Categories
Atheism Christian evolution God Religion Science Uncategorized

A Christian-Evolutionist’s odd position in faith.


Some say it’s an oxymoron, but I am not sure. I do know I am one.

Creation is the hottest topic between the religious vs. atheist crowd. Science against faith stories. Evidence against faith. It’s a really a hot button for many. I have seen people become very personal and argumentative when it comes to creation. For some reason, this is the topic which carries a lot of emotional baggage with it. I have seen a lot of people behave offensively on this.

I have been a lot of things actually. I have been a devout YEC, an evolution basher, an enthusiastic Gap theorist, then a euphoric OEC and then a troubled Theistic evolutionist. And now I am more inclined to be just an evolutionist, and not so much troubled anymore. My transition has been across the board from atheist to agnostic to slightly deist to YEC to OEC and within that from Gap theory to Theistic Evolution. The more I studied, the more I figured that evolution was undeniable.

Apparently, a lot of believers don’t agree with me when it comes to that. I don’t blame them. It is not an easy thing to do. It took me some time to come to realize that there is probably no way that I may able to square things out between my faith and science, or between faith and evolution. That is my opinion, and some believers have no trouble reconciling science and creation, and I am fine with that.

However, my conclusion is that the biblical creation story quite certainly makes a strong case for

Categories
Atheism Christian God Inspirational Religion

Reflection of the Overzealous believer


When I first started this blog, I was angry, hateful and amateur. I yelled, ranted, vented out. I said stupid things, I wrote some stupid stuff, which is still in the early posts of this blog. Some of the things you can read if you look up the old archives. I’m not proud of it.

With time, I learnt a few things and gained some perspective and gradually that reflected on my person and in my writings. Now when I come across someone like me four years ago, I try my best to show them that their attitude is all wrong. That they are having tunnel vision and that things are not that much black and white as you think they are. Plenty of grey areas are there. The more I have matured in my thinking, the less concrete answers I have.

And honestly, I have gained some peace in myself for a lot of things. I have started to trust God a little with some of the things, not all, but some things entirely. I can sit back and relax on those. And now I look back and see that is what was always missing from me, peace. But I was full of zeal but it was misdirected in a lot of ways and for all the slap-shut answers I had for my opponents, it left me distressed mostly.

Categories
Atheism

How atheism became a religion in all but name


How atheism became a religion in all but name | Frank Furedi | spiked.

Read the full article by clicking the link above.

How atheism became a religion in all but name | Frank Furedi | spiked

excerpt:

Today, in contrast, atheism takes itself very seriously indeed. With their zealous denunciation of religion, the so-called New Atheists often resemble medieval moral crusaders. They argue that the influence of religion should be fought wherever it rears its ugly head. Although they demand that religion should be countered by rational arguments, their own claims often verge on the irrational and hysterical. Of course, there has always been an honourable atheist tradition of irreverence and irreligious contempt for dogma. But today’s New Atheism often expresses itself through a doctrinaire language of its own. In a simplistic manner it equates religion with fanaticism and fundamentalism. What is striking about its denunciation of fundamentalism is that it is frequently made in the dogmatic, polemical style of those it claims to oppose. The black-and-white world of theological dogma is reproduced in the zealous polemic of the atheist moraliser…

…The New Atheism is very selective about who it targets. So although it claims to challenge irrationalism and anti-scientific prejudice, it tends to confine its anger to the dogma of the three Abrahamic religions. So it rightly criticises creationism and ‘intelligent design’, yet it rarely challenges the mystifications of deep environmentalist thinking, such as Gaia theory, or the numerous varieties of Eastern mysticism that are so fashionable in Hollywood. Since the New Atheism is culturally wedded to the contemporary therapeutic imagination, it is not surprising that it has adopted a double standard towards spiritualism.

Historically, atheism has sometimes co-existed with opportunism towards religious and spiritual belief. The French philosopher Voltaire hated religious fanaticism but nevertheless believed that religion was useful for pacifying the masses. In a similar vein, in the nineteenth century, the French social theorists Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte believed that social stability required them to invent a new religion. Invariably, such attempts to construct a secular religion are really about trying to endow human experience with meaning.

It was inevitable that sooner or later the New Atheist crusade would mutate into a quasi-religion. Alain de Botton’s recently published Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion is an attempt to absorb into atheism the current therapeutic and spiritual fads that influence Western elite culture. De Botton has proposed building temples for atheists through the UK. ‘It’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals’, he says. Unlike the New Atheists, De Botton does not adopt an aggressive approach towards religion, which means his attitude does at least contrast to that of Dawkins or Harris.

Categories
Atheism Christian God Muslim Reblogs

Article: France moves to toughen ban on religion in schools


France moves to toughen ban on religion in schools

http://www.france24.com/en/20130910-france-moves-toughen-ban-religion-schools

What do you think? Should religion be part of education system?

Categories
Atheism Christian Science

Article: Religion, Science and the Attack of the Angry Atheists


Religion, Science and the Attack of the Angry Atheists

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/angry-atheists_b_2716134.html?1361283035&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

Categories
Atheism Christian

Article: Why are religion and violence now so closely linked?


Why are religion and violence now so closely linked? Read the article.

Categories
Atheism Christian

Article: Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion


Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/09/30/richard-dawkins-is-wrong-about-religion/

Categories
Atheism Christian

Myth: Believing Something You Can’t Know or Prove is a Religion


Myth: Believing Something You Can’t Know or Prove is a Religion

http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/07/19/myth-believing-something-you-cant-know-or-prove-is-a-religion.htm

A very nice article for those who may be interested.

Categories
Atheism Christian Morality

The anti-christian propaganda: Christianity, Hitler and Nietzsche


The most power tool in Hitler’s arsenal, for some, was the propaganda techniques he applied to keep his audience in complete awe and totally unaware of what was really going on the war-front. It was perhaps the effective use of this that he managed to keep Germany silent and going even after defeat looked imminent to the military brass.

Propaganda is indeed a very powerful technique, when a figure, usually a figure of authority rises up and tells people what they expect, you can score many points with them. Most of the time the audience swallows it hook, line and sinker. Mostly because they lack trust or are made to distrust other sources of information.

In the world of internet, propaganda is happening everywhere, from the brainwashed teenagers at westbro baptists to the hard core atheists – figures like Dawkins…you can very well implicate any group. The most astonishing is the constant barrage of senseless accusations, I keep getting from the “New Atheist” movement.

Contrary to popular belief  a lot of atheist are not militant,  a lot of atheists are disgusted by the new Atheist movement. I know a lot, who respect other people and their right to believe what they may. But there are many, who have found the internet as a venting ground and from what I assume to get attention and to rap about their new found philosophy, they place charges which are bizarre; myths that have no real grounds to stand on. And yet I keep hearing them again and again. A part of this is that the new Atheist propaganda technique which reiterates the main points over and over.

On the internet you need not a conspiracy, you only need repetitions  and what you get is a constant circle of bogus charges placed on faith, with no context and sometime little to no research. Frankly there are only handful of atheists who I have found to be realistic enough to handle the topic with wisdom. Most often lunge on emotional appeals, straw man, hatred and disdain towards faith, pain or traumatic experience. There is mostly a personal side to the obvious dislike. There is most of the times  a factor of “I was dealt a bad hand”  by life, fate, society etc. So who is to blame…God. Seems like the obvious choice because he is the ultimate- invisible scapegoat.

Categories
Atheism Muslim

Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists


“Popular author and neuroscientist Sam Harris’ pseudoscientific characterisations of Muslims dovetail nicely with his extreme right-wing views on military intervention in Muslim-majority countries,” writes author [EPA]

Scientific racism is a term seldom used today but which has a long and ignoble history in the modern world. In the late 18th century, the renowned scientist and philosopher Christoph Meiners published his famous treatise The Outline and History of Mankind. Central to his analysis was a qualitative comparison of peoples by race – a comparison which his own popularly-accepted findings claimed revealed a clear hierarchy.

Drawing in large part on the now-discredited science of Phrenology (the measurement of human skulls), Meiners described whites as being endowed with clear superiority to all races in both their intellectual as well as moral faculties.

About blacks, his scientific analysis was far less generous – finding them not only to be inferior to whites in every mental capacity but in fact “incapable of any mental feeling or emotion at all“, as well as “unable to feel physical pain“.

As influential as it was, Meiners’ work was par for the course in the institutionalised science of racism of the age. Famous philosopher Voltaire – whose works were among the most significant of the French Enlightenment – wrote of his empirical research on those humans who possessed dark skin:

“They are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined.”

While they wore a veneer of disinterested scientific analysis in their conclusions, in the context of their times it can be seen that such proponents of scientific racism had the specific goal of legitimating certain policies. With regard to those of African descent, the intention of then-contemporary scientists was often – implicitly or explicitly – to report findings which could be used to justify the socio-political institutions of slavery and colonialism against African societies.

Institutional racism

Alongside routine characterisations of blacks in scientific analyses as naturally childish and in need of patronage from “superior races”, were outright claims regarding the scientific necessity for slavery as a natural phenomenon. While the prominent American physician Josiah Nott wrote that “the negro achieves his greatest perfection, physical and moral, and also greatest longevity, in a state of slavery”, others such as Samuel Cartwright diagnosed aversion to slavery among blacks as a full-fledged disease unto itself.

Calling the purported malady “drapetomania“, Cartwright wrote that it was a legitimate mental defect which could be treated by visiting corporal punishment upon blacks – up to and including amputation.

We rightly recoil with horror today at what we know to be the false claims and methodologies of the pseudoscience of the past. The level of institutional racism masked under scientific study reached a particularly horrific apex at Paris’ infamous “human zoo” – where peoples of different races lived their lives for both scientific observation as well as the enjoyment of the general public.

Viewed in proper context it can be seen that the crudest racism has often been cloaked in the guise of disinterested scientific inquiry. Those claiming this mantle have often felt licence to engage in overt bigotry using science as a smokescreen, and yet far from being a relic of history, many celebrity-scientists of today show startling parallels with their now-dishonoured predecessors.

In the present atmosphere, characterised by conflict with Muslim-majority nations, a new class of individuals have stepped in to give a veneer of scientific respectability to today’s politically-useful bigotry.

At the forefront of this modern scientific racism have been those prominently known as the “new atheist” scientists and philosophers. While they attempt to couch their language in the terms of pure critique of religious thought, in practice they exhibit many of the same tendencies toward generalisation and ethno-racial condescension as did their predecessors – particularly in their descriptions of Muslims.