Category Archives: Atheist

Photo: Lawrence Krauss, in Science Uprising, Discovery Institute.

Recently, Canadian psychologist-turned-public-intellectual Jordan Peterson hosted popular physicist Lawrence Krauss on his podcast. Peterson, on the other side of a health crisis, has been engaging an eclectic array of intellectuals to keep himself sharp while he promotes his new book, Beyond Order. As a scientist whos become known for politically incorrect opinions, Krauss was a natural conversation partner for the controversial professor, and the two got along well. Maybe too well, as Peterson allowed Krauss to repeat various talking points unchallenged.

Take me back to the beginning, Peterson asks, meaning 14 billion years back, to the beginning of time. Naturally, Krauss is only too happy to oblige by playing his greatest hit for the professor. He presents himself as the cautious, reasonable scientist who rewinds the tape only as far as he can extrapolate his own understanding of the laws of physics, unlike those excitable religious types who think they can tell you what happened at t = 0. But from t = 0.000000.1 onwards, the laws of physics can explain everything beautifully. This is the difference between science and religion.

Here Peterson asks a question: Those laws, did they come into being along with the universe?

Krauss hedges his bets in reply. Maybe they pre-existed, maybe they dont. Those are metaphysical questions. Metaphysical questions are above his pay grade, he wishes to stress. Right before saying its not just possible but quite likely that our universe arose from nothing, no space, no time, and maybe no laws. At the least, we can say confidently that it has all the properties we would expect to observe in a 14-billion-year-old universe that came into being spontaneously, without any supernatural shenanigans. This isnt a proof, but it at least makes Krausss claim sound more plausible.

Richard Dawkins has famously made similar comments, insisting that the world appears exactly as it would on the assumption that it was guided by nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Both Dawkins and Krauss are technically correct that if this were in fact true, it would lend support to the atheistic hypothesis, while not deductively proving it.

Of course, as Stephen Meyer and others have argued at length on multiple occasions, and as Meyer directly addresses with specific attention to cosmology in Return of the God Hypothesis, we arent obliged to concede any such thing. Indeed, the floor is open for us to make exactly the opposite claim, that in fact the probability of our evidence given the God hypothesis is greater than the probability of that same evidence given the atheistic hypothesis. In Bayesian probability terms, the ratio of the first quantity over the second is top-heavy.

Meyer opens his new book with a memorable anecdote about debating Krauss live while battling a fierce migraine. The forum topic was Whats Behind It All? God, Science, and the Universe. So far from approaching the topic with scientific humility, Krauss spent ten minutes on pure ad hominem for the entertainment of his fan club in the audience, making it clear that just because he appeared on stage with Meyer, this didnt mean he thought the ideas or the person were worth debating. (The trick worked rhetorically to Krausss advantage, but Meyer credits that crucible for the inspiration that would lead him to write Return of the God Hypothesis.)

Naturally, the irony is rich here. In conversation with Peterson, Krauss repeatedly harps on the importance to the true scientist of admitting when a hypothesis or a theory is wrong, indeed the excitement of it. We could all stand to learn how to handle being wrong, he believes. Everyone would be better off, our mental health would improve, our kids would be tougher, and we would become less arrogant, more fair-minded and reasonable people. People who dont speculate about things above our pay-grade. Just like Lawrence Krauss.

Of course, theres nothing wrong with being a scientist who has opinions about metaphysical questions. People like Steve Meyer arent the ones saying that scientists should stay out of their lane and never think about philosophy or religion. The problem is not that Larry Krauss clearly has his opinions about things other than physics. The problem is that he insists Steve Meyer cant have his or, at the least, that they shouldnt be taken seriously. Why? Because religious dogma stops people from asking questions, like good scientists should.

I agree that good scientists should not stop asking questions. So heres a question for Lawrence Krauss: What happened at t = 0? Or are we not allowed to ask that question? That sounds a bitwell, dogmatic.

Having dipped his toe in philosophy and religion, Krauss makes a foray into psychology later in the podcast when he discusses some peoples difficulty with finding meaning in a universe where science has proven the relative pointlessness of mankind. (He makes a typically cringey stab at history of ideas along the way, repeating the hackneyed line that mankind used to think he was at the center of the universe. In fact, the center of the universe was regarded as the position of least privilege in ancient thought, but somehow this chestnut still persists in the pop atheist world.) People write to Krauss all the time in some distress, saying that while they no longer believe in fairy tales, this has left them in an unhappy place, wondering what to do with their sense of loss.

Krauss, for himself, is quite happy, and he wishes he could help his correspondents be happy too. As the old bus advertisement said, he wants them to stop worrying and enjoy their lives. Yes, growing out of fairy tales is sad, but isnt that a process we all go through, like the moment when we realized there really is no Santa Claus? Its the same way here. To him, the loss people feel over losing their religion should be felt as a gain. Knowing your existence is an accident should make you feel lucky. Knowing your time is short should make you value it all the more.

Of course, this is a well-worn secular humanist line. On the surface, it sounds bracing, a blast of cold reality that stings and refreshes at the same time. But in the end, its an ill-fated attempt at positive scripting. Nothing can ultimately address the sinking feeling that comes with the realization that Macbeth was right: Life truly is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, ultimately signifying nothing. The best you can hope for is that youll psych yourself out successfully enough to not have to think about that too much.

Unfortunately, Dr. Peterson declined to take Krausss invitation for feedback on his pop psychologizing. However, Krauss plans to invite Peterson on his own podcast soon, where they can discuss this at more length. Im very much looking forward to that. Meanwhile, my next post will explore where they disagreed in this podcast, as they discussed the question of whether science is nested in religion.

Follow this link:

Jordan Peterson, Lawrence Krauss, and the God Hypothesis - Discovery Institute

Vermont Escape by Marsha West

Two years after the murder of her husband, someone guns down Jill Barlows father, a Texas State Representative. Authorities suspect a connection between the murders but cant find proof. Jill seeks refuge and a new life in a small Vermont town, but she cant escape the mysteries of the past.

Everyone in This Room Will Someday Be Dead by Emily Austin

Gilda, a young atheist, animal-loving lesbian who cant stop ruminating about death, responds to a flyer for free therapy from the local Catholic church but is mistaken as an applicant for the church secretary position. Too embarrassed to correct the priest, shes hired on the spot. With both poignant moments and deadpan humor, Austin gives us a thought-provoking and delightful novel.

A Good Apology: Four Steps to Make Things Right by Molly Howes, Ph.D.

In a world as fractured as ours, effective apologies are an important process in healing and moving forward. Dr. Howes combines research, stories from her practice, and new stories to illustrate the power of an apology and provide readers with the tools to truly make amends and rebuild relationships both in small breaches and large.

5 questions: Marsha West

1. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Give us a snapshot of who you are. Im a retired elementary school principal, former FWISD board member, and theatre arts teacher. I write second-chance romantic suspense, also called seasoned romance. Ive lived in Fort Worth since my husband finished law school in Austin. Our two daughters are grown and live near, giving us plenty of quality time with our three grands. We share our home with a deaf rescue Chihuahua/Jack Russell terrier, Charley, who made his way into my most recent book, Tainted.

The theme of my books is second chances, with my four-part series titled, The Second Chances Series. I believe in happily ever afters. My husband picked up a plaque for me on a trip to Maine stating my philosophy exactly: Everything will be all right in the end. If its not all right, its not the end. The heroines and heroes in my books are in their 40s and 50s with their parents and children playing supporting roles

2. What compels you to write and why romance and suspense? Every writer begins as a reader. Nancy Drew and Dana Girl mysteries were high on my list, and then during high school, I started reading my mothers romance books. Daphne du Mauriers Rebecca hooked me on the wonderful combination of romance and suspense.

After many years of only reading education-related books, when my mother became ill, I needed the comfort of books with a happily ever after. I said to a friend, Ive read so many, I could probably write one. The friend said, Go for it! So, I did.

3. What do you hope readers experience through your writing? I hope my books uplift readers, providing encouragement, hope, and the strength to keep on keeping on toward their own happily ever after, whatever shape that takes.

4. Has a story or character ever taken an unexpected turn? Vermont Escape is my first published book but the fourth book Id written. I was more than halfway through when one of the supporting characters just took off. It looked like hed end up winning the heroine, but that wasnt my plan. I promised him if hed back off, Id give him his own book. Three books later, he became the hero of Second Act, Book 1 of The Second Chances Series.

5. Whats next for you? My eighth book, Compromise, set in New Hampshire, will release in October of this year. This book was supposed to be a Hallmark-type Christmas book, but on the second page I discovered a murder, and the story became too complex to fit the two-week Christmas format. Ill try again, but this isnt it (though we do have a snowman-building contest and snickerdoodles). Im eager to finish Compromise because another story is rumbling in my head, struggling to get out.

You can find Marsha online at authormarsharwest.wordpress.com and on social media. She loves to connect with readers.

View original post here:

Author Marsha West Talks Romance, Suspense, and 'Happily Ever After' - Fort Worth Magazine

By Nicholas J. Brewer

As my family and I were traveling to New Orleans not too long ago, we crossed the section of the United States known as The Bible Belt. As we saw billboards and advertisements about Jesus, damnation, and so forth, a question began to surface in my head.

What do non-Christians think of when they see these signs, or hear similar ads playing on the radio or television? This sparked me to do some research, and I discovered a trend that has been going on for the past several years or so.

More and more Christians are actually leaving the religion entirely. Given the current events that have happened within the last decade or so from accusations of pedophilia to rampant homophobic tendencies, I can't say I'm all that surprised. Most now former Christians are now doing one of two things.

Some move to a more open minded religion such as Wicca or a branch of Paganism. For those unfamiliar with it, Wicca is a neopagan religion that was founded in 1954 by a man named Gerald Gardner, and takes its origins from pre-Christian religions. The only difference between a Pagan and a Wiccan from doing research was that Wiccans believe in the Rule of Three, which is essentially a karmic retribution clause from the world, that whatever energy you put into the world, the world will send three times as much back at the person, while Pagans do not believe in it. Otherwise, both are rather open minded as to what practitioners can do.

Others may tend to remove themselves from religion entirely, becoming atheist. Some have even grouped together to form a non-theistic religion known as The Satanic Temple, with the main hub in the United States, and several chapters in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, It was founded by a man with the new name of Lucie Greaves, having changed it due to death threats being received by him and his family from overly religious Christians.

The group focuses on encouraging a state of benevolence and empathy among all people, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, creed, religion, and so on. They tend to use satire, theatrical plays, humor, and sometimes legal action to generate attention and prompt people to reevaluate their fears and perceptions, and to highlight religious hypocrisy and encroachment on religious freedoms. The only reason theyre even called The Satanic Temple was so they could irritate Christians and show how ridiculous some of them could be.

I'm unsure if anyone else found this interesting, but I found researching this topic rather fascinating. This isn't meant to be a anti-christian column in any way, as I've met plenty of Christians in my lifetime who are genuinely kind and caring. Im just simply making a researched observation.

More:

Column: Something to Think About (7/23/21) - Chronicle Times

The Christian rejects hundreds or thousands of gods, while the atheist rejects all those, and one more. The Christian and the atheist agree that humans have invented countless gods, so whats the big deal about atheists taking that one final step?

Last time, we considered the Christian critique of this atheist argument fromThe Atheist Who Didnt Exist by Andy Bannister. Well now look at the second half of the argument. Hes now moved on to argue that Christianity is special and that lumping it in with the unwashed masses of religions is wrong.

(Part 1 of this book review is here.)

According to Bannister, Christianitys big difference compared to Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the other gods is:

Every single one of those other entities is an object inside the universe. God, on the other hand, according to Christianity is the creator and sustainer of the universe, the author of the story.

Theres an easy fix for that: make up a new character and call him the Creator. Make him outside. Now Yahweh has a competitor.

You dont like that he was invented? All right, then revisit this character after 2000 years have passed so that the origins of this tale are clouded and it has become legend and mythology. Thats Christianitys secret saucenot that its correct but that its venerable and uncheckable.

Bannister simply declares that God is the creator, but thats not good enough. He must prove it. Without evidence, this is not an argument, just theology.

Id also recommend that he read up on the Combat Myth and then tell me that Yahweh is in a completely different category. Todays timeless, outside-the-universe god isnt what Yahweh was initially. Hes evolved. (Yknow how Superman at first was just pretty strong and could leap tall buildings in a single bound but then became ridiculously strong and could fly? Like that.)

And let me take issue with this claim of uniquenessthat the Christian gods relationship with the universe is somehow unique. The Greek creation myth (to take just one) has Chaos creating Gaia (Earth). She created Uranus (heavens), and their offspring were the Titans. Cronus (the youngest Titan) was the father of Zeus, the ruler of the pantheon thats now in power.

That sounds about as sensible (or ridiculous) as the two creation stories that Genesis opens with. Bannister wants you to ignore the man behind the curtain and look instead at the modern Christian view where new n improved God 2.0 walks hand-in-hand with modern cosmology. God is now said to have triggered the Big Bang, sustained the laws of physics, existed outside of time and space, and so on, ideas that would mystify the original audience for Genesis.

No, that wont doyoure saddled with the pre-scientific thinking in your holy book that makes your origin myth no more compelling than the Greek one.

Bannister next complains:

The atheist making [the claim that the worlds religions are essentially the same] has not investigated all of themprobably not any of themand is instead assuming that they must all be more or less similar to the characterless Catholicism or pedestrian Protestantism they half-remember from their youth.

Bannister has a PhD in Quranic Studies, so he has studied at least one additional religion in great depth. I wonder though if he and I are much different with respect to the other religions. Hes right that Im no expert in the other thousand (to pick a number) of religions, but how can he criticize me for rejecting those thousand religions without cause? Didnt he do the same thing?

Sure, lets acknowledge that Christianity is different from all the other religions, but why is that a bold claim? Each religion is different from all the other religions! And as far as Ive been able to determine, they all have the same unmet burden of proof. Youre right that I havent thoroughly investigated Santeria, Bahai, Raelianism, and the hundreds of others. If youve compared them all against Christianity, show us.

Not only would a thorough comparison of Christianity vs. all the other religions be very long, but Christian will obviously do poorly in many of these matches. My favorite example is Christianity vs. Mormonism. Christian apologists like to brag about the importance of having many early manuscripts, a small gap between events and the documentation of those events, and so on. But Mormonism demolishes Christianity in this comparison. Christians must decide if they want to dismiss their claims about Christianitys marvelous historical record. If not, consistency demands that they switch over to Mormonism.

Returning to Bannisters expertise in Islam, he tells us, On almost every major point of Christian doctrine, I think it is safe to say that Islam teaches the opposite.

But theyve got the same god! Islam accepts Judaisms Torah, so whatever properties you pull out for Yahweh you must assign to Allah as well. You can say that Mohammed took things in a very different direction to give Allah a unique character, but Christianity did the same with its New Testament.

You can focus on their common origin or their divergence, but lets go where Bannister is pointing. He says Christianity and Islam are very different. Okay, theyre very differentso what? This example only emphasizes the made-up nature of both religions. This does nothing to support his thesis that Christianity is not just different from all the other religions, but its the only one thats true.

Bannister wants to banish atheists from the field of intellectual discourse, though not for any good reason.

Truth, the pursuit of knowledge, the existence of ultimate values such as justicethose are grounded, ultimately, in God. And so to pick these things up and wield them as weapons against God is to play by his rules.

Give me a break. These things come from humans. Dont flatter yourself that your God gives to humans justice, truth, and so on when they were the property of humanity to begin with.

And if this turns on the word ultimate (as in objective or absolute or God-grounded), I await the evidence for that as well. Ordinary justice is defined in the dictionary with no need for the word ultimate.

To be continued.

I cannot imagine a Godwho rewards and punishes the objects of his creation,whose purposes are modeled after our owna God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Albert Einstein

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/28/16.)

Image from Ketzirah Lesser & Art Drauglis (license CC BY-SA 2.0)

.

Here is the original post:

Bad Atheist Arguments: a little more I Just Reject One More God than You - Patheos

Images via YouTube

Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist whose bomb-in-a-turban Mohammed set off riots among Muslims worldwide, has died at the age of 86 after a long illness.

An atheist, Westergaard, who survived an assassination attempt after his cartoon was published along with 11 other depictions of the prophet by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in 2005, said in a Reuters interview in 2008 that had no regrets, and that, had he not drawn it, adherents to the Religion of Perpetual Outrage would have found something else to riot over.

A novel a play, a movie, this situation would have occurred sooner or later anyway.

Protests against the cartoons were held around the world in late January and February 2006. Many of these turned violent, resulting in at least 200 deaths globally, according to the New York Times.

According to Wiki, on February 12, 2008, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) announced the arrest of three Muslims two Tunisians and one Moroccan-born Dane who were charged with planning to murder Westergaard.

After the plot was foiled, the Danish secret service was made responsible for protecting Westergaard. He was placed under police surveillance when traveling to and from work. His house was fitted with steel doors, a panic room, reinforced glass in the windows and surveillance cameras.

On January 1, 2010, a 28-year-old Somali Muslim intruder armed with an axe and knife entered Westergaards house and was subsequently shot and wounded by police. Mohamed Geele, above, was convicted of attempted murder and terrorism and jailed for nine years in 2011. Geele, 29 at the time, was also ordered to pay $1,800 damages to the cartoonist as well as court costs.

Westergaard told Reuters that he believed he would have to live the rest of his life under the cloud of violence and would have to make the best of the situation.

When there is no way out, you get braver and you want to resist so my basic feeling in this situation has been and is anger. I am angry that I am being threatened. I have just done my job.

The cartoonist said he appreciated the reprinting of his drawing as a show of solidarity to the threat against freedom of speech and the murder plot. He added:

I have no problems with Muslims. I made a cartoon which was aimed at the terrorists who use an interpretation of Islam as their spiritual dynamite.

In 2009, Westergaard collaborated with the International Free Press Society (IFPS) to make 1,000 limited edition copies of the cartoon available at a cost of 250.00. Three hundred of the prints signed by Westergaard were sold in the first 10 days. Some copies are still available.

IFPS says:

The proceeds from this offer will go towards the International Free Press Societys continuous campaign for free speech. Proceeds will support research, public education and legal efforts for individuals and organizations under assault for exercising their right to free expression; and to support efforts to ban hate speech laws and pass laws protecting freedom of expression.

A Danish imam, Ahmed Akkari, who became a spokesman for Muslims outraged by the cartoon, revealed in a Jyllands-Posten interview today that, in 2013, he met Westergaard for the first time after he turned his back on Islamism.

I thought he would be mad at me. That he would show contempt and hatred. But he did not do that at all. Instead, he turned out to be an incredibly generous person who always had a funny remark up his sleeve.

During their meeting Westergaard showed Akkari the Mohammed cartoon. Akkari said:

There were several drawings, all of which criticised different religions. In addition to a Muslim with a bomb in his turban, Kurt Westergaard had drawn both a Jew holding a bomb and the pope wearing a bishops hat. He believed that all religions had the potential to create fanaticism, hatred and violence.

Then I understood that he was a critic of religion and not a critic of Islam, and that, I think, has unfortunately been a bit overlooked in the debate.

Jyllands-Posten said in an editorial published today (Monday) that with the death of Westergaard:

It is more important than ever to emphasise that the struggle for freedom of expression, which became his destiny, is the struggle of all of us for freedom.

The extreme Islamists views on freedom of expression were exposed and exhibited through Kurt Westergaards drawing.

Nybroe acknowledges that violent reactions forced the newspaper to draw a line in the sand regarding the depiction of the Mohammed for security reasons. But the newspapers position in relation to freedom of expression remains the same.

A line has been drawn which we at Jyllands-Posten no longer dare to cross for the sake of our employees safety. But our basic position in relation to freedom of speech is unchanged; within the framework of the law, we should be able to express ourselves as we want in writing, speech and drawings. The fundamental right should not be taken away from us by extremists.

Westergaard is survived by his wife and five children, ten grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Funeral arrangements were not immediately known. Mainstream outlets reporting Westergaards death today neglect to show his iconic cartoon.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

See the original post here:

Atheist who sparked riots with a Mohammed cartoon has died - Patheos

Everything Wrong With Exodus 9 in the Bible | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | PatheosEverything Wrong With Exodus 9 in the BibleJuly 18, 2021Hemant Mehta

The video below, from my YouTube channel (please subscribe!), discusses all the problems with Exodus 9.

Weve now seen blood, frogs, dead frogs, gnats, and flies, and Pharaoh still wont let Gods people go. This will not end well.

If you like what youre seeing, please consider supporting my work on Patreon.

(Original image via Shutterstock)

Select a CategoryAbortionAdam FanninAdviceAppignani Humanist Legal CenterArk EncounterAtheist AdvertisingAtheist DemographicsAtheist GenerosityAtheist ParentingAtheist/Christian CooperationAustraliaBabiesBangladeshi BloggersBook ClubBooksBrittany MeyerCamp QuestCanadaCaptain DisillusionCartoonsCenter for InquiryChurchesComing OutCongressional Freethought CaucusContestsCosmicSkepticDarkMatter2525DeathDebatesDownloadable PDFsE.W. JacksonEducationEdward TarteEx-MuslimsFA on YTFeminismFFRFFine ArtsFlat EarthFoundation Beyond BeliefGeneralGenetically Modified SkepticGreg LockeHeathen Holiday CardsHousekeepingHumorInfiltrationInterviewsInvestigationsJehovah's WitnessesJesse GalefJill SteinJim BakkerJonathan ShelleyJoshua FeuersteinKat KerrKenneth CopelandLatino AtheistsLawLee StrobelLGBTQLongformLove/SexMagazine ArticlesMathMatt PowellMike ClawsonMilitaryNew IFBPastor Matt PowellPastor Steven AndersonPictureoftheDayPodcastPoetryPoliticsPop CulturePseudoscienceRachel OatesRationality RulesReason Rally 2016Richard WadeRon GoldRyan P. BurgeScienceSean FeuchtSecular AvenueSecular Coalition for AmericaSecular Group ShowcaseSecular Invocations (Post-Greece)Secular Student AllianceShades of Black AtheismSportsStreet EpistemologyThat Old-Time ReligionThe Atheist VoiceThe Young Atheist's Survival GuideTheraminTreesTrina HoaksWar on Christmas

Select a MonthJuly 2021June 2021May 2021April 2021March 2021February 2021January 2021December 2020November 2020October 2020September 2020August 2020July 2020June 2020May 2020April 2020March 2020February 2020January 2020December 2019November 2019October 2019September 2019August 2019July 2019June 2019May 2019April 2019March 2019February 2019January 2019December 2018November 2018October 2018September 2018August 2018July 2018June 2018May 2018April 2018March 2018February 2018January 2018December 2017November 2017October 2017September 2017August 2017July 2017June 2017May 2017April 2017March 2017February 2017January 2017December 2016November 2016October 2016September 2016August 2016July 2016June 2016May 2016April 2016March 2016February 2016January 2016December 2015November 2015October 2015September 2015August 2015July 2015June 2015May 2015April 2015March 2015February 2015January 2015December 2014November 2014October 2014September 2014August 2014July 2014June 2014May 2014April 2014March 2014February 2014January 2014December 2013November 2013October 2013September 2013August 2013July 2013June 2013May 2013April 2013March 2013February 2013January 2013December 2012November 2012October 2012September 2012August 2012July 2012June 2012May 2012April 2012March 2012February 2012January 2012December 2011November 2011October 2011September 2011August 2011July 2011June 2011May 2011April 2011March 2011February 2011January 2011December 2010November 2010October 2010September 2010August 2010July 2010June 2010May 2010April 2010March 2010February 2010January 2010December 2009November 2009October 2009September 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009March 2009February 2009January 2009December 2008November 2008October 2008September 2008August 2008July 2008June 2008May 2008April 2008March 2008February 2008January 2008December 2007November 2007October 2007September 2007August 2007July 2007June 2007May 2007April 2007March 2007February 2007January 2007December 2006November 2006October 2006September 2006August 2006July 2006June 2006

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

error: Content is protected !!

See more here:

Everything Wrong With Exodus 9 in the Bible | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

By Pete Haug

God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.

The square/circle atop a human figure on the left evolves from the earliest oracle bones through early bronzeware, then through engraved seals, and finally to character of todays integrated semantic elements combining a line (one) on top and a man with outstretched arms. (great). Over time the character changes to emphasize man, with gradual anthropomorphizing of the Creator.

Images of God vary infinitely. No two are identical. Each human mind conceives its own image of God. Even atheists must create an image they can reject. Id never really considered these things until I taught English in China, where we studied references to Christianity in English literature.

The word for God in modern Chinese is Shangdi, which transliterates to supreme deity. Shangdi is used to represent the biblical God, specifically the God of Christianity. Perhaps because the Bible alludes to Jesus as God, many Chinese feel the Christian God is anthropomorphic.

A more traditional word used to represent God as an unknowable benevolent essence overseeing creation is Tian or Heaven. Tian predates modern, officially atheistic, Chinese culture by millennia. The world at large became aware of Tian on June 4, 1989, when Chinese troops, in an act of supreme irony, massacred student protesters in Beijings Tiananmen Square, just south of Tiananmen, Gate of Heavenly Peace.

A Chinese friend first made me aware of the distinction between Shangdi and Tian around 2000. My literature students confirmed that differentiation as we discussed God. Most students I encountered had qualities I would deem spiritual, characteristics perhaps influenced by the millennia-old cultural concept of tian.

The contemporary ideograph of Tian () evolved from Chinese antiquity. Its origin and evolution sheds light on how Chinese people perceive God, unknown and powerful, yet benevolent. Oracle-bone and bronzeware engravings of Tian, dating from the late second millennium BC, are composed of two parts: a stick-figure person topped by a circle or square head, which signifies the essence of tian above the person. During thousands of years, tian evolved to , which combines one (the top line representing the numeral 1) with great (a man with outstretched arms).

Over centuries, Chinese people have come to portray God anthropomorphically with rustic depictions of the relation between God and humans. In Chinese culture the broad concept of God, represented by all kinds of visual figures of gods, has been ubiquitous within and outside of religious contexts.

Because we live in a material world, its difficult to detach ourselves from surroundings we perceive with our senses. This is why we construct tangible idols. Yet religions encourage us to seek transcendency beyond our corporeal, sensate surroundings.

One of the earliest recorded examples is found in Exodus, when God revealed to Moses the Ten Commandments that would shape civilizations for thousands of years. The second commandment, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image in Deuteronomy, makes clear that the commandments purpose is to protect Gods followers from idolatry.

Different religions understand idolatry differently. Although the Quran doesnt explicitly ban images, hadith (Islamic traditions) address the creation of images in various ways. Most Muslims avoid visual depictions of Muhammad or other prophets, and some take offense at such visual depictions. In other Abrahamic religions, idolatry connotes the worship of somethingother than God as if it were God. Its easier to relate to a material form than an unknowable Essence.

The Bahai Faith maintains similar traditions. Although photographs of Bahaullah exist, they are displayed only on rare occasions and with utmost respect.

As an agnostic I couldnt relate to theologies, but the natural world kept me from becoming an atheist. I wasnt a pantheist, but the beauty of nature provided spiritual sustenance that uplifted me. Similarly, the beauty of music created in praise of God, liturgical music, prevented my total denial.

Today Im comfortable believing that the unknowable Essence called God exists. God has always been there, much like the electromagnetic spectrum. Until a few centuries ago, humans were aware only of the visible portion of that spectrum. Science has since taught us to harness parts. I write this column on my computer, courtesy of that spectrum.

We dont fully understand many forces in the universe. Although we can harness gravitys force, we cant fathom what it is. Other forces exist that were not even aware of. Belief in God as a force generates miracles, occurrences we cant explain. History provides evidence of unnumbered martyrs willing to die for the God they worshipped, yet couldnt see.

Each mental image, understanding, of God is unique because each human is unique, shaped by interactions between genes and environment. But we all live together, depend on each other in myriad ways. Free choice allows us to choose how we interact. Teachings of the great religions provide guidance for those interactions.

Ultimately each of us exercises free choice throughout our lifetimes. One hopes a critical mass of us will choose wisely.

Pete would like to acknowledgethe invaluable input of a dear Chinese friend, who prefers to remain anonymous.

See the rest here:

The Many Faces of God - SpokaneFVS - spokanefavs.com

Photo credit: Dino Reichmuth on Unsplash.

Asnoted already, in aNew York Postop-ed over the weekend, Stephen Meyer put UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, formerly known as UFOs) into a helpful perspective. See, Why God is still the best scientific theory to explain our life on Earth. He points out that scientists have been talking about aliens for decades in the context of so-called directed panspermia. But, says Meyer, this is all way of evading, unsatisfactorily, the mystery of lifes origin, whether that happened on Earth or on another planet.

Atheist Lawrence Krauss writes about the UAPs, not panspermia, over atQuillette. Hes quite sure: Whatever It Is, It Aint Aliens. Theres the usual sneering reference to little green men. But he offers five serious reasons for thinking the mysterious aerial phenomena cant be aliens. Those are topped by:

1. The Laws of Physics: Travel from another star in any reasonable time requires near-light speed travel. A ship propelled by onboard conventional rocket fuel would require more fuel than there is mass in the visible universe to accelerate to near light speed and slow down at the end of the voyage, so clearly some more advanced fuel would be required. But even using nuclear fusion one would use more than 2,000 times the mass of the ship in fuel for each acceleration and deceleration to and from near-light speed. Basic physics constraints imply that any on-board propulsion technology that could power a conventional ship-sized spacecraft to travel from one solar system to another at near light speed and decelerate it within our solar system would require using energy that is comparable to the entire amount of power used by all of humanity at the current time. Hard to imagine any civilization devoting such extensive resources to visit us only to hang around secretly spying on aircraft carriers, or abducting humans to perform kinky experiments.

Philosopher of science Paul Nelson isnt so sure. As he told me:

I dont take a position on the cause of the anomalies (who the heck knows), but I do argue that Krausss counterarguments all run afoul of his limited scientific imagination. The key is Clarkes 3rd Law (from the prescient science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke): Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Krauss gives reasons, based on our current physics and technological limits, why UAPs cannot be advanced extraterrestrial technology.

But, like many skeptics, he lets his skepticism put shackles on his imagination. Skepticism should always come packaged with a hugeceteris paribus(all things being equal) clause. Problem is, if ETs exist, it is entirely likely that all things are NOT equal, especially with respect to the limits of THEIR physical knowledge.

Parallel: Krausss debunking is logically equivalent to Aristotle snorting with derision, or even David Hume, if we told them that in 2021 it will be routine to fly several miles above the surface of the Earth, close to the speed of sound, while drinking Cabernet and listening to Mozart on a pair of noise-cancelling headphones (whatever those are). Others have been eloquent on this point. If new and surprising physics remains to be discovered and why not? ETs may already have found and exploited it. Hence their technology may be as indistinguishable from magic, to us, as an iPhone or a jumbo jet would be to Aristotle. Clarkes 3rd Law.

And Aristotle was one smart dude.

Who can argue with that last observation? I also like Pauls point about Who the heck knows? The puzzling fact that we cant identify the UAPs, in light of our own limited scientific imagination, should not be permitted to manipulate us into a false dilemma of Its either aliens or it must be some familiar earthly phenomenon. It may well be in fact, probably is neither.

Go here to see the original:

Meyer, Krauss, Nelson: UAPs, UFOs, and Panspermia - Discovery Institute

When one person is delusional, its called insanity. When many people are delusional, they call it religion. --Anon

The Pew Research Centers latest survey shows India as an overwhelmingly, nay staggeringly, religious country, having 97 per cent Indians believing in religion and god/s. While it could be a sign of triumph for religious and spiritually-tilted Indians, those who dont believe in god and any supernatural powers have absolutely no stake in it.

In other words, the atheists, agnostics (dwimanvadi in Sanskrit) and skeptics (sanshyatma) are theological heathens and spiritual Gentiles (to quote Dr Bimal Krishna Matilals phrase) in an increasingly religious country like India. This is all the more strange, nay ironic, when you look at the philosophical trends prevalent in ancient India.

Atheism in India, Grece

Its interesting to observe that only in India, and to some extent, in ancient Greece, atheism was a philosophical and acceptable way of thinking even centuries ago. Jainism, Buddhism, Lokayat, Charvaka, Samkhya and a few other sub-cultic philosophical schools of ancient India, never believed in god, soul, afterlife, reincarnation, karma and transcendence of self.

Nowhere in any philosophical system do you find a non-religio-cultural person as a Hindu-atheist (though the very concept is quite perplexing) juxtaposed with a complete atheist and also with a believer! But this was perfectly in sync with the philosophical and metaphysical mindset of ancient India. In short, our ancestors were on board with atheism or atheistic outlook.

So, when atheists got so much latitude in our socio-philosophical as well as cultural set-up, why on earth are there so few non-believers in modern India? In fact, in western countries, especially in Scandinavian countries, people are turning to atheism and leaving their religion (predominantly Christianity).

Unparalleled religiosity

But, here in India, religion is getting increasingly sclerotic and the muddled, as well as addled concept of god and holy books is being drilled into the impressionable minds. This results in the creation of a collectively believing unit at an enormous scale. The en masse religiosity and fear of unknown, coupled with extreme irrationality and scriptural submission, have made general Indians fearfully religious.

At the same time, todays India looks down upon atheism as an aberration of mind and an anomaly of thinking. The Fallacy of Duration, The Fallacy of Time, The Fallacy of (Religious) Acceptance and The Fallacy of Divine Invincibility have made most of the Indians unquestioningly servile and fearful of an imaginary god who dictates terms and punishes those who go astray.

Fear of divinity

Yuval Noah Harari stated very recently that until humans remove the unfounded fear of a fictional divine entity and the interference of religions from their lives and turn atheists, the world will continue to smoulder in a religious cauldron. Religiously encumbered Indians cannot think beyond god, religion and prayer, not knowing that all these things only have a placebo effect on a perpetually weak, sick and unevolved human brain.

The familial indoctrination, forced organisational religious submission like silly assembly prayers in almost all schools, temples and shrines in academic institutes and hospitals, routine leave to employees to perform religious duties are prevalent in India. The overdose of spirituality on TV, newspapers and everyday life with a spate of enlightened spiritual masters have further pushed us into the conduit of god and religion. No official document or admission to any institute in India is possible without mentioning ones religion, that too, with denominations.

So, in such religious fervour and widespread fanaticism, how can an atheist be noticed? Moreover, the so-called atheists in India are quite confused. Theyre just schoolkid atheists, donning the mantle of atheism as if wearing a trendy T-shirt. An atheist is not just a non-believer. He or she is a votary of reason. If ones a non-believer or an atheist, one has to have no faith in esoteric mumbo-jumbo like angel-readings and therapy, tarot cards, astrology, numerology and all that jazz.

Another '-ism'

Most Indians lack scientific temperament and are innately fearful of god and their ancestral religious traditions. Moreover, in these political times and climes, to be an atheist in India is glaringly incongruous. Even those who call themselves atheists have certain ideological and occult idiosyncrasies. After all, even atheism is also an ism or a doctrine. These soi-disant atheists are followers of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harriss brand of militant atheism, which is again a brand, rather a pigeon-hole.

The world, especially India, needs apatheists (those whove gone beyond theism and atheism). Weve had enough of god and religion and their shenanigans. Its time to be free of all eschatological and theological manacles to call oneself a true-blue free human sans any dogmas, faith and an otiose spiritual power, hovering over us and watching like a sadist.

The writer is a regular contributor to worlds premier publications and portals in several languages

See more here:

Atheists got so much latitude in our cultural set-up in ancient times, so why on earth is there a dearth of non-believers in modern India, asks Sumit...

Fred is furious because some animal destroyed his garden. Hes considering and dismissing possible culpritsfrom aardvarks to zebraswhile our hero points out the clues for rabbits. Fred says that its not rabbits, either. Youve dismissed all those other animals? Well, he just goes one animal further.

This is a Christian response to another atheist argument in The Atheist Who Didnt Exist by Andy Bannister (part 1). This is supposed to mimic the atheist argument used by Richard Dawkins and many others that Christians reject hundreds or thousands of gods; why not just go one god further like the atheist?

Bannisters harsh critique: To describe this as a bad argument is to flirt somewhat casually with understatement.

Game on!

(BTW, Bannisters book is online at books.google.com here.)

Bannister illustrate the problem with several examples.

Bannisters next summarize the atheist argument: The argument leaks like a rusty colander and The argument is, to use a technical term from academic philosophy, bonkers.

No, whats bonkers is the idea that his examples are analogous to the subject at hand. A bachelor can be married to zero women, but a murder must have been committed by one or more murdererssee the difference?

All I see him doing is raising dust to cloud the issue... but then that might be the goal.

Bannister generalizes the argument: never pick something out of a collection because it leaves you open to the challenge, Hold on! You rejected all these other ones, so why not just go one further and reject them all? He phrases it this way:

You see, the underlying problem with the One God Less argument is that it goes too far. If the argument were valid, it would have a devastating consequence, namely that it would behave like a universal acid and erode all exclusive truth claims, be they in theology, law, or science.

It goes too far only when you force it there. Sometimes None of the above is a possibility and sometimes not. You can suggest that a Christian believe in zero gods, but you cant tell a vegan to adopt zero dietary regimes (they have to eat something).

Lets return to Freds poor garden, ravaged the previous night by some kind of animal. The constant fight of gardeners against animals that eat their crops is well understood. You know that something trashed Freds garden, so this had zero causes isnt an option.

How could this possibly be analogous to the religion case? Compare many animals with many religions. We know that all these animals exist. In sharp contrast, most religions must be false and they might all be. There are one or more causes of Freds damaged garden, while there could be zero or more gods that actually exist. Zero is absolutely not an answer in the garden case, while it is a very live option in the religion case.

Bannister now wants to argue that when you compare religions, Christianity comes out decisively on top. He begins by scolding his favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has made a fairly basic mistake, namely failing to notice that when multiple explanations are offered for somethingbe that a murder, a scientific theory, or a religious claimwe dont immediately assume that all are equally likely.

All religions have the same Achilles Heelsupernatural belief. If that single foundational assumption is wrong, then theyre all wrongall equally wrong and all in the same way. Only if the supernatural does indeed exist are the differences interesting and worth comparing. Without the supernatural, those differences are trivial, and Bannister does nothing to argue for the existence of the supernatural.

And then, in a startling addition to the conversation, Bannister states: It often comes as a shock to many atheists to know that there is surprisingly good evidence for God.

Woware we to finally get some argument to support his just-trust-me handwaving for Christianitys remarkable claims? Nope, just a link to Alvin Plantingas famous but oddly incomplete Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments (nicely rebutted by Richard Carrier).

This will be a repeated frustration. Bannisters book attempts to criticize what he considers low-hanging fruit in the atheist garden while spending no time getting his own rundown house in order.

To be continued.

See also:

Im a friendly enough sort of chap . . .Im not a hostile person to meet.But I think its important to realisethat when two opposite points of vieware expressed with equal intensity,the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them.It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. Richard Dawkins

.

For the argument to be more analogous, they should be debating whether it was the Loch Ness Monster, a yeti, [a unicorn,] or a flying purple people-eater, and settling on the evidence indicating it was the Easter Bunny. commenter Greg G.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/26/16.)

Image from Paul Stein (license CC BY-SA 2.0)

.

More here:

Bad Atheist Arguments: I Just Reject One More God than You - Patheos