Sunday, August 21, 2016

More Mind-Body bullshit

Charles Camosy gets a few things right in a round about way in his "You are not your brain: Why a head transplant is not what you think it is." A head transplant would have limited practical application and would involve a number of medical and ethical questions. However, the basic premise he seems to be operating from is not only non-sensical crap it is demonstrably false. You are your brain. The mind is not separate. The mind is created by the brain. Though we may not fully understand how consciousness emerges it is clear that the mind is a product of the brain. With roughly a hundred years of observation, testing and experiments there is no reason to doubt the conclusion that everything we are as individuals is created by the brain. The mind-brain dichotomy is both false and willfully ignorant. 

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Conflation. That's why

Simon Davis asks "Why do many ‘nones’ believe in life after death?" In his July 15th Religious News Service blog post. He makes it clear from the start that not only does he not have any sense of who the "none" label encompass or how to apply critical thinking or fact checking. The "nones" actually do include believers. The label is short hand for all those who do not have a specific affiliation with organized religion. It does not mean that the individual(s) in question are actually atheist. Davis also doesn't seem to understand that even though many religious concepts and beliefs relate to one another they are separate ideas. It is possible for a theist to accept one supernatural belief while rejecting another. In fact, theists are quite good at doing just that. He also seems to be stuck on the idea that the "God" concept is completely universal and self-contained. There are multiple versions of God. Not everyone is talking about the same thing when they use that term. It is not unusual to find someone claiming they do not believe in God when in fact they do. They don't accept a specific version of God and insist their preferred version is really something else altogether. Buddhists are a good example. Orthodox Buddhism does not believe in a personal God but if you examine Buddhist doctrines, especially those related to Nirvana and Karma, you can easily argue that they accept a more abstract version of divinity.

Basically, Davis' piece is just a rambling of myths, stereotypes, willful ignorance and all manner of logical fallacies cobbled together. It is interesting to read since he does pull some factual tidbits. It's also fascinating to see how one person can produce such a short piece that is so disjointed. At times he does seem to realize some of the problems with his own thinking.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Huh? Wish for what?

Yup, atheists can lack critical thinking skills just like everyone else. Martin Hughes does a pretty good job demonstrating this in his post "Atheist Confessions: I wish there was a Heaven." It is so chock full of sloppy thinking and idiotic crap that I had to reread it a few times to make sure I didn't miss some sign that he meant it as a spoof. Nope. It really is just melodramatic drivel. He starts off with a rather ignorant premise; "Heaven" has a universally accepted definition/description. After that it gets much worse. It is such a jumbled mess of conflations, wishful thinking, myths and stereotypes, that is hard to unravel into individual points.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Hypocrite be thy name

And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.

So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

2 Questions as dumb as Prager

Dennis Prager's recent "Two Questions for Atheists" is a rather nice demonstration of what an ignorant narrow minded fool he is. About the only intelligent observation is; "To be sure, the answers to those two questions neither validate nor invalidate any atheist arguments." This is, of course, negated somewhat by his rationale for ask his to stupid questions to begin with.

"1. Do you hope you are right or wrong?
2. Do you ever doubt your atheism?"

Those are the questions Prager thinks determine an atheist's intellectual honesty and motivation. It's not surprising that he would fail to realize that what an individual may or may not want to be true has nothing to do with what they determine to be true. Given that wishful thinking and delusional approaches are pretty standard for theists most of the bullshit he goes on about his two feeble questions are very predictable. As for doubt, who doesn't occasionally have doubts about virtually everything. Setting aside arrogant morons, I haven't met anyone that doesn't have doubts.