Monthly Archives: May 2020

@Home with SF State: Adjusting to Remote Learning | College of Liberal & Creative Arts – SF State News

Posted: May 21, 2020 at 6:50 am

Lyn Bafour, a Cinema and Chinese major, has used her nightstand as a desk for online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If I just reorient myself on my bed, I feel like thats enough mentally to make the switch of, this is where you sleep versus this is where you work, Bafour said in a new video series exploring how students have adjusted to online learning this semester.

Despite the challenges with taking classes from home, the Trader Joes employee has found a way to prepare herself every day: Wake up, get in the mindset and shake everything off and just start doing the work.

Cinema major Nithin Kumar said keeping his workspace clean and simple has helped him stay on task.

I have my monitor. I have a keyboard. Basically, I have [my workspace] set up for maximum productivity with as little distractions as possible, he said.

Sabrina Mota, a Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts major, said students shouldnt be too hard on themselves, especially during this unprecedented crisis.

Forgive yourself if this isnt going to be your best semester, Mota said. Understand that a lot of people, they take a long time to go through school and they still end up being able to get to their aspirations and make change.

The pandemic and shelter-in-place ordinances have made Bafour value the importance of human interaction more than ever.

Whats going on right now is very isolating, and during the first few days, I was very lifeless. I didnt know what to do with myself, said Bafour, an employee at Trader Joes grocery store. But talking to somebody really did help feel like things are normal and reaffirmed that other people are going through the same thing.

Video produced by Sreang Hok and Kavin Chan

Read more:

@Home with SF State: Adjusting to Remote Learning | College of Liberal & Creative Arts - SF State News

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on @Home with SF State: Adjusting to Remote Learning | College of Liberal & Creative Arts – SF State News

Liberals vow to resurrect Roe 8 if elected next year – WAtoday

Posted: at 6:50 am

Opposition transport spokeswoman Libby Mettam said the Liberal Party was still committed to Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link.

Loading

If necessary it is a decision we would most certainly reverse and we are comfortable fighting the government on this issue given it has the support of the community of the southern suburbs, she said.

Ms Mettam said WA needed big ticket infrastructure projects to help the state recover from the coronavirus pandemic and with $1.2 billion in federal funding still on the table, now was the time to get it started.

Were finding it is quite extraordinary that 62,000 people have lost their jobs in the past four weeks and the McGowan government would come out with a plan to block Roe 8, she said.

The Perth Freight Link was envisioned to connect Fremantle Port with Perths southern suburbs but it was scrapped after the Labor party won the 2017 election in a landslide with stopping the road as a headline commitment.

The Liberal Party maintains the road would reduce congestion and remove trucks from Leach Highway while future proofing the Fremantle port.

Ms Saffioti said the McGowan government had been given a clear mandate to stop the freight link.

It was a deeply flawed, controversial project that I am pleased has now been laid to rest, she said.

Environment Minister Stephen Dawson said the land that was cleared to make way for the freight link was already being rehabilitated which would ensure the Beeliar Wetlands and its conservation values would remain for future generations.

See original here:

Liberals vow to resurrect Roe 8 if elected next year - WAtoday

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberals vow to resurrect Roe 8 if elected next year – WAtoday

P.E.I. Liberals plan to leave collaboration to Green party and governing Conservatives – The Guardian

Posted: at 6:50 am

The Liberal MLAs are set to shift from collaborative players to critical ones.

Sonny Gallant, leader of the Third Party, says the Liberal caucus is withdrawing from direct participation in decision-making and input with the governing Conservatives and Official Opposition Green Party.

Gallant, in an opinion piece penned to The Guardian, states elected members have two primary roles: representing constituents and holding government accountable.

Premier Dennis King has won praise for governing in a strong spirit of collaboration with the Greens and the Liberals since winning a minority government in April 2019.

The three parties had appeared to be working particularly well together over the past three months to find the best approaches to deal with the ongoing pandemic.

Gallant says the province found itself in a "situation we had never been in before'' in March, and the six Liberal MLAs saw the need to work with the other two parties to best address the COVID-19 crisis.

However, he says the Liberal caucus is now stepping out of that rather friendly, cozy relationship. Time now, he adds, to start suggesting ways government can do things differently.

"We just felt as a group and as a team that we change our approach,"he told The Guardian late Wednesday afternoon.

Gallant says the Liberal caucus plans to take on a more direct role in making sure that the province is ready for a potential second wave of COVID-19.

Islanders deserve to know that we have a good stockpile of personal protective equipment,"he states in the opinion piece.

"They also need to see a plan that will deal with the backlog of health care services that has built up and that safe steps are being taken to care for a potential round of patients affected by the virus."

Green Leader Peter Bevan-Baker says he is disappointed, but not surprised, by the Liberals looking to rock the boat rather than paddle along in unison.

Bevan-Baker suggests the Liberal caucus appears to be returning to the old, more combative way of doing politics.

He believes, though, it is entirely possible to hold government to account while constructively and co-operatively working together to get legislation enacted.

I really feel it is a shame that the Liberals feel that they can no longer contribute to the collaborative model that we have been pioneering here on Prince Edward Island,"says Bevan-Baker.

He says the collaborative approach to P.E.I. politics for more than a full year has been successful in advancing an agenda that benefits all Islanders.

He adds that in the past on P.E.I., the Liberals and Conservatives would simply take turns waiting for their turn to govern.

Bevan-Baker says he does not know the key to the Green party forming the next government under this current atmosphere of collaboration.

"That is a great question, and I wish I knew the answer to that,"he said in a telephone interview with The Guardian Wednesday.

He says he and his fellow Green MLAs are always ready to stand up and offer critical input.

He adds his party will have plenty of opportunity to distinguish itself from the Liberals and Conservatives in the months ahead.

Gallant, meanwhile, raises concern that the Greens will ease up on criticizing government in favour of seeking deals and accommodations that meet their political agenda".

Government House Leader Sidney MacEwen was contacted by The Guardian for this story but did not return the call by deadline.

RELATED:

Read the original:

P.E.I. Liberals plan to leave collaboration to Green party and governing Conservatives - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on P.E.I. Liberals plan to leave collaboration to Green party and governing Conservatives – The Guardian

Liberals will never acknowledge Trumps successes | Letter – lehighvalleylive.com

Posted: at 6:50 am

'Its astounding how Ron Pizarie (letter, The man with the nuclear launch codes cant tell fact from fiction, May 12) can be so astute in his condemnation of President Trump. Hes like a Monday morning quarterback going over plays that could or should have been done. Its so easy to sit on the sidelines and complain or perceive that you or someone else could do it better.

It doesnt matter what Trump has accomplished in the last three years. Left-wing liberals will never give him any credit for anything, even though he has been right and beneficial for our country. What if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had to deal with this coronavirus pandemic? Where do you think this country would be now? I can only imagine.

If Biden were president, hed have to remember where he was first to be able to handle anything. Then touchy-feely Uncle Joe would have to come out of the basement.

So my advice to the left-wing liberal losers is to get over it. Stop trying to drum up any more costly false accusations and coup de-tats to get rid of Trump. Hes not a politician and that rubs too many people the wrong way.

Most importantly, Trump is someone who loves this country and only wants whats best for America. Give him a chance. Turn right instead of left.

Audrey Cowell

Upper Nazareth Township

See original here:

Liberals will never acknowledge Trumps successes | Letter - lehighvalleylive.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberals will never acknowledge Trumps successes | Letter – lehighvalleylive.com

Liberal coalition Win Justice retools strategies for voter turnout – Washington Times

Posted: at 6:50 am

The liberal coalition Win Justice sidelined its usual army of clipboard-wielding activists who swarm neighborhoods to register voters and build a get-out-the-vote database for 2020.

The coronavirus crisis also put a crimp in the plans of political activists and advocacy groups across the political spectrum, with fundraising dried up by the economic lockdown and traditional voter contact strategies stifled by social distancing.

But political activists, by definition, are not easily deterred.

Win Justices network of activists from Planned Parenthood, Service Employees International Union and other left-wing groups this week retooled its voter turnout operation into a $30 million effort emphasizing personalized mail and phone banks.

The Committee to Unleash Prosperitys Stephen Moore said he estimated his income would drop 70% this year because of canceled conferences and speaking engagements, and fewer economic consulting opportunities.

Mr. Moore, a member of President Trumps task force to reopen the economy, said he is poised to weather the economic storm without hardship but he knows others in the policy-advocacy arena are not as fortunate.

The biggest problem for what were doing now frankly is everybodys poorer, Mr. Moore said. I talk to donors and they say I just lost 30% of my money in the stock market.

The inability of activists to put boots on the ground nationwide has affected conservatives and liberals alike. The Club for Growth said it hopes to resurrect its door-knocking campaigns if and when state and local officials allow it.

Club for Growth President David McIntosh said the biggest difference now than before the coronavirus shutdowns is that the group has focused more on digital engagement with its members and its new fellowship program.

Weve held a number of town halls with our friends including Sen. [Ted] Cruz, [pollster] Frank Luntz and more, and weve been getting great feedback, Mr. McIntosh said. We are continuing to be very engaged with TV, cable, and digital ads and mail even with many primaries being pushed into the summer.

Win Justice leaders said they want to do in-person field organizing if it is safe. But in the meantime, they are combining traditional methods with newer digital tools for their campaigns in Florida, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin.

We need to reach the communities who have been targeted and silenced by this administration and the people in power from voters of color to immigrants, to young people, to women, said Planned Parenthoods Jenny Lawson. Enough is enough: While our countrys health care needs continue to rise in the face of a global pandemic, its time for the politicians who attack our health care and our reproductive rights to lose their jobs.

The SEIU said it sees Win Justice as the beginning of its chance to fundamentally alter the American economy.

Workers and communities of color cant afford to return to normal we need to reject the inequality and economic pain that defines COVID but was present long before COVID, said Mary Kay Henry, SEIU international president. Thats what this election is about. Win Justice is the first step toward a better future where we rewrite the rules, rebuild the economy based on workers power, and reinvest in communities.

Read more here:

Liberal coalition Win Justice retools strategies for voter turnout - Washington Times

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal coalition Win Justice retools strategies for voter turnout – Washington Times

NP View: Will these Liberals be willing to do what Chrtien and Martin did? – National Post

Posted: at 6:48 am

A Liberal government will reduce the deficit. We will implement new programs only if they can be funded within existing expenditures. We will exercise unwavering discipline in controlling federal spending . Expenditure reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary programs, streamlining processes and eliminating duplication.

Its hard to imagine the Liberals making such a promise in this day and age, but that is what they pledged to do in their 1993 Red Book. Contrast that to the 2015 election, when the party campaigned on the idea of running $10-billion deficits for three years, for a total of $30 billion a limit they blew through (and it wasnt even close). Or the 2019 election, when it gave up on balancing the books altogether and introduced a plan to run yearly deficits of $20 billion over its four-year mandate.

The coronavirus, however, changes everything. Those deficits now seem like chump change in the face of the Parliamentary Budget Officers (PBO) April 30 forecast of a $252.1-billion deficit in 2020-21 a number that, given the spate of spending announcements since then, he now says is likely to prove very optimistic.

As a percentage of the economy, even the optimistic number would be the highest on record. And that doesnt include the provinces, which have also seen their expenditures balloon. All told, a National Bank Financial report this week estimated that combined federal and provincial deficits could reach a staggering $350 billion, which represents about 20 per cent of gross domestic product.

If theres any good news, its that the massive increase in government spending that weve witnessed since the start of this pandemic will (hopefully) be temporary. Yes, COVID-19 has exposed critical holes in our health-care system, long-term care facilities and supply of critical goods that will require long-term expenditures in order to address. But the vast majority of the spending the financial support for workers who have lost their jobs and companies that have lost their revenue streams can easily come to an end once the health threat subsides.

Thats not to say that it is inevitable, though. We have already heard calls for the government to transform the Canada Emergency Response Benefit into a universal basic income program, for the state to use this crisis as an opportunity to replace fossil fuels with green energy pick your pet cause and chances are that someone is using the coronavirus as an excuse to push it.

But the Liberals must resist these calls, because the fact is that we will not be able to afford any of it. We wont even be able to afford any of the programs, like universal pharmacare, that Parliament was considering at the beginning of the year.

The Liberals justified their deficit spending before the pandemic by citing Canadas relatively good debt-to-GDP ratio, the amount of government debt relative to the size of the economy. Yet the PBO estimates that the national debt will hit $962 billion this year, up from $685 billion in 2018, and could easily top $1 trillion thats a one with 12 zeroes the year after.

Meanwhile, Statistics Canada released a flash estimate last month, which suggested that real GDP shrank nine per cent in March. The PBOs scenario estimates that real GDP will decline by 12 per cent this year, which would be four times worse than the worst year since we started keeping records in 1961.

Divide those two numbers and we could be looking at a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 50 per cent by the end of the year. This, however, would not be unprecedented: it stood at a whopping 66.6 per cent in 1995.

That was when Prime Minister Jean Chrtien and Finance Minister Paul Martin launched an aggressive effort to balance the budget that still makes conservatives jealous. They did so not by massively increasing taxes, but by cutting federal spending by 14 per cent between 1995 and 1998. Thanks to these austerity measures, the economy prospered, growing between four and five per cent a year between 1997 and 2000. Accordingly, our debt-to-GDP ratio dropped to 29 per cent by 2009.

Barring a sudden end to their minority government, when the current crisis abates, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau will face a similar situation. It has always seemed somewhat paradoxical that Chrtien and his American counterpart, President Bill Clinton, were able to balance their budgets in the 90s, while their conservative successors watched them balloon once again. Yet centre-left governments often find it easier to drastically reduce spending, because people tend to believe that they are doing it out of necessity, rather than ideology, and therefore are more inclined to give them a pass.

Will this current crop of Liberals follow in the footsteps of their predecessors and do what needs to be done to stabilize this countrys finances, retaining the prosperity that sustains our way of life and preserving it for future generations? We certainly hope so, but their own recent history is cause for concern.

Originally posted here:

NP View: Will these Liberals be willing to do what Chrtien and Martin did? - National Post

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on NP View: Will these Liberals be willing to do what Chrtien and Martin did? – National Post

What is atheism? – Atheist Alliance International

Posted: at 6:47 am

Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix a. So lets break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix a means; without or lack of. Therefore, atheism means without a belief in a god or gods or the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

We often hear theists say, If you dont believe in God, you must believe God does not exist! but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. A person could reasonably say she doesnt know if any gods exist, and there are none that she currently believes in.

This issue is the single biggest misunderstanding about atheism. Fortunately, there is a neat way to show why its wrong. A god either exists, or it doesnt. There are only two possibilities.

Now, imagine Im holding a bag of coins and I claim theres an even number of coins in the bag. A bag of coins either has an even number of coins or an odd number. Like a gods existence, there are only two possibilities. If you are not able to check my claim by counting the coins, you wont know if my claim is true so you should not believe me. But that does not mean that you must believe there is an odd number of coins in the bag. You dont have the evidence to take a view on it, so you shouldnt believe either possibility.

It is not necessary for an atheist to claim that no gods exist, nevertheless, some do. People often call this position hard atheism. Hard atheism is atheism with the additional conviction that there are no gods anywhere either inside, or outside, of the universe.

Sometimes theists are thoroughly perplexed by atheism. The way they see the world, not believing in a god is bizarrebordering on madness. So lets look at why people are atheists. There are several reasons people lack a belief in gods; we will discuss just two.

Some people are atheists simply because they have never been taught to be theists. People raised by an atheist family in an atheistic society may never be exposed to the idea of gods (except in history books), so they grow up with no belief in them. Remember, people do not suddenly become Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever. Children raised in religious families in religious societies are trained to be Christians, Muslims or Hindus.

A significant proportion of atheists in the world today are atheists because they were not taught to be anything else.

Other atheists were taught to believe in a god or gods but decided it didnt make sense so they abandoned their belief.

Lets look at one scenario. Arif was born a Muslim but he knows there are around 5 billion people in the world who believe in different religions and, often, in different gods. He wonders if there is a good reason to be a Muslim rather than something else, but cannot find anything compelling.

He worries that the arguments Muslims use to prove their god exists are the exact same arguments others use to prove their god exists. He knows there are some big questions that science cannot answer, such as Where did the universe come from? and God is used to answer those questions. But he realizes there is a possibility that science may answer those questions one day. And even if it never does, an unanswered question does not mean the particular god Abraham dreamed about 3,500 years ago must be real. Arif knows thousands of people have dreamed of thousands of gods and created thousands of religions. He knows men invent gods and religions. What is special about Abrahams god?

After much thought, Arif sees that his belief is really based on faith, and not on incontrovertible evidence. And he sees that the Christians belief and the Hindus belief is also founded on faith. With a little more thought he concludes that faith is not a way to distinguish what is true from what is falseit is a way to justify whatever you happen to believe. Different people believe completely contradictory things on faith, so it has no value as a way to decide what is true.

At this point Arif has no reasons left to believe in his god, so he becomes an atheist.

This journey of discovery, or something rather like it, is the journey millions of people have taken to become atheists. If you ask any of these people why they are atheists, you would get a similar answer, Because there are no good reasons to believe in gods; and I wont believe in them for bad reasons.

There is nothing you have to believe to be an atheist. Not believing in any god, is the only qualification required. Beyond that, an atheist can believe in anything at all.

So being an atheist, says nothing about a persons politics, attitude towards LGBT rights or views on gun control, abortion, church/state separation or anything else. In principle, an atheist could believe in fairies, although the thinking that leads to unbelief in gods, in most cases leads to unbelief in other things that cannot be shown to be real. Consequently, atheists most likely will not believe in Satan, demons, angels, karma, heaven, hell or anything else that relies on the supernatural but, in principle, they could.

Theism and atheism tell us about a persons belief in gods. Agnosticism and Gnosticism tell us what a person claims to know, not what they believe. Because atheism and agnosticism are different things, it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic. An agnostic atheist does not believe in any gods but does not claim to know that no gods exist.

It works the same with theism. It is possible to be an agnostic theista person who believes in God but does not claim to know God exists. In practice though, most believers are gnostic theiststhey believe in God and claim to know God exists. Interestingly, most atheists are agnostic atheists.

Some people self-describe as agnostic when they cannot decide what to believe. Thats fine, but if they do not actually believe in a god, they are not theists, so they must be atheists.

Over centuries, theists have denigrated atheists. Stories have circulated that atheists are immoral, dishonest and untrustworthy, that atheists hate God and love Satan and that atheists ignore God so they can behave however they like. If we look at countries where most people are atheists, we can see such allegations are not true.

Atheists are humans and you will find good and bad, but if you compare atheistic countries with very religious ones, you are likely to see atheistic countries have lower crimes rates and less dysfunctional behavior. For example, Figure 1 shows the relationship between religiosity (the percentage of people who say religion is important in their lives) and intentional homicide rates. All of the high homicide rate countries are very religious but none of the low homicide rate countries are. (Note that the Y axis Homicide Rate is drawn on a logarithmic scale!)

These baseless allegations against atheists have been made for so long that the word atheism is now seen as tarnished and many people avoid it, even though they have no belief in gods. Consequently, some atheists self-identify as freethinkers, skeptics, secularists, agnostics, non-believers and more. That is a pity. Atheism has a long history and it describes an intellectually honorable viewpoint simply and precisely. We vote to use it with pride.

PREVIOUS: About atheism NEXT: Is atheism a religion?Looking for books on atheism, critical thinking, evolution or ethics?

See more here:
What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on What is atheism? – Atheist Alliance International

What is atheism? | CARM.org

Posted: at 6:47 am

by Matt Slick

The word atheism comes from the negative a which means no, and theos which means god. Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means no god. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that he is knowable and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists but merely non-theists.

I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you accept, atheism denies God.

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak with variations in between. Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidence to denounce God's existence. They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.

Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded there is no God, but they say they are open to further evidence for God's existence.

Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; it isn't an issue. He doesn't believe it or not believe it.

Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists and particularly Christians. Ive encountered a few of them; and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be held with them.

Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where the atheistbelieves that the idea of God's existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one position says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that God exists, and the other position says the evidence is contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate. But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God's existence.

A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all-powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good, he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to remove all evil and suffering.Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. Of course, the problem is that the criticism is a false dichotomy. In other words, there are more than two possibilities; namely, God might have a reason for allowing evil and suffering; man's freedom might require the allowance of evil and suffering, etc.

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below. Please note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity--citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence. But the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers as you will see in the coming papers.

Excerpt from:
What is atheism? | CARM.org

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on What is atheism? | CARM.org

Atheism – AllAboutPhilosophy.org

Posted: at 6:47 am

Atheism - Defining the TermsThere are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute truth and thus no universal moral standard of conduct. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Atheism - Strong AtheismDoes "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. TheismStrong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"

Learn More Now!

Go here to read the rest:
Atheism - AllAboutPhilosophy.org

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheism – AllAboutPhilosophy.org

BBC – Religions – Atheism: At a glance

Posted: at 6:47 am

Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

Many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do some adherents of other religions,such as Judaism and Christianity.

Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.

In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of God.

Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human. This discussion looks at the question from both theological and ethical viewpoints.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions

Originally posted here:
BBC - Religions - Atheism: At a glance

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on BBC – Religions – Atheism: At a glance