Category Archives: Atheism

Consider for a moment the essential idea in this photo illustration:

It would only take 1 piece of verifiable evidence to destroy atheism.

This is what distinguishes religious faith from religious doubt.

For example, science and common sense have provided veritable mountains of material evidence irrefutably contradicting many fundamental proclamations in the Bible, such as the age of the Earth, the genesis of humankind and how the solar system is structured and moves.

Which is to say, substantive fact has proven that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old (the bible says 6,000); our species, Homo sapiens, evolved from lower life forms over eons (the Bible says God originally created humans in the same form they exist today); and all the planets in our solar system, including Earth, orbit the Sun, and only moons orbit their parent planets (the Bible contends that Earth is the center of the universe around which everything else revolves).

And weve known these concrete truths for a long time now, centuries in some instances.

Reasonably speaking, the credibility of any book divined as the Word of God should be permanently destroyed if any part of it proves mistaken, not gospel, in other words.

But this has not fully happened because religious dogma, unlike facts, is based on inaccessible surreality, not reality, and believers trust sketchy and uncorroborated supernatural imaginings received from the ancients instead of material, testable, provable, empirical evidence obtained from the real world in the here and now.

As a nonbeliever in all things supernatural and superstitious, I subscribe to the sentiment in the photo illustration embedded here. If any any evidence were credibly produced that divinities exist in an invisible realm and control our lives beyond our capacity to investigate them, I would instantly transform into a true believer.

But such evidence has never been reliably, plausibly presented. So I remain unconvinced and live my life by the stars, as it were by the banal realities of existence, not seductive fantasies.

It would be a far different world if faithful people would hold their beliefs to the same rigorous testing that atheists and even agnostics do.

If they did, most of us would likely be of the same mind regarding the gods: There arent any.

Photo illustration/Atheist Global

Visit link:
I would absolutely become a true believer tomorrow if - Patheos

Episode 20 of Best Advice Ever touches on whether Jesus ever existed.

Here is the latest episode of Best Advice Ever, the show where awesome people share the best advice they ever received. Past guests include Professor Phil Zuckerman, YouTuber Steve Shives, and cardiologist Sanjay Gupta.

Lets go through some basics!

Godless Engineer is a YouTuber. He has 47,300 subscribers and has had over 7.6 million views of his videos.

Heres an excerpt from his about page on YouTube:

I am an ex-christian. There was nobody around to point me in the correct direction as far as thinking critically about what I believed. I was allowed to believe ridiculous things like that Adam and Eve were real people and a global flood I covered the earth. I felt stupid believing those things when they didnt make sense but I was told that was what I was supposed to believe.

I understand the sentiment. One of my friends observed Im so passionate about atheism because I feel like I was duped.

We take some time and talk about how Paul (yes, that Paul who wrote Acts and was integral in creating Christianity) never met Jesus. Godless Engineer continues to say Paul never met any of Jesus disciples. It seems what Paul had in spades was a creative imagination and a penchant for writing.

And what was the best advice ever? We delve into the nature of fear and how it prevents people from creating and living their best (or least bad?) lives.

I hope you enjoy this episode. Please go to the YouTube video,hit like and subscribe to the channel!

Thanks for watching.

Follow this link:
Godless Engineer Best Advice Ever #20 | Andrew Hall - Patheos

I recently met an old friend at a party. She works for a Christian NGO. Later that evening we were introduced to a man with a background in software engineering. Having learnt about my friends job and then discovered that she goes to church, he asked her how old she thought the universe is. Her jaw dropped a bit. But she was composed enough to reply with a counter-question. Did you know that it was a Catholic priest [the cosmologist Georges LeMatre] who proposed the Big Bang theory in the first place? Now it was the engineers turn to look shocked.

Some may dismiss this exchange as a flash in the pan. To others it will reflect a phoney war evident across Western culture and beyond. The frustration felt by this second group is well founded. Popular contemporary attitudes towards religion include condescending dismissal. The same applies to large sections of the media, universities and the arts establishment. Faith groups must bear their share of the blame for this. But so must the strident atheists who reject what they have never taken the trouble to investigate beyond a superficial level especially those who write bestsellers ridiculing belief systems they know so little about.

How might scientifically informed religious believers defend the coherence of their world view? If they are Christians, say, part of their answer might run like this. The aim of Gods creation is that the world should help make itself, and the Scriptures are humanly written and developed history riddled with ambiguities and dead-ends and fresh starts. Nevertheless, they are powerfully challenging calls to humanity to grow and reform and criticise itself. This sort of judgement could be voiced in allied ways across the spiritual spectrum. We have a deep respect for science, people of various stripes often add. We just dont think that this way of investigating the world exhausts all reality.

In particular, there is no contradiction between accepting Darwins theories and belief in God. Young-earth creationists and advocates of intelligent design are therefore mistaken. So, too, are those who assume an unbridgeable divide between science and religion.

Four reasons especially might be cited in favour of such a model. The first is intellectual. Honest enquirers should follow the evidence where it leads, whether or not they practise a faith. There is nothing pious or wishful about this: a pillar of Christian orthodoxy such as St Thomas Aquinas would have insisted on the unitary character of truth. If science establishes that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius or that the world is 13.7 billion years old, then these and other discoveries cannot be credibly challenged from any pulpit.

The second is theological. Classical teaching in various traditions, Eastern as well as Western, represents God not as a big thing competing for space with lesser things, but as the ground of existence.

One useful analogy is that of the author in relation to his or her characters. While not himself a cast member of War and Peace, Tolstoy nevertheless inhabits every line of the narrative. Another analogy is supplied by light. The light in which we see is not one of the objects seen, because we see light only inasmuch as it is reflected off opaque objects. Nature has its own integrity according to laws and patterns established by science. To repeat: God is not a micro-manager intervening here and there. Nor is the relationship between God and the world like that of a builder to a house. Things are both subtler and more intimate from a monotheistic standpoint. As a canvas supports a painting or a singer holds a song, God sustains everything in being moment by moment. We are talking about a deeper level of causation. So when someone turns on the gas to heat up a pan of water, for example, chemistry can give a full account in its own terms of the process involved. But a Hindu or Muslim or Jew or Christian can still maintain that God makes the whole situation exist: the gas, its power and its action on the water. God and the gas work at different levels, not in competition.

Divine being is also seen as unfathomable in the major faiths. God may be loved, but not thought, as a classic such as The Cloud of Unknowing puts it. By love may he be gotten and holden; but by thought never.

Believers can nonetheless combine humility in the face of a profound mystery with a calm certainty about what God is not. In the case of a figure like Richard Dawkins, by contrast, things are turned upside down. Starting with an utterly inadequate definition of God as an angry tyrant in the sky, he then informs us that this monster doesnt exist. Its a true belief widely shared by people on either side of the religious divide. But why should it necessarily be an argument for atheism rather than a spur to resist idolatry?

Initial mistakes breed larger ones when unchecked. If I say that my favourite drink is beer and you reply that yours is wine, we are at least agreed on what it is we disagree about. But since the deity in whom Dawkins disbelieves is a blown-up creature, he has even gone on to make the surreal claim that our supposed creator would need to have evolved through natural selection, and there is no available evidence of any life form more sophisticated than humankind. In other words, God is being pictured as both the cause of the universe and a product of it. Fallacies rarely come larger.

What is implied by all this? Among much else that so-called New Atheism is old hat. Call out superstition by all means. But dont display culpable ignorance by likening all manifestations of faith across the world to belief in the tooth fairy. Dawkinss new book Outgrowing God is no less crude than his earlier diatribe The God Delusion. Once more, hes lobbed a stone in a vain bid to hit the clouds.

Rupert Shortts book Outgrowing Dawkins: God for Grown-Ups is published by SPCK (9.99)

More here:
Richard Dawkins and the ignorance of New Atheism - Spectator.co.uk

The author C.S. Lewis is considered one of the most influential Christian writers of the twentieth century. He activated the faith and imagination of millions of people with fictional works like The Chronicles of Narnia, series. He also has had a significant impact through his books on theology, like his highly influential Mere Christianity.

In one of his most personal books, Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis tell of his own journey from Atheism to Christianity. In Lewis life he identifies his own experiences of joy as the primary moments that led him to know God. He states that,

All Joy reminds. It is never a possession, always a desire for something longer ago or further away or still about to be'.

In other words, Joy is an arrow and it points towards our deepest hopes about the universe.

In Lewis life he began to realize that he experienced moments of joy that pointed to a hope for something that nothing in this world could satisfy. He was convinced that his joy must point to some reality and his journey to find the target of his joy eventually led him to find God. His discovery of God completely changed his life, and all his work following this conversion sought to inspire similar joy in the hearts of his readers.

This is an entry in my Advent Action Guide which will be featured all Advent long.

If youre interested in downloading a copy or signing up for daily emails for the rest of the season fill out the form below:

Read more from the original source:
Joy and the Life of Faith | Billy Kangas - Patheos

My friend and colleague George asked me, Do you think a scientist can be an atheist? I replied, Not onlycana scientist be an atheist, heshouldbe one. I was teasing because I knew what response George wanted to hear and this was not it. Sure enough, he shook his head. The only logical position that a scientist can take, he said, is to be an agnostic because we can never know the answer to the question of whether God exists or not.

This is of course an old debate. To avoid the logical problem of proving nonexistence, some early atheists chose to define themselves differently. In the 19thcentury, the political activist and self-declared atheistCharles Bradlaughsaid, The atheist does not say There is no God, but he says, I know not what you mean by God.I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception.

Bradlaughs contemporary Charles Darwin was reluctant to accept the label of atheist urged upon him byEdward Aveling, a well-known atheist of his time. Darwins stated reason for rejecting the label was because he saw it as too aggressive. Darwin and some of his contemporaries preferred to call themselves agnostics, a term coined by one of his supportersT. H. Huxley, partly because that position seemed less likely to offend others in the Victorian social circles in which they moved. But there are other reasons to prefer the label of agnostic over atheist.

Very often this discussion devolves into debating dictionary definitions. For example, the second part of the Oxford English Dictionarydefinition of atheistas one who disbelieves in God is unproblematic. It is the first part of the definition that says that an atheist is One whodeniesthe existence of a God that causes problems. It can be argued that that this implies that the atheist is saying he or she iscertainthat there is no God. Since one cannotprovethe non-existence of a god, few atheists would sign on to such a strong statement.

The OED definition of anagnosticOne who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and unknowableseems to support Georges position and appears to be a more logical one. Thus, by definition, all atheists become agnostics.

So how can I justify my statement to George that a scientist can, and perhaps should, be an atheist?

One argument is that for a scientist to accept the existence of a deity who has the ability to cause events that contradict the laws of science would be to open up a can of worms, since then any phenomenon to which we do not know the answer could be ascribed to the actions of a supernatural power and thus shut down further scientific investigations. As a result, scientists usually take a pragmatic approach, saying that the nature of scientific research requires one to eschew any supernaturalexplanationswhen doing science.

This approach can be described asmethodological naturalism, but there exists a stronger formulation of naturalism that is referred to asphilosophical naturalism, which is the statement that the material world governed by natural laws is all there is and no supernatural phenomena exist at all. This is what the strong form of atheism implies. Can this be justified since we can never prove the nonexistence of a deity, or indeed of many other supernatural phenomena?

One problem with using Georges standard is that then we have to leave open the possibility for the existence of anything that the imagination can conjure up, such as zombies, vampires, unicorns, werewolves, etc. Most of us would flatly dismiss that such things exist, but these phantasms are not the only things that we confidently assert to not exist. There are plenty of examples of entities that were once firmly believed by scientists to exist but are now as firmly asserted tonotexist.The aetherandphlogistonare two such examples. How can scientists so confidently dismiss their existence now when they have not proved their nonexistence and indeed cannot do so on the grounds of logical impossibility? It is because scientists are using the scientific logic.

The history of science suggests that entities are considered to not exist when two conditions are met: there is no preponderance of positive evidence for them and they cease to be necessary as explanatory concepts. The latter condition arises when a new theory is proposed that seems promising and does not require the existence of those entities. It was the theory ofspecial relativitythat did not require the existence of the aether, and theoxygen theory of combustionmade phlogiston redundant. Once these new theories became part of the accepted paradigms of the scientific community, the aether and phlogiston weredeemedto not exist.

Applying that same scientific logic to the existence of a deity or supernatural phenomena in general, we can frame the question in a more unambiguous way: Is there a preponderance ofpositiveevidence for existence of a deity? Is its existence anecessary explanatory concept? The answer given by atheists to both questions is in the negative. All positive evidence produced by believers is at best highly ambiguous and open to alternative explanationsandthere is no fact thatrequiresthe postulation of a deity to explain it.

In short, God is not a necessary explanatory concept and can thus be firmly asserted to not exist until either of the above two conditions are met. Using scientific logic, we can be as sure of Gods nonexistence as we are of the nonexistence of the aether, phlogiston or werewolves!

Featured image credit: Brick Cathedral by Luca Baggio. CC0 via Unsplash.

Original post:
Why scientists should be atheists - OUPblog

Being a religious none is certainly back in style. Not a nun, a none an atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. Amidst the unprecedented decline of American Christianity, this demographic is swiftly ascending in the U.S., adding a whopping 29 million to its numbers in just 10 years. Twenty-nine million in 10 years. Theres no question about it: America is racing towards its post-Christian future at breakneck speeds.

To talk ill of this trend is enough to make die-hard progressives and skeptics cringe. For them, theres nothing wrong with a post-Christian America. If anything, itll be a monumental victory when man finally liberates himself from this ancient superstition. The mission of these militant atheists and secularists is therefore rather clear: to usher in, as Richard Dawkins bluntly puts it, a world without religion. For so-called New Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris, toleration isnt an option. Indeed, the title of a 2006 article by Harris says it all: Science Must Destroy Religion. And as weve seen, the movements succeeding beyond its wildest dreams.

But the frantic speed of social change has left us in such a daze that weve forgotten to ask ourselves what it would all cost. Indeed, the popularization of the post-Christian and postmodern worldview threatens the very core assumptions that have defined the West and made it thrive. If atheists like Dawkins win the day, well have traded the Christian system of hope, freedom and love for the utter bareness of atheism. Let me explain.

In atheistic evolution, man is nothing special, just another rung on the ladder of progress, and when we are gone, well have been just a blip, an Ozymandias, in the universe. Our existence is, at its core, meaningless because we evolved from a meaningless, unintelligent process.

See how easily, then, the case and incentive to be moral collapses under such a framework. Theres no point in [loving] thy neighbor except when its in ones interest. After all, as Dawkins once penned, DNA neither knows nor cares about such things, DNA just is. And we dance to its music. Absent purpose from God, life turns into no more than a grubby competition for power and a reckless pursuit of self-indulgence. This isnt to say atheists cant be moral, but that those who are, as Ravi Zacharias suggested, merely [live] better than his or her philosophy warrants.

Beyond that, the very idea of an objective morality even existing in a purposeless world is utterly ludicrous. Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel of NYU admits this, writing, an evolutionary self-understanding would almost certainly require us to give up moral realism the natural conviction that our moral judgments are true or false independent of our beliefs. Absent such a moral foundation, there can be no objective good or evil for the materialist. Not even the most vicious and brutal of dictators like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin can be called evil in a world where subjective morality and relativism are all we have.

Absent a soul and a heaven and hell, there is no ultimate justice either. This means bad people (not that we can objectively call them that, but I digress) can get away with atrocities without ever facing a final reckoning, and good people are reciprocally never rewarded. To pretend this will have no implications on human actions is to delude ones self. The effects can only be tremendously horrific and tragic.

Yet amidst all of this, we still have the audacity to defend equality and freedom. How? In the atheist framework, we simply cant. Once the Judeo-Christian worldview has been thrown out in America, there can be no firm basis for such lofty things. The Bible tells us were all made in Gods image, leading the founders to conclude that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The bible of naturalism provides no such logical foundation for human rights and freedom. Its rather the state not a Higher Power that arbitrarily ordains its inhabitants with rights, and with as many or as few as it so pleases. Such rights indeed all rights are at the mercy of the state, ready to be pulled away at a tyrants whim. If the horrors of the 20th Century have taught us anything, its that the civilization which abolishes God is far from the paradise it promises to be. Its one devoid of purpose, liberty and hope. Nothing remains except desolation, oppression and a cold, bleak nihilism.

And the only logical conclusion of atheist thought is indeed nihilism. Everything is meaningless, everything a mere series of chemical reactions. What is emotion, what is love under such a worldview? Nothing, only the biological and the material. It makes no sense, therefore, to be moved by a line of poetry, a piece of artwork or music, a beautiful sunset or by the love you hold for others thats beyond words. Its simply irrational, childish and incomprehensible. I trust I dont have to spell out what this would mean for society.

But what if the atheists are right? What if reason is all we have? Even if that was true, atheists most ironically couldnt even trust their own logic. Why? Nagel explained it best: [e]volutionary naturalism implies that we shouldnt take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends. Christians understand that the foundation of human reason comes from creation by an intelligent God, but for atheists, reason lacks any support, the implications of which I cant even begin to imagine.

This isnt to say Western civilization is some utopia of righteousness. Anyone who knows anything about history knows thats not true. But at the very least religion provides that one must abandon their worldview to achieve their evil ends. The outworkings of atheism lack any such restraint. Maybe this is why Benjamin Franklin, a deist, said[i]f Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion[,] what would they be without it? The Judeo-Christian worldview that has built America provides it the basis for meaning, morality, freedom, universal rights, love, beauty and reason. Atheism has nothing to offer in both the figurative and literal sense.

To go the way of Dawkins and Harris, to advocate the exile of God and religion from our culture is to effectively take a wrecking ball to all that is noble, right and meaningful. Dont believe those who say a post-Christian America is a better America. Our nation cant throw away its foundations and expect to live for long.

Atheists and secularists promise a Babel once we do away with the halls of religion. Theyll be quite disappointed. There can be no such city. We will but live amidst the wreckage of that which made us great.

Andrew Sveda is a freshman at Notre Dame from Pittsburgh intending to major in Political Science. Besides politics, Andrew enjoys acting, playing the piano, and tennis. He can be reached at [emailprotected] or @SvedaAndrew on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Here is the original post:
1 Who's afraid of atheism? - Observer Online

Conservative commentator Candace Owens, known for her criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Democratic Party in general, was called out by her own followers after she posted a tweet that condemned not just leftism but also atheism.

Owens faced an avalanche of criticism from what appears to be primarily conservative atheists on Saturday when she said that leftism, atheism, and narcissism are a packaged deal. She typically sticks to right-wing political arguments, and it appears she unknowingly gathered a substantial secular following.

The comments in response to Owens tweet are almost all negative, including those from her most ardent supporters and those with the most reactions at the top. The first reply I saw was, Totally missed the mark on this one Candace followed by Not at all true and Why would she even write this?

Here are some more:

Some followers even suggested the ill-received tweet was part of a pattern of false tweets.

The negative comments didnt go unnoticed, either.

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it should be surprising that this many atheist conservatives not only exist, but also that they actually stood up to Owens, whom they clearly support. Im sure it surprised her.

You can support my work here.

View post:
Conservative Activist Candace Owens Criticized By Fans for Anti-Atheist Tweet - Patheos

Theres finally some good news in a case involving Byron Wood, a nurse from Vancouver.

He was going through a rough time in his life a few years ago when he began drinking and doing drugs. After one particularly bad night, he went to a local clinic, where a doctor committed him to a hospital. Wood became a non-practicing nurse in that time, with the understanding that once he completed a recovery program, hed be able to practice again.

The problem with that plan was that joining Alcoholics Anonymous was part of the rehabilitation process his union required:

Wood attended a residential treatment program in Ontario in the spring 2014, staying for five weeks, though he took issue with their methods.

If I questioned the 12-step philosophy or tried to discuss scientific explanations and treatments for addiction, I was labelled as in denial, Wood said. I was told to admit that I am powerless, and to submit to a higher power. It was unhelpful and humiliating.

There was a mentality among staff that addiction is a moral failing in need of salvation. We were encouraged to pray.

Wood is an atheist and he didnt like the idea of submitting to a Higher Power. His recovery wasnt dependent on giving himself over to anyone but himself. He attended AA for a while but soon stopped. And because of that, he was fired. (Officially, it was changed to a resignation the following month.)

He later filed a Human Rights complaint against the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the B.C. Nurses Union saying they discriminated against him because of his atheism. By forcing him to go through a religious treatment program when secular, scientific alternatives were readily available they were essentially punishing him for not believing in a God.

And now hes been vindicated. After months of negotiations, the two sides have come to an agreement on how to move forward. While much of the settlement is confidential, one important aspect of it is that no health care professional will be forced to attend AA meetings (or other similar 12-step programs) if they are diagnosed with an addiction and want to keep their jobs.

Im really happy about the outcome it means that VCH employees are not required to attend 12-step rehab centres, 12-step meetings, or participate in any 12-step activities if they object for religious reasons, [Wood] said in an email.

Its what Ive been fighting for, for the last six years.

Wood added that he now hopes to get his license back and find a new job in nursing. I hope he finds one. He spent years fighting to help people who were struggling. His activism has been all about doing whats best for victims, not their corporate overlords. Hes someone whose heart is in the right place. If hes qualified to do his job, theres no reason he should be held back as a result of this battle.

(Thanks to Brian and Lorne for the link. Large portions of this article were published earlier.)

See original here:
Atheist Nurse Told to Undergo Religious Addiction Treatment Wins Legal Battle - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

By Rabbi Haim Jachter | December 12, 2019

It is critical to be aware of the threats to our way of life and know how to effectively respond to them. In prior generations, other religions often pulled at some of our youth pining to fit in with the broader society. Todays challenge is not other religions but rather atheism.

Just as other religions had their extremist zealots and crusaders, such as Pablo Christiani who made every effort to lure our people from their ancestral faith, today we face a phalanx of militant atheists who zealously seek to pave the way to a godless society. Todays radical atheists combatively argue that we should free ourselves from religion in order to be able to live a happy and enjoyable life.

However, Harvard researchers in a new study published in 2018 in the American Journal of Epidemiology found:

Compared with never attendance, at least weekly service attendance was subsequently associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, greater volunteering, greater sense of mission, more forgiveness, and lower probabilities of drug use and early sexual initiation.

It turns out, then, that happiness will more likely follow an embrace of religion than its rejection.

Moreover, a Manhattan therapist named Erica Komisar contributed a thoughtful opinion piece to the Wall Street Journal last week on the heels of this research that connected increasing anxiety and depression amongst American youth with decreasing attendance of religious services amongst this age group.

In a provocative heading, she writes: Dont believe in God? Lie to Your Children. Ms. Komisar explains that children cannot bear the atheistic version of what happens after death. She observes from her practice that children cannot handle the secular idea that after they die they will simply turn to dust.

Tehillim 42:1 teaches Kayal taarog al afikei mayim, kein nafshi taarog eilecha Elokim, like a deer craves water brooks so too does my soul crave You, Hashem. The human being is created in a manner that cannot function without Hashem. Depriving a person of spirituality is akin to depriving him of water. Thus, it is not surprising to find rising rates of depression and anxiety amongst the spiritually disconnected. Children cannot stomach the atheist version of what happens after death, because children are designed by Hashem to believe in the religious view of the afterlife.

However, the Gemara (Yoma 72b) teaches that Torah can serve as a sam chayim, an elixir of life, and also a sam mavet, an elixir of death. The Gemara here is delivering a sobering and vitally important message that is crucial for parents, grandparents and educators to constantly bear in mind. The Torah is supposed to be a life-nourishing force. However, if practiced and/or presented improperly, it can be poison!

In perusing the literature authored by those who left observance, one encounters stories of people who flee a Torah life due to a terribly abusive parent. One writer abandoned observance due, to a great extent, to a parent whose anorexic inclinations became inextricably interwoven with his halachic observance that he essentially starved himself to death. Being raised in such an environment poisons the life-giving waters of Torah.

Of course, the younger generation has the responsibility to make good and life-affirming choices as well. However, we adults have the responsibility to model a proper and consistent halachic lifestyle observed in a most joyous and attractive manner.

Overall, spirituality is a most ennobling and life-enriching part of life. It is a pity to see people deprived of this most central beautiful aspect of life. The Harvard researchers have shown that spirituality most often paves the road to mental health and happiness. It is our job, young and old, to keep Torah learning and Torah living an etz chaim for all those who fully embrace it, lamachazikim ba.

Rabbi Haim Jachter is the spiritual leader of Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck. He also serves as a rebbe at Torah Academy of Bergen County and a dayan on the Beth Din of Elizabeth.

Visit link:
A New and Potent Argument Against Atheism - Jewish Link of New Jersey

A self-styled church of atheism has been denied charity tax status after the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Minister of National Revenue that it is not actually a religion, even though it claims to have a minister, 10 commandments, and a worshipful relationship to the sacred texts of what it calls mainstream science.

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada put up a determined fight in its appeal. It made a Charter argument that the ministrys denial was discriminatory, which failed because non-profit corporations do not have the same equality rights as people do in Canada.

The Church claimed it should be a charity because its activities contribute to the advancement of religion, which is one of four purposes sufficient to get charity status.

But religion is otherwise undefined, so it was left to the court to decide whether this particular expression of atheism qualifies. A three-judge panel, including Justice Marc Nadon whose appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada was overturned in 2014 on eligibility grounds, found it does not.

For something to be a religion in the charitable sense under the Act, either the Courts must have recognized it as such in the past, or it must have the same fundamental characteristics as those recognized religions, reads the judgment, written by Justice Marianne Rivoalen. These fundamental characteristics are not set out in a clear test. A review of the jurisprudence shows that fundamental characteristics of religion include that the followers have a faith in a higher power such as God, entity, or Supreme Being; that followers worship this higher power; and that the religion consists of a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship.

Claiming to venerate energy as an unseen power just does not cut it, theruling shows.

The new ruling is a reminder that atheism has never made it very far as a formal religion, and not for lack of trying.

There have been moments in recent history when formal disbelief in a deity seemed to be on the verge of widely adopting the grand trappings of the more familiar religions, such as doctrine, observances, and soul-stirring use of art, literature and music.

Back in 2012, for example, as a promotional stunt for his book Religion for Atheists, the writer Alain de Botton even claimed to be moving ahead with construction of a Temple to Atheism in central London. It was to be a 46-metre-tall, open-air structure representing the age of the Earth, with fossils lining the interior walls, the human genome inscribed on the exterior, and a millimetre-thick band of gold at the bottom to put humanitys lifespan in perspective.

It was a catchy idea for atheists, who then seemed to be on the cultural rise. But the charmingly fire-breathing arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens had just died, and the other Three Horsemen Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins all lacked his charisma. In time, as with many movements enabled by the Internet, New Atheism turned increasingly nasty and lost its cultural momentum. The Templewas never built.

Since then, atheist groups have tended to pitch themselves as the Church of Atheism of Central Canada does, as a self-help club.

In denying it status as a religion, the court did agree with earlier rulings that the Charters section on freedom of conscience and religion does protect the right of atheists to practice their beliefs however they see fit. But it also found that denying this group status as a charity does not interfere with that right in any more than a trivial or insubstantial way.

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada can continue to carry out its purpose and its activities without charitable registration, the court ruled. Charity status is actually a tax subsidy by the government designed to encourage the charitable behaviour. It is not the right of any non-profit group that seeks it.

The Ministry that initially denied the status evidently had some trouble with the churchs professed beliefs, such as our Ten Commandments of Energy are sacred texts because they were created by a wise human being who consists of pure, invisible Energy and has acknowledged Energys existence.

An actual deity is not required to call a group a religion, as Buddhism exemplifies, the court noted. But the Church of Atheism could not even demonstrate that it has a comprehensive system of doctrine and observances.

Mainstream science was not a sufficient system under the law, as it is neither particularly specific nor precise.

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada is hardly a big player in the atheism world. A website once listed for it has gone blank. It has a Twitter account with zero followers. Its address is a rural property with a single family home and a garage in McDonalds Corners, between Kingston and Ottawa. No one was answering the phone there on Wednesday.

The Church was represented by Christopher Bernier, who lives at the property and is identified in an online profile as the Churchs Minister of the Gospel of Atheism. He could not be reached for comment.

Email: jbrean@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

Here is the original post:
Church of Atheism might worship science, but it is not a religion, court decides - National Post