Recently, in Frederick, Maryland, a father took his two daughters to the restroom — one daughter needed to use the toilet and the other needed a diaper check. A video report of what happened next is available here. What was normal for this father, and for many other fathers, frankly, was apparently abnormal for at least a couple of people at the Department of Social Services (DSS). What was abnormal about this, you ask? In this story, the father took the two daughters into the men’s restroom. A DSS security employee entered the men’s restroom shortly afterward to, more or less, accuse the father of some type of mental lapse or indiscretion. According to the father, this employee, a male, pointed to his crotch while commenting about what the young girls might see. Reportedly, another DSS employee witnessed the events and didn’t believe that anything inappropriate occurred in dealing with the situation.

Althought the account of these events is in dispute, a singular question remains: where else was the father supposed to take his daughters when they needed to go to the toilet?

I am a father and when my daughter was the same age as those of Donovan O’Neil, I also took my daughter to the mens’ restroom when she needed to use the toilet. Was I supposed to enter the womens’ restroom and assist my daughter there? What do you think would have occurred if I, an adult male, had entered the womens’ restroom with my daughter? Do you think the adult females would have liked that? Do you think I might have been called out of the womens’ restroom by an employee of the establishment, or worse, a police officer? Yeah, in our society, it sometimes sucks to have a penis.

What is more stunning about the O’Neil situation is that these events occurred in the Department of Social Services. If any department of your government should be able to understand a father needing to assist his daughters with toileting, it should be DSS. Does DSS not encounter families where the father is the only adult? Perhaps the father is divorced and the mother has abandoned the children, perhaps the mother died or she is in prison, or perhaps the father is at the mall with his two daugthers while the mother is at work … do any of these situations sound familiar to you? They should sound familliar to DSS. Also, if this situation is of such concern to the DSS, why don’t they offer facilities in their own building to accomodate famillies of whatever configuration?

This situation points to a larger problem for men. We live in a society in which men are assumed to do incorrect and inappropriate things, especially any activity which might, even remotely, involve our genitalia.

Why did the DSS employees react so coldly? Are they so profoundly unaware of their own roles and the roles of fathers? Have they not learned anything from the public they serve?

I commented to add another moral foundation that should not be overlooked: selfishness. “What?”, you say, “Selfishness is immoral!” I don’t agree. Here’s my comment:

And there’s mere selfishness, a sense of survival. Humans are social creatures, meaning that our survival depends on our ability to work together. My individual survival depends greatly on my ability to acquire things from others that I could not acquire on my own. In return for such things, I help perpetuate an exchange of goods so that my supply is perpetuated. When I interrupt that supply for myself or for others, I threaten survival of others, but also, not unimportantly, myself. This is a fundamental incentive that I carry with me and apply both directly and indirectly. In other words, I’m not going to rob a bank, even if no one in my “food chain” (i.e., chain of necessaries) has money in that bank, because I would not rob a bank that is part of my food chain. That’s establishing a general moral principle based on a single applicable situation.

This is why I can simultaneously declare it immoral for myself to kill out of greed, but moral for myself to kill in order to protect my life (and, fundamentally, the things that sustain my life).

The sheer complicatedness of applied morality in itself precludes the idea of an absolute morality, let alone the idea of an omnipotent creature that enforces such a morality in an intangible post-mortem realm, but either fails or somehow desires not to enforce that “absolute” morality in the realm in which it occurs.

Perhaps I should have anticipated it, but following my comment came the classic theist response:

Hey Procrustes, you can declare it moral, but that doesn’t mean it is. What you’re describing is moral relativism, and that’s just logically inconsistent and incoherent, and hence irrational.

It seems that, perhaps, we’re dealing with a few different variations of the term “morality,” but despite such semantics, the context indicates that we’re really talking about the question of whether we can or should define morality (rules of behavior) as transcending individual human reasoning, or as a product of human reasoning, and thus subjective, therefore relative. Thus my perhaps too lengthy response:

Indeed, I am describing moral relativism. However, just by saying it’s logically inconsistent, incoherent, and irrational does not make it so. Feel free to provide some evidence that it’s logically inconsistent and incoherent.

By the way, if there is no absolute morality, then all morality is relative. I don’t buy into the nonsense that morality is absolute (and those who do cannot seem to come up with any consistent set of those supposedly divinely-given rules or the consequences for violating them), so morality to me (and all the other rational persons of the world) is inherently relativistic.

Here’s an example of how even “absolute” morality is not absolute: God says thou shall not kill, correct? But God also says kill in certain circumstances. So, what’s the absolute? “Just do whatever God commands, as interpreted by your preferred clergyman”? If there are exceptions, it’s not absolute. What about the classic example of not telling a lie? Is it *ever* okay to tell a lie? I could overwhelm you with hypothetical situations where you’d either dodge the question or rationalize your answer, but I lack the patience to humor you.

Instead, I’ll set out a proof, and you can feel free to go about attacking it if you like.

1) There is no evidence that morality is absolute.
2) If there is no absolute morality, human morality would not exist without the presence of humans.
3) Humans exist (therefore human morality exists).
4) Human thought and reason exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective intelligence).
5) Morality is a concept created by human thought and reasoning.
6) Morality in concept exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective moral concept).
7) Therefore morality is relative.

I also contend that applied morality may be treated as if it were collective among certain persons (e.g., in creating a society, rules are adopted, often based on a majority of agreed-upon interpretations of the members’ personal perceptions of what is and is not moral). But the fact that some samples of some societies may appear to agree across the board on certain moral issues does not prove that absolute morality is the cause and the application is the effect. For instance, if an African tribe practices polygamy and has no moral qualms about it, that does not prove that polygamy is absolutely moral. Obviously it is not accepted by much of the rest of the world as being moral, but if the rest of the humans in the world did not exist, polygamy would, to an alien observer, be absolutely moral to the existing humans. The fact that humans in different societies have agreed upon quite differing moral rules and freedoms without those societies succumbing to self-destruction is indicative that morality is relative and applied relatively en masse, but collectively in specified groups.

The argument that there is some external being critical of human behavior, who will judge humans upon death for their behavior, but not allowing those humans insight during their lives into what exact behavior is acceptable or prohibited, is outright nonsense, unsupported by evidence, and laughable at best. The fact that there are those who use this hogwash to manipulate other people is a testament to the fact that, indeed, there is no absolute morality, unless it happens to be human greed and corruption, which seems to be the reigning behavior among those who purport to spread the word of that very same imaginary being.

—

If you’re interested, there’s a decent discussion beginning in the Reddit comments.

Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.

So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.

Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.

On Tuesday, the DC Council voted 12-1 to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. Originally having sided with the majority, Barry switched his vote after allegedly praying and consulting with his constituents and members of the religious community. The bill will now go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a gay marriage recognition advocate, and assuming he signs, it will then go to Congress for a 30-day review.

Upon hearing the news that the bill passed the council, shouts erupted from outside the chambers, mostly caused by the gay marriage opponent clergy who shouted calls to have the majority vote councilmembers, especially Catania, removed from their seats.

When Barry was asked about what would happen when the council takes up gay marriages in DC as a result of Tuesday’s vote, he replied that DC would “have a civil war,” citing the adamant opposition by the black community. Despite the fact that Barry allegedly “agonized” over whether to oppose the bill, he ultimately decided to cater to the “ministers who stand on the moral compass of God.”

What kind of moral compass advocates war against those who just want to exchange vows and have some state-based benefits?

Oh, that’s right. The biblical moral compass.

It’s sad to think that we’re so antisocial or unnurtured that we crave something imaginary to make up for it. It’s like a child’s imaginary friend — always there, always loving. A pity that adults feel the need to do this, as well, but it’s also realistic. The world is a harsh environment, despite our luxuries. Not only are people generally cruel and unforgiving, but the actual environment is also unrelenting — people freeze and starve to death, and it’s 2009! It’s pretty easy to think how someone might wish to think that there is something out there better than this, and that the creator of everything is more than just a fairy tale. It might very well soften the pain that this world gives us.¹

While standing there, in the metro train, trying to hold on to a handlebar straining my reach while simultaneously trying to avoid getting butt-bumped by the people behind me and trying not to shove my groin too far into the faces of the people sitting in front of me, I gave up my feeble attempt to read the morning paper. I looked up and saw the following advertisement: “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God. Come find out more. Maybe-its-God.org”, with an image of a church, emblazoned with a bright white star. At the bottom, “Archdiocese of Washington.”²

I didn’t grimace. I didn’t frown. My eyebrow may have shot up in curiosity, but my first thought was, “I might have easily had missed this. I really need to look around more and pay attention to my surroundings.” I groped for my camera and shot a few seconds of the poster while not caring what anyone else had to think about my behavior (which is unusual for me — I like my religio-curious anonymity). After putting the camera away, I read the poster a few times. How did I feel about it? Did it anger me?

I’ve written a bit about these pro- and anti-god posters on public transportation, and I insist that everyone has an equal right to say what they think — censorship of one is censorship of all. So, unlike many of the religious people protesting the atheist signs, I don’t condone judging on the basis of content whether a statement can or cannot be made. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having my own feelings and opinion about the content of these ads. An earlier ad, near the holidays, suggested quite sternly (using a paraphrasing of a bible verse) that since I am an atheist, I must be a fool. I didn’t much like that one. It’s name-calling, rude. Although ads like that might depict honest perspectives, such callousness is not necessarily beneficial for either side.

Taking that into consideration, this new sign was actually quite well done, and believers and nonbelievers alike can learn a bit from it. First of all, the sign doesn’t point fingers. It doesn’t accuse, and it doesn’t assume anything about the reader. If you’re not longing for something, it’s not speaking to you — perhaps your life is filled with the joy of astrology or pet grooming or even biochemistry; it allows for that and doesn’t pass judgment. If you are longing for something, it’s speaking to you, but it’s passively offering a suggestion — maybe it’s God. Certainly. It may be that you are, indeed, longing for God. Plenty of people do long for some sort of spirituality, divine connection, keen insight into the whys of the world. God, to many, fits that description. Of course, I don’t personally think that God is the answer to any longing I may feel, but who am I to deter others from taking that path or testing it to see if it’s right for them?

An ad like that is simple, compelling, non-judgmental, and, most of all, it’s true. I’m not saying that God exists, but I am saying that the statement “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God.” is not untrue, and the gentleness of its delivery, with the added “Come find out more” is a hook quite difficult with which to find fault. This is what is missing from many other pro- and anti-god ads, and something that should be seriously considered by advertisers.³

One example of a potentially neutral, possibly inviting message is that of the atheist billboard campaign started by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (“PhillyCOR”), stating simply, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

This is a straightforward, not untrue message, offering a bit of social comfort to those who think similarly. Although it’s not as immediately inviting as the Archdiocese ad, it’s not harsh or bitter like other ads from both sides. Anyone should be able to look at the ad, answer the question, and then either ignore the ad or read on for more information. “Don’t believe in God?” Yes, I don’t believe in God. What now? I’m not alone? There are others out here in the world bold enough to call out to me on a billboard? Now I’m interested! In the alternative, if I did believe in God, I could just stop right there, theoretically, and this billboard, just like the Archdiocese poster, doesn’t demand that I continue. Most importantly, neither make accusations about my morality, intelligence, or eternal soul if I do read on.

A more holiday-oriented atheist ad states, “Is belief in God necessary? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” suggesting that morality is pre-religion, either genetic or just a result of reason, or both, and that one can be good without God. This sign got a lot of flack in the media. It’s the “controversial atheist sign.” The perhaps subtle difference between this and the previous sign is that the former was passive, while this sign preaches. Yes, I said preaches. What I mean by that is that it is effectively telling you what to do — “be good” — and why — “for goodness’ sake.” Although I might agree, it’s still an imposition. It’s not unlike an evangelist telling me that if I don’t repent, I’ll go to hell. That’s making a factual assertion. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the idea that God is unnecessary, the idea that I must be good for goodness’ sake (if I’m to be good at all) is not something I can fully back, and not something I think is supported by science.

What in hell is goodness, anyway? Yes, it’s just a play on words, I know that. But, again, it’s someone telling me what to do, and why. That rubs me the wrong way, as, apparently, it did for various religious complainers who tried to have DC metro remove anything with an anti-god message (kudos to DC metro for refusing). Some religious organizations, on the other hand, responded in kind, offering up a twisted retort⁴ — Why believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – GOD.

Although those advertisers should get a hell of a lot of flack from their own side for being so arrogant as to put words in God’s mouth, they do get a modicum of credit for wordplay from the atheist ad. It might have come off as less abrasive had it taken a different perspective other than from God’s own lips — for example, if it had said, “Why believe? Because God created you and loves you, for goodness’ sake.”, then it’s slightly less self-righteous. However, still, it’s making a factual claim — this is the way things are, period. That feels almost threatening to me. It reminds me of the fire and brimstone sermons of the south, where I lived much of my life. It’s not inviting at all, and it presumes that whoever created it is a literal spokesperson for God, or that the person is, indeed, delusional. Contrast that with the first atheist campaign ad I addressed that merely asks a question, and then comforts the reader, suggesting that there are others who don’t believe. No forcefulness or coercion. No threats. No accusations. Also, no promises or questions of fact. That makes it appealing.

Considering what might be a set of positive characteristics for any ad, atheist or religious, a good response to the newest pro-God ad could borrow the original pattern, but make it inviting.

Here’s my humble attempt:

—

Longing for something?

Maybe it’s science.
Come find out more.

—

What do you think?

—

UPDATE: I’ve gotten a lot of “longing for science? doesn’t lift up my skirt” comments. Is the idea that God takes care of some emotional need that science or other worldly pursuits cannot match, or is it just that out of all the categories to choose from, “science” just isn’t appealing in a way that would ever reflect “longing”?

Fine. Here’s my new one:

Longing for something?

Maybe it’s sex.
“Come” find out more.

1. You might be thinking that rich people feel no such pain; they have every luxury, whatever they want, they get. However, that would be overlooking the fact that we’re all very emotional beings, and similarly limited in our physical and mental capabilities. Rich people feel physical and emotional pain, and they eventually die, like the rest of us. There’s no reason to think that a rich person wouldn’t feel the need for a special friend, as much as anyone else.
2. Head to the Archdiocese website for more information, an explanatory video from Archbishop Wuerl, and the suggestion that the ad is focused mostly on former churchgoers. It’s evident that church attendance is constantly in decline, and that obviously worries religious organizations that are fueled by donations and popularity. The Archdiocese site even says, “If you have been away from church for some reason, I invite you to come back again to pray and to attend Mass.” Honestly, one of my first wicked thoughts upon seeing the poster was, “What, are you longing to have your children sexually abused?” But I found that unfair. Although the Catholic church should be brought up on charges (and its tax-exempt status revoked) for its reprehensible mismanagement of the sexual abuse situation, every individual in the church cannot be blamed for the acts of a few, just as we cannot blame an AIG administrative assistant for causing a financial disaster. Unfortunately, the church does create the conditions where sexual deviancy thrives, and it perpetuates falsehoods about sexuality in ways that endanger entire nations. So, why am I not riled up at the advertisement? Because I endorse individual choice and responsibility as well as free speech. Which is why I think maybe an ad that departs significantly from my suggestions in this article might be appropriate in response: “Longing for something? Please don’t let your path end at the Catholic church. It stands for tyranny and injustice everywhere, and it harbors dissatisfaction, distrust, and doubt even within its own ranks regarding its adherence to medieval doctrine and sexuality. Go there and learn all you can about it, though, and make your own decisions. When you want to learn the facts about life and not some old man’s perverted vision of the truth, come back here, and we’ll talk.” Perhaps that’s too harsh.
3. See http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/156393.asp for a quick take on the Washington State controversy over the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s anti-religious sign; also see the Atheist Bus campaign at http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ for Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus ads. Is this another imposition, or is this message somehow carefree and friendly?
4. that’s extra-twisty for you linguists

What the FUCK?

First, why is this man speaking, let alone speaking on behalf of one of the most populous organizations in the world? Second, why is anyone listening to him? Why are we giving him the attention and quite often the deference he so craves?

This is a follow-up to my post on If the Pope Changes His Mind…

Here are some updates regarding how the Pope is an idiot, and how, despite that fact, he’s still “in charge,” and the media keeps giving him attention and, indirectly, credence:

UPDATE: More evidence and support of my notion that people rely way too heavily (which is any at all) on what the Vatican has to say has been cited by PZ Myers on Pharyngula:
Eluana Englaro has been in a vegetative state for 17 years, and her family has finally won the battle to take her off life support. Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi consulted with the Vatican to impose an emergency decree blocking the suspension of life support, based on the excuse that she is “in the condition to have babies.”

This is a great example of why religion should not be respected by law, and how people still view the Vatican and Pope as some supreme authority on morality and other issues.

UPDATE 2: Pope declares that condom use increases AIDS problem.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

That’s a classic Pope line. Even John Paul II thought similarly about sex. But what really pisses me off is that the richest church in the world, to which its members tithe 10% of their income, has this to say about the economic difficulties facing those members:

The pope also said Tuesday that he intends to make an appeal for “international solidarity” for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give “spiritual and moral” suggestions.

Describing the current crisis as the consequence of “a deficit of ethics in economic structures,” the pope said: “It is here that the church can make a contribution.”

Fucking bullshit.

Common Sense Catholics need to get off their duffs and boycott this angry little man, and, in turn, perhaps the media will start ignoring him.

UPDATE 3: Vatican edits the Pope.

But yesterday the Vatican website published an edited text changing his words to say that the use of condoms “risks” aggravating the problem.

Reporters who taped the Italian-language interview said the Pope, who speaks fluent Italian, did not say the word “risks” on Tuesday and he was unequivocal in saying that condoms aggravate the epidemic.

Hell, in my previous article, I asked What if the Pope changes his mind? Today, I have to ask, What if the Vatican changes it for him?

Oh, how I would love to see the Catholic church dissolve in my lifetime.

And from Christine, “This is one of the easiest-to-navigate, most-inviting Carnivals I’ve seen. Very nicely done!”

I hope to be able to create such a satisfactory COTG again. (Fortunately, this time I didn’t get repeated submissions about how “The Secret” is real, but I did get some pro-God submissions, yay.)

Not only is today a day that we are, once again, robbed of a precious hour, but it is also International Women’s Day. Please, in some way, celebrate the fact that none of us would be here were it not for women, and mourn the fact that women are still treated like second-class citizens (or much worse) all over the world today.

And now, without further French, Carnival of the Godless #112!

Oz Atheist suggests that you should Never put your cashews to the side. I know that whenever I buy cashews, I can’t stop eating them! However, Oz Atheist tells the sad story of someone who did put her cashews to the side, and how that’s an analogy for how religious people live their lives.

One evening she was having Chinese chicken and cashews for dinner at a relatives. As she found a cashew she would put it aside on her plate so she could enjoy all the cashews at the end of her meal.

Oz Atheist follows up his Cashew article with The Helicopter, or “somewhere someone is having a worse day than you.”

Recently whilst on a short jog (and thinking how my life had turned to shit) the rescue chopper flew overhead. I looked up and thought, “if you need the rescue chopper then you must be in serious trouble.”

Guest poster Mathurine at Tree Dreamer answers a collection of Questions for Ex-Muslims:

I don’t have an agenda against Islam, I’m not doing this because I suffered some trauma at the hands of Islam. Rather, I would like people to know some of the other aspects of the religion – the questions and answers you’re not going to get from your local mosque or Muslim Students Association.

A few articles dealt with the questions for atheists that Lee Strobel submitted to Friendly Atheist:
Hank at Dangerous Intersection follows up on those questions with some questions of his own for theologists and apologists in I ask; will the apologists answer?

How do you discount other religions, many with an equal or greater number of followers, which make similar claims to divine inspiration? How do their various claims of divine inspiration, miraculous occurrences and absolute moral authority fail to meet your standards of evidence?

and Friar Zero at Apple of Doubt joins the gang of atheist responders with his own answers to Strobel’s questions in An Atheist Snipe Hunt.

[Strobel's] questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless.

finally, Conversational Atheist challenges Strobel in Response to: Who Would Die for a Lie?

Then Ask: Is a supernatural explanation allowed in order to explain the claims of Jesus’ disciples that they witnessed him resurrected and the 500 people that Paul talked to?

If no: then the person you are talking to isn’t a Christian. Simply explain that one cannot embrace the supernatural in his/her version and forbid others from using it in their explanations.

If yes: Propose the following situation:

The disciples were possessed by spirits who claimed that Jesus was resurrected.

Anthroslug thinks about morality in Thinking About Morality.
(Morality is a theme I’ve been assaulted with a lot in the past few weeks)

That religion is not the bulwark of morality against a rising tide of social ills is further illustrated by the fact that the non-religious make up a smaller portion of the prison population than of the general population. Independent of the question of whether or not religion causes social ills (a very complex question outside the scope of what I am writing here), it should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that if religious belief was in fact the source of morality, then belief in gods would correlate with higher rates of moral behavior, but this proposition is demonstrably false.

Cereal at Separate Spectrum (Your daily dose of bible thumping fun-time) addresses Systems of Right and Wrong.

I think it’s time for a new outlook on how we treat the guilty of our “people’s democratic justice system.”

From the Best Blog Names file, Wenchypoo at Wisdom From Wenchypoo’s Mental Wastebasket compares the relationship between followers and the church to the relationship between citizens and the government, with regard to belief and expectations, in A Faith-Based Nation.

For decades, certain segments of our society have put blind faith in government in the same way that some put blind faith in a god. Like the so-called “miracles” of loaves and fishes, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, and so forth, our own government is expected to do similar things…

Ila, trying to find a place in the world, asks What is atheism? Rather than settling with a mere (stereotypical) definition, Ila, instead, encourages atheists to reach beyond disbelief, but in a positive way.

I cross referenced these two terms in the dictionary and came with “The doctrine or belief that there is no God. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” and “Someone who denies the existence of god.” But i would like to see atheism in a different perspective.

Mark Koester at The Mystic Atheist (Understanding what it means to be “the still point of the turning world”) compares the Word of God (a story already told) to The Word of Science: A Story Still to Tell

Atheists often find blatant error in religious people’s claim at truth and meaning in such sources. But such a judgment ignores that people generally don’t look at these stories and communities through the lenses of scientific reasoning but through the lenses of a broader, more primordial human phenomenon: narrative truth and storytelling.

Cubik’s Rube disassembles Pascal’s Wager, explaining why the gambit isn’t convincing to non-believers.

His most famous argument for believing in God, based on his analysis of the odds and outcomes of belief versus disbelief, is repeated more often than any twelve episodes of Friends on late-night satellite TV channels, and judging by the way it’s often used, has shown as little progress or development in the three centuries or so since it was first proposed, as Ross did over ten seasons.

Greta Christina addresses the origin of the “Shut up, that’s why” arguments against atheists and atheism in Curiosity and the “Shut Up, That’s Why” Argument. Greta’s summary:

Why are conversations between atheists and believers often so frustrating for both sides? And is there anything we can do to make those conversations go better? The thesis of this piece: In atheist/ theist debates, atheists assume that believers are insatiably curious and looking for a consistent and plausible worldview… and believers assume that atheists are looking for an appealing worldview and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We need to recognize these differing, cross-purpose goals if we want these conversations to be productive.

Sound byte:

I think that, when we argue with theists, atheists tend to assume that of course theists want to know the truth. Of course they want to follow the God question to its logical conclusion. Don’t they?

and then Greta Christina, in Atheism and the Argument from Comfort, counters the argument that religion offers comfort while asserting that atheists should stop arguing against it. Greta points out flaws in the argument and offers strategic suggestions on how to deal with the believers who make it.

It’s an argument that tends to drive atheists batty… since it’s not, in fact, an argument. It’s an emotional defense for hanging onto an argument that’s already been lost.

Romeo Vitelli at Providentia tells the tale of an almost forgotten tragedy from history, in Fallen Women.

Long before Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code, the legend of Mary Magdalene was a strong part of early Church doctrine. Despite the lack of any scriptural basis, the tradition of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute who found salvation through repentance made her the natural patron saint for convents in which “problem” women could be redeemed.

Luke Muehlhauser at Common Sense Atheism analyzes The Explosion of Early Christianity, (Explained), asserting that it’s simple math, not a miracle, and it’s much less impressive than the growth of Mormonism or atheism in the 20th century.

Exponential growth explains the explosion of Christianity perfectly. In fact, it also explains why Christianity seemed insignificant until about 300, when it suddenly became a huge force in the Roman Empire.

SocraticGadfly shares some poetic reflections on religious outcasts, starting with the literal ones in India, in Outcasts in the name of gOd.

In the American South, in the land of cotton,
Old bible passages were not forgotten
But were twisted, to look away from the evil
Of black slavery in Dixie land.

Eric Michael Johnson at The Primate Diaries (Notes on science, politics and culture from a primate in the human zoo) discusses a new study about the origins of moral disgust in The Bad Taste of Moral Turpitude.

The greed and avarice responsible for the current economic meltdown has resulted in a growing distaste for business as usual. As it turns out, evolution may explain just why this is.

Angus Stocking at Belief Systems and Other BS asks a profoundly simple but ignored question about the nature of the Christian god in relation to that deity’s alleged son, in Oh Jesus.

In fact, Jesus appears to be stating in the plainest language possible the core message of all mysticism: that even though humans live in separation, union is possible – that we poor, pitiful, separate and alienated humans can, by grace, directly experience unity with the divine.

As Crowley said of Jesus, “I don’t blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death.”

Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast tells us the story of the skinny gay kid.

Kids, if your parents are a hypocritical, child beating, cable stealing, environmentally moronic creationist fuckwad Methodist Deacon and his cowering sycophant of a wife, do not bring your crazed, hard drinking, drug taking, sexually liberal debate veteran friend home to stay for Easter Weekend.

(Nominating that for the quote of the year)

Matt Pritchard at Christian 2.0 (not an atheist blog, but the article does relate to atheism, and I felt it was fair to post it here) posts a compilation of conversations between himself and atheists from the atheist blog site Uniform Velocity, and asks (apparently Christians) whether their aim is to mend or to destroy when conversing with atheists, in Atheism: Mend or Destroy? Of course, the author could have been asking atheists. Perhaps both.

To the Christian reader: I want to show that it is possible to have a real conversation with someone who holds different beliefs, about their beliefs (or non-belief), without being hostile.

Danny Boy at Verbal Razors writes about The god of the gaps.

We have much to be thankful to our current state of knowledge. But just as we are marching forth into the future, people still stuck in the past are planting their feet in the ground and demarcating areas where our inquisitive spirits must not go.

Ron Britton at Bay of Fundie (Keeping the Radical Right at Bay) hammers Creationist Kevin Wirth’s article promoting the teaching of intelligent design in schools, in This Dork Couldn’t ID Farce if it Were Designed by God.

The ridicule and the insults are for our amusement! Watching you creationists is like going to the old circus freakshow and laughing and pointing at the freaks, but without the guilt!

PhillyChief at You Made Me Say It… explores the need to indulge the inner child and imagination, and what happens when you don’t, in Inside-Out Jammies.

The past two days were fun escapes from reality, indulgences in the unrestrained fun, excitement and imagination of childhood. I don’t see any serious harm in such escapes, and certainly I don’t see why one’s imagination must be shelved along with other toys and trinkets of childhood.

Chris Hallquist at The Uncredible Hallq examines The Plantinga-Dennett debate.

On the “low” half of the argument, Plantinga has some ideas about how maybe false beliefs could work out to be adaptive, somehow, but none of it amounts to a real argument that the odds actually are against us.

Samson Blinded (a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict) suggests that Christian friends might not be ours.

A Christian state of America rather than Muslim Egypt forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arab wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons.

Z at It’s the Thought that Counts shares a thought experiment to illustrate how it’s possible to have moral principles regardless of your belief in God, or in the absence of a god’s commandments, in Choosing between God and Satan.

So let’s imagine that two beings manifest themselves to you, both claiming to be God, and both demonstrating extreme power, far beyond your comprehension. How do you tell them apart?

Last, but not least, Andrew at Evaluating Christianity explains Why The “Minimal Facts” Model is Unpersuasive.

The underlying problem is one of selection bias: if an intelligent and informed person thinks the Bible is probably true and therefore significant, he or she is more likely to pursue a career in biblical study and then publish his or her findings (confirming that the Bible is true). If, however, an identically-qualified person thinks the Bible is probably false and therefore not significant, he or she is dramatically less likely to trundle off to seminary regardless, and is exponentially less likely to publish his or her findings confirming that the Bible is false.

—

Thank you for your submissions and your support!

Please keep submitting on the rolling Carnival of the Godless submission site. The next COTG host will be at Daylight Atheism.

For instance,

He said even though a diverse group of faith leaders and lawmakers read different religious texts and follow different traditions, one law unites them all — “the Golden Rule” — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”¹

Implying simultaneously that faith is acceptable as a source of guidance, but is not the foundation of morality, which brings into question the purpose of focusing on faith as a benefit rather than merely focusing on benefit. (In other words, why not laud, in general, those people who help others, rather than trying to establish that there’s something inherently good about faith itself?)

More disturbing, and fringing on an attack against non-believers, a guest speaker at the Prayer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated that “The extreme believers and aggressive nonbelievers come together in an unholy alliance.” Funny, I don’t recall, by the nature of my aggressive nonbelief joining up with suicide bombers and bible-thumping clinic bombers. Non-belief is non-belief. It’s the lack of something, whereas belief is the addition of something, and extreme belief is the extreme addition of something. How can one have an extreme absence of something? It’s like trying to multiply by zero.

But, am I even remotely satisfied that Obama has taken Bush’s outlandish and non-working faith-based extremism and molded it, through compromise, into something that somehow includes non-believers with an overall goal of improving the lives of others? No. I can’t say that I am satisfied at all. I think every moment that Obama takes to focus on faith itself as a benefit is a moment that he tramples upon his own assertion that there exists and should be maintained a separation of church and state. Obama even recognizes that not all faith-based actions are beneficial, and excludes the extremists and the self-righteous, but he still can’t bring himself to the logical conclusion that if instead of focusing on “faith” as a factor, we focused on actual benefit as a factor, we could accomplish the same goals without risking establishment and without isolating those who would bring benefit to others without unsupported belief in the supernatural. Is this just another political maneuver to keep the religious groups from rioting, or is this Obama continuing to show his religious favoritism?

Regardless, President Obama isolates religion from scriptural fact when he says that “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate…. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” He might actually be correct with regard to religion, but he’s certainly way off the mark with regard to God, depending on which god is the subject, and depending on one’s definition of “innocent.” Did Obama skip his bible lesson where the God of the Old Testament laid waste to millions of people, or does Obama consider them all to have been guilty in the eyes of the Lord, and thus not innocent? Either answer indicates that Obama is either fabricating a reality that doesn’t match what the good books say, or he truly believes that God’s word is the higher law. If the former, should we worry about his ability to read and comprehend? If the latter, is he not advocating the combination of church and state while alleging that he supports separation? Remember, he thinks having faith in such a deity is a good thing.

By the way, there will be an Unholy Alliance meeting at the Elk’s Lodge on Main Street this Sunday. Coffee, donuts, and pitchforks will be served.

Carnival of the Godless entry at The Greenbelt

1. Washington Times

So, why do people give him so much credit where it’s clearly not due?¹ The other day, Pope Benedict XVI accepted British Bishop Richard Williamson back into the church without any hesitation or penalty, despite the fact that the bishop openly denied the Holocaust. Then, after a furor of complaints, the Vatican yesterday demanded that the bishop recant.

Bishop Williamson infamously stated that “[t]he historical evidence… is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers.”

Papers are saying that the reaction is a sign of how much the Vatican had misread the public mood.

The public mood? Since when was the voice of God swayed not by God’s will, but by public mood?

What we have here is a failure to treat people like unelected politicians when that is all they are. The Pope, the Reverend Whatever, the Grand Poobah, Thomas Monson, Benny Hinn, whoever, should be treated with the same deference and respect given to people of the same caliber, like Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and other highly influential people who claimed to have some greater insight into the supernatural than everyone else, but who are, to the rational observer, merely mortal men prone to greed, hatred, racism, sexism, and self-righteousness.

UPDATE: More evidence and support of my notion that people rely way too heavily (which is any at all) on what the Vatican has to say has been cited by PZ Myers on Pharyngula:
Eluana Englaro has been in a vegetative state for 17 years, and her family has finally won the battle to take her off life support. Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi consulted with the Vatican to impose an emergency decree blocking the suspension of life support, based on the excuse that she is “in the condition to have babies.”

This is a great example of why religion should not be respected by law, and how people still view the Vatican and Pope as some supreme authority on morality and other issues.

Get the podcast: If the Pope Changes His Mind…, narrated by Hyperkubus!

UPDATE 2: Pope declares that condom use increases AIDS problem.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

That’s a classic Pope line. Even John Paul II thought similarly about sex. But what really pisses me off is that the richest church in the world, to which its members tithe 10% of their income, has this to say about the economic difficulties facing those members:

The pope also said Tuesday that he intends to make an appeal for “international solidarity” for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn.

He said that while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give “spiritual and moral” suggestions.

Describing the current crisis as the consequence of “a deficit of ethics in economic structures,” the pope said: “It is here that the church can make a contribution.”

Fucking bullshit.

1. Take a look at claims of ultramontanism and papal infallibility, as well as reactions to the Pope’s declarations about morality, this brief note about how Pope John Paul II was a divider, not a uniter, and what Christopher Hitchens had to say about Jon Paul II.

In Britain, opponents are arguing that the comic book industry would be destroyed by such laws, because even mainstream comics like Batman, Judge Dredd, and much of Japanese Manga would fall under the ambiguous and overly harsh blanket censorship. The British government apparently defines an “extreme image” as any “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise … obscene” moving or still depiction of someone any “reasonable person” would think real being sexually injured or engaging in sexual activity with an animal or corpse. (Because, you know, fictional corpses have rights, too!)

If you live in Britain, you might want to protest against this outrageous invasion of privacy, this blatant oppression and censorship based on religious extremism and fear.