Posts Tagged ‘spirit’

« Older Entries

Carnival of the Godless #117

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

COTG

It’s my pleasure once again to present an edition of Carnival of the Godless, #117. This edition is packed full of outstanding articles, reviews, and advice.

I’m adding italicized comments below the articles with some personal quips. Take them with a grain of salt.

Enjoy!

Mike at Brain Stimulant asks about a Religious Pill:

Does a selective drug exist that could increase a person’s spirituality and religiosity? Are there pills available that would allow a person to suffuse their perceptual consciousness with a feeling of the presence of an otherworldy supreme being? Will the very same drug increase feelings of serenity, peace and magic?

Note the comments after the article where Mike clarifies his reasoning. There’s a lot of pharm-science and some subtle hypothesizing, but it’s certainly worth reading even for the non-scientist who might be interested in how the brain may delude and how it may be manipulated (tailored?) with pharmaceuticals.

Lukeprog at Common Sense Atheism examines and analyzes a debate regarding escapism in Escaping Hell (Part 1):

If God wants to reconcile with us, why would he shut the door on us forever at death? Two philosophers argue that a loving God would always give us the option to escape hell.

Most Christians think of hell as a punishment for evil actions or non-belief, but philosophical attacks on this view are so powerful that most Christian philosophers today instead defend the view that hell does not exist (universalism or annihilationism) or else they defend an “issuant” view of hell, which says that God provides hell out of love. (He provides a place for those who choose not to be with him, so that they are not forced to be in the presence of someone they don’t like.)

If you were ever brought up in the southern American traditions of worrying about your almost guaranteed descent into hell, or if you weren’t so raised but have wondered how Christians live with the belief that God is both loving and will send people to hell, then this article would certainly interest you. If you don’t fall under any of those categories, read it anyway to find out what you’re missing.

(((Billy))) The Atheist shares a high school horror story quite likely shared by the majority of American graduates. Graduation and Prayer: Some Schools Are Stuck In The Last Century at (((Billy))) The Atheist.

He told us that we were sinners. That we would only find success through the intercession of the one loving god. That we could only be accepted by god if we make a personal relationship with Jesus the center of our life. That we would burn in hell for eternity if we failed to take advantage of this life choice.

I like Billy’s articles because they’re narratives about situations I’ve shared, but wish I had not. He infuses the articles with critical analysis of religion, and his personal experiences give him more than enough credibility. Don’t miss his two submissions.

(((Billy))) The Atheist recounts his experience in the PTA and the negative social ramifications resulting from being openly non-Christian, and describes how Christians claim to be a persecuted minority while simultaneously persecuting non-Christians based on “majority rules.” Christianists: Please, Make Up Your Mind!.

For American Christians, the idea that majority always rules is a comfortable part of their life. Even if something is blatantly unconstitutional, if the majority likes it, it must be okay. Quick history lesson, folks: the Constitution of the United States of America exists, in part, to protect the minority from the majority.

Paul Gowder challenges the idea that the non-religious are ignorant. On the claim “you are ignorant of Christianity” and the metaphysics of religion. at Uncommon Priors.

On the equivocation that critics of the new atheism make between the content-free religion that they claim we’re ignorant of and the hellfire and bearded guy in the sky religion that we criticize and that people actually believe.

Paul Gowder touches on something I’m sure most of us have experienced, and something I resent. How dare anyone accuse me, without any evidence, of being ill-informed about the religion that has pervaded my life and invaded this nation like a creeping moss over the past fifty or so years.1

The Whited Sepulchre lists a select set of Bart Ehrman quotes “for the next time someone claims that eyewitness accounts “prove” that a miracle happened.” “Jesus, Interrupted” – Bart Ehrman on miracles at The Whited Sepulchre.

Okay, so TWS’s personal contribution to this article is “Hmmmm….” But don’t let that stop you from taking a look at the excerpts from Bart Ehrman’s pinnacle of achievement, “Jesus Interrupted.”

larryniven offers up his own lambasting of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against (belief in) naturalism, supplementing the reaction of The Daily Show’s John Oliver. Plantinga vs. …The Daily Show?? at Rust Belt Philosophy.

It says something very interesting about the state of religious philosophy when the single most revered theologian can be flat-out wrecked by a late-night cable comedy show.

A straightforward criticism of what is evidently a severe abuse of neurological energy.

Greta Christina presents Not Religious, But Spiritual at Greta Christina’s Blog.

Why should disorganized religion be seen as more valid than organized religion? A critique of the “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” trope.

Any time I see a new Greta Christina article pop up in my RSS reader, I know it’s going to be good. I’m never disappointed. Her submission reminds me of an article I wrote back in December, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand. Both touch on the question of whether spirituality, loosely defined as some desire or perceived connection with the unexplained and attributing it as a necessity to something supernatural, is something worth keeping after rejection of organized religion. Mine focuses generally on religion and religious belief, and Greta Christina’s focuses on spirituality. After you’re done reading her article, take a listen to her interview at Secular Nation, and then visit the Blowfish Blog for some of her excellent articles on sexuality (like her recent “My Partner Cheated On Me With Their Right Hand“).

The first part of Reed Braden’s refutation of the teen book “Extreme Answers to Life’s Tough Questions” deals with abortion. Extreme Questions for Extreme Answers 1: Abortion, at Homosecular Gaytheist.

The first question the book asks is, “When does life begin?” Rather than examining the scientific and medical arguments for the beginning of life or trying to create a working definition of the word, it jumps straight into the Bible:

Psalm 55:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV)

It then interprets this as saying, “The Bible makes it clear that life begins at conception, not merely at birth.” It makes it clear? In that verse? Really? Clear, as in lucid, cogent, well-explained? And what is this, “merely at birth,” nonsense? Whatever happened to “the miracle of birth?”

Learn some of the hogwash being fed to Christian teens from this review that makes even the most progressive of us want to burn a few particular books.

Transplanted Lawyer proffers a more realistic Resolution For Religious Freedom at Not A Potted Plant.

In response to the proposal pending in Congress to adopt a seventy-five article resolution containing a laundry list of violations of the principle of separation of church and state, this is what I would have Congress adopt instead.
…Whereas, William Penn, the founder of the colony that later became the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, decreed as Governor of that colony that “perfect religious tolerance of all” be extended even to atheists…

I’m a fan of the Transplanted Lawyer, and although this article is meant to show how asinine it is to proffer government resolutions to acknowledge Christianity, the points are valid and true enough that perhaps there should be a resolution to have taught “the real foundation of the United States” in schools, based on TL’s list.

I was pleased to see another post from Tree Dreamer guest poster Mathurine in one of my COTGs, and sadly it seems this may be her last post at Tree Dreamer. When You Leave Islam contains “advice for people who have quit or want to quit Islam and living your life to the fullest.”

You’re going to feel like you were lied to, betrayed, bamboozled. This is natural, and you have to confront it and deal with it. I guess there are a few people who can walk away cleanly, and my hat is off to them. But for the most part, you’re going to have some very negative emotions to deal with.
…You were lied to. You were betrayed. You were fooled. You have the right to be angry.

Even though Mathurine suggests that she’s writing to ex-Muslims, her words ring true for every former believer. Additionally, even those who have never experienced some of the harsher religious practices can gain some insight into the emotional turmoil felt by people who are trying to shed the anger, regret, and feelings of betrayal felt by so many worldwide.

Magdalune rants familiar about the Nature of God in The Nature of God Part I: Plagues, Infanticide, and War … oh my! at Sowing Seeds in Winter.

God is the God of sickness. He has caused plagues, hardened hearts, inspired insanity. He is a God of death as well as life, yet I hear none praising him for that, in part because Christians do not tend to pray for more pain.

Magdalune shares the frustration we have dealing with Christians who characterize God inconsistently in order to perpetuate their unfounded delusion.

Mikkal Travvis asks, American Christians Approve Of Torture? at The Last Days.

One of the most shocking things in these memos is that they recognized that the techniques that they were authorizing were ones that we condemned other countries for using.

However, the reality of American torture goes far beyond what was described in those four memos.

Travvis examines a Pew poll indicating that the majority of Americans felt that torture was sometimes or often justified against suspected terrorists. In an emotional rapid fire fact attack, Travvis expounds on the released torture memos and an investigative report into the actions of the military police, ultimately asking from where comes the support for such heinous acts.

Bryan Perkins’ title says it all: American political opportunities are loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest. at Science. Why not?.

I was looking over my blog archives when I came across a lecture by Richard Dawkins in which he urges all atheists to openly state their position — and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. About 17:50 into the video, Dawkins comes to a depressing conclusion.

Bryan (with a ‘y’) cites the poll numbers to show what we all know in our hearts to be true: gotta lie to be a politician. Well, a smart one, anyway.

RagingRev offers Job: An Assault on Logic and the Character of God at RagingRev.

What Job does defies all logical thinking, he worships God, he barely questions God and he submits to God…while everything in me would be giving YHVH the finger Job is on his face before him. Job neglects his own need for real answers and justice…My guess is that he does this out of a mixture of fear and devotion.

RagingRev explains further his assertion that the book of Job makes God look like a “huge asshole,” using examples from the biblical text while clarifying some common misconceptions about the characters involved in Job’s trials and tribulations, finally asking the obvious question: Does this make any sense?

Yvette argues that “Objective Morality Proves God”? at Blue Linchpin.

You’ve probably heard the argument that revolves around “objective morality exists, therefor God exists”. I’ve read various attempts at refuting this argument, which theists tend to ignore completely it seems or scream “GOD IS A MYSTERY HOW DARE YOU TRY TO COMPREHEND HIM OH PRAISE JEEZUS!”.

This one is easy, since I commented on it! I’ll just be lazy and use my comment:
Good indirect point about how the Christian argument that the bible is still inerrant because when it was written, the culture was different (and therefore, dashing babies against the rocks was okay then, but not now) is self-defeating because it shows that either God changes his mind (and is therefore not objective), or that if God does really have an objective morality, no one has ever consistently followed it or even knows what the hell it is. What’s the point in having an objective morality if even within the same religious sect, the specific rules of that morality are ambiguous, at best?

Jen attempts to offer up An uncontroversial atheist ad? at Blag Hag.

We all know the only reason Christians don’t go around killing, raping, and stealing is because of the reward of heaven and the threat of hell. Ask any Christian what they would do if they were suddenly certain that their was no God, and I’m sure they’ll confidently state that they’ll go on a murderous rampage and take part in drunken orgies (two of the favorite past times of atheists).

There aren’t many articles that make me laugh out loud, but Jen’s falls clearly into that category.

Another one from Jen at Blag Hag, Boobs and Atheism.

Are we not allowed to joke about anything sexual at all because of the fear of not being politically correct? My friends and I make jokes that uber-feminists would consider sexist, but you know what, it’s about context. We’re not making them because we think it’s true that women are dumb or emotional or whatever – we make them because we think it’s ridiculous that people actually do think that way. We’re mocking people’s intolerance.

I must say that prior to this COTG, I had not visited Blag Hag, but after reading this article, I subscribed to the RSS feed. Jen is a down-to-earth realist with a great sense of humor, and I need an intellectually-stimulating laugh at least once a day, or life isn’t worth living.

Ron Britton presents Comedy Gold at Bay of Fundie.
collecting-pants

Cartoon captions, ftw!

Finally, Andrew Bernardin offers up a serious piece (of flesh?), The Devilish Penis and Curbing Desire at the evolving mind.

“Thou must be circumcised” is quite a creative commandment. It says, To follow me and have a relationship with me (formalized via our covenant) you must take a knife to your reproductive organ and trim a bit off.

The final question is a great one.

—

If you made it this far, I hope you enjoyed COTG #117. It was really fun and informative to write it, and I thank all who submitted, and all who partook. If you’ve been enjoying COTG, why not host it?

Right to Think is hosting the next Carnival of the Godless. Go Submit something!

—

Note2

  1. On a forum I frequent, I recently noticed that a Christian forum member was finger-pointing at an atheist member, accusing him of violating one of the commandments. I then challenged the Christian to name the commandments, where they’re cited, and to name the prescribed punishments for them. That was weeks ago, and despite being an active participant in his and other forums, he has, to this day, only listed one commandment, with citation, and with an ambiguous apologetic explanation (excuse) of why the biblical punishment (stoning to death for adultery) was no longer valid. The inconsistency among Christians is indicative of the lack of an authoritative, reliable, consistent, absolute, objective doctrine of morality. The other religions have the same problem. If anything, go read Paul’s article to make up for my using this occasion to vent. ;) [<]
  2. There was a contest on my blog where the winner would have a pic put in this COTG, but I received no entries, so, I guess I win. Yay. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in COTG | 18 Comments »

Longing for Something? Maybe it’s Sex.

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

This morning, one of the trains on my metro line went out of service, which isn’t unusual, forcing the excess of passengers in the next train to huddle in quiet desperation, trying their best not to touch one another or, heaven forbid, utter more than a monosyllabic grunt toward strangers they share such claustrophobic space with on a daily basis. That is the nature of the DC metro. I remember someone asked me a question while I was riding home one evening, and it took me a few moments to realize that I was being spoken to, and that someone actually wanted a response. It was like being acknowledged as alive in a sea of zombies. Perhaps that’s the same feeling religious people get when they delude themselves into thinking they’re being singled-out by a divine being. Jesus is my friend. God loves me. When there’s nothing else in the world giving me the attention I crave, I seek God’s attention. That’s a major selling point of religion — a cure for eternal loneliness.

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.”
Don't believe in God?
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?
Science
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?
The Kiss
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 [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Religion, Video | 2 Comments »

Condoms Exacerbate AIDS says Most Popular Asshole on Planet (aka The Pope)

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

I’m going to curse a bit, so, if you mind, you might want to skip this one.

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Religion | 13 Comments »

Carnival of the Godless #112 – Daylight Saving Time Edition

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

cotgbadgeState of Protest is honored to host the Carnival of the Godless #112. We first hosted COTG in May of 2008, Carnival of the Godless #91. That was rather successful, as I received comments like this, from Sean the Blogonaut:
“I really like the way that you have formatted the post with short excerpts from each of the articles.”

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in COTG | 8 Comments »

Being an Atheist is Like Accepting the Fact that You Aren’t Going to Win the Lottery

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

When I buy a lottery ticket, I start dreaming big. What would I do with the money? I draft intricate plans, usually focusing on making sure my family is well cared for, and that my friends are helped on their way to accomplishing their dreams. Then I think about the great things I’d do for society. I’d advance scientific pursuits; I’d create grants and other charities for people who prize living life rationality over mythologically. I’d be charitable, wise, and happy, and I’d do my best to help others accomplish the same.

And when I lose (I always lose), I am utterly disappointed, and my plans dissolve with the ripped-up ticket. But what happens next is what analogously distinguishes me from religious believers — reality hits me. I realize that to accomplish anything but a life in some gutter, I will have to keep working. I have to wake every morning, go to my job, make money, and feed it to the system in which I belong. Essentially, I have to live my life as if I will never win the lottery.

Any achievements I ever make will be based solely on my merit, not on some chance, not on some luck. If luck should hit, I’ll happily observe the hard life in hindsight, but I cannot live as if that will happen, else I will not be living, I’ll be daydreaming. I like daydreaming, but I cannot live in it as a reality. And I accept this, because I know that no amount of hope, fortune telling, praying, or persistence will make me win the lottery. So, I live my life in the here and now, and I do the best I can with that knowledge.

When Christians hope for heaven, it’s as if they buy a lottery ticket and immediately quit their jobs and responsibilities before the numbers are pulled. In other words, it’s a psychological anticipatory abandonment of this mortal coil with an expectation of a spiritual life afterward. Believers follow what they believe is a strict doctrine that guarantees their ascension, or at least significantly increases their chance at eternal bliss, and in doing so, they reject anything that could conflict with their foundations that have established such a quid pro quo system. In the process, they rationalize the necessity to do that which I already do (e.g., work for a living), but simultaneously they find reasons to oppose the things that make this life more pleasurable, more long-lasting, and more worthwhile, like sexual liberty, scientific advancements, and the quest for knowledge, in hopes that by doing so, they increase the likelihood that their numbers will fall in exactly the right places.

This myopic wager ignores the fact that few, if any, of the numbers chosen by believers are identical to those of other believers. If the biblical god is so absolute and specific that it should be a one-way ticket to hell to commit sodomy, then what of the believer who, by toiling at work in overtime on a beautiful Saturday, considers herself safe from eternal damnation by the mere fact that she protests the former? These are the wagers that the believers make, and the stakes are the essences of their lives, and the lives of those whom they affect.

Although there is certainly a glimmer of that daydream hope that both the Christians and I share when I buy a lottery ticket and the Christians pray, I get to check my numbers and check myself back in to reality. Christians deny themselves that bereavement, and thus they deny themselves that which they claim God has given them — life.

—

This article is featured as an Editor’s Pick at Daylight Atheism’s Carnival of the Godless #113

—

Addendum:

Some readers (or people who just read the title and not the entire post) have expressed difficulty seeing the analogy. As not to disturb the free flow of the original article (and to be not disingenuous toward the Carnival), I’m just going to add a clarification here.

I’m not talking about the religious playing the actual lottery. I’m not making a distinction between religious people who work and those who don’t. I’m foremost saying that when I buy a lottery ticket, I make a choice whether to convince myself that I will win (or I have a great chance of winning), or continue with my life as if I will not win (because evidence shows that I have a 1 in multi-million chance of winning, and regardless of how much “effort” I put into “playing,” it will never increase those chances), unlike religious people who play the “lottery” of religion — they choose a religion (essentially indirectly by having it chosen for them by where they are born, but perpetuating it anyway in light of evidence otherwise) and they “bet” on their interpretation being correct so that they can “win” that religious lottery and go to heaven.

So, I’m saying that in order to be an atheist, one must abandon that hopeful afterlife bet (that would otherwise result in a life of hypocrisy and self-abuse) in the same manner that someone who plays the lottery shouldn’t “bet the house.”

And to respond to the idea of “but you could still win the lottery” :

Yes, I could still win the lottery, but I do not LIVE as if I WILL win (I live as if I won’t, despite there being an abysmal chance I could win).
Christians (and other religious people) LIVE as if they WILL go to heaven (or wherever), despite there being an abysmal chance that they will.
That’s something I had to give up in order to be an atheist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism | 16 Comments »

« Older Entries