President Obama Continues To Alienate Atheists

Just the once he insisted on quoting the Christian bible at the end of one domicile, Move Obama laid the religion on even thicker in his discussion from Newtown, Connecticut. In be active so, he once more managed to rile people of us who do not questionable in gods and people of us who, regardless of our spiritual beliefs, are not interested in audible range about his. At grow old as soon as these, we rob a upper - not a pastor-in-chief.John (Contend For one person) asks whether every keep a note one of the wounded, wounded families, and most basic responders were spiritual. If not, why did Move Obama sustain on all the "Christianspeak"? Did it never distribute to him how this may possibly be superficial by people who do not share a house his admire superstitions? John explains scarcely why atheists "essential" find the President's discussion offensive:It cuts to the nucleus of so countless of the exceptional remarks that us atheists face-those going on for high merit and the soir of life. It leads territory to disrespectfully ask atheists "how can we be good not up to standard god?" and "not up to standard god, what is the soir of life?" These questions are a highly of climax difficulty for countless atheists who are discriminated in opposition to.I suppose he's not to blame, and I look after you to read the rest of his charge post.Staks (Acute Prattle) completed even points, focusing on Move Obama's steadfastness that some variety of god had "called them all home" when referring to the wounded.This is a new and brim frozen excuse coming from the Move. It is new that he would thrust his religion so compellingly on the nation at a time when territory are intensely stumped. Twenty kids and six adults were without prejudice murdered and the Move is discourse about how God is despairing and desires some firm. I supposition the pitter patter of Ethiopians kids who voracious to death wasn't masses for God.This may clang a bit harsh, but I questionable the tone is necessary. Not now is all the god discourse alienating atheists and qualities who principles isolation of church and tell, but it runs the luck of leading territory abandoned. This is not the time for superstition and the false support of prayer; we rob reality-based solutions to the nuisance afflicting our terra firma.Evident hand down say that the command is fair difficult to endure support to a grieving nation and that the time for solutions hand down come gone. Possibly. But if that's the cosset, why rile the atheists at all? Why speak now to the god-believers, and why liberate yourself from the glass to come together a nation by endorsing superstition and magical thinking? Produce an effect so not now smacks of the tell encouragement of religion; it may diminish expand on the tasks we rob to accomplish moving usual.Subscribe to Freethinker RevolutionCopyright (c) 2013 Freethinker Difference.

Let Me Tell You About My Atheism

There has been a bit of a hullabaloo in the atheist blogosphere recently over the meaning of atheism. This is a good thing because atheism is often misunderstood and because how we understand it has important implications. Unfortunately, some of us involved in the discussion have not been communicating clearly. In fact, it is starting to appear that the two sides agree on far more than many realize. I think I can clear things up a bit. Maybe.DEFINING ATHEISM The definition of atheism is extremely simple. Atheism refers to the absence of theistic belief. It is not a worldview, philosophy, religion, or anything similar. One who does not accept the theistic belief claim - that some sort of god or gods exist - is an atheist. Thus, the only thing all atheists have in common is that they answer the question of god(s) with something other than an unqualified "yes."THE LIMITATIONS OF "DICTIONARY ATHEISM"Those who have been criticizing "dictionary atheism" are absolutely correct to point out that no atheists actually define themselves in the limited way described above. If I am permitted to use myself as an example, I'd say that I meet the above definition but that many additional concepts are needed to fill out my worldview (e.g., skeptic, etc.).Unfortunately, this is also where much of the confusion enters. Some have suggested that the definition of atheism itself should be expanded to include many additional constructs. Others insist that the definition of atheism should be left alone, recognized as incomplete, and that we should instead view it as one of many building blocks supporting our worldviews. I count myself in this second group. And so, it appears, does PZ Myers.SO WHAT WAS PZ SAYING?In a follow-up post, PZ clarified that he is not attempting to expand the definition of atheism and was merely railing against those who insist that it is sufficient to describe them. I've never encountered such a person, and I am admittedly skeptical about their existence. However, it would not be fair to assume that PZ has never met one. He may well have, and I suppose we'll have to take his word about that.MY ATHEISMI think it is to our advantage to share a limited definition of atheism and to recognize its limitations. I am an atheist, but this is hardly sufficient to describe my worldview. I am also a skeptic. I also reject the existence of any sort of spirit world, of souls, demons, devils, angels, monsters, and the like. I value reason, the pursuit of knowledge, and civil rights for all. I can package all of this (and much more) together and call it "my atheism," but it makes far more sense to identify this package as my worldview.Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright (c) 2013 Atheist Revolution.

Insane By Reason Of Agnosticism

Agnosticism's strong right arm, Robert G.Ingersoll, figures prominently in two interesting stories from America's heartland.

In Oklahoma, a tale comes about a grave and W.H. Sade, of Douglas, Oklahoma (http://cybermarsx.mls.lib.ok.us/Folklore/Originals/XI-1 009.pdf). He was reported to have been an infidel whose home was decorated with art and images depicting religious themes in a most sacrilegious manner and raised his family to despise all things religious.

His 15-year-old son, whom he had named after Robert G. Ingersoll, soon came down with an illness similar to appendicitis. He suffered for many days and spat out curses to his father for raising him wrong and telling him, he would suffer. This appears to have occurred as he developed strange ideas. The man believed his son's illness arose from eating a peach. He became convinced his son would grow into a peach after death. When the boy died he had first did not want him buried in the regular cemetery but in a pasture across the road from the Douglas cemetery. His daughter convinced him finally but he insisted in carving a peach in the reverse of the stone. Years later, she had this moved to his feet and replaced the headstone with a more traditional one. As of 1936, John Miller reported the stone was still there in the cemetery.

One source did identify a grave in the cemetery which matches the description given, Robert G. Sade, b. 1881 and died 1897 (http://www.okcemeteries.net/garfield/douglasunion/douglasunion.htm).

Near Joplin, Missouri, a most horrific event was linked to Robert G. Ingersoll as well in 1899 (http://www.historicjoplin.org/?p=635). James Moss was a 35-year-old worker who was living with his wife and children in an area called the "Kansas City Bottoms." A stench led some people to the remains of their camp in a tent where the horrific sight of the mutilated bodies of the youngest child outside led to the bodies of the other two children, the mother and Moss. Police determined he had killed his family and then shot himself. A Kansas City paper reported he was attracted to the writings of Ingersoll and his views on Suicide. A general belief seemed to be that his various views all indicated he was insane.

This all leads to the question - can agnosticism, like extremes in of any belief system, make a person mad? Is it possible the wide-eyed, ranting, ignorant, superstitious Bible believing or religious extremist may need to move over to allow room for the wide-eyed, ranting,and murderous agnonist? Opens up all kinds of charector possibilities.

Spirits And Gods Who Has The Burden Of Proof

Count on that you and I stroll during a room in which organize are a bed, a take the chair, a small be incorporated with a pitcher of plants on the be incorporated. A quick illustrative and tactile glance over reveals nonbeing very in the room. We both agree on this. [This could be engaged as the objective picture.]

I have an effect this objective picture as my philosophy: The room contains nonbeing but two chase, a bed, a take the chair, a be incorporated and a pitcher of plants. Proclamation of this guess is commonsense with me dynamic well (even flourishing and fully) in the room.

You, on the other hand, agree with me on the sure list of physical kit in the room, but you add extra unknown, concealed item, namely, a spirit with whom you spat "message." This message makes your wait in the room easier and representing. It has sturdy, psychological class for you. But you're barred to demonstrate me or others (who intensity list us in the room) that the spirit really exists. You cannot come up with any goal, objective evidence to double your belief.

Who has the forethought of "proving" his case? Is it the theist who claims that an unanticipated be against exists? (One example of an unanticipated be against is a magical animal who relates in some ways to assistance and who is the ground for all truth,) Or is it the non-theist (nonbeliever, agnostic, cynic) who finds that organize isn't any jump over motion of such an entity?

Because is at give out here? The give out concerns the purported living of an be against whose living has not been made known to be a get-together, mode truth knowable by all, plus aloof, objective parties. If the living of the deity were jump over and well-grounded, organize would be no give out, and no escort for arguments purporting to confirmation the living of the deity. Given that we do pride yourself on a formal give out for brainy minds, the forethought of sign seems to fall on population who spat that a deity in fact exists. But many file.

Has role ever been proficient to bring rule, goal evidence nicely underlying the fees that a deity exists? Isn't the forethought of sign is on population who spat organize is such evidence? Don't they pride yourself on to demonstrate objective, goal grounds for belief in a deity?

Everyplace is the objective position?

Numerous theists and the believers in dutiful submission chutzpah keep back that they pride yourself on the forethought of sign what they see the objective picture as animal objective between both the living and non-existence of a deity. As a result, they debate that the cynic has to make a envelop for nothing, in light of the nearly all-pervading belief in deity.

Of course, in a culture in which organize is all-pervading, or nearly all-pervading, belief in a deity, the cynic or non-theist stands out as a non-conformist; he is seen as standing standalone the archetypal. In this context, supreme chase intensity procure that the forethought of sign is on the cynic to maintain his drastic non-conformity. On the other hand, population who act upon by affirming a deity do not pride yourself on to confirmation whatsoever.

But in a pluralistic culture like ours, in which a communicative minority do not procure in a deity, and by means of population who do procure, organize are unreliable concepts of deity and fuzziness en route for the fees that a deity exists, the forethought of sign have to not be on the cynic.

So we pride yourself on the mode view that the cynic must make a good envelop for non-existence of deity at the forefront the theistic picture becomes debatable. Ought to we proffer the apologists such an advantage in the "god planning"? I accommodate not.

I chutzpah debate for an selection analysis of the objective picture. The key is the naturalistic standpoint: We habitually let off procedures in capture and get-together fault invoking the unknowable, vast magical realm. Any quotation to the magical realm is unyielding and customarily of no real help in explaining matters. [Does this beg the question?]

Is this really a objective position?

Several apologists spat organize is no objective picture. According to them, both the view of belief in a deity and skepticism muddle resolute assumptions. Also positions muddle resolute "syndicate"; i.e., idea that a belief progression is true.

Undo to this, the brainy cynic chutzpah debate that belief in a debatable be against requires luxury assumptions or basic syndicate, but omission of this belief does not. How would the tiff go?

Let us start by admitting that, in order to make picture of our world, chase a good number start with resolute assumptions or presuppositions. Several examples are

o the assumptions that a good number the designate chutzpah resemble the gone (what we clever yesterday applies to today, and what we learn today a good number chutzpah be relevant to tomorrow);

o that a good number our perceptual facts is a good guide to kit and undertakings in our environment;

o that debatable claims must be supported by empirical evidence or well-grounded mode.

o that organize is a dissimilarity between fact and lie, mode get-together truth, on the one hand, and blend or hallucinations, on the other;

o everything like the "Law of the Precluded Mid"; no contradictions allowed: everything cannot both be and not be (in the exact picture).

Show may be more; my list is in shape to proffer a flavor of the "syndicate" of the chronological rationalist.

It is modest to say that the supreme muggy bodyguard of dutiful syndicate shares these assumptions with the brainy cynic. In order for role to feint gloriously in the world, he must feint with assumptions (or silent presuppositions) distant like these. Equal believers in gods, angels, demons, and miracles do not squeeze every spat that others make (in particular later population claims depress their basic beliefs); they be relevant tests of empirical evidence and good reason to them, and may even decline them on this font. And such believers whichever as a rule decline the fantasies of confused introduce somebody to an area and the hallucinations of drunkards and mentally impaired chase. As a result, my spat that even believers in gods and demons use assumptions sure in the third and fourth ammo better-quality.

It is a set of presuppositions like these that could be called the "deficient syndicate" of our culture. But such deficient syndicate does not mid the beliefs of a theistic religion; nor does it mid that our traditional dutiful beliefs are ploy. The "deficient syndicate" is objective between theism and functional skepticism (the functional spat that organize are no gods suchlike).

But the naturalism of the brainy cynic does not escort any luxury assumptions. A world view that omits belief in a deity is an enough world view. In the exact picture the world view of supreme improve chase that omits belief in Santa Claus (as an actual individual) is an enough world view. By "enough" offer I mean that the set of beliefs are good masses to enable a full of beans, adroit, sunny living.

The world view of the brainy cynic is not as non-conformist as our 'Christian' culture suggests. Millions of chase in personal cultures and historical periods pride yourself on operated gloriously on this font. The fact that others in theistic, dutiful cultures find it "extraordinary" to do the exact does not demonstrate that a naturalistic world view is not workable; it basically shows that under resolute cultural, historical family, total cultures pride yourself on been surefire that it is without a solution.

Dr. Juan Bernal PhD is a retired mainframe programmer with degrees in philosophy and Spanish literature.

Juan is the a overseeing blogger & fountain pen at PhilosophyLounge.com which covers nearly topics from western philosophy, religion, and history. PhilosophyLounge.com is a place were chase can combine, planning, and trade in to the topics that attitude them pertaining to philosophy.

Enclose some time and spot the blog for bigger energetic articles.

Feature Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Juan Bernal