Convert An Atheist Game Show

What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths will seek to convert a group of non-believers.

The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

You can read the rest here.

Some questions:
-Do you think that this sort of contest will ever produce a respectable result?
-Would you watch it?
-Would you participate?
-Do you think the network is more concerned with ratings than conversions?
-Do you see this as an effective means to convert atheists to a religion?
-If you are atheist, what are your thoughts about this? Is it laughable to you?

Darwin The Disturber

I was doing some reading on Darwin and came across this article by Susan Jacoby. Of course, it is slanted and opinionated but what isn't? I wanted to pull some quotes from it and post them here for you. If you have time, feel free to read the whole article; it is linked at the bottom.

This lasting "disturber effect" is, I would argue, one of the most convincing proofs of Darwin's genius. People don't get all riled up, 150 years after the fact, by bland, small, discredited ideas.

This same logic could be applied to Christianity as well yes?

This logic [evolution is the mechanism by which God chose to set in motion the development of his creatures, ending in man]does not, of course, explain why a supreme being would choose such an inefficient process as evolution to arrive at the human species--or why he would choose to bind us to evolutionary forces--such as our desire to consume large amounts of animal fat--that were once useful for the survival of the species but no longer are. Another element of the religion-science compromise, articulated not only by religious thinkers but by scientists like the late Stephen Jay Gould, argues that science and religion are merely "different ways of knowing." I don't agree with this formulation. Science is not really a way of "knowing" but a method of inquiry seeking knowledge that is never final and always modfiiable by new discoveries. Religion is not a way of knowing but, ultimately, a matter of belief that, at some point--regardless of how much material evidence a particular faith is willing to incorporate--relies on non-evidence of a non-material existence.

There are a lot of presuppositions in the first part of this quote is there not?

...Darwin was a man who--without any of the tools of modern science and technology, without the support of the MacArthur Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, not only got the basic insight of modern science right but had the courage to face up to the philosophical and ethical implications of his own observations.

I didn't know the verdict was in on the evolutionary theory having been proven as fact... but I am also assuming that is what she is referring to by "basic insight of modern science". If that is not what she is referencing, please do offer up a better suggestion as that phrase is rather vague.

Mendelian genetics, the discovery of DNA, the mapping of the human genome: all tell us more about evolution than Darwin could have known, and all confirm the genius of his initial insights. Had Mendel's experiments contradicted the theory of natural selection, we would be having quite a different discussion about evolution today. That, of course, is the difference between scientific exploration and religion.

Does that go for climate change as well? Just curious.

Okay, I will stop there.

You can read the rest here.

If you want to read a shorter article concerning the pitfalls in the evolutionary theory- you can do so here. (It is a pdf that is linked to on Stand to Reason.

Apes Gain Rights In Spain Previously Limited To Humans

Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.
Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Is there a symbolic statement being made with this resolution?
-Are there good aspects to this?
-Is a government resolution really needed for such a thing as this?
-Do you think that giving rights to apes that were previously reserved for humans is a step forward for atheism?

Everybody Does It...

So, we are at the St. Louis Zoo and after watching the Puffins shoot poo several feet across their exhibit, we walk into a small gift store before exiting that exhibit. To our chagrin, we see several books with words synonymous with poo in the title.

Some questions:
-Is such books necessary?
-Haven't we figured this out centuries ago?
-Why would a zoo carry such a book including humans with all the other animals?
-What are your thoughts concerning such a book?

Einstein: The Bible Is An Expression Of Human Weakness

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

And this from a man who has no regard for his own wife to boot!

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Because you are an expert in one field, does that make you an expert in another?
-Do you agree with his assessment of the Jews? (FWIW I do. IMO Christ is the "seed" of Abraham and all blessings, and promises given to the "seed" has been bestowed to us, the Church, through Christ)
-Does this change your opinion of Einstein?
-Does the Bible an expression of human weakness as posed by Einstein? (I think it is, but not how Einstein saw it. It shows our need for something outside ourself that reconciles us to one who is most holy due to our unworthiness. This need is for perfection; perfection we cannot attain by our own merit. Christ did and was able to sustain His perfection and He imputed it to us! So, indeed, the weakness of man is laid bare in scripture and points us to a need for a savior: namely Jesus! Einstein was so close.)

Macro Evolutionists Has Evolved Right In Vatican City

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

...at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely...

You may have noticed that I added a new link to my sidebar for Sola Dei Gloria; P.J. Miller has blogged on the story there.

You can read more here.

You can read the source here.

Some questions:
-Do you agree?
-Does this bring "science" and "religion" closer together?
-Is there any proof (real proof) for macro-evolution?
-Is there any proof (real proof) for the biblical account that God made Adam & Eve?

Religion: A Figment Of Our Imagination

Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-So, is religion just a figment of our imagination?
-Do you agree Bloch? Why?
-Do you agree with the other theory: Religion evolved and spread for social bonding purposes? Why?
-Or, do you agree with the vast majority of the human population that believe religion (at least 1) is true? Why?
-Why are those in academia so inclined to focus time, money and effort into "explaining away" religion?

Biblical Buffet: An Atheistic Understanding Of Conservative Christians

...perhaps the Bible isn't a great moral compass after all.
Sadly, the Bible is filled with instructions we now find shocking and repulsive, far too numerous to list here. Don't look to the New Testament for help. Jesus makes it clear that he came to fulfill the old laws, not destroy them (Matthew 5:17).

The hypocrisy of conservative Christians is astonishing. They take a salad bar approach toward the Bible. They pick out the bits they like, considering them to be ultimate truths that are undeniable (i.e. sodomy prohibitions), while simultaneously ignoring or "reinterpreting" the passages considered disturbing.

A quote attributed to Jesus in Matthew 19:24 is a personal favorite. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Despite the clarity of that passage many conservative Christians relentlessly push for tax cuts that benefit the richest Americans, while largely ignoring the poorest families. Wealthy religious conservatives, like Bush and his ilk, must really like the camel's chances.

John Bice goes on to address such passages of scripture as those that deal with disobedient children and stoning them as well as how women should be silent and contrasts those passages with the "Back to the Bible" mentality he says is a passion for conservative Christians. His main point is that if Christians are going to be bigots concerning homosexuality and the like, Christians need to be consistent in that Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. So, why do Christians interpret away the "harder" teachings of the Bible while adhering to homosexuality being wrong, promiscuity being wrong, living together outside of wedlock, etc., etc.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Do you think that Mr. Bice has painted a fair picture of the teachings of scripture?
-Do you find his arguments cherry picked and out of context, or does he make a good argument for the antiquity of scripture's moral compass?
-Should this be a line of argument the atheist should embrace against Christianity at large?
-If you are a Christian, how would you answer Mr. Bice?
-How should the Bible be understood concerning such passages as those brought up in the article?

Are Atheists Being Politically Persecuted?

One presidential hopeful is a preacher, another proudly Mormon, and most openly tout their Christianity. In an arena where faith can make or break a politician, the one in 10 Americans who profess no religion feel left in the cold.
"They're very disconcerted," said Darren Sherkat, an atheist sociology professor specializing in religion at Southern Illinois University.
"They're horrified by both the Democratic and Republican rhetoric surrounding religion -- that people who are not religious ... are immoral, that they're not qualified to serve in public office," he said.

The article goes on to outline the story of a 25 year old named Ian Thomas who ran for the school board and was sideswiped by an email sent out by a County Council member concerning a bumper sticker on Ian's car that promoted atheism as well as a letter to the editor endorsing atheism. Thomas stated that [he was] very, very insulted.

The small-town incident was part of a wider pattern of "disenfranchisement" of non-believers, according to Margaret Downey, president of the educational organization Atheist Alliance International.
She claims atheists are "the fastest-growing minority in America."
But they are also "the least tolerated group by conventional standards of religious toleration in the US," Sherkat said.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Should Christians take part in persecuting atheists?
-What should be the response to persecution (of any kind) by Christians?
-How does this affect your view of atheism? Christianity?
-Why does one assume the County Council member is a Christian?
-Does this adversley affect others besides Christians and Atheists?

Laz On Lewis, Pullman & Mohler

The below is taken from Laz's blog post concerning the book The Northern Lights (and now movie: The Golden Compass). It is a quote of C. S. Lewis that Laz uses to buttress his arugment that follows in his post titled CS Lewis Posthumously Corrects Philip Pullman.

There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of “Heaven” ridiculous by saying they do not want “to spend eternity playing harps.” The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them…
A child saying a child’s prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not–and the modern world usually is not–if you want to go on and ask what is really happening–then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple.
Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted by people who are not silly, but who, consciously or unconsciously, want to destroy Christianity. Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack. — C.S. Lewis

If you haven't visited Lastrow, Laz's blog, you definitely want to check it out. He updates frequently and his writtings are well thought out and are about great issues upon which to ponder.

You can read more here.

Atheism Adopts A Church Practice

Some parents who hope to raise their children as atheists have come to the conclusion that they need something more. As most Christians in America pack up and drive to Sunday School and Church, most atheists would devote their time to other things; that is, until now.

Albert Mohler concludes: In a strange way, the rise of atheist Sunday Schools illustrates the central dilemma of atheism itself. Try as they may, atheists cannot avoid talking about God -- even if only to insist that they do not believe in Him. Now, atheist parents are organizing Sunday Schools as a parallel to the Christian practice. In effect, atheists are organizing themselves in a way similar to a local church. At least some of them must sense the awkward irony in that.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-What do you think of this development?
-Do you think Mohler paints an accurate picture of what is going on?
-What do you think is the root of this need for a Sunday School type meeting?

The Diary Of A Mad Atheist Woman

I ran across this today and thought I would link to it. It is rather long (but in short segments) and a rant on why atheists (or at least this one atheist) has a right to be angry. Here is a quote below:

****This is not a family friendly blog. Some may be offended by the content and/or ads.****

One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I want to talk about:
1. Why atheists are angry;
2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;
And 3. Why it's completely f*****-up to try to take our anger away from us.
So let's start with why we're angry.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-What do you think about the "right" to be angry?
-Should this same "right" be granted to other groups as well?
-Do you find any of the given arguments compelling?
-What are your thoughts about the comments on the post?

Challies on "The Dawkins Delusion?"

I have Challies in my blog tracker of choice: Google Reader. He posts several times a day and his content has just that, content. A few weeks ago he posted his book review on "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He has since read a counter point book put out by the McGraths. The God Delusion is set up in such a way as to shoot a hole through the heart of religion while The Dawkins Delusion? is set up in such a way as to show why The God Delusion bullet misfired.

Challies goes through and gives a brief synopsis and a breakdown of the subjects addressed. He also gives a few quotes from the book such as this:

I was delighted to see an endorsement for this book coming from none other than Michael Ruse, a prominent atheist in his own right. He writes this: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.” I suspect this book will do the same for many atheists. I think McGrath wins this battle.

You can read more here.

Some questions:
-Have you read either book? What are your thoughts?
-Did either book sway your thinking?
-What did you disagree with if you have read them?

Atheist Takes On Islam

The Beginner's Guide to Islam
You will need to download the DivX webplayer to watch this video (Once you click the link, it will prompt you). It is high quality and you can watch it full screen. It is 48 minutes long and documents an atheist London girl immersing herself in Islamic culture.

What were your thoughts?