Category Archives: Atheism

The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, as well as science, for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

Liddle begins the documentary by surveying common criticisms of religion, and particularly antireligious arguments based on the prevalence of religious violence. He argues that the "very stupid human craving for certainty and justification", not religion, is to blame for this violence, and that atheism is becoming just as dogmatic as religion.

In order to support his thesis, Liddle presents numerous examples of actions and words by atheists which he argues are direct parallels of religious attitudes. He characterizes Atkins and Dawkins as "fundamentalist atheists" and "evangelists".

In response to atheistic appeals to science as a superior method for understanding the world than religion, Liddle argues that science itself is akin to religion: "the problem for atheists is that science may not be as far away from religion as you might imagine".

He describes Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory focused on particle physics, as a "temple to science", and characterizes Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species as a "sacred text" for atheists.

Continued here:
The Trouble With Atheism - Top Documentary Films

Just because you do not follow a relgion doesn't mean you don't share common values with those who do, Ken Gallinger tells a reader. ( dreamstime )

How is one to conduct themselves at a funeral when one doesnt practice the religion? I am a 55-year-old atheist. I know many elderly people and, as a result, have attended more than the average number of funerals. In the past I went through the motions of standing and sitting when instructed but never sang or participated in any responses. I am at the point now where even that feels wrong; I am not being true to my atheistic beliefs. Is there a right way to handle this?

OK, so Im puzzled. What, exactly, are atheistic beliefs?

Please understand: I ask not as a critic, but as a fellow traveller. Many would describe my own faith as atheistic. I prefer the expression post-theistic but the distinction, as my dad used to say, is the difference between damn and swearing.

So I know first-hand what atheists dont believe. We dont believe that, somewhere in the faraway heavens, there is a being named God who spends his time meddling in human lives, punishing evildoers and getting those he likes off airplanes before they crash. We dont believe that the earth was handmade by a heavenly potter, or that a distant deity decides the winner of the World Series. We also, incidentally, dont believe in unicorns or the Loch Ness monster.

But what do atheists believe? Is there a creed that distinguishes legitimate atheism from, say, lapsed Catholicism, cultural Judaism or secular Islam? If so, Ive never found it.

I do, however, know a few atheists. We dont talk about religion much but, judging by their lives, my atheist friends seem to believe that love is better than hate, relationships are more important than possessions, building up is preferable to tearing down, peace is more noble than war. My atheist friends are, in general, driven by a conviction that the earth is sacred, life is precious, and beauty, joy and hope should be the goals of their lives.

Are those your beliefs? If not, well, youre correct; youll feel uncomfortable in most religious services. You probably should stay home.

But if you do believe these things, you should feel comfortable in almost any religious gathering, funeral or otherwise, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, traditional Spirituality, or whatever. Yes, yes in all of those communities there are a few fundamentalists who will judge your atheism harshly, but setting them aside (which, trust me, is the right response), worship in the worlds main religions celebrates and lifts up exactly the same values that you espouse.

Sure, you may hear some God-language. Big deal; it wont hurt you. You may also hear a poem in which the hills are said to be singing. Or a hymn in which the stars are alive with joy. Someone may read a sacred text that celebrates the wonders of heaven. So what? Thats all poetry, and, viewed as such, its quite lovely.

So go with the flow. Let the music wash over you. Enjoy the poetry. Weep with the passion of a good eulogy. Honest, you wont catch religion just by being in a church; I was in one every day for 45 years and escaped unscathed better for the experience, in fact. And so will you.

Send your questions to star.ethics@yahoo.ca

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

Continued here:
How should an atheist behave at a religious funeral - Toronto Star

Recently, NASA granted amillion dollars to the Center of Theological Inquiry to study the theological, humanitarian, and social implications in the event that extraterrestrial life isever discovered. It was another reminder of related discussions, over the years, of whether religion could survive the discovery of life on other planets.

I think, though, that the concern is misdirected. The real question is whether atheism could survive.

There are at least two points to consider here. First, God is the Artist of Hidden Beauty. Second, getting mind-staggeringly lucky twice would strongly suggest that something is going on here.

The Artist of Hidden Beauty

In the early 1980s I spent many a fascinatinghour down on my hands and knees in the forest undergrowth, engaged in macrophotography of all sorts of wonderful, tiny things. It occurred to me, about 35 years ago as I was polishing my 65 Ford Custom that God wasnt like us when it came to making things look nice. Ford Motor Corp. only made the sheet metal look nice on the outside where people would see it, but nature was filled with beauty that no one would ever see.

At that moment, the question popped into my head, What about all those possible planets throughout the universe? Amazing plant and animal life on other planets would be exactly what I would expect to see from the One who creates beauty simply for the sake of beauty, even if no human will ever enjoy it. Consideration of alien beings with eternal souls does raise some deeper issues, however space here prevents me from an adequate discussion of this possibility. Suffice it to say that, from my own Christian perspective, plant and animal life on other planets would not be in the least surprising, God being the Artist that He is.

Mind-Staggeringly LuckyTwice?

A friend of mine worked for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and occasionally entertained me with stories of how they would identify and solve cases of lottery fraud. In each case, the tip-off would be something unusually improbable, such as an unusual number ofwins from the same store.

When it comes to the idea that life spontaneously self-assembled itself in the past, thousands of our brightest minds have worked on the problem for over half a century with no prospect of success in the foreseeable future. In fact, the more we learn, the more we realize how difficult the problem is.1 The challenge is three-fold. First, we have to figure out how intelligent scientists can create a simple life form from scratch in the lab. Second, having done it ourselves, we have to see if realistic natural processes can do the same thing. The third problem is vastly more difficult: figure out how the information to build life forms gets encoded in these self-replicating molecules without an intelligent programmer. We are still working on the first problem, with no hint of success on the horizon. That might be significant, right there.

A 2011 article in Scientific American, Pssst! Dont tell the creationists, but scientists dont have a clue how life began, summarized our lack of progress in the lab.2 Of course, there are plenty of scenarios, but creative story-telling should not be confused with doing science, or making scientific discoveries. With regard to thousands of papers published each year in the field of evolution, as Austin Hughes wrote, This vast outpouring of pseudo-Darwinian hype has been genuinely harmful to the credibility of evolutionary biology as a science.3

Evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin, meanwhile, calculates the probability of a simple replication-translation system, just one key component, to beless than1 chance in 10^1,018 making it unlikely that life will ever spontaneously self-assemble anywhere in the universe.4 His proposed solution is a near-infinite number of universes, something we might call a multiverse of the gaps. My own work, using data from the Protein Family Database, produces results consistent with Koonins estimate.5 Indeed, we would need a vast number of universes all working on the problem to get lucky enough to see life spontaneously assemble itselfin just one of them.

Heres the Point:

The probability of life spontaneously self-assembling anywhere in this universe is mind-staggeringly unlikely; essentially zero. If you are so unquestioningly nave as to believe we just got incredibly lucky, then bless your soul.

If we were to discover extraterrestrial life, however, then we would have had to get mind-staggeringly lucky two times! Like the forensic detectives at the lotteries commission, a thinking person would have to start operating on the well-founded suspicion that something is going on.

On the other hand, the existence of life and beauty elsewhere in the universe is not at all surprising under the hypothesis of a Creator who is the Artist of Hidden Beauty. Indeed, logic dictates the existence of a supernatural creator, as I have shown here,6 and our observations of the universe indicate it was specifically designed to support life.

Conclusion:

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would be the death knell for atheism, at least for the thinking atheist. On the other hand, such a discovery should not be in the least surprising, if there is a supernatural Creator who has designed the universe to support life, and has brought about life and beauty throughout the universe, even if no human ever gets to see it.

References:

(1) The RNA world hypothesis: The worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others),Biology Direct, 2012.

(2) Pssst! Dont tell the creationists, but scientists dont have a clue how life began,Scientific American, 2011.

(3) The origin of adaptive phenotypes,PNAS, 2008.

(4)The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, 2011.

(5) Computing the Best Case Probability of Proteins from actual data, and the falsification of an Essential Prediction of Darwinian Theory, Kirk Durston, Contemplations.

(6) A simple but elegant argument for the existence of God, Kirk Durston,Contemplations.

Photo credit: Kirk Durston.

Cross-posted at Contemplations.

Read the original:
Could Atheism Survive the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life? - Discovery Institute

There were more questions than claps when the DMK in April end announced that the party will desilt water bodies on temple premises. With atheism being a core value of prominent DMK leaders, it came as a surprise when the party chose temples as its place of public service. Barbs came flying from rival political parties including the AIADMK and the BJP. Their target was DMKs working president M K Stalin, who has been criticising the Centre and the state government for neglecting the state. DMK is desilting temple tanks as God has made them to do that work. The party is seeking pava vimochanam (salvation for their sin), said BJP state president Tamilisai Soundararajan a few days ago.

DMK leaders, however, say the party has never propagated atheism and has believers in its fold. Even though many leaders and cadres of the party have followed in the footsteps of Dravidar Kazhagam founder Periyar, they say, their beliefs have never kept them from executing their duties. Many of us are followers of Periyar and thus dont believe in God. But that does not stop us from cleaning temple tanks. It is the governments responsibility to desilt the tanks and as it has failed to execute its duties, as the opposition it is our responsibility to carry out the work, says DMK spokesman and Rajya Sabha member T K S Elangovan.

The party has several believers, both cadres and leaders, who wear sacred ash and kumkum.

Elangovan clarifies that it is not the first time that the party has taken decisions related to temples. The DMK introduced ISO certificate for several temples when it was in power (2009). We also repaired the Tiruvarur temple car (Aazhi ther), the biggest in Tamil Nadu, says Elangovan.

Since April, all 89 MLAs and district secretaries of the party have been involved in desilting temple tanks. Nearly 100 water bodies have been desilted so far. Stalin led the way by inaugurating the desilting of a pond in Kolathur.

Activists have lauded the efforts of the party. DMKs initiative has not come as a surprise as the party did not propagate atheism neither in the past nor now. Several leaders were followers of Periyar but that did not prevent them from having a separate minister for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments department, says political analyst Badri Seshadri.

If someone has to oppose DMKs present initiative, it has to be the AIADMK government. But they are silent. Its good that the work is being done so that people living around the tank will be benefited when it rains, he adds.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

More:
When an atheist past didn't deter DMK from cleaning temple ponds - Times of India (blog)

There were more questions than claps when the DMK in April end announced that the party will desilt water bodies on temple premises. With atheism being a core value of prominent DMK leaders, it came as a surprise when the party chose temples as its place of public service. Barbs came flying from rival political parties including the AIADMK and the BJP. Their target was DMK's working president M K Stalin, who has been criticising the Centre and the state government for neglecting the state. "DMK is desilting temple tanks as God has made them to do that work. The party is seeking pava vimochanam (salvation for their sin)," said BJP state president Tamilisai Soundararajan a few days ago.

DMK leaders, however, say the party has never propagated atheism and has believers in its fold. Even though many leaders and cadres of the party have followed in the footsteps of Dravidar Kazhagam founder Periyar, they say, their beliefs have never kept them from executing their duties.

"Many of us are followers of Periyar and thus don't believe in God. But that does not stop us from cleaning temple tanks. It is the government's responsibility to desilt the tanks and as it has failed to execute its duties, as the opposition it is our responsibility to carry out the work," says DMK spokesman and Rajya Sabha member T K S Elangovan.

The party has several believers, both cadres and leaders, who wear sacred ash and kumkum.

View original post here:
When an atheist past didn't deter DMK from cleaning temple ponds - Times of India

When people think about the history of atheism they often think of it as something young. This is probably a bit frustrating to historians of atheism and as an atheist who is also a historian its definitely frustrating to me. So I decided to create a short post revolving around atheist history. This is a post for people who want to learn about the history of atheism and want to acknowledge and learn about historians whose work revolves around demystifying atheism and improving public understanding of historical atheism.

When I typed in history into Pixabay I got this image. So for a post about atheist history, have a photo of a book of maps with glasses on top of it. Fitting enough I suppose.

The ISHASH (International Society for Historians Of Atheism, Secularism, and Humanism) is a digital group that exists to connect academics who are studying and writing about historical aspects of atheism, secularism, and humanism. Its a network that hopes to connect and strengthen historians who devote time and energy to studying these various facets of irreligion and oftentimes the history of atheism.

Atheism has a long history and its not often talked about in social circles of atheists and among atheistic groups and organizations. Thats fine and understandable given that these circles and organizations are often dedicated to improving conditions for atheists across the United States and the world at large and thus have pressing priorities beyond merely conversing about atheism, but as a historian who is an atheist its a bit frustrating to not see more critical and educational conversations and opportunities to chat about atheist history and the history of other forms of irreligion.

I really enjoy learning about the members of the ISHASH because its fantastic to read the works of individuals who sincerely care about our history and oftentimes who want this history to be more understood than it presently is. Check out their work and read about the work done by individual members! If youre unfamiliar with atheist history and the histories of secularism ,and humanism its possible youll learn something just by clicking through the pages each ISHASH member has linked to their name, and frankly theres nothing wrong with that. I actually learned a bit myself when I scrolled through the member list, most particularly about Joseph McCabe. So check out their site and see if there is anyone doing work on anything youre interested in! If you do and you learn something, come back here and comment what you learned down below.

One of the national atheist groups should announce an atheist history month. Maybe it should be May since May is when the National Day Of Reason is celebrated by the American Humanist Association and plenty of nonbelievers nationwide. But someone should actually make this a thing and use it to encourage nonbelievers independent of our labels and titles to research our history (and yes I know the titles serve a purpose, I like the titles myself I just know that ultimately we share something in common which separates us from many other people: we lack a belief in their religions).

Atheist history month should absolutely become a thing and during it national and local atheist and irreligious groups should hold events where they give historians and scholars of irreligion, atheism, secularism, and humanism, a chance to gain more publicity and educate the public when it comes to our history. Maybe in another post Ill expand on this and create a hypothetical event where a historian of irreligion and skepticism is given the chance to publicly talk about their work in an environment of people who want to learn about their work. That being said: if youve got an opinion on this or anything else I talked about in this post, comment down below and we can chat about it!

If anyone really likes this and wants me to seriously try and make it a thing should let me know. Im going to try anyway but if more people know of it and like it and suggest to atheist groups, we can more easily actually make it happen!

Continued here:
Resources For Those Who Want To Know About Atheist History - Patheos (blog)

Even as atheism appears to be surprisingly popular in the United States, scientists warn that non-believers could hurt their own numbers by not having enough kids.

Psychologists Edward Dutton and Dimitri Van de Linden analyze why atheism is associated with high intelligence in a new article in Evolutionary Science and conclude that that humans have an instinctive tendency to be religious. To be atheist, meanwhile, requires an intellectual capacity that allows someone to move beyond those instincts. Surpassing that evolved instincts toward religion may lead atheists to look past other instincts too like the drive to reproduce.

In an interview with Newsweek, Dutton, a researcher at the Ulster Institute for Social Research, pointed to the related trend of lower birth rates among intelligent people, and the possibility that this will drive down global IQ: Because intelligence is 80 percent genetic, and intelligent people have fewer children, then intelligence among the general population will decline as well. A similar trend could happen with atheists, and together they could have drastic effects.

It was commented on at the end of Rome, that the upper class werent having any children, says Dutton. Its the same now.

Its a provocative argument and one that, for now, is deeply hypothetical. Other academics have argued that atheists have been around since antiquity, countering the idea that atheism is a modern projection that denies our evolutionary hardwiring.

In any case, the effect predicted by Dutton and Linden is showing up: Atheists are having fewer children. The Pew Research Center announced in April that religiously unaffiliated people make up 16 percent of the global population and that only 10% of the worlds babies birthed between 2010 and 2015 were born to religiously unaffiliated mothers. Religious people, however, continue to pop out infants at record numbers: Pew projects that by 2009, nine percent of babies will be born to parents without religion, while 70 percent will either have Muslim or Christian parents.

While President Donald Trump may believe that in America we do not worship government, we worship God, thats obviously isnt true of the entire country. In fact, another new study in Social Psychology and Personality Science suggests the proportion of atheists part of a larger religiously unaffiliated demographic in the United States is currently close to 20 to 35 percent of the population. Thats drastically higher than the 3.1 percent of the population that Pew Research Center has estimated to be atheist. If these numbers are going to keep growing, however, it may have to be through conversions since births likely wont be enough.

View post:
Atheist Intelligence Could Lead to Their Own Demise - Inverse

In an article published by Elite Daily, writer Alexandra Strickler explained how a reading from a psychic medium named MaryAnn DiMarco made her question her years of atheism. And whenever someone makes a claim like that, its worth looking at the story with a skeptical eye

First, let me clarify that Strickler (presumably) still identifies as an atheist. In fact, it doesnt even seem like she believes in psychics. She writes in her conclusion:

So, coming out on the other side of my reading with DiMarco, I dont suddenly believe in the all-knowing power of all psychics, nor do I suddenly believe deceased loved ones are guiding me through life.

But, I do believe some people are more intuitive than others, and with the right dedication to that craft, you can harness it to help other people navigate this world, which is exactly what DiMarco is doing.

Lets get the obvious question out of the way: Can you be an atheist who also believes in psychics? Sure. Its not out of the question to dismiss God while believing in other supernatural ideas, including ghosts, Heaven, and karma. Thats not to say those beliefs are rational, but that its possible. The only requirement for atheism is that you dont believe in deities.

Strickler appears to be in that group of atheists who believes in psychics from the start. She writes in the beginning of her article that she believes in a general concept of energies out there in the universe. Whatever that means. (It sounds like a kind of pseudoscience related to the misnamed Law of Attraction.)

I believe that, as human beings, our thoughts and our vibes, if you will, play some part in the overall workings of the universe. They make shit happen, even if Im not entirely sure how they make shit happen.

Despite my skepticism about DiMarcos line of work, I still went into the reading feeling utterly terrified. I may not believe in this stuff, but like most people, I am afraid of the unknown.

So Strickler was already primed to believe; she was ready for someone to fill in the blanks in her beliefs and make them make more sense.

Ultimately, Strickler didnt become a believer, but she said that she was was speechless and seriously freaked out by her reading with DiMarco.

Heres why she shouldnt have been, and why you shouldnt be either should you decide to undergo a psychic reading.

A conversation with DiMarco feels eerily like speaking to someone youve known for a really long time. It felt like I was reconnecting with an old friend or a long-lost family member. She was warm, she was passionate, and she knew way more about me than I ever expected her to.

DiMarco was beyond accurate about this. I tend to feel extremely overwhelmed in a crowded room, and then subsequently drained after most social interactions. However, Ive always personally chalked it up to social anxiety, or me being an introverted person.

But, its interesting to reexamine my introverted personality under the psychic mediums interpretation of me. Its almost as if DiMarco was confirming something I already knew about myself, and helping me reframe that in a different context.

For example, she knew about one of my family members struggles with addiction, even though Ive only discussed this with a small handful of people close to me.

She also knew about the distance between my mother and one of my brothers, and she described me as a gift to my mother.

We dont know how many predictions were misses. We only know which ones struck a chord with Strickler. We also dont know if the medium had a chance to learn anything about Strickler before their meeting (via Google or elsewhere). Its also not weird to suggest there are rifts in a family or that a child is the apple of her mothers eye.

DiMarco went on to predict that Strickler loves the sounds of nature and that she has vivid dreams. Really, who doesnt?

Im unimpressed, and this story certainly didnt make me question my atheism. Strickler would be wise to use the skepticism that guides her thinking about religion to the medium. Would she have felt any differently if a pastor said similar things in a sermon?

Go here to read the rest:
Why a Psychic Reading Shouldn't Make You Question Your Atheism - Patheos (blog)

A man at an atheist rally in Milan, Italy, on June 2, 2012. (G.dallorto, via Wikimedia Commons)

Blogs | May. 21, 2017

I've read a number of stories about how atheism is seen as "cool" by many young people, especially among college age youths. That's funny to me because I couldn't think of anything less cool than becoming an atheist. So, just in case any young people are reading, here are eight reasons that atheism is the in-coolest choice ever.

8) Religious people live longer, happier lives, according to numerous scientific studies. I know you atheist types are all about the SCIENCE even though you pretty much get all your scientific information from Huffpo articles with clickbait headlines like "Watch Bill Nye completely own a Creationist!" or "How Rolling Your Eyes is the Greatest Debate Tactic Against Christians!" (Rule of thumb: if the article you're reading contains exclamation points, it's probably not a respected scientific publication.) But I guess because you're an atheist who will live a shorter life maybe you don't have time to read actual scientific journals. I mean, something's gotta' be cut out, right?

But on top of shorter lives, studies indicate you'll be more miserable too. So while your life won't be longer, it might just feel that way.

7) Michelangelo and Bach (look 'em up kids!) were indisputably awesome Christian artists. But hey, atheists have the kid who plays Harry Potter. Do you really don't want to be a part of any group that includes the actor formerly known as Harry Potter. Or maybe you do because that's how uncool you actually are.

Michelangelo was never photographed like that. Ever.

6) Typical Atheist gathering:

World Youth Day:

See the difference?

5) Most of your big time mass killers of the 20th century were atheists. I'm talking Stalin, Mao, and Che among others. These guys had the kind of body counts that there weren't enough body bags for so bulldozers needed to be employed. And nothing says uncool like being a mass killer of the innocent.

4) This is an extreme Christian.

This is an extreme atheist:

See the difference?

3) As a Christian, my wife looks at me like I'm a gift from God. Seriously, to her that's what I am. Your atheist girlfriend (should you ever get one after you move out of your stepdad's basement) will see you as a gel-haired accident in skinny jeans on a lonely rock orbiting a meaningless sun in a mistake of a universe. See the difference? It's kind of a big one.

2) Many of your college professors agree with your atheist beliefs. How's that for the uncoolest choice ever? Hey, look at you siding with all the gray-haired tweedy authoritarian types at your school. Note: If your best friend at college is the "Diversity Awareness Coordinator" you're colleging wrong. And if you think your professors are cool, I think they call that being a brown-noser. And brown-nosers are even less cool than gender studies majors.

Y'know when the whole 60's thing happened, young people would say not to trust anyone over 40. But now, you guys go off to college wanting nothing more than to adopt the beliefs of your old boring professors. What could be less cool than wanting to be like your teacher? (Except if your teacher is Tony Esolen. Then it's ok.)

1) Atheists have less children and that probably means...well you probably know what that means since you're all about SCIENCE! Once again, to sum up, you'll be miserable, have a shorter life, and quite likely less sex than your religious counterparts. And you thought atheism was cool? Reconsider and repent ye' fools. Jesus said he is the way, the truth, and the life. Left unsaid, is that He's totally cooler than Richard Dawkins!

See the rest here:
Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever, and I Can Prove It - National Catholic Register (blog)

I was innocently catching up on Facebook this morning when one of my friends shared The Friendly Atheists post Catholic Writer Thinks He Can Prove Atheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever (He Cannot). Hemant Mehta as many of you know is the creator of The Friendly Atheist blog and is the author of that piece. Under normal circumstances, Hemant is on the money. His editorials on the faith-based news are spot on. But not this time.

Not only does Hemant have it all wrong but so does Mathew Archbold the author of the original pieceAtheism is the Uncoolest Choice Ever, and I Can Prove It 8 Reasons Why Christianity is Cooler than Atheism.Mr. Archbold is too courteous to the other less tangy sects of Christianity. In all reality, its a case of Catholicism being way cooler than atheism.

Allow me to show you the 4 reasons why Catholicism is cooler than atheism.

Do have to say it? The 2015 epic movie Spotlight was amazing!It won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Screenplay that year for its painstakingly accurate analysis of the inner workings of the Catholic Church in Boston.

If youre not acquainted with this awesome flick here is a very short trailer.

Pope Innocent III was large and in charge and someone who meant business. Lets check out what the JewishEncyclopedia has to say about our boy.

The extreme in the hostile enactments of the popes against the Jews was reached under Innocent III. (1198-1216), who was the most powerful of the medieval popes, and who convened the Fourth Lateran Council (1215); this council renewed the old canonical prohibitions against trusting the Jews with public offices and introduced the law demanding that Jews should wear a distinctive sign on their garments (see Badge). The theological principle of the pope was that the Jews should, as though so many Cains, be held up as warning examples to Christians.

Atheists are smug and think they know everything. They set themselves up like gods. This Catholic Archbishop shows how humble he is when he admits he didnt know adults having sex with kids was illegal.

The Church is truly universal in scope. And do you know whats in the universe? Penises and vaginas. Reproductive organs are firmly in the hands of the Pope and his underlings. Here is just one facet of divinely inspired public health teachings of the Church.

Stay in touch! Like Laughing in Disbelief on Facebook:

See original here:
4 Real Reasons Why Catholicism Is Cooler Than Atheism - Patheos (blog)