Category Archives: Atheism

Vatican City (AFP)

Pope Francis, on a historic trip to Iraq, will on Saturday hold a hugely symbolic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, seeking to deepen his cautious dialogue with Muslim leaders.

The 84-year-old pope will visit the top Shiite cleric at his home in Najaf, the shrine city where Imam Ali, the fourth Islamic caliph and relative of the Prophet Mohammed, is buried.

Sistani, 90, is never seen in public and rarely accepts visitors, but the Argentine pontiff, always happiest among the faithful, favours direct encounters.

Francis has long hailed the power of inter-religious dialogue, symbols of peace and tolerance, without dwelling on the theological subtleties advanced by his predecessor.

Benedict XVI, who resigned as pope eight years ago, provoked years of cool relations with the Muslim world when in 2006 he quoted criticisms of the Prophet Mohammed by a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor.

Two years ago in Abu Dhabi, Francis and leading Sunni cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, signed a document on "human fraternity for world peace".

They made a joint call for freedom of belief, although what stands out from that trip -- the first by a pope to the Arabian Peninsula -- was the image of the leader of the world's 1.3 million Catholics embracing a Sunni imam.

Sunnis account for almost 90 percent of the world's Muslims, Shiites 10 percent -- the majority in Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the population is 60 percent Shiite and 37 percent Sunni.

With the visit to Najaf and meeting with the Shiite cleric Sistani, the pope is extending his hand to the other main branch of Islam.

- Unprecedented event -

"It's certainly an unprecedented event and a big deal," said Marsin Alshamary, a researcher at the Brookings Institution.

She said the Najaf school of thinking on Islam became involved in inter-religious dialogue in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the bloody civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

Sistani has repeatedly stated that Muslims are forbidden from killing others. In 2014, however, as the Islamic State group approached Baghdad, he called on Iraqis to take up arms to drive the jihadists out.

"This visit by the pope sends a strong political message for a figure who is very much associated with the defence of Iraqis," added Myriam Benraad, a French political scientist who specialises in the Arab world.

Sistani embodies one of the two currents of modern Shiism, that of Najaf, which makes a distinction between politics and religion.

By contrast, the school based around the holy Iranian city of Qom believes that the top religious leader should also rule the state, following the example of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The Shiites in Iraq want the Vatican and the western world to support them against the hold that Iran has, which wants to swallow Najaf," said Iraqi Dominican friar Amir Jaje, a leading figure in inter-religious dialogue.

Since the pope's visit was announced, the Shiite clergy has worked hard to ensure it includes a trip to Najaf.

The historian Pierre-Jean Luizard, a specialist on Iraq, noted that Sistani is also aware of "a moment of despair and disaffection towards everything sacred", particularly among the young -- and cannot ignore the pope's global stature.

The pope never stops distributing the Abu Dhabi document and has also published an encyclical, "Fratelli tutti" (All Brothers), which includes numerous references to it.

No such text however is expected to be signed in Najaf.

- Atheism and conversion-

The Abu Dhabi document called for the freedom of belief and expression, advocating full citizenship for "minorities".

But it does not go so far to acknowledge the right to hold no belief at all, or to convert, even drawing a parallel between "atheistic, agnostic or religious extremism" and "fanatic extremism".

"The text, written in Arabic by two Egyptians, is symbolically very powerful but its contents push against open doors," said Jean Druel, of the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies in Cairo.

"It deals with common issues. When Al-Azhar supports religious freedom, he means that Christians can go to mass.

"But atheism remains incomprehensible in the Arab Muslim world."

The pope and his emissaries avoid flashpoint issues. In Abu Dhabi, Francis declared that religious freedom is "not limited only to freedom of worship".

"Perfect freedom of religion is also the freedom to convert and change religion, as many Catholics have converted to Islam or Buddhism," said Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, who heads the Congregation for the Oriental Churches at the Vatican, while suggesting the subject is taboo.

Nevertheless, he believes in the small steps of dialogue towards an "open Islam", he said.

"It takes time, but it's possible."

2021 AFP

See the article here:
In Iraq, Pope reaches out to top Shiite cleric - FRANCE 24

This is a guest post written by the researchers mentioned below.

Were excited to announce the launch of the Secular Communities Survey, the largest-ever study of the community life of secular and non-religious people in the United States. The survey opened yesterday, on March 1st, and will remain open until April 11th. If youre part of a secular community, wed love for you to participate. You can take the survey here.

Our research team has extensive experience studying secular and non-religious people. Joseph Blankholm, Ph.D., is a professor of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research focuses mostly on secularism, atheism, and secular people. Juhem Navarro-Rivera, Ph.D., is a political scientist, writer, public speaker, and research consultant. He is the Political Research Director and Managing Partner at Socioanalitica Research, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Humanist Studies, and a board member of the American Humanist Association. Dusty Hoesly, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research focuses on minority religions and secularism in the United States.

Americans are less religious than ever before, so understanding secular communities has never been more important. This is especially true because most studies suggest that increasing secularization leads to weaker social bonds and less civic engagement. We believe that researchers need to look in new places to understand how society is evolving with religious decline. Though not many researchers have studied them, we know there are about 1,400 local communities for non-believers in the United States. Knowing more about these communities is imperative for understanding the future of American civic life.

The Secular Communities Survey is interested in secular, atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, and non-religious Americans. We want to understand their worldviews, their politics, the communities they form, and how they view religion. We also want to understand secular peoples values and the ways they try to live them.

If youre a member of a secular community including any atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, or other secular group we hope that youll take our survey and that youll encourage others in your community to participate, too. You could be a member of an established secular organization, belong to the Friendly Atheist reader community, or participate in a Facebook, Meetup, or local group for secular people or religious humanists.

The survey should take about 15-20 minutes to complete. All survey responses are anonymous. No names or contact information will be recorded in research materials unless a respondent provides them. No survey respondent will be identified in any publications or other research material. More information can be found on our websites FAQ page.

In addition to contributing to the understanding of community life in the United States, we also hope that the Secular Communities Survey will help members of secular communities gain a broader and deeper understanding of themselves. Thats why were working with secular organizations throughout the country to distribute our results back to the communities we study. Well be presenting our findings at academic conferences and publishing them in academic journals, but well also publish summaries of our results on our website and in the newsletters, blogs, and other publications of secular organizations.

Were grateful for your participation and your help, and were happy to answer questions if you have them. Please contact us by emailing secular.survey@hfa.ucsb.edu. Were also on Twitter (@SecularSurvey) and Facebook.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Originally posted here:
Are You Non-Religious? Then Take the Secular Communities Survey - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Subscribe: Read local news and views with a $1 subscription to the RGJ

Rajan Zed(Photo: RGJ archives)

Although lot of literature has been produced highlighting the strengths and benefits of religion, many have associated the following problems with religion: conflict with science, curtailing freedoms, delusion, claims of having the exclusive truth, fear of punishment, feeling guilt, immutability, instilling fear, internal conflicts, irrationality, justification of violence, limitation on the rights of women, outdatedness, perpetuation of division, persecution, prejudice, rebuffing of broader perspective, social constructs, strange customs, strainedrelationships for partners of different faiths, the structure, the suppression of curiosity, its use as a tool for control, unsophisticatedness, etc.

Some complain thatreligion is used as a reward for "us," and a punishment for "others." Somecritics sum up the problem by saying religion is a noun, not a verb adherents are more interested in the status of their faith, rather than acting on it.

The list of criticisms is long.

The ancient Mundaka Upanishad tells us:

"By truth, meditation, and self-control

One can enter into this state of joy

Truth is victorious, never untruth

Truth is the way; truth is the goal of life" (3.1.5-6).

We asked our panel: What is the problem with religion?

Kenneth G. Lucey, philosophy/religion professor emeritus, University of Nevada

Kenneth Lucey(Photo: RGJ file)

I believe the major problem with religions generally is the manner in which most people acquire their religion, viz. acquiring beliefs from early childhood authority figures. Most religious group members hold beliefs because those views are what they were taught as children. If one is a Muslim it is because one was raised a Muslim. If one is a Mormon it is because ones parents were Mormon. If you were raised in a Catholic, Jewish or Hindu family, you most likely will remain a member of that religion.

This is not universally true, of course. People do sometimes acquire new religious beliefs as adults but when that occurs, it is often the result of the influence of some charismatic individual. It is not the inherent truth or falsity of doctrines that cause beliefs, but rather the personal authority of the influential individuals who raised or educated the child.

Sherif A. Elfass, president, Northern Nevada Muslim Community

Sherif Elfass(Photo: Theresa Danna-Douglas, provided to the RGJ)

From my perspective, the problem with religion lies within its followers and not with the religion itself. All religions call for compassion, respect, equity, generosityand peace. Nevertheless, over the years, the followers of many religions started to deviate from the actual teachings of these religions. Their spirituality, which is linking religious acts to their purpose and meaning in life, started to fade away. For example, nowadays many religiously identified people lie, despite the fact that all religions prohibit lying. Muslim daily prayers became a routine exercise rather than a deterrent from committing any evil.

A compounded problem with Islamis confusing culture with religion. For example, Islam condemns honor killings and banning women from obtaining education or drivers license. Nevertheless, this was the practice of an Islamic country until recent years. Religions problems stem from the behavior of its followers.

Charles T. Durante, vicar general, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno

Charles Durante(Photo: Provided by Charles Durante)

While we believe that the foundation of religion flows from God, the structure and practice of religion is made and carried out by human beings. The problem lies in the expectation that, because the religion is about God and holiness and doing the right, all those involved in the religion will always act accordingly.

Human beings are frail and subject to whim, emotion, ego, influence, judgmentalism and sin. We try our best to teach the ways of the Lord, both through words and actions. However, as imperfect beings, religious people can fail to live out those teachings in their lives or get confused in how those teachings are to be applied. The holier than thou syndrome all too often can rear its ugly head, bringing with it exclusivity or even condemnation of others. Religion becomes a problem when human beings forget their place and assume the role of God.

Matthew T. Fisher, resident priest, Reno Buddhist Center

Matthew Fisher(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

Religions imperfectly transmit their message, even if they are supremely truth-filled. This is because of the human teachers who share the message. At each stage of student receiving instruction there is artifact and loss, as well as embellishment and personal bias. Traditions that stress the individual experience are less prone to these degradations, but certainly not immune.

In the case of Buddhism, the Buddha initially was not sure that teaching his Dharma was even possible. In the Ayacana Sutra he says this about teaching:Enough now with teaching; What only with difficulty I reached. This is Dharma not easily realized for those overcome with aversion and passion; What is unobvious, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow those delighting in passion, cloaked in darkness will not see. But he was persuaded to teach anyway, despite the limitations of language and groups of followers.

Micheal L. Peterson, northwestNevada media specialist, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Micheal L. Peterson(Photo: Provided by Rajan Zed)

The problem with religion is the people who misinterpret the divine messages contained within the scriptures that they claim as a guide to the way they live their lives. There are those who use their religion as license to create civil unrest and even mayhem. How many innocent people have died in the name of God?This is something that God does not condone through His word to mankind. The fact that there are so many conflicting teachings regarding various tenants of religion is reflective of mankinds confusion in interpreting Gods word.

God is not the author of confusion. Paul taught, "... there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, not several (Ephesians 4:5). True religion is love and service to all. Our task is to continue to work toward following the word of God Till we all come in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13).

Anthony Shafton, author and atheist thinker

Anthony Shafton(Photo: MagicToush Photo Studio, provided to the RGJ)

Religions greatest problem is that it is religion, a form of knowledge based on faith rooted in a prescientific world view. No matter how sensible and sound many of its teachings, no matter how it tries to get with an up-to-date viewpoint, or to what extent it acknowledges uncertainty, religion unavoidably asserts nonsense from a scientific standpoint. As for science, while it has a reputation for hard facts, actually science requires the acceptance of uncertainty, that is of probability. Science never pretends to reach absolute truth.

But you know the maximour weaknesses are our strengths, and vice versa. The weakness of science is that it has nothing positive to say beyond the limits of the scientific method. The strength of religion is that it fills that void with faith.

Incidentally, the beauty of atheism is that it is a faith (yes it is) fully consistent with the scientific method.

Karen A. Foster, minister, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Northern Nevada

Karen A. Foster(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

The problem is not religion; the problem is how we treat each other in the name of religion. This dangerous phenomenon happens when religious beliefs or ideologies or political beliefs are taken to extreme. Ones political, ideologicaland religious beliefs are often intertwined. When the extremist becomes convinced, often at the hands of cultlike persuasion, that their beliefs are the only ones that are right and worthwhile, and that everyone and everything else is wrong and must be overpowered, this is extremism at its most insidious. The perpetrators of extremism lose sight of the importance of coexistence, pluralism, tolerance and acceptance, sometimes even within their own families.

Much can be gained by the sharing of differing beliefs, perspectivesand experiences within and between religions. This optimal approach and what religion calls us to do leads to interfaith cooperation, multiculturalismand understanding, which Faith Forum is proud to encourage and promote.

ElizaBeth Webb Beyer, Jewish Rabbi

ElizaBeth W. Beyer(Photo: RGJ file)

In America, religions lack an emphasis teaching humility. Moses was the most capable prophet and leader, who spoke to G-d face-to-face, because of his humble nature. As it says, Now the man Moses was very humble, above all those upon the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3).

Although religions provide a path to G-d, which includes the ethical treatment of self and others, there is a failure to prioritize humility. If we were more humble, we would surely be less judgmental. Our attitude would be one of caring and compassion for others. Neighbor would be a moral construct, not a geographical concept(R Joachim Prinz). We would work on being our best, not micromanaging our neighbors. We would have less inflated egos. We would stop telling other people why they are wrong or how to live their lives but rather, we would lead by example.

Stephen R. Karcher, presiding priest, Saint Anthony Greek Orthodox Church

Stephen Karcher(Photo: RGJ file)

Theology aside, we can generally assume, whether were speaking of religion or any other institution, that when problems arise, their origin is usually a person. Author Melissa Martindescribes how we come with flaws, faults, and problems. People make blunders, mistakes, and errors. We are heroes and villains on a continuum scale. Pastors, police, and politicians fall out of favor. Housewives, helpers, and healers fall out of favor. It is our fallen, broken, perverse, rebellious, sinful, and self-willed tendencies that often get the best of us and impact our families, workplaces, and societies.

Psychology Today once asked Is man good or bad? The answer, both. Our species is wonderfully good, caring and creative beyond words, yet simultaneously man is one rotten manipulator, exploiter, abuser, and killer. However, lets be careful and remember that, just as Albert Einstein once said, we cannot despair of humanity, since we ourselves are human beings.

Nancy Lee Cecil, Bahai teacher

Nancy Lee Cecil Nancy Cecil(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

In a recent conversation with an older gentleman about religion, he volunteered that, as an orphan during the war in Germany, he had been sent to parochial schools. He had become disillusioned with religion, observing much ritual and prayer but little concern to help those struggling.

His comments resonated with a problem I have about anyreligion where proponents are busy praying in their churches while folks are dying on their lawns! While this is sometimes (figuratively) the case, I assured my friend that the issue is with adherents misconstruing religions purpose; indeed, the founders of every religion stress deeds over words.

Consider the following quotes:

Bahai Writings: Let deeds, not words, be your adorning.

The New Testament: do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Hebrews 13:16).

The Quran: if there is a good deed, Allah multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward (4:40).

Bryan J. Smith, co-lead pastor, Summit Christian Church, Sparks

Bryan J. Smith(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

Religion is a man-made construct attempting to create connection between humanity and some deity. Rules, structures and hierarchy are established in an effort to give purpose and meaning to life as we search for a higher power. This is a broken system where the creation is creating the Creator andthe rules of engagement with that deity.

However, when we move from religion to relationship as prescribed by God in his word things change for the positive. Rather than creating rules, relationship is found. We discover who God is as hes revealed himself to us. We also discover who we are in him. Rules, checklists, even worry over how were "doing religion"fall by the wayside. Greater freedom is found in connecting with God in spirit and truth in ways that are life-giving. Anything short of that, i.e. religion, will leave us wanting in the end.

Pamela A. Pech, creator of Discovery of SelfPrograms

Pamela Pech(Photo: Provided by Rajan Zed)

I believe some of the greatest intangible gifts God has given humanity are free will, the ability to be curious, to discover, make mistakes, to learn and grow. Other beautiful gifts are the ability to discern and choose our truth based on our unique personal experiences.

Unfortunately religions, per se, take those gifts away. Most religions dictate what to believe, how our actions must look to correspond with what we have been taught as the only true way to God, and threaten punishment to the extent of eternal damnationif we do not follow specific rules. My studies of religions felt that they not only dictate what I must believe and how I must live, but literally take away my gift of experiencing and discovering God for myself that loving Conscious Dynamic Energy that appears in my life and teaches me firsthand what God is.

Next weeks topic: What is the biggest reason for excommunication from your religion?

Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion produced by religious statesman Rajan Zed. Send questions or comments to rajanzed@gmail.com or on Twitter at @rajanzed.

Read or Share this story: https://www.rgj.com/story/life/2021/03/04/what-problem-religion-faith-forum/6914070002/

More here:
What is the problem with religion? | Faith Forum - Reno Gazette Journal

The moral compasses of atheists and believers are different in a few key ways, a new study finds.

In some aspects, the moral compass was incredibly alike between the two groups; they both highly rated fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people, for instance, and both highly endorsed liberty but not oppression. However, the groups diverged when it came to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority, the study found.

This research shows that, contrary to public perception, atheists do have a moral compass, but compared with believers, "their compass is differently calibrated," possibly due to factors such as how they were raised and whether they are highly analytical thinkers, the study's researcher Tomas Sthl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Live Science.

Related: Saint or spiritual slacker? Test your religious knowledge

It's a common question, including among fellow atheists, whether disbelievers even have a moral compass. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 44% of Americans (compared with 26% of Canadians) think that a belief in God is needed to be moral. A 2011 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology even found "that the distrust of atheists was comparable to the distrust of rapists," he said.

To investigate whether atheists have a moral compass, and to see how it compares with the compass of believers, Sthl did four surveys: The first two included a total of 429 Americans on Amazon's online Mechanical Turk platform, while the second two surveys included a total of 4,193 people from the U.S. (a relatively religious country) and Sweden (a largely irreligious country).

The participants answered myriad questions about their personal histories, religious beliefs, political orientations and moral views. One part of the survey called the Moral Foundations Questionnaire was especially useful, as it asks about five central moral values. Questions on two of the values caring and fairness rated people's attitudes toward protecting vulnerable individuals and treating people fairly.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Sthl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

"Those three values are thought to be serving group cohesion, keeping the group together," Sthl explained. "When it comes to the binding values, there's a dramatic difference [between the groups]. Religious people score much higher on those they view [them] as much more relevant for being moral compared to the disbelievers."

In contrast, "atheists don't really think of [these three values] as relevant for morality to the same degree," he said.

The finding held even when Sthl controlled for political orientation, he noted.

These findings are consistent with prior research, said Kimberly Rios, an associate professor of psychology at Ohio University, who was not involved in the study. The new and earlier research, some of which was carried about by Rios, shows that the stereotypes that atheists don't have a moral compass are overgeneralizations; however, it also showed these stereotypes "are not substantiated by the actual differences between religious believers and non-believers," Rios told Live Science in an email. "Although non-believers place less importance on group-based moral values than do believers, there is no evidence based on the measures used in these studies that non-believers are more amoral than believers."

Related: 8 ways religion impacts your life

For instance, the two groups scored low on amorality, disagreeing with statements such as "I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed." (The survey didn't address whether these groups actually differed in their unethical behaviors.)

Believers' and disbelievers' moral compasses were alike and different in a few other ways, the new surveys showed. For example, both groups highly endorsed liberty over oppression, agreeing with statements such as "Society works best when it lets individuals take responsibility for their own lives without telling them what to do." Both groups said they saw rational thinking believing in evidence-based claims and being skeptical of claims lacking evidence as a moral issue, Sthl said.

This finding is "intriguing," Rios said. There's a notion in many Western societies that religious belief and rational, scientific thought are incompatible, she said. "Yet, the finding that religious believers don't see rational thinking as any less of a moral issue than do non-believers suggests this notion of conflict may be overstated," Rios said.

Of note, some religions encourage aspects of rational thinking. For example, the Catholic church has argued that logic and rationality can be useful, for instance when Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote proofs, known as The Five Ways, that argued for God's existence; in the Middle Ages, Jewish thinkers began embracing the rational thought process of Greek's classical philosophers, and they applied it when analyzing religious texts.

In a difference, Sthl found that atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions. For example, in the hypothetical trolley problem, a person has to decide whether to let a runaway trolley kill five people stuck on the track ahead of it, or whether to pull a switch to divert the train, but kill one person stuck on the alternate track.

"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Sthl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."

Studies have yet to sufficiently show why atheists and theists have differently calibrated moral compasses, but Sthl found a few correlations (although correlation does not equal causation). In the survey, he asked participants whether they were raised religiously and observed important people in their community engage in religious activities (meaning that it would be costly to their lives to think that their religious beliefs were false); whether they viewed the world as a dangerous place (and likely found God to be a protective force); and whether they were analytical thinkers, a trait found more often in atheists than believers.

"We find that, as expected, those things are related to whether you're a believer or not," Sthl said. "We also find that these variables predict your moral values." So, for instance, if you don't grow up surrounded by religious people and related activities, you're less likely to endorse matters of group cohesion. Similarly, perceiving the world to be less dangerous and being an analytical thinker also predict atheism.

The findings were replicated in all four surveys, both in the United States and Sweden. Going forward, both Sthl and Rios said future research should examine whether these patterns hold up in non-Western countries, for example in China, a largely irreligious but very group-oriented country, and in predominantly Muslim countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, where atheism is officially forbidden.

The study was published online Wednesday (Feb. 24) in the journal PLOS One.

Originally published on Live Science.

Visit link:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses - Livescience.com

During an appeal hearing in Moscow over the weekend, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny unveiled his newfound faith in God as he continues to fight for his freedom and his dream of leading Russia away from the authoritarian grip of Vladimir Putin.

The 44-year-old, who is Putin's most well-known critic, was arrested on Jan. 17 at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport while returning from Germany where he spent five months recovering from nerve agent poisoning that he blames on Putin's government.

Earlier this month, a lower court sentenced Navalny to two years and eight months in prison for breaking the terms of his probation while recuperating in Germany. His sentence stems from a 2014 money-laundering conviction that Navalny argues is untrue.In Saturday's court hearing, the judge rejected the appeal of his prison sentence.

Navalny used the opportunity to once again encourage Russians to oppose the Kremlin, including references from the Bible, "Harry Potter," and even the animated series "Rick and Morty."

"The government's task is to scare you and then persuade you that you are alone," he said. "Our Voldemort in his palace also wants me to feel cut off," he added, in a reference to Vladimir Putin.

"To live is to risk it all," he said, quoting "Rick and Morty." "Otherwise, you're just an inert chunk of randomly assembled molecules drifting wherever the universe blows you."

Then Navalny revealed that he is no longer an atheist and believes in God now, finding truth in the Bible. He told the court he believes the words from Matthew 5:6 in which Jesus says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are blessed.

"Even though our country is built on injustice and we all constantly face injustice...we also see that millions of people, tens of millions of people, want righteousness," Navalny said. "They want the righteousness and sooner or later they will have it."

Hinting at Putin's vice-grip control over every aspect of Russian government and life, Navalny said, "Just imagine how wonderful life would be without constant lying. Imagine how great it would be to work as a judge ... when no one would be able to call you and give you directions what verdicts to issue."

After his appeal hearing, Navalny also faced a judge over charges of slandering a war veteran and was ordered to pay a fine of 850,000 rubles (about $11,500).

Navalny had been criticizing a pro-Kremlin video at the time, calling a 94-year-old veteran and others "corrupt stooges," "people without conscience," and "traitors" for supporting Putin's regime last year.

At the hearing, Navalny said his accusers "will burn in hell."

***As certain voices are censored and free speech platforms shut down, be sure to sign up forCBN News emailsand theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving news from a Christian Perspective.***

View post:
Alexei Navalny Rejects Atheism and Finds Faith in God, References Words of Jesus During Appeal in Moscow - CBN News

A new C.S. Lewis movie set before the 1950 publication of Lewis's The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, seeks to tell the history of how Lewis turned from atheism to Christianity.

The Most Reluctant Convert is a screen adaptation of a one-man stage play starring Max McLean. According to the production company's website, the film seeks to show Lewis's journey from becoming a "hard-boiled" atheist into the convert and apologist he became.

The production company, 1A Productions, is taking on a "new approach" combining cinematic storytelling with a costume drama to tell the story of Lewis's conversion in a way that will "surprise as well as inform."

The production company describes the film as "an unusual film drama, based on a highly successful theatrical production in the United States. The renowned actor, Max McLean, becomes C.S. Lewis on screen in an entertaining yet life-changing journey from hard-boiled atheist to 'the most reluctant convert in all [of] England.'

The production company's website lists the film as being released in the Spring of 2021. According to Deadline, production has wrapped up for the film and the film was shot in and around Oxford. The film is being produced by Matthew Jenkins, who is known for Murder On The Orient Express and Artemis Fowl. The film is being directed by Norman Stone, who won a BAFTA award for Shadowlands. Additionally, the film enlists cinematographer Sam Heasman, who is known for Dr. Who. The soundtrack is being composed by golden-globe-winner Craig Armstrong.

Lewis, who is known as one of the most influential Christian apologists of the 20th Century, is known for writing Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia series, and for his regular broadcasted chats about Christianity's truthfulness and answers on why atheism doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Lewis died in 1963 at 64 years old.

Photo courtesy: Getty Images/John Chillingworth/Stringer

John Paluska has been a contributor for Christian Headlines since 2016 and is the founder of The Daily Fodder, a news outlet he relaunched in 2019 as a response to the constant distribution of fake news.

See original here:
New Movie to Tell the Story of C.S. Lewis' Conversion from Atheism to Christianity - Christianheadlines.com

One of the most consequential stories in American religion in recent years is the rapid and seemingly unceasing rise of nones those who respond to questions about their religious affiliation by indicating that they are atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular.

According to some recent estimates, around 4 in 10 millennials and members of Gen Z, a group that comprises those born after 1980, do not identify with a religious tradition. In comparison, only about a quarter of baby boomers indicate that they are religiously unaffiliated.

Social scientists are only beginning to explore the demographic factors that drive individuals who no longer feel attached to a religious tradition.

But as someone who follows the data on religious trends, I note one factor appears to stand out: gender.

Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male. Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the new atheism movement as evidence of a boys club. Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

According to data from the Nationscape survey, which polled over 6,000 respondents every week for 18 months in the runup to the 2020 election, men are in general more likely than women to describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular. The survey, conducted by the independent Democracy Fund in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles, was touted as one of the largest such opinion polls ever conducted.

However, tracking the gender gap by age reveals that at one point the gap between men and women narrows. Between the ages of 30 and 45, men are no more likely to be religiously unaffliated than women of the same age.

But the gap appears again among older Americans. Over the age of 60, men are 5 to 8 percentage points more likely to express no religious affiliation.

Moreover, older Americans both men and women tend to be far less likely to identify as nones compared with younger Americans, according to respondents of the survey.

What may be driving this pattern of young women and older women being less likely to identify as nones than their male counterparts?

One theory in social science called the life cycle effect argues that when people begin to marry and have children, some are drawn back into religious circles to raise their kids in a religious environment or to lean on support structures that religion may provide.

But once kids grow up and leave the house this attachment fades for many. I make this point in my forthcoming book called The Nones.

The data on gender and those with no religious affiliation could indicate that this drifting is especially acute for men. One explanation could be that men are more likely to be religious when they are part of a family unit, but when children grow up, that connection becomes weaker. Unfortunately, the survey does not offer a direct test of this hypothesis.

But it would fit with survey research over the past five decades that has consistently found that Christian women are more likely than men to attend church.

One word of caution about the data is necessary. The survey is just a single snapshot of the the public in 2019 and 2020. Its possible that this same pattern would look different if data were collected 20 years ago or 20 years from now. Either way, it offers a small window into how age and gender interact with the religious lives of Americans.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversations email newsletter.]

Here is the original post:
Faith in numbers: Behind the gender difference of nonreligious Americans - The Conversation US

In our latest podcast, Jessica and I discussed the past week in politics and atheism.

We talked about:

Order My Name is Stardust or anything else from Stardust Science and get a 10% discount with the promo code FriendlyAtheist!

Dont worry about the White Houses faith-based office yet. (1:08)

A Newsweek article claimed atheists hate homeschooling because kids have to spend time with their parents. (16:48)

Why is a Kentucky city using FEMA relief money to build a church? (26:03)

This is what happens when a progressive church invites an anti-gay speaker. (35:34)

Georgia GOP lawmakerswant three doctors to verify the genitalia of trans kids playing sports. (48:55)

There are very few Black atheists in America, according to a new survey. (56:28)

South Carolinas abortion ban is bad news but it could be worse. (1:00:00)

Two women are getting promoted after their boss strategically decided not to elevate them when Donald Trump was in office. (1:08:28)

Wed love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play, stream all the episodes on SoundCloud or Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below. Our RSS feed is here. And if you like what youre hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

More:
Podcast Ep. 362: Is the White House's Faith-Based Office a Problem? - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

This weeks complaint from Crystal Quiring ("We are still out here," Feb. 4) is that only one of the editorial letters (written in the week after the attack on the Capitol) was written from the conservative point of view.

I had a similar complaint about your Dec. 31 issue, because both of the editorial letters on that day were to say right on to explicitly Christian content in your Christmas issue. That was OK with me, but one of those letters did so at the expense of the religions of atheism and 'none' above all other faiths. He said That is a national disgrace and we are a lesser country for it.

The privileged seem to be adept at portraying themselves as victims.

Atheism and none are not the names of religions. My highest authority, after a strong religious upbringing, is now science. I like to actually believe what I say I believe. Corresponding terms for the religious would be ascientism and some or lotsa.

In a country with about 30% of people qualifying as nones, there were two of us in Congress or the Supreme Court last time I checked. There were also less than 1% of us among people in prison.

Freedom of religion should include the option of freedom from it.

Read this article:
Letter: Like to believe what I say I believe | Chaska Letters to the Editor | swnewsmedia.com - SW News Media

Published: 2/12/2021 12:01:20 AM

In his Feb. 7 letter, Charlie Stepanek sees the country as being in need of a common source of unity and inspiration. He goes on to suggest that we all recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which he quotes.

Count me out.

As a substitute teacher in several school districts, I am called to engage in this ritual every morning. But I amend the pledge in two ways.

First, I drop under God. This wasnt in the pledge when I first learned it. And some historians suggest that the introduction of under God in 1954 was done during the Cold War, as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of Communist state atheism. I refer you to Wikipedia for a fuller discussion.

And while a New Jersey judge ruled that hearing under God in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate rights of atheist students, I prefer my pledge to be religion-free.

Second, I find it incorrect to assert that our nation under God or not has liberty and justice for all. If there is one thing that we should have learned in 2020 its that our nation does not provide liberty or justice for many.

I wish that it did. But until it does, Ill leave that phrase out, while hoping that in spite of Trump and QAnon it remains indivisible.

TOM CHASE

Northwood

See the rest here:
Letter: Problems with the pledge - Concord Monitor