<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Atheology</title>
	<link>http://atheology.com</link>
	<description>n. against God or gods, anti-theology, the defense of naturalism</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Moving to new host</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2008/04/26/moving-to-new-host/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2008/04/26/moving-to-new-host/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Atheist Culture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2008/04/26/moving-to-new-host/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ll be moving this site to a new host. I expect this to be seamless, but there may be some disruption for a day or two. Be patient, the site will be available again soon.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be moving this site to a new host. I expect this to be seamless, but there may be some disruption for a day or two. Be patient, the site will be available again soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2008/04/26/moving-to-new-host/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Huckabee and the U.S. Constitution</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2008/01/16/huckabee-and-the-us-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2008/01/16/huckabee-and-the-us-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[State &#38; Church]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2008/01/16/huckabee-and-the-us-constitution/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mike Huckabee thinks the U. S. Constitution is a problem. What problem is that? Well, it doesn&#8217;t adhere to God&#8217;s standards.  Sheesh, it doesn&#8217;t even mention God. Nor Christianity. What were the founders thinking?
So Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to make it properly subservient to God and his divine standards. He doesn&#8217;t exactly [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike Huckabee thinks the U. S. Constitution is a problem. What problem is that? Well, it doesn&#8217;t adhere to God&#8217;s standards.  Sheesh, it doesn&#8217;t even <em>mention</em> God. Nor Christianity. What were the founders thinking?</p>
<p>So Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to make it properly subservient to God and his divine standards. He doesn&#8217;t exactly say <em>what</em> standards he has in mind, at least it&#8217;s not <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html">reported here</a></p>
<blockquote><p>I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,&#8221; Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. &#8220;But I believe it&#8217;s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that&#8217;s what we need to do &#8212; to amend the Constitution so it&#8217;s in God&#8217;s standards rather than try to change God&#8217;s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.</p></blockquote>
<p>Perhaps he&#8217;d like us to imitate the current Iraq Constitution, with it&#8217;s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html">long religious preamble</a> and enshrinement of Sharia, in contrast to what Americans currently have. . .  <a href="http://atheology.com/2008/01/16/huckabee-and-the-us-constitution/#more-102" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2008/01/16/huckabee-and-the-us-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Military Madness</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2008/01/06/worldwide-military-expenditures/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2008/01/06/worldwide-military-expenditures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:59:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bush Wars]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Christianity]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2008/01/06/worldwide-military-expenditures/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No benefit for human beings is more obvious than the benefit of demilitarizing the world. Every dollar spend on weaponry and war is a dollar not spent improving our lives. As Glenn Greenwald&#8217;s review of military expenditures shows, one country&#8217;s outlandish military spending is driving a worldwide spike that, if not stopped, will make the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No benefit for human beings is more obvious than the benefit of demilitarizing the world. Every dollar spend on weaponry and war is a dollar not spent improving our lives. As <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/military_spending/index.html">Glenn Greenwald&#8217;s review of military expenditures</a> shows, one country&#8217;s outlandish military spending is driving a worldwide spike that, if not stopped, will make the 21st century far bloodier than the 20th (which was far and away the bloodiest in human history). That country, of course, is the United States, which in 2008 will spend $623,000,000,000 &#8212; approximately $123,000,000,000 more than the rest of the world combined, nearly 10 times more than China will spend and a dozen times more than Russia. The U. S. could dramatically slash its military budget in half &#8212; to $311 billion &#8212; and still spend more than the military budgets of the next 7 biggest spenders <em>combined</em>: China (65 billion), Russia (50 billion), France (45 billion) , UK (43 billion), Japan (44 billion), Germany (35  billiion) and Italy (28 billiion). Wouldn&#8217;t that be enough? <a href="http://atheology.com/2008/01/06/worldwide-military-expenditures/#more-101" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2008/01/06/worldwide-military-expenditures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Torture and American Christianity</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/12/25/torture-and-american-christianity/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/12/25/torture-and-american-christianity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bushwacked]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Christianity]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Civil Unliberties]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Ethics &#38; Morality]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/12/25/torture-and-american-christianity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[December 25, the holiday long celebrated as the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, but more recently as the birthday of Jesus Christ, the central figure in Christianity. Jesus is generally presented as a pacifist, author of the sermon on the mount with its beatitudes (&#8221;blessed are the peacemakers&#8230;&#8221;), but more recently his followers in America [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>December 25, the holiday long celebrated as the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, but more recently as the birthday of Jesus Christ, the central figure in Christianity. Jesus is generally presented as a pacifist, author of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount">sermon on the mount</a> with its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes">beatitudes</a> (&#8221;blessed are the peacemakers&#8230;&#8221;), but more recently his followers in America find it preferable not to love their enemies but to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7139708.stm">torture</a> them.</p>
<p>These Christians, who generally call themselves evangelicals and fundamentalists because they take the fundamental tenets of their religion seriously, have managed to become powerful enough to dominate the Republican party and in 2000 they elected* one of their own as President of the United States. Within a year, this very Christian President began laying out plans for torturing his enemies.</p>
<p>Christianity and torture have, unfortunately, a long historical association. Indeed, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition" title="wikipedia article on Spanish Inquisition">Spanish Inquisition</a> perfected many of the most famous torture techniques, including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding">waterboarding</a>. You might think that Christians would be eager to strand Christianity&#8217;s associations with torture in the distant middle ages. You would think wrongly.  Under the champion of Christianity residing in the White House, <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001917">torture of prisoners</a> became the official policy** of the U. S. Government. <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/12/25/torture-and-american-christianity/#more-100" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/12/25/torture-and-american-christianity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why atheism?</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/11/11/why-atheism/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/11/11/why-atheism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Naturalism]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Non-Existence Arguments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/11/11/why-atheism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why am I an atheist? Since atheism is still a somewhat unusual point of view, let me be candid about why I believe no God exists.
Before proceeding, it is important to define God &#8212; otherwise no coherent discussion is possible. I define God as &#8220;the solitary, perfect, non-physical being who created the physical world.&#8221; By [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why am I an atheist? Since atheism is still a somewhat unusual point of view, let me be candid about why I believe no God exists.</p>
<p>Before proceeding, it is important to define God &#8212; otherwise no coherent discussion is possible. I define God as &#8220;the solitary, perfect, non-physical being who created the physical world.&#8221; By non-physical I mean &#8220;bodiless, not consisting of matter/energy (as those terms are used by physicists and other scientists).&#8221;  Here then is an outline of my reasons for rejecting the existence of God, in order of importance: <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/11/11/why-atheism/#more-99" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/11/11/why-atheism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IHEU corrects UN Human Rights Council</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/11/04/iheu-corrects-un-human-rights-council/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/11/04/iheu-corrects-un-human-rights-council/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Atheist Culture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bush Wars]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Civil Unliberties]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[State &#38; Church]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/11/04/iheu-corrects-un-human-rights-council/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The International Humanist and Ethical Union monthly news email just came.  Among their recent activities they have endorsed a letter sent by Diana Brown of the World Population Foundation to the U.N. Human Rights Council objecting to their resolution (also brought to the UN General Assembly) against the &#8220;defamation of religion&#8221;.
The problem is that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The International Humanist and Ethical Union monthly news email just came.  Among their recent activities they have endorsed <a href="http://www.iheu.org/node/2816" title="Diana Brown's letter" target="_blank">a letter sent by Diana Brown of the World Population Foundation</a> to the U.N. Human Rights Council objecting to their resolution (also brought to the UN General Assembly) against the &#8220;defamation of religion&#8221;.</p>
<p>The problem is that the U.N. Human Rights Council&#8217;s wording is so broad that it condemns not just biases against people of various religious traditions, but any &#8220;defamation&#8221; of the <em>content</em> of those religious traditions. Instead of defending, this betrays human rights.   <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/11/04/iheu-corrects-un-human-rights-council/#more-98" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/11/04/iheu-corrects-un-human-rights-council/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Daylight Atheism</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/11/01/100/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/11/01/100/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Atheist Culture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Meaning &amp; Value]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/11/01/100/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adam has written another elegant post over at daylight atheism:
We must face the facts: our lives, in the grand scheme of things, are short. Like the leaves falling from the tree, we bloom, flourish, and inevitably wither. Vast expanses of time preceded each of us, and equally vast expanses of time will follow us. We [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adam has written another elegant post over at <a href="http://daylightatheism.org" title="daylightatheism.org" target="_blank">daylight atheism</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>We must face the facts: our lives, in the grand scheme of things, are short. Like the leaves falling from the tree, we bloom, flourish, and inevitably wither. Vast expanses of time preceded each of us, and equally vast expanses of time will follow us. We were not there, will not be there, to know what happens; we will never meet the people who inhabit those times, as they will never meet us. Our existence is, as Robert Ingersoll said, like a narrow vale between two cold and barren peaks.</p>
<p>And yet, in that narrow valley in between, there is a wondrous thing: a creature who exists, who lives, and who is conscious of that life and that existence. <em>—http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/fragile-trappings.html</em></p></blockquote>
<p>We don&#8217;t need religious nonsense in order to convince ourselves that life is wonderful, that being human is worthwhile. In fact the religious nonsense gets in the way of appreciating reality in its fullness. It throws up a smokescreen, it imposes a fake &#8220;holiness&#8221;—fake God or gods—between us and the real holiness: physical life itself. Access to this holiness is free: we don&#8217;t need to fill the coffers of any religious sect, hop to unnatural moral commandments, or swallow any impossible nonsense. We are bodies, and that gives us direct access to the great reality itself. <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/11/01/100/#more-97" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/11/01/100/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Naturalism&#8217;s Touchstone Proposition</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/08/06/naturalisms-touchstone-proposition/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/08/06/naturalisms-touchstone-proposition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Naturalism]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Theologians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/08/06/naturalisms-touchstone-proposition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his book, Faith &#38; Reason, Ronald Nash introduced what he calls Christianity&#8217;s &#8220;touchstone proposition.&#8221; A touchstone proposition, Nash explained, is the &#8220;control-belief or ultimate presupposition&#8221; that encapsulates the &#8220;fundamental truth &#8221; of a worldview. [p. 46] Nash followed with a quick introduction to Naturalism as &#8220;the major competition to the Christian world-view&#8221; [p. 47]. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In his book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Reason-Dr-Ronald-Nash/dp/0310294010" title="Faith and Reason">Faith &amp; Reason</a>, <a href="http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22843" title="Ronald Nash">Ronald Nash</a> introduced what he calls Christianity&#8217;s &#8220;touchstone proposition.&#8221; A touchstone proposition, Nash explained, is the &#8220;control-belief or ultimate presupposition&#8221; that encapsulates the &#8220;fundamental truth &#8221; of a worldview. [p. 46] Nash followed with a quick introduction to Naturalism as &#8220;the major competition to the Christian world-view&#8221; [p. 47]. He then explained what he considers Naturalism&#8217;s touchstone proposition to be. I will disagree.</p>
<p>Nash declared that Naturalism&#8217;s touchstone proposition is that</p>
<blockquote><p>Nothing exists outside the material, mechanical (that is, nonpurposeful), natural order.</p></blockquote>
<p>We see right away that in phrasing this, Nash put his Christian thumb on the scale. He made sure to throw in &#8220;mechanical&#8221; and &#8220;nonpurposeful&#8221; because that provides something juicy to attack.  <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/08/06/naturalisms-touchstone-proposition/#more-96" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/08/06/naturalisms-touchstone-proposition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What atheists have in common</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/07/14/what-atheists-have-in-common/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/07/14/what-atheists-have-in-common/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 04:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Naturalism]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Non-Existence Arguments]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Supernaturalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/07/14/what-atheists-have-in-common/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s often said that the only thing atheists have in common is what they disbelieve. It&#8217;s also often said that disbelieving in God is just as much a religious belief as is believing in God, or more exactly, that both belief and disbelief rely on faith. All of these assertions are incorrect.
Atheists don&#8217;t have a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s often said that the only thing atheists have in common is what they disbelieve. It&#8217;s also often said that disbelieving in God is just as much a religious belief as is believing in God, or more exactly, that both belief and disbelief rely on faith. All of these assertions are incorrect.</p>
<p>Atheists don&#8217;t have a religion &#8212; but they do have something in common beyond what they disbelieve. What atheists share is a natural worldview.</p>
<p>Sometimes that worldview is a bit confused, incorporating too much from the still dominant supernatural worldview. But understood clearly, the natural worldview is simply the belief that body precedes mind. The supernatural worldview, of course, takes the opposite tact: that mind precedes body. We see right off from this that naturalism is not merely a refusal to believe in supernaturalism. It&#8217;s based on its own specific hypothesis about the nature of the world.  <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/07/14/what-atheists-have-in-common/#more-95" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/07/14/what-atheists-have-in-common/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prayers &#038; Queries</title>
		<link>http://atheology.com/2007/06/17/prayers-queries/</link>
		<comments>http://atheology.com/2007/06/17/prayers-queries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rastaban</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Atheist Culture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Prayer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheology.com/2007/06/17/prayers-queries/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(On the Subjective Value of Non-Existent Beings)

When I bend my knee meekly
and throw up a thoughtless prayer
to a God greater than me
I feel better immediately.
But it works regardless who I supplicate
with my fevered wishes.
I can pray to the moon
just as effectively;
moreso, actually
since the moon is so beautiful
and moves through the cloudy darkness in such majesty.
Or [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>(On the Subjective Value of Non-Existent Beings)<br />
</strong></p>
<p>When I bend my knee meekly<br />
and throw up a thoughtless prayer<br />
to a God greater than me<br />
I feel better immediately.</p>
<p>But it works regardless who I supplicate<br />
with my fevered wishes.<br />
I can pray to the moon<br />
just as effectively;<br />
moreso, actually<br />
since the moon is so beautiful<br />
and moves through the cloudy darkness in such majesty.</p>
<p>Or Mars, or Marduk, or Minerva<br />
Aten, Aphrodite, Athena<br />
it doesn&#8217;t matter the god I pray to <a href="http://atheology.com/2007/06/17/prayers-queries/#more-94" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://atheology.com/2007/06/17/prayers-queries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
