Confirm your unsubscription from 'Secular Café'

To confirm that you no longer wish to receive updates from 'Secular Café', please click on the following link:

http://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/confirm/b7Ff50/4CyWHj


If you weren't expecting to receive this email, then simply ignore it and we'll go away.

Secular Café: If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God. Jun 9th 2012, 13:06 If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God. http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/ God does not follow the first rule at all. The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin. This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God. Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong? If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents? John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." On earth as it is in heaven. If you had God's power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die? Regards DL

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Are there differences between the atheists who left religion and those who were never religious?

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Are there differences between the atheists who left religion and those who were never religious? Jun 8th 2012, 21:27 Everyone is different of course, with different temperaments, but in the course of my years on discussion boards like this one, I think I recognise a few tendencies, to which there will of course be exceptions. For a start with, I suspect that the so called 'post atheists', who in broad terms seem to think that atheists should just STFU about religion, tend to come predominantly from the 'never weres' Secondly, I further suspect that those most scathing about belief, in the sense that they tend to be very outspoken, to the point and often beyond the point of rudeness, also tend to be skewed towards the never weres. Thirdly, I think that those to whom arguing against religion is most important, but at the same time tend to focus on attacking the beliefs rather than the believer, tend to come from those who used to be religious themselves. Or perhaps I'm seeing tendencies that aren't really there, but just reflect my own position:dunno: Comments? David

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Religious bullies

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Religious bullies Jun 8th 2012, 17:05 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...b_1564043.html Quote: There is nothing wrong with people proclaiming their faith publicly; the problem is when they seek to impose it on everyone else. When Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), He was talking to bullies and hypocrites. Martin Luther King, Jr. used his faith to liberate people, not to bash or demonize them; that is the difference between him and the radical religious right, who have gone from attacking him to co-opting him. People are not sheep. God gave us human brains, and we have the responsibility to honor that gift by thinking for ourselves. In any case, we have intellectual freedom in this country, and our civil government is based on the Constitution, not on the Bible. The bullies' repeated groundless assertions to the contrary do not change this. Jesus articulated the separation of church and state when He said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). He also said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). If the bullies used their scripture as a source of reflection instead of as a weapon against others, they would realize that Jesus would be horrified at what they do in His name. The use of religion to justify prejudice or as a means of controlling others is not acceptable in a diverse and free society. Sloganeering about "religious freedom" to force your dogma on everyone else is an insult to intelligence. Your religious freedom does not entitle you to deny others access to health care or to interfere with their health care decisions. It does not entitle you to disfavor faiths or families or ethnic groups of which you disapprove. We refuse to let preachers of hate off the hook when others act on their inflammatory words and attack or kill LGBT people. Violence, harassment, and sexual assault are not funny, nor are they inevitable rites of passage. They are not acceptable either in school or prison or within a relationship. Your advancement does not require putting your boot on someone else's neck. The dispute between pro-gay and anti-gay forces is not symmetric. LGBT-rights activists do not seek to deny anyone equal protection of the law, as our opponents do. We object to the false symmetry portrayed by many in the media. Bullies who are prevented from bullying do not thereby become victims. The radical religious right's claim of victimhood is not a mere disagreement; it is a lie... ...The tide is turning against those who call themselves "pro-family" while attacking families they don't like. We are committed to being part of that tide and urge others to do likewise. Much is at stake for us, for those we love, and for our country.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Ron Jeremy goes to church

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Ron Jeremy goes to church Jun 8th 2012, 12:10 http://www.10news.com/news/31166024/...ml?hpt=us_bn10 Quote: Miles McPherson, the pastor of The Rock Church, said Jeremy will be a guest at five services on Sunday. Every week, about 12,000 people fill the pews of the church to hear McPherson's message. Now, McPherson hopes his followers will open their hearts and minds for this unlikely church guest, who he believes is perfect. "We started a series called 'Exposed' about five weeks ago talking about what is exposed in our heart when we judge people," he said. The professional football player turned pastor says most of society would turn their backs on people like Jeremy. "He's not a Christian, he's living a sinful life in people's eyes and his lifestyle is contrary to the Bible but still, we're obligated to love him," said McPherson. The words "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" is splashed on a colorful promotional poster for Sunday's unusual guest. McPherson hopes the sermon will encourage people to look at themselves in the mirror. "One out of every two guys watch pornography and one out of every six women… so there's pornography in church every week, we just don't talk about it," he said. Now, that's a church service I just might attend, if I lived in San Diego!

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Being Born Again is actually a Brain Disorder

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Being Born Again is actually a Brain Disorder Jun 7th 2012, 16:51 As I tend to think most religion/theological beliefs are. :evil: Quote: Being 'Born-Again' Linked to More Brain Atrophy: Study WEDNESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults who say they've had a life-changing religious experience are more likely to have a greater decrease in size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain critical to learning and memory, new research finds. According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again. The study is published online in PLoS ONE. As people age, a certain amount of brain atrophy is expected. Shrinkage of the hippocampus is also associated with depression, dementia and Alzheimer's disease. In the study, researchers asked 268 people aged 58 to 84 about their religious affiliation, spiritual practices and life-changing religious experiences. Over the course of two to eight years, changes to the hippocampus were monitored using MRI scans. The researchers suggested that stress over holding religious beliefs that fall outside of the mainstream may help explain the findings. "One interpretation of our finding -- that members of majority religious groups seem to have less atrophy compared with minority religious groups -- is that when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain," Amy Owen, lead author of the study and a research associate at Duke University Medical Center, said in a Duke news release. The study authors also suggested that life-changing religious experiences could challenge a person's established religious beliefs, triggering stress. .... http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Legendary Fail: People are on Welfare Because They Don't Read the Bible

Secular Café Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.

Legendary Fail: People are on Welfare Because They Don't Read the Bible Jun 7th 2012, 03:09 link Quote: People are on welfare for many different reasons. Most people are on welfare because they lost their jobs and need benefits to care for their families until they can find new work. Others are sick or disabled and are therefore unable to work. These are reasonable explanations for why people need welfare. But religious conservatives are inventing a new reason to explain why people are on welfare. According to right-wing preacher and activist David Barton, people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible. David Barton is a conservative minister from Texas. He is the founder of Wallbuilders, an organization that seeks to destroy the separation of church and state to achieve its ultimate goal of turning America into a Christian state ruled by Biblical law. During his radio program called ‘Wallbuilders Live,’ Barton claimed that people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible. “Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a study between those that are on welfare and see how much and how often they read the Bible,” Barton wondered. “You know, if Booker T. Washington is right that Christianity and reading the Bible increases your desires and therefore your ability for hard work; if we take that as an axiom, does that mean that the people who are getting government assistance spend nearly no time in the Bible, therefore have no desire, and therefore no ability for hard work? I could go a lot of places with this. I would love to see this proven out in some kind of sociological study, but it makes perfect sense.” There are two problems with Barton’s claim. First, Bible belt and the more religious/conservative states have been revealed as the real welfare states. On average, for every $1.00 that blue states receive, red states take $1.16. That may not sound like a lot but that adds up to millions more in federal aid going to conservative states. If we take a look at the list of the top states that take federal dollars, 16 of the top twenty states are conservative leaning. 1. New Mexico: $2.03 2. Mississippi: $2.02 3. Alaska: $1.84 4. Louisiana: $1.78 5. West Virginia: $1.76 6. North Dakota: $1.68 7. Alabama: $1.66 8. South Dakota: $1.53 9. Kentucky: $1.51 10. Virginia: $1.51 11. Montana: $1.47 12. Hawaii: $1.44 13. Maine: $1.41 14. Arkansas: $1.41 15. Oklahoma: $1.36 16. South Carolina: $1.35 17. Missouri: $1.32 18. Maryland: $1.30 19. Tennessee: $1.27 20. Idaho: $1.21 As it turns out, the big liberal states that conservatives have come to despise actually take little federal aid. 40. Massachusetts: $0.82 42. New York: $0.79 43. California: $0.78 So the real welfare queens are in fact, conservatives. The second problem with Barton’s claim is that a recent Gallup Poll found that Republicans are more religious than Democrats. So either conservatives don’t read the Bible or they do read it and collect welfare at the same time. The evidence presented suggests that Bible-toting conservatives need welfare more than less religious people living in liberal states. Regardless of who gets more welfare, those who get it most certainly need it. People just don’t go on welfare to get a free ride. In order to receive welfare benefits, a person has to qualify for them. Whether it be food stamps or Medicaid or housing assistance or energy assistance or unemployment benefits, welfare programs clearly help those in need. According to statistics, most welfare recipients are white adults and are on welfare less than two years at a time. That means the majority of Americans see welfare as temporary assistance. Obviously, Barton’s claim is seriously flawed. Of course, I wouldn’t expect him or any other conservative for that matter to believe the facts. :bang: Note: full article quoted but the addictinginfo site is fine with that. Quote: Here are the copyright rules, regarding the reuse of content from this site; You are free: •to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work •to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: •Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). •Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. With the understanding that: •Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. •Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license. •Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: ◦Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations; ◦The author’s moral rights; ◦Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such aspublicity or privacy rights. •Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions