Category Archives: Atheist

IN an article written for CentralMaine.com, atheist Tom Waddell, above President of the Maine Chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) revealed that the US government is losing around $90-billion a year by not taxing churches.

He pointed out that in 2012 both the Center for Inquiry and the authors of How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the U.S. calculated America lost over $71 billion in tax revenue by not taxing religious institutions.

The authors, Ryan T Cragun, Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega, also found the parsonage exemption cost the nation over $1.2 billion.

In 2018, a University of Tampa study found the US budget was denied $83.5 billion in lost tax revenue from tax-exempt religious organisations. Thats an increase of over $12 billion in six years or a rate of over $2 billion per year. By 2024, six years after the 2018 estimate, religion will have added over $445 billion to the national debt.

Said Waddell:

Cragun, Yeager and Vega concluded what religion has to offer is nothing more than spiritual entertainment

He also pointed out that Susan Jacoby, above, a journalist and author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism and wrote:

The question is not whether the United States is a Christian nation. Instead, it is whether church authorities adhering to a deeply conservative brand of Christianity get to use taxpayer money to further their parochial (and political) agenda.

Waddell explained:

To meet the requirements of tax-exempt nonprofits, churches and secular 501(c)(3) charitable organizations may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates. Yet, according to the Freedom Forum Institute, it is common for religious organizations, primarily Christian, to endorse candidates and influence legislation by continuously lobbying Congress.

Because of conservative Christian lobbying, every session of the House and Senate is subjected to a prayer, predominately Christian. The Congressional Prayer Caucus, a conservative Christian group and an official caucus of the U.S. Congress, meets each week Congress is in session to pray that the bills they sponsor become law.

The Senate Prayer Breakfast meets weekly, and the National Prayer Breakfast meets annually. The Christian Nationalist agenda is represented in our secular laws, yet churches pay no taxes. In effect, Christians have a PAC funded by the taxpayer.

Wadell, who began his piece by saying churches want to turn American democracy upside down by advocating for representation without taxation, concluded by writing:

We spend about $90 billion a year now, with an annual increase of $2 billion.

Given that the the federal government will be swimming in $3 trillion of red ink by the end of fiscal 2021 it is an outrage that spiritual entertainment should should enjoy tax exemptions while shamelessly meddling in matters of state.

Waddell provides some examples of the Christian Nationalist agenda:

Because of conservative Christian lobbying, every session of the House and Senate is subjected to a prayer, predominately Christian. The Congressional Prayer Caucus, a conservative Christian group and an official caucus of the U.S. Congress, meets each week Congress is in session to pray that the bills they sponsor become law. The Senate Prayer Breakfast meets weekly, and the National Prayer Breakfast meets annually.

Waddells piece raises the question of what would happen if the UK were to tax the Church of England. In 2014 The Huff Post reported:

If the Church of England were a taxable business it would be bankrupt. Despite its investment portfolio, its deficit still stands in the millions.

By contrast, the amount of profit made by the Catholic Church in the US rivals some of the largest corporations in the world. The exact amount is unknown, largely because the Catholic Church does not disclose its annual figures and there are no sanctions holding it to account.

It has the money of a corporation without the imposed financial control and its finances are notoriously messy and impossible to measure accurately several top global publications have attempted to discover the exact amount of the churchs wealth and failed.

According to the FFRF, Waddell is a lifelong Out of the Closet atheist. He fought and won to have the US Army change his dog tags to read Atheist before being deployed to Vietnam (he told the Army he was an atheist but they put No Preference there instead).

He has campaigned for same-sex marriage and gave the first secular invocation ever given to the Maine House.

Id love a cup of coffee

Link:

US would gain $90-billion a year if it taxed 'spiritual entertainment' - Patheos

Hyderabad: Indian netizens on Thursday intensified their campaign against halal certification. They started raising their objections over the certification by including #SayNoToHalal in their tweets.

Halal is a term used to declare that the product is allowed in Islam. If a food item is labeled as halal, it is consumable under Islam. Several Islamic counties too import meat that is halal certified.

However, some persons in India are against halal certificate and term it as parallel systems within the country.

Earlier, a petition was also filed seeking direction to ban the slaughtering of animals by way of halal. It was filed by Akhand Bharat Morcha.

However, Supreme Court has refused to entertain such plea. The bench said, Court cannot determine who can be vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Those who want to eat halal meat can eat halal meat. Those who want to eat Jhatka meat can eat Jhatka.

Now, the Twitterati started raising objections over halal. Most of them are demanding a ban on the practice.

One of them wrote, Why are we forced to eat halal food without our consent?.

Another Twitterati wrote, If they can bring their religion into everything then why cant we If you want to be atheist or secular, then be it both ways Otherwise get lost.

Here are some of the tweets that are in favours of the ban on halal practice.

View post:

Why #SayNoToHalal is trending on Twitter? - The Siasat Daily

Astatula Elementary School in Central Floridas Lake County already had a daily moment of silence in place long before a new law demanded it.

Prior to the current school year, Astatula students would stand for the daily Pledge of Allegiance, and remain standing for another 10 to 15 seconds for a moment of silence.

But now, public schools across Florida are under a new requirement to hold a daily moment of silence for at least a whole minute and up to two minutes, according to a law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in June. How that plays out could mean less instruction time for teachers, improved mental health for students or maybe just a waste of time.

The new school year is only about a month in, and schools are still experimenting with how the moment of silence will be incorporated into daily school life.

Will more schools choose one minute or the full two minutes? Does the moment of silence seem especially lengthy? How will students benefit?

Anne Leatherbarrow, a staff member at Apopka Middle School in Orange County she is retiring Wednesday told the Phoenix that the school uses the one minute of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance.

We love it, she said.

The seemingly simple law was actually a contentious topic during the 2021 legislative session, with critics saying it took away from classroom instruction or was a sneaky way to put prayer back into schools. In fact, some members of atheist organizations spoke out against the measure during the 2021 legislative session.

But legislation pursued in the session said it was a way for students to get even a moment of quiet reflection and that, young persons are particularly affected by the absence of an opportunity for a moment of quiet reflection, according to language in the bill.

In addition: The Legislature finds that our youth, and society as a whole, would be well served if students in the public schools were afforded a moment of silence at the beginning of each school day.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the legislation into law at the Shul of Bal Harbour, a synagogue in Miami-Dade County, promoting the idea of protecting religious freedom. The law involves only public schools.

The idea that you can just push God out of every institution and be successful Im sorry but our founding fathers did not believe that, DeSantis said. So we have an opportunity here to protect the religious freedom of everybody going to school, K-12, in the state of Florida.

The law requires at least one minute devoted for a moment of silence and not exceeding more than two minutes. That means a moment of silence every school day, roughly 180 days in the academic year.

In Leon Countys school district, elementary school kids do the moment of silence in the morning, according to Chris Petley, a communications staffer with the Leon district.

Leon middle and high schools use the moment of silence during homeroom, which for some schools is during third period. The Phoenix asked Petley how its possible to do the moment of silence during third period when the law says that the first period teacher should initiate the moment of silence. The Phoenix is awaiting a response.

Petley told the Phoenix that he was not aware of any issues following the implementation of the new moment of silence law. But if there are issues or problems, the district would contact the principal.

Schools were provided training over the summer and additional communication once students were back on campus, Petley said in an email. If we are made aware of the schools or classrooms that are not providing adequate time we will work with them on ensuring compliance.

The new law was designed to give kids time to reflect in schools, and a teacher may not instruct or recommend how the time is spent on a moment of silence. Instead, the teacher shall encourage parents or guardians to discuss the moment of silence with their children and to make suggestions as to the best use of this time.

Lare Allen, the president of the Osceola County Education Association, told the Phoenix that the moment of silence is not the magic pill for student stress.

Not speaking as a president, just speaking as an individual I think its great that we have time to reflect and prepare. Is that something we need to put that into law? No, I dont think so, Allen said.

I think it could be beneficial, but at the same timethe teacher cant say what this moment of silence is for. I think it would be better if we taught them relaxation techniques for the test takers that have test anxiety. Maybe it would be good if we set aside some time for conflict resolution and de-escalating situations so we know how to get along better with each other better.

The new law also expects the first-period classroom teacher to initiate the moment of silence, meaning that a first-period teacher could potentially lose 180 to 360 minutes during a school year in total.

Allen said that schools would likely hold the moment of silence during the morning announcements to ensure that a teacher does not lose instruction time.

The rest is here:

FL students now have 1 to 2 minutes of silence to start their day -- but will it make a difference? - Florida Phoenix

By Moshe Phillips

PHILADELPHIA The news media had a field day recently with the man-bites-dog story of the self-proclaimed atheist who was recently named chief chaplain at Harvard University.

After nearly 400 years of having chief chaplains who believe in G-d, Harvard has gone in a surprising new direction. Not only that, but the new head chaplain, Greg Epstein, is Jewish and a graduate of the rabbinical ordination program at something called the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.

Undoubtedly some parents of Jewish students at Harvard will be troubled at the prospect of their sons or daughters coming under the influence of a passionate advocate of atheism. Active rejection of the most basic concept in Judaism belief in G-d is pretty fringe stuff in the eyes of most American Jews.

The problem is not that Greg Epstein is an atheist; thats his business. The problem is that he presents himself as a rabbi, even though his core belief system is rejected by every Jewish religious denomination of note Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist.

The power of the rabbi title is that it confers Jewish legitimacy and respectability on whatever the rabbi, evena self-proclaimed one, says. Jewish students at Harvard who dont know better will hear that the rabbi said something, and assume that what he said represents Judaism, not just a tiny fringe element on the Jewish spectrum.

Whether Greg Epstein will influence Jewish students religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could be argued that these students are more likely to be influenced by their professors, whom they often perceive as experts and authority figures.

But where Epsteins influence may well be felt even more strongly, I fear, is on Jewish students perceptions of Israel, the Holocaust, and antisemitism.

Because he is Jewish, and because of the power of his new position, Epstein will have significant new platforms from which to share his views on Jewish issues at campus events, in the news media, and well beyond. And Epsteins views on Jewish issues are disturbingly extreme.

A Tweet from Epstein on April 28, 2021, employed the ugly term Jewish supremacists to demean Jewish nationalists who were marching in Jerusalem. That slur was coined by neo-Nazis and then more recently adopted by the radical left.

One indication of Epsteins shallow understanding of the Holocaust was his 2019 tweet calling American detention facilities for illegal migrants concentration camps.

If you think I am exaggerating, and that Epstein could not possibly have meant literally that those facilities are similar to concentration camps, note that he wrote they can LITERALLY [his caps], in a historically accurate way, be called concentration camps.

No, they cant be, which is why the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and other scholarly Holocaust institutions strongly denounced those comparisons.

As for Israel when Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Epstein was part of a group of left-wing rabbis who rushed to urge President Obama to refrain from rejecting the terrorist victors. We urge you to maintain a cautious approach toward Hamas, in order to advance the goal of a Palestinian state, they wrote to the president.

I guess since Epstein is a member of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, thats pretty much what we should expect. J Street, the controversial Jewish pressure group that was created to lobby for a Palestinian state, consistently supports Palestinian Arab demands against Israel. The leaders of J Street always seemto blame Israel for what goes wrong, no matter how extreme or violent the Palestinians are.

Is this the kind of person whom Jewish parents want influencing their college-age children? That doesnt seem like a very attractive return on their $51,925 in annual tuition payments.

*

Moshe Phillips is a commentator on Jewish affairs whose writings appear regularly in the American and Israeli press. He was a U.S. delegate to the 38th World Zionist Congress in 2020. His views are his own.

Read the original here:

The Real Danger of that Atheist Harvard Chaplain - San Diego Jewish World

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor | Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Harvard University was founded as Harvard College in 1636. Its stated purpose was: To train a literate clergy. Among its mottos were, Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (truth for Christ and Church) and In Christam Gloriam (to the glory of Christ). Now, Harvard has hired an atheist as its chief chaplain. And no, this is not a poor joke.

As reported by the New York Post, This spiritual leader doesnt need a higher power.

Harvard Universitys organization of chaplains is getting a new president to coordinate the campus Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and assorted other religious communities. Only the new president, 44-year-old Greg Epstein, does not identify with any of those traditional religions himself.

He is an atheist.

But how can an atheist be a university chaplain?

Epstein explained to The New York Times, There is a rising group of people who no longer identify with any religious tradition but still experience a real need for conversation and support around what it means to be a good human and live an ethical life.

We dont look to a god for answers. We are each others answers.

The only problem is with Epsteins explanation is, well, everything. He may believe in God or not. He may follow a religion or not. Thats his own business. And he may have some great ideas about living an ethical life.

But to be a chaplain, by definition, means to be a religious leader, not simply a department head or an administrator or someone who believes in ethical living. And so, to appoint an atheist to be chief university chaplain is like appointing a Christian evangelist to head up the universitys atheist club. Or a devout Muslim to head up the universitys Judaism club. It is a total contradiction in both purpose and logic.

As for Epsteins appointment being controversial, thats not how Harvards leadership felt, voting to elect him unanimously. What a perfect choice! Couldnt think of anyone better!

The Merriam Webster website offers these four definitions for chaplain: 1: a clergyman in charge of a chapel; 2: a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court; 3: a person chosen to conduct religious exercises (as at a meeting of a club or society); 4: a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function).

According to Dictionary.com, a chaplain is: 1. an ecclesiastic attached to the chapel of a royal court, college, etc., or to a military unit. 2. a person who says the prayer, invocation, etc., for an organization or at an assembly.

And a military website states that: The chaplain's responsibilities include performing religious rites, conducting worship services, providing confidential counseling and advising commanders on religious, spiritual and moral matters. Chaplains are commissioned officers stationed wherever there are military members, including combat environments.

But if you dont believe in God, you cannot perform any of these functions.

Really now, how can you conduct a worship service if there is no God to worship? How can you perform religious rites, all of which presuppose the existence of a deity, if there is no deity?

To whom do you pray? What hope can you offer regarding the world to come? How can you help someone connect to the spiritual, unseen, eternal realm? Who, outside of the human race, forgives your sins or empowers you to change?

And if you yourself are convinced that there is no God, doesnt that mean that you view all religious believers as being in serious error, not to mention deeply deceived?

Its one thing if Harvard said, Rabbi Epstein does a great job of bringing people of different religions together. Terrific. Then hire him as an administrative coordinator for the chaplains department. But dont hire him as your chief chaplain. To do so only heaps further scorn on Harvards wokeness.

As for Epstein being a rabbi, that is just as absurd as being a chaplain, if not more so. (For the record, he received ordination as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.)

Without God, there is no Judaism, since Judaism is the story of God choosing the Jewish people for Himself, rescuing them from bondage in Egypt, and giving them His Torah. Thus, to have Judaism without God would be similar to having Christianity without Christ. It simply cannot be.

But why let truth and facts and logic get in the way? Lets just set our own standards and, to cite the title of Epsteins 2009 book, which has suddenly become a bestseller, lets just be good without God.

In the end, if someone wants to try and be good without God, that is their choice. Just dont call that person a rabbi or a chaplain. To do so, to say it once more, is a total contradiction in terms.

As for the Harvard of old, in order to graduate with the most basic degree in arts (not theology, which came later), the student had to be able logically to explain the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testamentsandbe blameless in life and character.

Among the Rules and Precepts of Harvard to be observed by the students were these: Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.

And: Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoretical observations of Language and Logic, and in practical and spiritual truths ...

As for the Harvard of today (in terms of its spiritual condition and worldview), need I say more?

Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicatedLine of Fireradio program. Heholds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 40 books. Connect with him onFacebook,Twitter, orYouTube.

Go here to see the original:

When Harvard hired an atheist to be the chief university chaplain - The Christian Post

. . . while I offer a serious answer to his caricature regarding the Bible and genetics

This occurred in a combox at anti-theist atheist Jonathan MS Pearces blog. Words of atheist Makoto will be in blue.

*****

He has abundantly revealed Himself in the Bible. That is its purpose. There are arguments about how to interpret it, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the basic aspects of the nature of God (classic theism).

And we come back to how is that different than other holy works for other religions. I wasnt even trying to get into the fact that different Christians obviously disagree on how to interpret your bible, because Christians cant even agree on how being saved works, which seems like it would be a pretty important aspect of your bible!

Its different because it is consistently verified by historiography and archaeology, which is consistent with (but not proof of) its divine inspiration. Ive been writing a lot about this lately on my blog: the Bible & archaeology (as well as science).

See, for example:The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases.

Scientifically accurate? Theres plenty to choose from on this topic, but since when do we breed animals in front of background props to change how the offspring look?Now, you could say it was a miracle, of course, but miracles, by definition, would not be scientific.

See also my web page:Bible & Archaeology / Bible & Science (A Collection). You asked me why I thought the Bible was different from other holy books. This is why.

I did a quick search I didnt see a single instance of breeding, sex, offspring, or similar terms in that post. I did notice the whole Piltdown Man thing, which science disproved, not religion, though

You replied to my post about breeding with a different set of points. Sorry, I was trying to stay focused. Did you have a reply to my point about breeding, or is this deflecting to other science parts that you feel have support?

You asked me how is that different than other holy works for other religions[?]. I replied that Its different because it is consistently verified by historiography and archaeology, . . . (as well as science). I then offered as one evidence of that, the biblical teaching on germs. Your task, then, would be to explain how that knowledge got there, which took modern science 3100 years from Moses time (13th c. BC) to figure out? You went off on the issue of breeding (which is not a biblical teaching on science).

Thats not my argument. You asked me about why I believe the Bible is different, and I answered. Thus, for the discussion to rationally continue, you have to offer a disproof of the biblical teaching on germs, or explain variously how the ancient Hebrews in the 13th c. BC could know these things, short of divine inspiration (which is my explanation). And thats only one argument of many that I have compiled, as regards the Bible and science, and the Bible and archaeology.

Do you want to address the breeding issue? If not, fine, I understand, I just wanted to be very sure we both agree this is in the bible you claim is scientific.

I did, in saying, its not a biblical teaching on science. In other words, I deny that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. It merely indicates Jacobs pre-scientific (but not anti-scientific) understanding of breeding of animals.

I gave a specific example of biblical teaching that is remarkably in harmony with post-19th century science regarding germs and hygiene. Do you wish to address (or refute) that or not? I have provided a concrete example of the Bible being extraordinarily accurate, 3100 years before science caught up with it. It seems to me that ispreciselydead-on-topic.

Moreover, heres an article that satisfactorily explains this topic you brought up (showing that nothing in the account contradicts genetics):

A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacobs Sheep (J. D. Pearson,Science and Christian Belief, Vo. 13, No. 1, pp. 51-58, 2001). Thats my counter-response to the ultimately off-topic issue you raised. You have yet to offer any counter at all to my far more nuanced and complex argument about the Bible and germs.

Man, you really dont want to talk about breeding at all, do you? It literally is science, after all. Bible says, in Gen 30:39, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.This is very straightforward. Very biblical! Do you have a reason this should not be accepted as god-based science, despite it being literally in the bible?

Nice try. I already answered with a link that refutes what you are contending (three minutes before this comment of yours). Man, you really dont want to talk about the (13th c. BC) biblical teaching on germs at all, do you? It literally is science, after all.

I did not see your refutation when I was typing up my reply. I will read it now. I have to admit, its crazy to think the bible says that the point was to breed them in front of reeds. That seems absurd, because your linked article implies that it would not matter! They couldve bred anywhere, yet the bible says it was in front of reeds that was important. Why?

Understood and thanks. I eagerly await your counter-interpretation on the Bible and germ theory. Im sure youll have a fascinating theory as to how this knowledge was in possession of ancient Hebrew nomads over 3200 years ago.

I have to admit, there is a side to this I completely agree with, in regards to biblical germ theory! Lev:13:45-46:

A diseased person must wear torn clothes and let his hair hang loose, and he must cover his mouth and cry out, Unclean, unclean!As long as he has the infection, he remains unclean. He must live alone in a place outside the camp.

If only more Christians were willing to listen to that these days, it very much describes the use of masks and social distancing/quarantine

Science is not at all unanimous on masks.

Im still waiting for your theory on breeding in front of reeds, so thats cool.

Its in the article that I posted 28 minutes ago.

Right, I read that. I still dont get it, though. It literally is denying the participation of the reeds, which.. if I check my bible.. is a key factor. Was that something unrelated? If so, why was it in the bible?

Im not gonna go over the article. It was addressed there. Now its your turn to deal with my argument on germ theory, and Im not holding my breath . . .

Glad I didnt hold my breath. Its now been about 28 hours and counting, since no response has been forthcoming.

[30 hours passed from the time of my original challenge question]

Oh, my apologies. I got bored. You bored me.You lash out at atheists left and right, werent presenting anything useful that I saw, and I decided I had better things to do. Such is life.

Right. This is what atheists do when they have no answer to Christian arguments. Thanks for the entertainment!

***

Photo credit: Clker-Free-Vector-Images(4-11-12) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Exchange with an atheist that delved into the Bible & science. I submitted my article on remarkable biblical knowledge of germs in the 13th c. BC. He offered a non-argument on genetics.

Read the original post:

Bible on Germ Theory: An Atheist Hems & Haws - Patheos

Tyson Chase, who blogged as Salt City Pagan on the Patheos Agora blog, made a farewell post last week. Unlike some whove left Patheos Pagan in an uproar, this was a polite and personal farewell that focused much of its attention on giving thanks. In particular, Tyson expressed gratitude for the Pagan way of seeing the world that helped him extract himself from the framework provided by the Catholic Church.

As someone who worked for many years to extract myself from Protestant fundamentalism (or more precisely, to extract Protestant fundamentalism from me), I am thrilled that our movement was able to help Tyson find his way out of a religious environment that didnt work for him, even if he didnt stick around.

Paganism isnt for everyone. Even though there are many different polytheist, duotheist, pantheist, and non-theist versions, our Big Tent isnt right for everyone. Some people need the familiarity of the religion of their childhood, whatever it may be. Some need the infrastructure the Big Five religions can provide that we cant. And some people sincerely believe the doctrines of various religions, or of no religion.

Tyson Chase found his home as an Agnostic-Atheist. So be it. My Paganism is as much of an orientation as it is a conscious choice. If I have a Pagan orientation, it stands to reason that some people have an atheist orientation. If this is where Tyson belongs, Im genuinely happy for him, and I respect his decision even though Im always sad when someone leaves the Pagan community.

However

After his expressions of gratitude which are absolutely genuine Tyson elaborates on The Choice To Leave. His reasons are valid. He examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that agnostic-atheism was the right path, at least for him.

I also have a strong respect for science, and I do my best to live my life in a reasonable manner. But my experiences and my interpretations of those experiences have led me to very different conclusions.

If Tysons post was on the Patheos Nonreligious channel, I might read it and let it go. But its on the Pagan channel, and so I feel the need to offer a different perspective.

Tyson finds the evidence for the existence of the Gods to be insufficient. Thats fine. We all have to examine the evidence we have and evaluate it as best we can and we dont all come to the same conclusions. And to be fair, his identity as an Agnostic-Atheist affirms the reality that ultimately, we cant prove or disprove the existence of the Gods.

But then he says to argue that science cannot definitively disprove deities is creating a faith in the God(s) of the gap. Now, the idea that the Gods are in the gaps of our scientific knowledge is a logical fallacy, a fallacy that is made clear every time science discovers new knowledge and fills a gap previously occupied by a deity (who is usually assumed to be the Christian God, but thats not important here).

The problem here is materialism the assumption that if something exists, science can observe and measure it. And also, if science cant observe and measure it, then it cant exist. But there is another possibility: that there are things or persons who are beyond the capacity of science to observe and measure. Not Gods of gaps, but Gods who are bigger than the bounds of materialism.

Tyson says no God claim has met its burden of proof. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that there is an objective standard for such proof, or at least that all reasonable people have a similar standard. Neither is true.

I believe in the Gods because I have experienced the Gods for myself. Now, you can argue that my experiences were simply disruptions in brain chemistry caused by something completely ordinary and within the bounds of materialism. I freely admit you might be right.

But I dont call myself an Agnostic-Pagan I call myself a Pagan and a polytheist. I take what I think is most likely true and I order my life as though it is absolutely true. My life has been objectively better since I started on this path why would I do otherwise?

Different people have different standards of proof. The existence of the Gods matters a lot more to some people than to others. I cant say for certain that Im right and Tyson is wrong.

I can say for certain that the preponderance of evidence convinces me that the Gods are real, and Im happy with that conclusion.

Tyson describes some unfortunate experiences with some unethical readers. I wish he was describing a rare occurrence, but hes not. A few psychics and readers are fakes who defraud their clients. Many more are simply incompetent.

It took me years to get to the point where I could read Tarot with any degree of accuracy. Even now, if you ask me for precise details Im probably not going to be able to answer. I cant see specifics in the cards and Im not going to pretend I can.

But I can get general impressions. I can paint a picture for myself or for a client of what things will be like if you continue on a certain path. Then you can decide if you want to continue on that path, or if you want to make a change. I cant make a major life decision for you and I wouldnt if I could.

To be clear: Im not blaming the victim here. Im warning those who want to be public readers to make sure youre ready before you start charging money. Being ready means proving your accuracy and your helpfulness to yourself and your non-paying friends. It also means committing to ethics in divination.

Because if you dont, you might be part of the reason someone leaves Paganism for atheism.

We all know about the placebo effect. The open-label placebo effect takes it a step farther. Thats when you fake something, and you know youre faking it, but you get some benefit from it anyway.

Except, what if youre not really faking it?

Tyson said for some time, this approach to magick sustained my practice. But also I feel better connected to a situation when I am not utilizing the placebo effect.

I understand the need to focus on what you think is real, even if what you pretend is pleasant and helpful. But heres the thing: if you do the ritual and you get the results, how do you know the results come from the placebo effect?

How do you know the ritual didnt work just like its supposed to work?

The only completely honest answer is that you dont know. Materialism says theres no way it can work. But what if theres something to psychic energy manipulation (energy being a problematic word in this context, but most of us know what we mean)? What if the Gods we prayed to assisted us just enough to make a difference?

And whats behind the placebo effect anyway? It shouldnt work but it does. Instead of dismissing it, what if we learned how to manipulate it?

Im convinced that magic does work. Sometimes by the manipulation of what we call psychic energy, sometimes by the intercession of Gods and spirits, and sometimes by psychological programming. I dont know where the placebo effect fits into that model, or if its evidence of a fourth type of magic.

But if it works, its real.

Tyson is disappointed in the response of some Pagans to the Covid pandemic. So am I. But as a whole, were taking this a lot more seriously than the conservative religions. I wish we were 100% vaccinated (excepting those who cannot be vaccinated) and were 100% responsible in public gatherings, but were doing about as well as anyone. This is not an issue specific to Pagans.

Hes also disappointed in Pagans who practice cultural appropriation, and calls out white people who wear Native American headdresses as an example. I share his disappointment, and Im committed to building a Paganism where we do better. As with the Covid response, this is not a problem unique to Pagans.

But it can be the last straw for someone who was already on their way out.

Im writing this to the community at large, not to Tyson Chase. Hes made his decision and I have no need to try to convince him to change it. Paganism isnt for everyone, and if people examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are no Gods, so be it. As the quote often attributed to Marcus Aurelius says:

Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

But some of us have examined the evidence and have concluded that the Gods are very real, and so we worship and work with Them. Weve concluded that magic is real, so we study and practice and experiment and try to be the most effective magicians we can be. And weve concluded that divination is real, so we do our best to relay the messages weve been given as honestly and accurately as we can.

You must weigh the evidence and choose for yourself.

I wish Tyson Chase nothing but the best, and I will continue to work with him where our this-world interests align and they do on many issues.

But when it comes to Paganism, Ive examined the evidence and Ive come to a very different conclusion.

See the original post:

A Reflection on a Blogger Leaving Paganism for Atheism - Patheos

Atheist Sam Harris has been one of the most vocal unhinged critics of former US President Donald Trump. In his hatred for Donald Trump, he claimed that notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden was less morally reprehensible than the 45th president of the United States of America.

When Trump was banned by social media platforms simultaneously, Sam Harris cheered for it despite the ominous signs of censorship. It was a decision that was condemned widely by leaders across the world, including Emmanuel macron of France, Angela Merkel of Germany, the president of Mexico, members of the Parliament of India and many others.

There were many who warned Harris that he was widely wrong about Trump and although the former president is a fundamentally flawed individual, he is certainly not the worst thing to have happened in the United States. But Harris remained adamant in his assumptions. Thus, on the 20th of January, when Joe Biden took oath as president, he heralded the occasion as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

On Thursday, however, after the Kabul suicide bombing, when the cost of Bidens botched Afghan withdrawal became evident, he finally conceded that he was embarrassed about the glee with which he had welcomed the adults in the room.

On the 20th of January, Harris had said on Twitter, Feeling overwhelming gratitude for the adults in the room. But by the 26th of August, it turned into an embarrassed Publicly eating these words syllable by syllable.

Sam Harris is the same person who had once infamously declared, Osama bin Laden, as a person, is far more understandable to me and far less reprehensible, personally, psychologically, than Trump.

Earlier, he had said, I find Trump more despicable than I found Osama bin Laden With Osama bin Laden, its just obvious to me that he could have been a mensch in some sense, right? Hes making serious sacrifices for ideas that he deeply believes in. Hes committed to a cause greater than himself.

It is not clear whether Harris still holds on to those opinions, given that over 100 lives have been lost to the Kabul airport attack, which was committed by ideological compatriots of Osama bin Laden, even if they belonged to a different terrorist outfit.

Whatever his opinions maybe, his opinions regarding the adults in the room certainly appears to have undergone a radical change. Sam Harris is greatly fond of the American national security establishment, the class of individuals who are responsible for the current mess in Afghanistan and unleashing devastating carnage in the Middle East that has absolutely destroyed the region.

In 2016, the rational atheist hoped for Hillary Clinton to win, a certified warmonger who presided over the destruction of an entire region during her tenure as Secretary of State. However, now he is forced to reckon with his ridiculous assumptions about the competence of the managerial class he loves so much.

But not everyone is ready to give Harris a free pass over the hysterical nonsense he peddled about Donald Trump. Gad Saad, a Lebanese-Canadian Evolutionary Psychologist, said, Some of us tried to warn you but you were drowning in your hysterical and irrational Trump hatred. Next time around, dont reject those with whom you share many values simply because of your tribal blind hysteria.

He stated further, Are you going to publicly eat your words regarding supporting that Trump be banned from Twitter? Deontological principles should NEVER be sacrificed at the altar of tribal hate. Political commentator Mike Cernovich was particularly caustic in his remarks, suggesting that the bin Laden admirer had gone into damage control mode.

Sam Harris is not the only person who has to contend with their flawed assumptions regarding Joe Biden. The mainstream media, which had worked hard to elect him as president, appears to have abandoned a sinking ship as well. No longer in a position to defend his botched handling of the Afghan withdrawal, even they are harshly criticising the decisions he has made in recent weeks.

At the same time, Bidens approval ratings are at an all time low as he struggles to cope with the fallout of the Afghan crisis. And with the death of US marines and calls for him to resign, his approvability is expected to plummet further.

Go here to see the original:

Trump derangement syndrome patient Sam Harris admits he is embarrassed over enthusiastic welcome for adults in the room involved in botched Afghan...

I ran into my old parish priest at a minor league baseball game the other night (along with like a dozen other priests wearing the collars and everything I guess it was priests night out or something). Anyway, I went up to say hello, and the conversation went something like this:

Hi Father Mark! Im Jon Wolf. You probably dont recognize me, [same recycled joke about looking like the fifth Beatle after a year-and-a-half of COVID-19 lockdowns that Id used like five times already that night], but I used to be an altar boy for you when you said Mass.

[Nervous laughter] Oh, I dont really remember you, but that last name Wolf, was your mom a dental hygienist in town?

Of course, thats why I have such good teeth [weird smile]! See? You have really good teeth too, probably my mams had something to do with that.

Thanks. So, are you married now, and do you have a family or what?

Oh yes! Well, Im not married exactly, I do have a long-term girlfriend though, and we have a kid, not my kid biologically, but shes more or less my daughter, and that look on your face makes clear that youre now processing my obvious embrace of premarital sex and procreation outside of the bonds of matrimony and so in turn Im only now realizing that I did not come into this sentence with an exit strategy

You know, Im going to pray for you tonight.

Ugh. So often in life its just easier to pretend youve entirely forgotten someone.

My point in writing about this though is that it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to just say, you know, I appreciated all the sermons and everything when I was a kid, and I think your heart was in the right place, but Im an atheist now, and everyone is fine with that, and I dont have any problem with how I now choose to live my life. I shouldnt have had to feel shame in talking to a guy I used to know just because my lifestyle no longer matches his religious convictions, but I did.

Im not alone in that. The religiously unaffiliated proportion of the U.S. population continues to grow, and it stood at 26 percent as of 2019, according to the Pew Research Center. Yet, being nonreligious in a country full of religious wackos is a complicated endeavor, and relatively few people are willing to self-identify as atheist even if the definition of atheist functionally matches their actual belief structure. Just 4 percent of Americans actually say they are atheists when asked to state their religious identity (although that number is on the rise, too).

I was raised pretty hardcore Catholic, and actually believed a lot of that shit for years. But having read about 30 science books, and about 30 true crime books detailing the misdeeds of falsely religious hucksters bilking believers out of money and power and sex, and seeing a couple of my friends have their whole families randomly murdered, and watching my daughter go through cancer treatments, and having other friends die randomly in their 20s for no goddamn reason at all, and watching a lot of anti-gay bigotry and women-shaming and clergy molestation scandals and a bunch of other things take place, I mean, come on. The evidence is overwhelming. Theres just not some all-powerful altruistic being watching out for all of us. The world is random and indifferent, and if you want a path through life thats better than that, its up to you to create it.

Magic and mental wishes (aka prayer) dont control everything. Were all skinsacks holding in five or six liters of blood around a bone framework, and thats OK. There is no broader plan beyond whatever human beings come up with. Its only us here, and its up to us whether we turn this world into a heaven or a hell. Really thats not such a bad thing. It gives us all a lot of responsibility.

But most atheists still cant just say that. There are zero members of Congress who will admit to being atheists, and only one who will even acknowledge being religiously unaffiliated. Atheists shouldnt have to feel bad about their lack of belief though. We dont (well, most of us dont) go around directly insulting the God-fearing for the beliefs that apparently give them some form of comfort through this admittedly rough existence. So maybe the pious could return the favor.

If youre an atheist, just say it, and try not to feel bad. And if youre not, perhaps try to make us feel OK with who we are rather than pushing beliefs on us that weve already rejected for some pretty good reasons.

Jonathan Wolf is a civil litigator and author ofYour Debt-Free JD (affiliate link). He has taught legal writing, written for a wide variety of publications, and made it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldnt want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached atjon_wolf@hotmail.com.

Read more from the original source:

Just Say Youre An Atheist, Its Fine - Above the Law

The autobiographical The enigma of God does not start dramatically: Alister McGrath (1953), now a well-known theologian and writer, receives a slight Protestant-Christian education as a boy, from which he moves away as a high school student and completely as a student . He follows the path of so many of his baby boom generation, who are erasing the last vestiges of the faith they were born with, to happily declare themselves an atheist.

Perhaps this slightly Protestant upbringing is special, given McGraths birthplace, Belfast, Northern Ireland, where the problems began in the 1960s between Catholics and Anglo-British Protestants. There was no longer any question of lightness.

Alister McGrath, on the other hand, turns out to be a gifted student, with an obvious talent for science subjects: he went to Oxford as a student to train in molecular biophysics. He now calls himself not only an atheist, but also a Marxist which is also not unimaginable at the end of the 1960s. He thinks he can effortlessly transfer the scientific evidence from his field to the human sciences, and then scientific socialism. Is a logical choice. He considered himself a thinking man at the time, and the Christian view of God (as summed up in this absurd doctrine of the trinity) was hopelessly irrational in every way.

But from the 1970s, his ideas changed: first, better late than never, the horrors of really existing socialism penetrated him, at the time still widespread in the countries of the East. Not only does he reject the scientific claim of socialism, but McGrath remarks that he is looking for another Weltbild, an idea of the whole world: it is inevitably a question of making sense and certainly also of the sense of existence.

And so, God creeps back into the life of the promising McGrath, who no longer believes the evidence that science had to show what was right: everything else was opinion or deception.

McGrath himself speaks of an unexpected conversion. In addition to his scientific work, he now devotes time to church visits, he obtains a doctorate in chemistry, but his journey of discovery to God becomes more and more important to him. He decides to study theology at the same Oxford. The student excels there too, and he also obtains his doctorate in this field. He thus climbed two mountains according to his own will: those of science and theology. Last unexpected play: in 1981, McGrath was ordained a priest (Anglican), for whom pastoral work is not a compulsory number, but one that comes closest to his vocation.

In his own words, his religious turn cannot be understood without taking into account the influence of the Irish-British writer CS Lewis (1898-1963). McGrath devotes a chapter to him in that book, radiantly calling him A traveling companion! As an example, he cites Lewiss treatise on the Twisted Wish Doctrine: The Lewis treatise opened my eyes to the fact that I had resisted belief in God in part because of of the universal pressure of the wish that God consists. .

According to Lewis, atheism was to be seen as the masterful fulfillment of one of our most repressed desires: the desire for complete autonomy and the freedom to pursue whatever suits us.

With Lewis, McGrath reverses the usual reasoning: it is not religious desire which refers to something else (the Freudian father figure), but atheism conceals an unspoken desire: the will to be master of my destiny, captain. of my soul, as the 19th century poet William Ernest Henley put it.

McGrath no longer accepts this claim to personal autonomy, because we must come to terms with uncertainty without being overwhelmed by it.

As a public intellectual, McGrath also engages in discussions with such figures as the British ethologist Richard Dawkins (the man of selfish genes) and the American scientist Daniel Dennet: two precursors of what will be known. in the early years of the 21st century. present itself as a new atheism. The novelty of this atheism is that not only does God not exist, but believing in Him is very bad for humanity and morality.

McGrath writes in this book his last in his own words that the new atheism has since been the victim of its own rise and fall, as might be expected. This last comment is not without triumphalism. He himself sees no contradiction in the natural sciences and the faith.

Embracing doubts and uncertainties, also in science, is crucial, he says. He quotes Nobel laureate and medical scientist Sir Peter Medawar who asserted in 1963 that an imaginary or inspired process is an integral part of scientific argument. Because, concludes McGrath: We are at the mercy of our limited ability to see and understand. We have to be content with the fragility of the truths on which we build our lives. You really see in a glassy mirror, a dark mirror - so the English title is Through dark glass, with reference to 1 Corinthians 13.

In this regard, The Enigma of God in the Dutch translation is not only less poetic, it also leaves out the enigma of the world and the cosmos.

It is McGraths deep conviction that he doesnt have to choose between God and science, he explains it clearly. He seems less detached when he describes his more personal experiences, an almost unbearable comfort creeps into his prose. An example:

My parents saw with amazement and even some concern that I had brought textbooks with me when I returned from Christmas vacation. Young McGrath is a student, thats clear, but self-pleasure is hard to ignore. When Elder McGrath conducts research it never goes well but remarkably prosperous. Or: I felt that I owed it to my intellectual integrity to investigate these ideas

God and complacency: its a difficult combination.

Alister McGrath: The enigma of God. My journey through science, faith and doubt. Host. Linda Jansen.

Cookbook Center, 240 pages $ 24.99

A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of August 13, 2021

Read the original:

How God Still Slips Into the Life of an Atheist Baby Boomer - DodoFinance