went on to say she relies onPhilippians 4:13on a daily basis. The passage reads, For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength.

Interestingly, the next candidate to answer the question, City Councilman Ron Nirenberg, offered an equally philosophical answer to the problem of poverty, though he didnt invoke God.

If I had to point to one cause philosophically, said Nirenberg, who is politically unaffiliated, it would be the loss of the public common, the sense that were all in this together. And that has resulted in people doing a lot of things or not doing a lot of things.

Such as participating in the local elections, such as reading a newspaper, such as doing whatever it is to help a neighborhood association. Theres a loss of the sense of a common ground, a common purpose for people throughout this city and throughout this community, he continued, describing the situation as a plague on us all.

His comments, however, were not scrutinized in the same way Taylors were. The Huffington Post said Taylor suggested people without God cause poverty and the Progressive Secular Humanist, a blogger at Patheos, wrote: San Antonio Mayor Says Atheism Causes Poverty.

None of those reports are entirely accurate, though thats not surprising. Last year, New York Times editorDean Baquet admitted the newspaper is out of touch with religion.

We dont get religion. We dont get the role of religion in peoples lives, he said.And I think we can do much, much better. And I think there are things that we can be more creative about to understand the country.

In response to the backlash shes received from the incomplete media reports on her comments, Taylor told KENS-TV that many of the stories are dishonest, politically motivated, and intentionally edited.

Heres Taylors full response:

The video clip that surfaced on social media this weekend is a dishonest, politically motivated misrepresentation of my record on combatting poverty. It was intentionally edited to mislead viewers.

I have devoted my life to breaking the chains of generational poverty as an urban planner, the District 2 councilwoman, and now mayor. Ive done so because of my faith in God and my belief in Jesuss ministry on Earth. I believe we are all called on to help lift our brothers and sisters out of poverty.

The video was edited to cut out the rest of my answer what Ive done as mayor to help alleviate poverty in San Antonio. That includes taking on teen pregnancy and our high-school dropout rates, advocating job-training for young people who arent college-bound, and fighting crime.

You can see the mayors fullanswer during the forum at the1:07:45 in the video below.

Read more:
Did the San Antonio mayor really say that atheism leads to poverty? - TheBlaze.com

A man in Saudi Arabia has reportedly been sentenced to death on charges of apostasy after losing two appeals.

Several local media reports identified the man as Ahmad Al Shamri, in his 20s, from the town of Hafar al-Batin, who first came to the authorities attention in 2014 after allegedly uploading videos to social media in which he renounced Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

He was arrested on charges of atheism and blasphemy and held in prison before beingconvicted by a local court and sentenced to death in February 2015.

Authorities in Saudi Arabia have used a viral party video to identify and arrest partygoers in the country

At the time Mr Shamris defence entered an insanity plea, adding that his client was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of making the videos.

He reportedly lost an Appeals Court case, and a Supreme Court ruled against him earlier this week.

While news stories in the last few years consistently identify Mr Shamri, his identity or sentencing has not been verified by the Saudi authorities.

The Independents requests for comment from Saudi government representatives were not immediately answered.

Under Saudi Arabias strict religious laws, leaving Islam can be punishable by harsh prison sentences and corporeal punishment - and a 2014 string of royal decrees under the late King Abdullah re-defined atheists as terrorists, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.

Last year, a citizen was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing atheistic sentiment in hundreds of social media posts.

Mr Shamris name and hometown have trended on Arabic-speaking Twitter in the last few days. Some users have even celebrated his sentencing.

If you're a lowkey atheist that's fine. But once you talk in public & criticize God or religion, then you shall be punished, one such post read.

I wish there could be live streaming when you cut his head off, said another.

International human rights watchdogs have consistently condemned Saudi Arabias human rights record.

The Kingdom came under further scrutiny last week when it emerged it had been elected to the UNs womens rights commission.

Under the countrys system of guardianship, womens rights and freedom of movement is heavily restricted. They are not allowed to drive, and voted for the first time in 2015.

Electing Saudi Arabia to protect womens rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief, UN Watch Director Hillel Neuer said. Its absurd.

Saudi Arabia has sat on the UNs human rights council since September 2015.

See the rest here:
Man 'sentenced to death for atheism' in Saudi Arabia | The ... - The Independent

Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins have done secularism a disservice, according to New Scientist.

An editorial in the issue of the magazine published on Easter Saturday criticised Dawkins and other new atheists, who attack scientists advocating for a more considered approach towards religion.

This hostile rhetoric, it said, has alienated as many people as it won over and given the impression that atheism is a belief system whose adherents can be as blindly dogmatic as any other.

The article argues that the debate between new atheists and people of religion has been reduced to the sophistication of a playground taunting match, where atheists decry blindly dogmatic religious people and in turn are open to the charge of being blindly dogmatic themselves.

Because of the way the new atheists have conducted themselves, some of them have lost their claim to the intellectual high ground.

It concludes that by ignoring or high-handedly dismissing the power of religion, new atheists have done nothing to further the secularist cause.

A fuller article in the same edition of New Scientist considers the psychological similarities between atheists and people of religion.

Interestingly, Graham Lawton the author of the article who is himself an atheist admits that even hard-core atheists tend to entertain quasi-religious or spiritual ideas such as there being a higher power or that everything happens for a purpose.

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said: The rhetoric of Dawkins and co has clearly fallen out of favour with those in the scientific community. They are now willing to say in public what they had been saying in private for years.

Of course Christians wont agree with everything in New Scientist, but its very significant that they reject the anti-religious vitriol of new atheists and even recognise the positive impact religion can have.

Richard Dawkins, an outspoken evolutionary biologist, has often courted controversy over the years.

In 2014, he caused outrage by claiming it is immoral not to abort Downs syndrome babies.

Down Syndrome, he tweeted, is 1 of the commonest & most moral reasons to exercise the right to abortion.

Dawkins also believes that children need to be protected from religious indoctrination by their parents.

He claims that teaching a child orthodox Christian beliefs about life after death is tantamount to child abuse.

View original post here:
Rocco Ancora - The Christian Institute