Category Archives: Atheist

KGF: Chapter 2 Movie Review Rating:

Star Cast: Yash, Srinidhi Shetty, Sanjay Dutt, Raveena Tandon, Prakash Raj

Director: Prashanth Neel

Whats Good: Yash. Yashs style. Yashs action. And the thread that joins them all!

Whats Bad: Makers dont narrate the (half-baked) story, they howl in your eardrums!

Loo Break: The tracking rate of decibel/scene is so high that youll be forced to take one

Watch or Not?: Did you watch Chapter 1 and loved it? Give this a try as well, you may not love it as much but youll live through it

Available On: Theatrical Release

Runtime: 168 Minutes

User Rating:

Author Anand Vasirajus son Vijayendra (Prakash Raj) continues to tell the infamous Rockys (Yash) tale to a news-channel editor starting from where it all ended in the first chapter. In his story, we see how Rocky, from bhai, has now transitioned into bhagwan for people around him. Now that he has killed Garuda, its Adheera (Sanjay Dutt) and his army who returns to find and kill Rocky.

Adheera isnt the only obstacle for Rocky to cross but he now is on the radar of Indias Prime Minister Ramika Sen (Raveena Tandon). While Rocky somehow dodges Adheera, its the Government that comes in his way of becoming the CEO of India (in his own words). In this triple threat match, will there be just one winner? Well, put some cotton in your ears and sit back to know!

Prashanth Neels ambition overrides his story-telling and thats the biggest issue of his script. Everything looks extremely cool visually, but the whole argument behind making things cool is weak. It comes with some similar issues as chapter 1 like why is everyone talking so loud with everyone? I wanted to keep a track of how long any scene could be silent but it was so loud, I couldnt concentrate.

Just to clarify, I dont mind loudness in films, Ive loved movies like Master, Rowdy Rathore, Dabangg and likes. But, this one doesnt just leave your mind numb, but it does the same thing with your ears as well.

Side Bar: A scene censors the word democracy changing it to demography, and I couldnt help but wonder about the irony of what a democratic society were living in.

Bhuvan Gowdas camerawork elevates the already monumentally mounted action sequences, to a level thats almost unseen in the Indian film industry. Yashs car chase sequence with play & pause transitions remains the best highlight of the film owing to its breathtaking cinematography and well-synchronised background score by Ravi Basrur.

But the same Class-A cinematography goes against the feel of the film when it rushes from one place to another in Yash & Sanjays combat scenes because as the films story, nothing is clear enough to understand anything.

Chapter 1 was enough to register why there could be no one else apart from Yash to get the machismo of Rocky with such accuracy & swag. Chapter 2 just strengthens the similar thought further by transitioning him from bhai to bhagwan. Makers make sure to keep Rocky bhai on the pedestal boasting his high-octane presence in every alternate scene. The way he delivers his self-written dialogues, one cant help but listen to him (even if that doesnt interest you).

Srinidhi Shetty gets too little to contribute to the narrative, plus she gets a song (Mehbooba) that clutters the second half without any solid explanation. Sanjay Dutt was expected to repeat Kancha Cheena from Agneepath but due to the storys myopic treatment, he doesnt get a single chance (apart from his introduction sequence) to register any intrigue.

Raveena Tandons PM remains one-dimensional throughout the film without creating any major impact. Prakash Raj is reduced down to be a mere narrator, adding nothing apart from his voice.

Prashanth Neel, like every other director working with worshipped by fans star, gives in to the fan service losing his focus from what shouldve been a raw & earthy treatment of the story. The film celebrates Yash not once or twice but in every scene, he is in, its just Prashanth fails to find equally interesting reasons to do so for most of such instances.

Ravi Basrurs background score serves in a huge spectrum from too loud to too trippy. Just like every other thing, even the BGM of this film is on steroids complimenting a few sequences, burdening others. Not a single song is going to remain in my playlist after the film, but the problem is they arent even situational.

All said and done, this jumps from larger than life to larger than god treatment, and gives Yash fans another reason to celebrate his heroism. But beneath all the screams and boisterous BGM, one important thing gets suppressed and rarely gets a chance to flourish intriguing storytelling.

Two and a half stars!

Are you a Vijay fan? Read our Beast movie review to know whether thats worth a watch!

KGF: Chapter 2 releases on April 14, 2022.

Share with us your experience of watching KGF: Chapter 2.

Must Read: Beast Movie Review: Vijay Fails To Master This One, But Its Still A Celebration For Thalapathy Fans!

Follow Us: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Youtube

See the article here:

KGF: Chapter 2 Movie Review: Yashs Rocky Transitions From Bhai To Bhagwan, But The Atheist In Me Is Also A Critic! - Koimoi

Kazuhiro Sasahara met the priest suggested by his Catholic wife, a member of Kitami Church on Japan's island of Hokkaido

Kazuhiro Sasaharawas born into a family of the Buddhist Jodo Shinshu sect but considered himself an atheist. Because his wife, whom he met as a student, was baptized as an infant, their wedding was held in a Catholic church and their three children were baptized as infants.

I went to church once a year at Christmas and I didn't say anything about the faith of my wife or children, leaving that to my wife. Besides going to church on Sundays, my wife doesn't say much about her faith. However, compared to the beginning of our marriage, statues of Mary and crosses have multiplied all over the house," said the 63-year-old Japanese man.

After his retirement from years as a principal of elementary and junior high schools, Sasahara engaged in after-school children's classroom activities with the board of education until April of last year.

At that time, I thought it might be better to have the same faith as my wife. He did not believe in God's existence, but as his remaining years "shortened" he wanted to go into the future "with the same attitude as my wife with whom Ive shared life for so many years."

His wife, a member ofKitami Church on Japans northern island of Hokkaido, suggested that he meet the parish priest, FatherMasahiro Uesugi of Sapporo Diocese. Since July of last year, they have met once a month.

"At the time, I didn't have any strong desire for baptism or to attend any study sessions, said Sasahara. I just wanted to talk with the priest. I talked about books I had read, movies I had seen, TV dramas, and the state of the world today, and the priest talked about his interests."

Based on the Bible, they also discussed whether or not God exists. At one point, Sasahara introduced a book that explained the low probability of life on the many planets in space.

He said that, according to the book, the odds are similar to throwing the parts of a watch into a 25-meter pool, stirring the water and drawing out the original watch."

Sasahara continued: As we talked about the miracle of life, I came to think that the miracles of Christ in the Bible could be real.

When Sasahara first heard about the Holy Spirit, he thought there was no such thing. But he realized that there are times when he desires the good and other times when he goes in the wrong direction.

Thinking about the desire to go for the good began to convince me of the existence of the Holy Spirit who leads the heart to the good, and that I could believe, he said.

Describing his desire to be baptized, Sasahara said: "I heard that even FatherUesugis faith can be shaken, but above all I think it's a big thing that I was able to talk with him one on one about issues that I wouldn't normally talk about with anyone else."

According to Sasahara, we "live behind a faade with others." However, when he shared his heart with FatherUesugi, "I didn't have to try to protect myself, I was able to look into my heart as I was."

Sasahara said that when he decided to receive baptism, I asked FatherUesugi, If I start a new life with baptism, how about doing it on my birthday?"

"It so happens that my birthday is April 16, this years Easter Vigil," he added.

From his involvement with children and families with various problems during his years as an educator, Sasahara feels that "the Church can be a place to welcome those who are troubled and seeking peace of mind. As a member of the Church, I want to be a person who can listen to them."

Kazuhiro Sasahara will be baptized atKitami Church during the Easter Vigil on April 16.

.As we enter the first months of 2022, we are asking readers like you to help us keep UCA News free.

For the last 40 years, UCA News has remained the most trusted and independent Catholic newsand information service from Asia. Every week, we publish nearly 100 news reports, featurestories, commentaries, podcasts and video broadcasts that are exclusive and in-depth, anddeveloped from a view of the world and the Church through informed Catholic eyes.

Our journalistic standards are as high as any in the quality press; our focus isparticularly on a fast-growing part of the world - Asia - where, in some countries theChurch is growing faster than pastoral resources can respond to South Korea, Vietnam andIndia to name just three.

And UCA News has the advantage of having in its ranks local reporters who cover 23 countriesin south, southeast, and east Asia. We report the stories of local people and theirexperiences in a way that Western news outlets simply dont have the resources to reach. Andwe report on the emerging life of new Churches in old lands where being a Catholic can attimes be very dangerous.

With dwindling support from funding partners in Europe and the USA, we need to call on thesupport of those who benefit from our work.

Read the original post:

One-on-one with priest leads Japanese atheist to baptism - UCA News

It is widely thought that there are roughly 10,000 religions in the world, today. Most of us are familiar with the big ones Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on but hundreds of millions believe in folk, traditional, or tribal faiths, too.

Theologians, anthropologists, and sociologists are very good at classifying religions. People devote their entire lives to delineating between the tiniest, most esoteric of differences. Iconography, creed, ritual, worship, prayer, and community serve to draw the borders between these faiths.

But this misses something. Outside of the churches, mosques, temples, and pagodas is a shifting, enigmatic, indefinable mass: the group of people who belong to some type of atheism. It is no small fringe, either. Over a billion people do not follow a religion. They make up roughly a quarter of the U.S. population, making it the second largest belief. Roughly 60% of the UK never go to church, and there are now more atheists than believers in Norway.

Notably, not all atheism is the same. The various types of atheism deserve greater examination.

The problem is that these statistics do not tell a full story. The term non-religious is so broad as to be almost meaningless. The words secular, agnostic, atheistic, humanistic, irreligious, or non-religious are not synonyms. This is not some nit-picky pedantry. For the billion plus people in the world who are one particular type of atheist, the difference matters.

It is no easy task to delineate these belief systems, not least because a vast number of them balk at being defined as believers at all. Some suggest it is better to describe non-religion as a scale (such as the 1-7 likelihood of God scale Richard Dawkins suggests in The God Delusion). But this, too, puts the cart before the horse. Not all religion is about probability, certainty, or assent to various truth claims.

Broadly speaking, atheists can come in three varieties: the nonreligious, the nonbelievers, and the agnostic. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the types of atheism often overlap.

The first type of atheism means not subscribing to one of the big, traditional religions.

Consider China. It is a country, on first glance, that is hugely irreligious: 91% of Chinese adults can be called atheist. But so much of this data, as in most demographic surveys, hinges on self-identification by respondents. The issue is that most people in the world today will understand religion in a particular way. They see it as being the formal creeds or practices of the established, organized religions. It means going to church, praying five times a day, or believing the Four Noble Truths. But religion is much broader than that.

In the case of China, while 91% claim to be atheist, 70 percent of the adult population practices ancestor worship. Twelve percent self-identify with some folk belief, and the vast majority practice the pseudoscientific, quasi-religious traditional medicine.

For a lot of people, atheism means not believing in this or that formal religion. For others, the word might bear closer resemblance to its etymology, in which a-theism means anti-theistic belief (allowing Buddhism, for instance). Many in this category we might describe as mystics that is, they do not think any image or idea of God(s) is right, but they feel that there is some kind of spiritual reality.

It is a curiosity seen all over the world. An atheist might also believe in angels, fairies, karma, a divine plan, a soul, ghosts, spirits, or Ouija boards. None of these, alone, make up an organized belief, but they are beliefs of a sort.

The second type of atheism is one which argues against or rejects certain belief statements.

These atheists will define religion (rightly or wrongly) as being a set of creeds, beliefs, and quasi-factual statements that they call false. It is the type of atheism that most are familiar with, and it is often the type which most often pops up on internet message boards.

These atheists will say Jesus rose from the dead, Yogic flying is possible, or, The Angel Jibril spoke to Muhammed are all statements that can be disproven or should be disbelieved. They are facts to corroborate or dismiss. Modern atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and older ones like David Hume or John Stuart Mill, belong to this kind. They point out what they perceive to be the inaccuracies, contradictions, or absurdities of what religion teaches.

The nonbeliever type of atheism will often attack the values of a religion or even the religious themselves. They claim that religion is what leads to intolerance, prejudice, racism, misogyny, genocide, violence, cruelty, superstition, ignorance, and so on, so it must be rejected out of hand.

The third type of atheism is non-committal. Its called agnosticism.

If we define atheism as a belief statement namely, I am 100% sure God(s) do(es) not exist then there are very few atheists. A lot of the nonbeliever types concern themselves with probabilities and verifying belief-claims. But, with many of religions claims being supernatural, it is impossible to rule them out entirely.

Humans are physical beings, with fallible senses and variable intelligence. As such, very few people will claim certainty about the metaphysical and infinite. A lot of those who call themselves atheist are actually agnostic. They might be those who think religion is very, very unlikely to be right (as Dawkins does) or who accept that there is some varying degree of possibility. Others might suspend judgment there is no (accessible) data either way, so why commit?

As William James argues in his essay The Will to Believe, agnosticism of this kind (or skepticism as he prefers) is tantamount to atheism. If we go about our days without consideration of religion, without living the life of the believer, then it is as if we positively chose to disbelieve. The difference between agnostics and atheists is simply an epistemological one. For both, religion simply is not important.

Talking about belief (or the lack thereof) is something we could all be better at. Half of U.S. adults seldom or never talk about religion with people outside their family. In the UK, former spin doctor for Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, once said, we dont do God. His point was that religion is a personal (and often unpalatable and awkward) conversation topic for most British people.

Yet, so much is lost in the process. Our beliefs, religious or otherwise, are the most important things about who we are. Sharing and discussing them with others not only helps us understand ourselves more but brings us all closer together. Conflict is often born of misunderstanding and ignorance, and a lot of discord could be avoided by dialogue that seeks to elucidate peoples beliefs.

Examining the types of atheism also reveals another exciting topic: disbelief. All of us have beliefs, but we also all have disbeliefs. Even theists reject the existence of some gods.

Jonny Thomson teaches philosophy in Oxford. He runs a popular Instagram account called Mini Philosophy (@philosophyminis). His first book isMini Philosophy: A Small Book of Big Ideas.

See more here:

What are the different types of atheism? - Big Think

Short Prayers? By Faith, not Sight.

My atheist social media partners snarl and demand of believers: prove that God exists! But, what I find more important than proving that some sort of deity exists is this question: what kind of God do we have? I only want a gracious God. and, I believe that is the kind of God we have.

Blessed are those who have not seenand yet have come to believe. (John 20:29b)

Elizabeth was four years old. Each day I had to pick her up at the Bancroft Nursery School and drive her home. This particular day she looked pensive.

Daddy, she said, I cant see God.

What? I asked. Oh, I had heard the question all right. I was asking her to repeat it just so I could buy some time to think up a response.

I cant see God, she went on with increased frustration. I look everywhere. I look at home. I look at church. I look at the nursery school. But nowhere do I see God. How come?

On the one hand, the question worried me because I thought Elizabeth might be exhibiting the tendency of the modern post-Enlightenment mind to rely solely upon empirical knowledge, thereby leading to premature atheism because spiritual realities cannot be empirically verified. On the other hand, I felt confident because I, a fully trained systematic theologian with a doctorate in the field, should be well prepared to take on just such a query. So I launched into what I thought was a rather astute response.

Well, Elizabeth, remember that God is omnipresent, ubiquitous. This means God is everywhere. Now if God is everywherestrewn throughout the length and breadth of this gigantic universethen there is nowhere where God is not present. Now to perceive anything we have to be able to distinguish what it is from what it is not. We need to see it in relief. But there is nowhere we can go to see where God is absent. We cannot physically contrast God with what is not God. We can contrast God only according to qualities such as righteousness versus unrighteousness, love versus non-love..

Elizabeth was growing perceptibly impatient with my dissertation, despite my erudition. So, she interrupted. Daddy, does God love little children?

Yes, of course.

Good, she said with a smile returning to her face, and the conversation came to an end.

In the centuries of long battle between faith and reason, faith had a little victory that day. Elizabeth believes in what she cannot see, because what she cannot see is the source of divine love.

Unsearchable, invisible, God only wise, give us the faith of your children. Amen.

Ted Peters is a Lutheran pastor and emeritus seminary professor. He is author of Short Prayers and The Cosmic Self. His one volume systematic theology is now in its 3rd edition, GodThe Worlds Future (Fortress 2015). He has undertaken a thorough examination of the sin-and-grace dialectic in two works, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Eerdmans 1994) and Sin Boldly! (Fortress 2015). Watch for his forthcoming, The Voice of Public Christian Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

Excerpt from:

Short Prayers 13: Faith | Faith and Reason - Patheos

In 1859, a British man, Charles Darwin published a book called On the Origin of Species. This book was based on his study of creatures he had encountered during his travels to many overseas locations, including the Galapagos Islands. He put forward the theory that all living creatures that exist today, including human beings, have evolved for perhaps millions of years, from more primitive life forms to how they are today by a process of natural selection. Another name for this random development of species is blind evolution.

Darwin was a natural science graduate of Cambridge University and a geologist. He was also a Christian. Darwin did not intend to challenge religious beliefs with his book but many religious believers responded to it with fury, because his theory of evolution by natural selection was at odds with how religion explains the process of creation.

Darwins Theory of Evolution was published in 1859, which later became known to the world at large. Few theories have impacted the human mind as much as did Darwins theory. It had created a class of his disciples, the most prominent of which was Richard Dawkins.

Born in 1941, Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and author. The Selfish Gene, published by him in 1976, established Professor Richard Dawkins as a leading figure in evolutionary theory and popularized the idea that replicating genes are the central force behind evolution, not individual organisms or species. His other landmark books include The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Blind Watchmaker in which he repeated the same theorem.

Dawkins was criticised as too strong in his criticism of religion, and thus rightly dubbed as fundamental atheist.

The common criticism was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion, and was thus rightly dubbed as fundamental atheist.

For anyone who would spend some time on this topic, two questions have always seemed quite a puzzle. Whence he came from at the time of his birth, and where he will go after his death. Every community and class of people have different views. When a community or creed takes a combined view, they form into one religious group. Their religious bonds keep them united in most of the activities. They believe that their births and deaths are ordained by God, who is the creator of this universe, and in this belief, they have firm faith.

Some critics hold that Richard Dawkins has educated and inspired many millions of people around the world, spanning generations, cultures, languages, and beliefs. His lifes work has been to open our minds to the beauty of science and to cast a fresh look on our closely held beliefs. He has been instrumental in demolishing the taboo around atheism, helping to bring non-believers into the mainstream of public discourse.

In the research done on this theory of evolution so far, three limitations of Darwins theory embrace the idea that all forms of life, great and small, were derived from a common primordial cell or organism which requires a scientific basis. The various religions, current and extinct, typically elevate humans above other forms of life.

The three limitations of Darwins theory concern the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the cell, and the paucity of transitional species. Because of these limitations, the author predicts a paradigm shift away from evolution to an alternative explanation.

The objections to Darwinism are as follows:

(1) Darwin could not explain the origin and cause of variations that are generated during evolution.

(2) He emphasized the importance of the fittest organisms. Later, it has been suggested fit and fitter forms can also co-exist.

(3) The principle of inheritance was not present during Darwin.

By and large, there is no fundamental change in Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Nor can this Theory be termed as a threat to our traditional religions, despite the fact that the theory was propounded in 1859 i.e about 163 years earlier. It has however won many supporters and now stands at a much sounder footing than before. The people are complacent because there is no immediate danger from the impact of this Theory, and the organic change due to natural selection is taking place so slowly. Even after millions and billions of years, it would not cause a physical shock to humanity, although with time, it may mould their minds to move away from conventional religions. Over time, things will seem to be normal.

Paradoxically even the intelligentsia, the well-to-do, the common citizens, and the poor all have simply overlooked its inherent impact, as it is not going to affect their beliefs or ideas in any forcible future, nor is going to benefit any particular religion over the other. Everyone, except a few people, who have been aware of its implications for far too long.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence.

Original post:

Richard Dawkins and Evolution - Daily Times

A baby was born on Feb. 2 because, when a scared late teenager walked in for an appointment at an abortion clinic months earlier, someone explained to her what would happen during the abortion process. A doctor would stop the babys heart from beating. Im sure the person doing the explaining didnt use the word baby, but once you know it has a heart, its hard to pretend it isnt a human.

Abortion thrives in the darkness of euphemisms and lies.

This particular mother was still early on in her pregnancy, and yet doctors would have to stop her unborn childs heart from beating. The young mother wanted nothing of that reality. She left without getting the abortion. When the truth is told, women are set free.

And yet the New York Times recently ran an article with the headline Abortion Opponents Hear a Heartbeat. Most Experts Hear Something Else.

The Times wants you to believe that because the heart of a 6-week-old fetus isnt fully developed, its beat doesnt count. Its only a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.

The piece contends: The consensus among most medical experts is that the electrical activity picked up on an ultrasound at six weeks is not the sound of a heart The sound expectant mothers hear during a scan is created by the machine itself, which translates the waves of electrical activity into something audible.

You dont have to be a doctor to find this absurd.

Fresh off giving birth, former atheist blogger-turned Catholic Leah Libresco Sargeant responded to the Times article on Twitter: This objection is quite odd. By the same logic, an ultrasound picture isnt real because it translates sound waves into a visual representation.

Instead of admitting there is a heartbeat early on, the abortion industry wants you to believe that heartbeat bills are merely pro-life propaganda.

But if you go to Planned Parenthoods own website, the abortion giants answer to what is happening with a fetus during weeks five and six of pregnancy is: A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop.And my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out that even the paper of record has acknowledged that heartbeats are detectable at six weeks in a pregnancy, on more than one occasion. They were simply stating fact at the time, but to state fact now is impermissible, because it means that unborn, developing babies will be seen as just what they are. And our culture of convenience and death doesnt want that.

Experts are quoted, as is convenient for the Times. The medical realities cannot be spoken now because most Americans arent hardened ideologues when it comes to abortion. Stopping a beating heart sounds quite barbaric. I talked with a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant recently, who was in the process of a two-day abortion. On the first day, doctors insert a device to widen the cervix. She was desperate and resigned. She told me she was dizzy. She looked like she was about to throw up.

This is the reality of abortion in America. Anyone who has a heart would be honest about it and work together whatever our political and moral views are to make sure women know what they are getting into and have an actual choice, at the very least. Acknowledging that women deserve better should be the goal.

(Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolans pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com.)

Read the original post:

The realities of life and the lies of abortion - Lake County Record-Bee

(J. The Jewish News of Northern CaliforniaviaJTA) Since becoming University of San Franciscos rabbi-in-residence in 2019, Rabbi Camille Angel has been busy, whether shes creating inclusive on-campus spaces, teaching classes, officiating Jewish lifecycle events or leading Passover seders.

All in a days work for a campus rabbi, perhaps, but her impact is being felt well beyond the universitys Jewish community.

When Angels hiring was announced, it madeheadlines. A Jesuit Catholic university appointing a rabbi-in-residence was unprecedented, especially when that rabbi is a lesbian andlongtimeLGBTQ activist.

I was trained and Im a rabbi to serve Jews, and I do I led a shiva two nights ago, so Im definitely still serving Jews, Angel told J. But theres something remarkable for me and totally unexpected about my rabbinate being primarily among non-Jews at this point and that my teaching is primarily with non-Jews.

According to Angel, there is only one Jewish student in her Queering Religion class of 40. The other students represent a mix of religious affiliations, but they gravitate to Angels classes and programs because of the inclusive queer community she has cultivated on campus.

I actually didnt know much about Judaism and what a rabbi was or what they did, said Jade Peafort, a senior sociology major from Redwood City. But honestly, I love it. Ive learned from her that in Judaism, some of the core values are just working with other people and for other people and as a community. Its not just about yourself.

Angel said its important for her to be a visibly Jewish and queer presence on campus both in and out of the classroom. She regularly wears an embroidered kippah and keeps a rainbow pride flag displayed in her office window. She emphasizes how much real representation and inclusion matter, especially when many students have never interacted with Judaism or Jewish thought or even met a rabbi.

Students will often ask me, What should I call you? Professor? Doctor? Rabbi? Angel said. I tell them to call me rabbi, because everyone needs a rabbi, and if you didnt have one before, now you do.

Before joining the seven-person University Ministry staff as the on-campus rabbi, Angel had been lecturing at USF for several years as part of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice, which she largelycredits for her presence on campus.

Ordained rabbi at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Angelplaces a lot of emphasis on being a positive, identity-affirming spiritual adviser regardless of students backgrounds or belief systems. Angel finds that many of her students relationships with religion often are complicated by negative experiences due to their sexual orientations or gender identities. But they are also curious and seeking for themselves to figure out whether they want to explore spirituality.

When I was teaching my first [theology] class, I encountered so many people whod been really damaged and hurt by religion, or who had chosen not to be associated with religion, because they could see that it hurt people they loved, said Angel. According to USF, a majority of undergraduate students are unaffiliated with a religion, while others identify as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, atheist or Protestant. Fewer than half are Catholic.

According to a 2020 study bythe Trevor Project, LGBTQ young adults whose parents held negative religious beliefs about homosexuality were at twice the risk of attempting suicide.

In her Queering Religion class, Angel teaches from a Jewish perspective how to navigate religious contexts, especially those religions that have often attempted to negate queer people. Many students credit Angel and this class with helping them re-evaluate and reconnect with their respective spiritual traditions.

This was the case for Luis Anaya, a senior sociology major, for whom growing up Mexican American and Catholic went hand in hand, but being queer and Catholic, not so much.

I had a lot of reservations around religion because growing up and being queer, I innately had a different experience and different perspective on Catholic teachings, said Anaya, who was born in Mexico City but grew up in Stockton.

When he took Angels class, he said, he also was taking strides in exploring and navigating his queer identity, so the intersection of queer narratives and spirituality was particularly meaningful for him. He also said exposure to Jewish thought helped to repair his strained relationship with Catholicism.

Rabbi Angel talks a lot about pluralism, how different identities can coexist at the same time, and the idea of not reading the text literally, but rather interpreting it to get a better perspective of what these people were trying to write about and the messages that they were trying to convey, Anaya said. To question things and almost approach them with a grain of salt.

Peafort had a similar experience. Raised Catholic, she stopped going to church in her teens. She says she struggled with Catholicism for several reasons, but especially when her older sister came out as queer. She says the tools she learned in Angels class helped her figure out how to deal with her conflicting beliefs around religion. Peafort says Angels class also helped her feel comfortable exploring her own sexuality and identity as a Fillipina woman and sister.

Even though I felt like I didnt fit into Catholicism and their values, I was still able to take little pieces and apply it to myself or just reframe it in a way that applies to me and my life and my identity, said Peafort.

With Angel as a facilitator, Anaya and several other students started a peer-led LGBTQ group on campus called Qmmunity, which Anaya describes as a sort of extension of Angels class and the Jewish values she teaches. On Thursdays, the group hosts a lunch program called Breaking Bread and the Binary, in which students come together to share a meal, their thoughts and reflections on current events.

The first session this semester was held Jan. 27 on Holocaust Remembrance Day and shortly after the Jan. 15 Colleyville, Texas hostage crisis. Angel expressed how significant the gathering felt and how it reminded her of the importance of creating inclusive spaces not just for Jewish students but for all marginalized people.

Being in this group out and proud, here and queer, on the lawn in front of the church, its the biggest satisfaction that Hitler and the Nazis and fascism and fundamentalism dont rule our lives, Angel said the next day, reflecting on the session. Were here, together, and we wont be frightened back into our respective closets.

Next month, Angel will host the inaugural Alvin H. Baum Jr. Memorial Lecture, in honor of the San Francisco philanthropist known as a community pillar in the Jewish, civil rights and gay communities who died last year. In April, shes leading a social justice-centered interfaith Passover seder focused on themes of climate justice, interfaith solidarity, peace, health and freedom. She also has plans to expand community outreach to address the issue of food insecurity among college students, something that affects LGBTQ people at twice the rate of others, according to theU.S. Census Bureau.

All throughout, her core focus is on the intersection of religion and queerness.

I think its so refreshing to hear a different perspective, Peafort said, and even if its based on a religious point of view, it doesnt necessarily feel like it is. It just feels like shes a very wise woman, and a mentor and a friend.

This article was originally published inJ. The Jewish News of Northern California, and is reprinted with permission.

Continue reading here:

Meet the rabbi queering religion at the Jesuit Catholic University of San Francisco - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Does love really conquer all? Whats it like for an atheist to date a religious person in Africa? These six African atheists share how they have navigated their relationships with religious partners.

I dated a Christian woman and we made a rule at the beginning of relationships to quickly quench heated debates. But were not robots, so once or twice, we almost had really hectic theological debates. But we managed not to let them snowball. When we were first getting to know each other, I asked her how she saw us ever working out, considering how very strongly atheist I am, and how very strongly religious she was. I promised to drop her off at church every Saturday (shes Seventh Day Adventist) and pick her up after. She thought it was very sweet. If she sneezed, Id say, God bless you, not because I believed in this God that must bless her, or because its just what people say, but because she believed. When I was going through stuff, she would tell me, I know youll be fine, because I pray for you to the God you dont believe in. Despite my nonexistent faith in God, I would be grateful.

Theres no law that says atheists cant date religious people, but its very weird to me. I didnt use to care about religion before because I dont believe in it, obviously. But growing older, I now prefer not to date religious people, especially the ones who staunchly believe in hellfire. I once fell for a beautiful woman who was deeply religious but she kept on invalidating my worth just because I didnt believe in her god. It messed with my self-esteem so much and it was hard to move on.

Later, I dated non-dogmatic Christians who dont think hell exists and those who dont go to church. These relationships were a little better but they still got weird at some point. I really hope my next relationship will be with an atheist because I feel that if I and my partner are on the same page in terms of religious beliefs, we may last longer.

I prefer to date atheists as its better not to have someone trying to convert me or praying for my soul to be saved. But were in Africa and my primary target audience is small. So I typically have to make do with what I get. My last relationship was with a Nigerian Muslim guy while I was living in Cape Town the first Muslim I ever dated and it lasted less than a month. We were fucking like rabbits but he still thought he was better than me because I dont subscribe to Islam.

My boyfriend and I are super together. His family loves me and everyone thinks no couple could be more perfect. Id like to marry him but shes a devout Christian, and I dont believe in God at all. He has the purest heart I have ever seen but doesnt think my heart can be truly pure unless I convert to Christianity.

It didnt use to be a problem and we dated for two years, but now that were thinking of the next step, Im considering if I should just convert for the sake of it. I dont think religion should stand in the way of our love. But then again, I wont mean it and I wonder if hell see through my insincerity. I have never been more stressed. But one thing Im sure of is that I dont want to lose him.

Im an agnostic engaged to a Muslim but shes not pious. I dont know how, but Ive started to be more open-minded about her faith. I used to love watching her pray, Then one day I joined her and it felt so peaceful, like Yoga, but even more comforting. Since then, Ive prayed with her whenever I can, even when were not in the same location. She calls me and tells me shes about to pray and I stop what Im doing to join in. Ive even started learning Jumat prayers little by little. and even though I dont believe in her religion.

I still have my reservations about meeting her family, and I dont know where this road leads, but as long as shes in my life, I want to experience every bit of her.

Im nonreligious and my bae is Christian. My last two relationships before this one were largely the same they were hypocrites. They committed all the sins in the Bible but drew the line because I didnt believe in their god. But my current significant other is more of a liberal Christian.

I feel like Ive influenced my current partner religiously more than shes influenced me sha. She doesnt go to church as much as she used to, nor does she pray as regularly as before. I wake up and narcissistically thank myself for existing, so thats not good. Anyhoo, weve been going strong for two years and eighteen months and its been my best relationship in forever. Religion has never been a problem for us.

View original post here:

How 6 African Atheists Are Navigating Relationships With Religious Partners - Zikoko

Atheists commonly assert that there is a profound dichotomy between faith and reason. This is exemplified by atheist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne s book Faith vs. Fact. He implies that we can have faith in the truth of something or we can have factual knowledge of the truth but we cannot have both. Faith and fact are, in his view, mutually exclusive. But that is not true.

Faith in God provides an indispensable foundation for the power of human reason. In the perspective proposed by medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (12251274), we must accept radical skepticism about the veracity of our perceptions and our concepts.

One may ask: how do we know that what we perceive or what we believe corresponds to reality? The answer is that we cant know, in the sense that we cant use our perceptive or intellectual abilities to prove the validity of our perceptions or concepts. To do so would be to reason in a circle. If our perceptions and our concepts are not reliable, then how could we use them to validate their reliability?

The skepticism Thomas requires is radical indeed. For example, even Descartess assertion, I think therefore I am, is not something we can prove without faith. The problem lies in the therefore. We must tacitly assume the validity of logic specifically the logic of non-contradiction to link I think to I am.

If we do not have faith in logic, then it would be possible to think but not to exist. Of course we find this possibility absurd, but it is only absurd because of our profound faith in the validity of logic in this case, the validity of the logical principle of non-contradiction. That is the principle inherent in the belief that thinking presupposes the existence of the thinker. If logic were not reliable, there would be no logical connection between thinking and existence. Thinkers could think without existing.

So we are left with radical skepticism theists and atheists alike. We can conclusively prove nothing about our knowledge of the world. It might all be a delusion and we have no certain way to be sure that it is not.

But of course sane people believe that at least to some extent we have access to truth. But this access is always a matter of faith the validity of reason cannot be validated by reason itself. The process of this faith differs between those who believe in an omniscient and omnibenevolent God and those who do not.

I will speak here from the Christian perspective as it is the one with which I am the most familiar. The Christian has faith that he has access to truth because he believes that he has been created by a wise and loving God who guarantees this access to truth to him. Indeed this is a radical faith we can be certain of nothing but faith in God provides us with a coherent warrant to trust our capacity for reason. Christians have faith, and their faith makes a sensible and grounded belief in reason possible.

Atheists have just as much faith as Christians have they believe that they have access to truth as well. But atheism provides no coherent warrant to trust the capacity for reason. In this sense, atheist faith is much more radical and much less coherent than the faith of Christians.

Christian faith in God provides a justifiable belief in the validity of reason. Atheist faith in the validity of reason is ungrounded and unjustifiable, and is therefore a much more radical and a much less credible faith.

We all lack a direct and self-validating knowledge of truth. Faith in God is the only coherent basis for trust in our capacity to know the truth. Atheist faith in the capacity to know the truth is incoherent.

Only atheist faith is opposed to fact; faith in God is the only reliable basis on which to trust our ability to know the truth. Thus, faith in God is the only coherent basis for reason.

You may also wish to read:

Excluding all reference to God from science is a form of theology Its negative theology, to be sure, Michael Egnor and his guest Joshua Farris agree, but still a theology and one with implications. The neurosurgeon and philosopher agree that excluding God from science provides an opportunity to make up all sorts of illogical ideas and call them science.

Original post:

Faith in God Is the Only Coherent Basis for Reason - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Ilana Horwitz, Tulane University

In America, the demographic circumstances of a childs birth substantially shape academic success. Sociologists have spent decades studying how factors beyond students control including the race, wealth and ZIP code of their parents affect their educational opportunities and achievement.

But one often overlooked demographic factor is religion. The U.S. is the most devout wealthy Western democracy. Does a religious upbringing influence teens academic outcomes?

Over the past 30 years, sociologists and economists have conducted several studies that consistently show a positive relationship between religiosity and academic success. These studies show that more religious students earn better grades and complete more schooling than less religious peers. But researchers debate what these findings really mean, and whether the seeming effect of religiosity on students performance is really about religion, or a result of other underlying factors.

My latest research underscores that religion has a powerful but mixed impact. Intensely religious teens who some researchers call abiders are more likely than average to earn higher GPAs and complete more college education. By religious intensity, I refer to whether people see religion as very important, attend religious services at least once a week, pray at least once a day, and believe in God with absolute certainty. Theological belief on its own is not enough to influence how children behave they also need to be part of a religious community. Adolescents who see an academic benefit both believe and belong.

On average though, abiders who have excellent grades tend to attend less selective colleges than their less religious peers with similar GPAs and from comparable socioeconomic backgrounds.

The takeaway from these findings is not meant to encourage people to become more religious or to promote religion in schools. Rather, they point to a particular set of mindsets and habits that help abiders succeed and qualities that schools reward in their students.

People of any religion can demonstrate religious intensity. But the research in my book God, Grades, and Graduation: Religions Surprising Impact on Academic Success centers on Christian denominations because they are the most prevalent in the U.S., with about 63% of Americans identifying as Christian. Also, surveys about religion tend to reflect a Christian-centric view, such as by emphasizing prayer and faith over other kinds of religious observance. Therefore, Christian respondents are more likely to appear as highly religious, simply based on the wording of the questions.

Based on a 2019 Pew survey and other studies, I estimate that about one-quarter of American teenagers are intensely religious. This number also accounts for peoples tendency to say they attend religious services more than they actually do.

In my book, I examined whether intensely religious teens had different academic outcomes, focusing on three measures: secondary school GPA; likelihood of completing college; and college selectivity.

First, I analyzed survey data collected by the National Study of Youth and Religion, which followed 3,290 teens from 2003 to 2012. After grouping participants by religious intensity and analyzing their grades, I found that on average, abiders had about a 10 percentage-point advantage.

For example, among working-class teens, 21% of abiders reported earning As, compared with 9% of nonabiders. Abiders were more likely to earn better grades even after accounting for various other background factors, including race, gender, geographic region and family structure.

Then working with survey measurement expert Ben Domingue and sociologist Kathleen Mullan Harris, I used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to see how more and less religious children from the same families performed. According to our analysis, more intensely religious teens earned higher GPAs in high school, on average, even compared with their own siblings.

Scholars like sociologist Christian Smith have theorized that increased religiosity deters young people from risky behaviors, connects them to more adults and provides them more leadership opportunities. However, I found that including survey measures for these aspects of teens lives did not fully explain why abiders were earning better GPAs.

To better understand, I went back to the National Study of Youth and Religion, or NSYR, and analyzed 10 years of interviews with over 200 teens, all of whom had been assigned individual IDs to link their survey and interview responses.

Many abiders made comments about constantly working to emulate and please God, which led them to try to be conscientious and cooperative. This aligns with previous research showing that religiousness is positively correlated with these traits.

Studies have underscored how habits like conscientiousness and cooperation are linked with academic success, in part because teachers value respect. These traits are helpful in a school system that relies on authority figures and rewards people who follow the rules.

Next, I wanted to know more about students college outcomes, starting with where they enrolled. I did this by matching the NSYR data to the National Student Clearinghouse to get detailed information about how many semesters of college respondents had completed, and where.

On average, abiders were more likely to earn bachelors degrees than nonabiders, since success in high school sets them up for success in college as also shown by my analyses of siblings. The bump varies by socioeconomic status, but among working-class and middle-class teens, abiders are more than 1 to 2 times more likely to earn a bachelors degree than nonabiders.

Another dimension of academic success is the quality of the college one graduates from, which is commonly measured by selectivity. The more selective the institutions from which students graduate, the more likely they are to pursue graduate degrees and to secure high paying jobs.

On average, abiders who earned As graduated from slightly less selective colleges: schools whose incoming freshman class had an average SAT score of 1135, compared with 1176 at nonabiders.

My analysis of the interview data revealed that many abiders, especially girls from middle-upper-class families, were less likely to consider selective colleges. In interviews, religious teens over and over mention life goals of parenthood, altruism and serving God priorities that I argue make them less intent on attending as highly selective a college as they could. This aligns with previous research showing that conservative Protestant women attend colleges that less selective than other women do because they do not tend to view colleges main purpose as career advancement.

Being a good rule follower yields better report cards but so can other dispositions.

My research also shows that teens who say that God does not exist earn grades that are not statistically different from abiders grades. Atheist teens make up a very small proportion of the NSYR sample: 3%, similar to the low rates of American adults who say they dont believe in God.

In fact, there is a strong stigma attached to atheism. The kinds of teens who are willing to go against the grain by taking an unpopular religious view are also the kinds of teens who are curious and self-driven. NSYR interviews revealed that rather than being motivated to please God by being well behaved, atheists tend to be intrinsically motivated to pursue knowledge, think critically and be open to new experiences. These dispositions are also linked with better academic performance. And unlike abiders, atheists tend to be overrepresented in the most elite universities.

Ilana Horwitz, Assistant Professor, Fields-Rayant Chair in Contemporary Jewish Life, Tulane University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more from the original source:

What do students beliefs about God have to do with grades and going to college? | Opinion - pennlive.com