A time and Place not far from here

There is a timeless piece of advice on etiquette, that is often revolves around a well dressed dinner table, that goes "Don't discuss Religion or Politics". Why? Because people's opinions on these subjects are often strong, personal, held dearly and tend to resemble a child clutching their favourite toy, unwilling to share.

But though this rule may of started out to preserve the peace at Victorian dinner parties, where lets not forget that a major disagreement could end in pistols at dawn, It has slowly but surely simply became a rule of life. No longer do you need to be within arms length of a tea-cosy to be limited in what you might talk about amongst friends, Now we carry the dinner table around with us wherever we go, Just like Zarathustra's corpse.

Religion and Politics are, it seems, simply off limits.

I've seen people proclaim that Religion isn't something to be talked about on facebook, I've seen entire forums almost visibly flinch when those subjects are brought up, people will cower from discussing it directly but will find boundless energy with which to police the tone of those that do wish to discuss it, and obviously the almighty dinner table is as off limits as it has ever been.

But you may notice something of a trend here, an irony; Facebook, Forums, Social gatherings - They are all based entirely on conversation and sharing thoughts and opinions. Facebook is a place MADE to share your thoughts, your feelings, your life...but not on religion or politics. A Forum is made specifically to be a marketplace of idea's, an exchange of thoughts and opinions between anyone...but not on religion or politics. Dinner parties are usually between close friends, comfortable with each other, where the only entertainment is conversation...but not on religion or politics.

But religion and politics effect everyone, everyone has an opinion on them to some degree or another and a persons opinion on these matters can reveal a lot about a persons integrity, their ethics, their view of the universe and our collective place within it...and much more besides.

Where else are we supposed to discuss these topics, when "amongst friends" and "in places made for discussion" are off limits? Where even an attempt at bringing these subjects to the forefront of discussion are looked down upon. Where trying to engage with another human being on subjects deeper than what happened on last nights "America's next top Hooker" will net you little more than dismissive lectures on tone, or appropriateness.

And lets look again at the "Justifications" for avoiding these subjects, they can be summed up as off limits for the simple reason of "Well, they matter to me"; Yet this is a reason NOT to discuss them! Madness! It is as if we want to live in a superficial, shallow, fantasy world. Where everybody agrees, everybody gets along and nobody has to go through the pain of being wrong if we make it a sin to suggest it is even a possibility they're wrong.

And its something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People get flustered, worked up and easily offended by dissenting opinions because they're rarely, if ever, confronted with them...and this somehow justifies not confronting them.

The opposite is true. If we did that, not only would we be able to have meaningful conversations with people without offense, but we would also have a greater understanding of the people we surround ourselves with and share this planet with.

Alternatively, however, you could always just keep clutching your prized firetruck, whimpering that no one else is allowed to play with it and never truly grow up.

~CleverCarbon

The UK Census form and Putting down "Jedi"

This particular post is inspired by this absurdly inaccurate, willfully misleading article on "The Escapist" website entitled UK Atheists Hope to Eliminate Jedi Population and the comments that were shit out in front of me in response to it.

First of all, most importantly; the title. Sensationalism in journalism is well known and well mocked (yet still well believed), as brilliantly shown in this SMBC comic, and yet the title of this piece is more ridiculous than others' satire of it. It seems to imply that Atheists are openly campaigning for genocide based on beliefs and, whilst many a-fool likely believe that this is something atheists have always secretly wanted to do, the actual truth of the campaign couldn't be further from this bizarre title.

One commenter (one of the aforementioned fools) exclaimed "No wonder nobody likes atheists!". Yes! No wonder nobody does; The press will lie through their teeth to make us seem like baby killers and you eat it up like it's made of chocolate and tits.

A far more accurate title, though unfortunately less exciting, would be "UK Atheists campaign for accuracy on the census form".

Yes everyone had a good joke in 2001 putting down "Jedi" in the optional religion question, the common reasons listed for doing so being - entertainment, trolling and protesting the inclusion of an optional question on religion.

But census information is important, you don't lie about the rest of the questions and there is simply no reason, beyond being an asstroll, for lying on the census form. The government uses this information to shape its policy and inaccurate information gives an inaccurate representation of the population.

And let me just hammer home the big point about the "protest" angle; ITS FUCKING OPTIONAL. What? Are you so disgusted by your own beliefs that the government isn't even allowed to ask what they are? Are you so childish and dimwitted in seeing that a more poignant protest would be to simply not answer the question? But no! Some intrepid imbeciles on the escapist are under the impression that the government is "Prying into their personal lives", and seeing as this objection arose a fair few times I'm going to have to assume this is a somewhat common thought.

If you are one of those who thinks that asking an optional question is, in any way, prying into your private life, then you are officially fucking paranoid. According to your way of thinking it is possible for the government to pry into your private life through a single question without you even answering it. That's some spectacular stupid you've got there.

And lets get this straight - The campaign is for accuracy. Accuracy, not the eradication of the "Jedi" answer. If you're really a Jedi, if you really do identify to that religion, then put down "Jedi".

If you're doing it to be amusing, if you're doing it to "Protest", if you're doing it because you think it makes you some sort of rebel right out of Grease; Don't. Put down the option that accurately describes you...or don't put down anything at all.

Please

Objective Morality - Why God isn't Objective

It is often said, by professors of more "Sophisticated" theology and apologetics, that God provides us with an objective morality and that without it we are unable to condemn any action as being immoral or moral. It does not take long after this statement is made for the Godwin's to start piling up, for Slippery slopes of the most well lubricated variety to burst forth from the ground like weeds, proclaiming that without an objective morality babies would be tortured in the streets and that no argument could ever be presented for the aforementioned actions immorality; Morals are just opinions, subjective, "untouchable".

Now, I'm not writing this post to demolish the flawed, unreasoned, emotionally driven argument found in the Argument from Morality; Such has been done before, by people far more eloquent and intelligent than myself. No, this post is being written because every time I see this argument brought up in a debate I often wonder why, in my opinion, the "base" of the argument is always granted by the opposing (often atheist) side.

Why is it given as granted that God even can be a source of Objective morality? Let alone the copious amounts of flaws that follow.

Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of what "Objective" is, the most common and well accepted definition is that, for something to be objectively true or false, the statement must be true or false "Mind-independent". That its truth is not Dependant on bias, personal feelings, or the existence of a conscious being.

But is God not described as a mind? Does God not have feelings? Emotions? Is God not a sentient, conscious entity? Every description of God I've ever heard, from the most fundamental right wing version of "God" to the most wishy washy left wing version, From Judaism to Mormonism, God is and has all of those things.

And thus I propose what God's morality would truly be; Subjective, but imposed. God's morality is, in fact, no less subjective than yours or mine, It is formed in the mind of God, through Gods personal feelings and biases, and then imposed on by this celestial dictator.

Even in a universe ruled by God(s), Morality would still not be Objective.

Trust me, I used to be an Atheist

Category : Religion

I find it quite telling when the religious claim their words carry extra weight if they label themselves as “Ex-Atheist”, As if it added the same kind of Validity that comes from being Ex-Religious; It is telling because, like most of their beliefs, its based on what sounds good, rather than being based on solid ground.

We are all Born Atheist, with no pre-programmed beliefs, with no notion of a God and free from imposed thoughts; Every religious person is “Ex-Atheist”. The label offers no extra bang for your buck, It is little more than a statement of the Obvious; By being a Theist, the fact you were once an Atheist is logically implicit.

Being Ex-Religious, however, demonstrates that you have been through the intellectual imposition, that you have accepted the indoctrination like most children do, that you have had these beliefs instilled into your very core when your sense of self was at its most malleable. The extra weight comes in the fact that these individuals have had to fight against what would come naturally to them, they’ve had to question beliefs they cannot remember not having, often a cardinal sin in itself, they’ve had to go against their parents, their culture, their society and all in the name of Truth. At any moment they could of went for the easier, comfortable route, they could of hid behind a cloud of Faith and pushed uncomfortable thoughts aside; This instinct they resisted.

To offer a metaphor; One is offering to look after your child and believes to be the best choice because they have experience looking after children, another makes the same offer, thinking themselves a better choice, because they “used to be a child.”

A response in Kind

Category : Politics, Religion

Hugh Dallas, head of referee development for the Scottish Football Association has been sacked because he passed on, by eMail, a joke about the pope. His dismissal was called for by a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This nasty little weasel is called Peter Kearney, Director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office.

Similarly, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, responsible for this craven giving-in to Catholic censorship is Stewart Regan.

It is clear to me that the Scottish Catholic Media Office and Stewart Regan both need to learn a lesson in humor, it would be a tragedy if they spent their miserable little lives with only a frown for a face.

So, take a moment of your time and send some pope oriented humor to these poor, poor individuals and organizations, so that they may know of the world of laughter they’re missing out on.

The above picture is what he was fired over, so feel free to re-send them that, or if you’re feeling adventurous, send something brand new for them to sample.

mail@scmo.org - To send some joy to the unhappy catholics.

info@scottishfa.co.uk - To show Stewart Regan just how common humor is on planet earth, and that it is nothing to fire a person over.

Please, even if you don’t send them an e-mail (though you should), Re-blog or pass this message along to anyone you know who has a sense of humour.

Thank you!

The "C" words

Category : Blogging

Some of you (hopefully all of you) will of noticed a significant change to my blog as of last night, No longer am I operating under the pseudonym "Splitting of the Adam" but have instead opted to embrace a new pseudonym; "Clever Carbon".

"Why?" I hear you ask with great interest, for a number of reasons really, some more interesting than others. "Splitting of the Adam" is long-winded and not as easy to remember as I would of wished, whereas "Clever Carbon" is shorter, catchier and comes with the bonus of having the magic of Alliteration. I'm hoping this will lead to a slightly improved Marketing situation.

"Splitting of the Adam" is also a pun and a bad pun at that, but if that wasn't enough it wasn't even my first choice of a bad pun. I initially wanted "Splitting the Adam", but some asshole had already hopped on the name, depriving me of the pleasure. Calling the owner of that blog an asshole may seem a bit harsh, but it turns out he hasn't even used the bloody blog! It's just sitting there, with no posts, no information, selfishly taking up a decent URL.

I've also decided that a pun on "Splitting the Atom" is a slight misrepresentation; "Splitting the Atom" was a scientific endeavor and my blog has yet to cover much science. What I think my blog represents is a world view, a world view that has been shaped by great people and one of those great people is Carl Sagan.

Sagan introduced me to a truth that had eluded me by hiding in plain sight, a truth which he described in his TV show "Cosmos".

"The Cosmos is also within us; We're made of Star Stuff. We are a way, for the Cosmos to know itself"

And So I embrace what I am, what we all are, we're little specks of Carbon born from the center of an exploding star, but what separates us from all the other lumps of Carbon in the Universe is that we alone know what we are. We are all Clever Balls of Carbon.

Thus, Clever Carbon

To go with this change I've also changed the Address at which you can reach me with questions or suggestions for topics (if you don't want to use the comment feature). You can now reach me at CleverCarbon@hotmail.com

Atheism Myths #2

Category : Atheism

In my previous "Atheism Myths" post about Atheism requiring faith, I lightly touched on something that I wish to expand on today. The myth in question is that secular atheists and Religious folk are the same, more specifically that secular atheists are not only actually religious but that all the "faults" they see with Religion they are also guilty of.

"Tu Quoque!"

I have found that this is one of the most pervasive and often used tactics of Religious apologists and atheists-who-think-atheists-should-STFU. Most of the time it is little more than using specific language or phrases that implies that they're being hypocrites, sometimes the accusation is slightly less superficial...though still just as insipid and invalid.

For example!

"Atheism requires faith!" falls into the latter category, but phrases like "Atheist fundamentalist" or "Militant Atheist" fall into the former. But the overall tactic is to say "You're just as bad as us, therefore you cannot criticize us. Hypocrites!".

I've always found it a little strange that this tactic is used so often by religious people (though it is not so strange when other atheists use it) mostly because it seems to me like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. The Religious think that "Faith" is a virtue, a good thing...So why would they present "Atheists have faith!" as a bad thing? Surely thats like an Atheist saying "Religious people use REASON!" and saying it is a bad thing.

Its tacitly admitting that your own position is so undesirable that you can use "you're just like me" as a weapon.

But beyond the weird mental-acrobatics required to even use the tactic, it is demonstrably inaccurate. We've already been through how atheism doesn't require faith, so I won't go through it again, but I haven't touched on the stupidity behind "Atheist Fundamentalists" as a phrase. Luckily, though, it doesn't take long to poke holes in.

RELIGIOUS Fundamentalists Stone people to death for everything from eating a hamburger to not letting your husband rape you.

ATHEIST Fundamentalists write books on Religion.

RELIGIOUS Fundamentalists Fly planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people.

ATHEIST Fundamentalists promote science and education unapologetically.

RELIGIOUS Fundamentalists Kill their own children because they think that going to a doctor would be "Against God's will"

ATHEIST Fundamentalists start summer camps for children of secular parents/children with an interest in science.

RELIGIOUS Fundamentalists Stand in the way of Justice, liberty and human rights wherever they go.

ATHEIST Fundamentalists write blog's on the internet. Like this one.


If you can't see how the comparison is ridiculous, then you can't see.