Religion

Atheism is cool

At least according to the Anglican church.

Archbishop Rowan Williams says the Church of England is struggling to have it’s voice heard over the trendiness of atheism.

In a public conversation with comedian Frank Skinner at Canterbury Cathedral last Friday, Archbishop Rowan said that while the popularity of atheist authors like Richard Dawkins may be partly to blame for the Church’s declining attendance, it has not necessarily created fewer believers.

“I’d want to know how many atheists [Dawkins'] The God Delusion created. The book sold, but did it make a difference to the number of people who were actually committed one way or the other? . . . I’m not avoiding the point that the coolness of atheism is very much in evidence. I’m just not quite sure that it shifts people’s serious commitments that much in the long run.”

Declaring atheism a fad is a standard tactic by religious leaders who are finding it more difficult to justify their beliefs. Atheism has had its ups and downs throughout history making this valid argument. Yet because atheism has been around longer than Anglicism, or any other religion, in response we can just shrug off their beliefs as passing trends.

Christian opposition to public prayers

Theology professor John Stackhouse argues against public prayers.

Prayer isn’t supposed to be an opportunity to proclaim or teach your faith to others. Instead, prayer is a form of speech offered on behalf of everyone present to God.

Prayer in public secular events is like holding up a photograph of your mother and saying, “I’ve got Mom on speakerphone now, so let’s all tell Mom how much we love her as our mother and how we hope she’s proud of us for what we’ve done at university/work/war.” People would look at each other and then at you and think, “You’re crazy. She’s not our mother, and we didn’t do it for her.”
More >

Godless money… you can’t take it

For those of you who are fans of A.C. Grayling, you may or may not know that soon you will be able to learn from the atheist masters. Certainly looks interesting.

New College of Humanities, in London. With some of the world’s most prominent atheists signed up to teach (including Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, Niall Ferguson, Laurence Krauss, and Steven Pinker)

And of course, it is already ruffling a few feathers… not just because its godless, although that is definitely a bad.. but also… because it is capitalist. So it goes.

Slippery when WRONG

Are you looking to have your blood pressure raised? If so, then read this article by an orthodox rabbi: A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late.  According to Rabbi Averick:

Since in the atheistic worldview we are nothing more than upright walking primates, our value systems have no more significance than those of our jungle dwelling relatives. In the Darwinian view, the human is to the cockroach as the cockroach is to the paramecium. To imagine that we are something “more” is just that: a product of the human imagination.

It  would be absurd then for the atheist to suggest that any particular individual or society has the authority to dictate to all human beings what their values should or should not be; it would be even more absurd to suggest that the pronouncements of any individual or society obligates others to behave accordingly. For the atheist, morality is simply a word that is used to describe the type of system that an individual or society subjectively prefers. Each society establishes, maintains, and modifies its values to suit its own needs.

If the rabbi is right, you’d think there would be high rates of raping and pillaging and other forms of immorality currently present in the atheistic countries in the world.  Oh, but wait — studies show that the “societies with higher percentages of secular people are actually more healthy, humane, and happy than those with higher percentages of religious people” [source].

Thankfully, Rabbi Averick won’t let a little thing like reality stop him from spreading fallacies about atheists and our sense of morality:

One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential “intellectual elite” of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

I had a hard time reading the rest of the article, due to my blind rage.  Someone help me out, and set the good rabbi straight in the comments.

Any Thoughts?

On August 17, Jerry Coyne announced that the National Center for Translation in Cairo has just commissioned an Arabic translation of his book Why Evolution Is True.  There were numerous comments congratulating Coyne, but a comment by Ben Goren prompted an irrational reply from dguller and resulted in a dialogue between Goren and dguller.

Ben Goren says

Woo-hoo! Conga rats!

The Arab world carried the torch of intellectualism while the West had its Dark Ages. It’s about time we returned the flavour (sic). Just imagine what we can do working together!

and dguller’s first reply to Ben Goren’s innocuous comment is off topic and irrational

Wait wait wait!

Don’t you know that in Islamic lands, non-Muslims, or dhimmis, were treated overall as second-class citizens, marked by signs to identify them (a la Nazi Germany), and generally considered inferior to Muslims?

Does this mean that you are an apologist for Islamic apartheid?

Or rather does it mean that a human civilization can have both positive and negative qualities, and that you are able to see the noble aspects of Islamic civilization without having to endorse all that such a civilization entails?

When asked for an explanation dguller replies

It’s simple, actually.

You refuse to allow the Church any possible positive effect upon individuals and history, and constantly describe it as an utterly malevolent entity that poisons and destroys everything it manages to touch, without exception. And you do this because it has done horrific things, and still does horrific things.

I just found it curious that you can be so casual with your praise of another faith-based civilization with its own share of injustice, e.g. its treatment of dhimmis, but seem completely unable to apply the same perspective to Christian civilization. . . .

Any thoughts?

The discussion continues, and I encourage you to read all of the dialogue.

However, I have a question:

Why does praise for a non-Christian person or country prompt apologists to defend Christianity and Christian countries?

Any thoughts?