Sunday, February 12, 2017

Is that the right question?

In his recent piece, "Are colleges too liberal?" Connor Wood remains true to his tendency to make assumptions seem far more notable than they are. Even if you assume the basic premise is correct it begs a number of other questions and issues that never seem to cross his mind. He also never notices the contradictions he himself references. For instance, he gives verified numbers of the ratios for liberal to conservative professors that do not match the ones in the conservative hack-job that originally inspired his own piece. He also never bothers to question in any significant way whether the personal views of the individual professors translate in any way into the instruction the professors provide their students. I'd be willing to bet there are studies showing that conservative professors get caught trying indoctrinate classes far more often than liberal ones. (I'll have to look into that)

So, is the original question the only one let alone a meritable one? NO. Why not follow it up with other questions? Is higher education "liberal" by its nature. I don't suppose he's ever noticed that the liberal mind-set tends to be more inquisitive or at least less likely to oppose inquiry. That seems like a very important aspect of education. Or, perhaps he should ask why conservatives are asking about the political/ideological leaning of education but not other fields. Is business too conservative? Doesn't the economy favor the wealthy and powerful? Aren't they more able to afford the cost of higher education. And, wouldn't this contradict them on their devotion to markets? If student still pay for Higher education would that, by their own thinking, imply it isn't "too" anything, ideological or what not.

Though he provides a number of references to validate various other points he attempts to make they are very little value. Most of the sources he relies on have a track record of not being fact based. Quite a few are sources I often agree with but am frustrated by. As often as not I think they do reach the right conclusion on a given issue, or are at least in the right area. However, they do little to back themselves up. It is a bit ironic that Wood makes use of them since they general do not fit his favorite pre-determined notions. I have previously pointed out that his blog is mislabeled. "Science on Religion" should be reversed since he almost always views science through the tainted lens of religion.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Arch Bishop meet Stupidity

Even setting aside the level of bigotry, arrogance, maliciousness of Arch Bishop Liberati, his statements regarding both Muslims and atheist are horrendous. The basic premise presented in Christian Today's "In 10 Years, Italy 'Will All Be Muslims Because of Atheism, a Weak Church, and Stupidity,' Archbishop Warns" is incredibly stupid. The extent to which it defies logic and reason is impressive even coming from a very conservative Christian. How a complete lack of religious belief can lead even a small fraction of the Italians to a specific set of religious beliefs is a mystery that no one in this shitty little piece ever bothers to examine.

Liberati, of course, never once concedes that Italians might being leaving the Catholic Church for reasons directly related to said church's doctrines, policies, and practices. Maybe, some Italians are leaving because of the terrible example right-wing assholes like Liberati are, and have been, setting. It just might be that on top of realizing how political and self centered the church is they also have come to realize that demonizing and denigrating other Italians who are not Catholic is unethical and immoral.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Arragonce vs. Delusion vs. Stupidity

And, here we have a three way cage match of Arrogance, Self-Delusion, and Stupidity. I just can't make up my mind which comes out on top in "Everyone Needs Jesus...Even You." It is a truly pathetic piece of writing from an equally shitty website, Reign Drops. Just the fact that these assholes never seem to notice that virtually every single "argument"* they use only sort of works if they completely ignore everything and anything that contains even a hint of reality. There is no possibility of them accepting that other people actually are capable of thinking for themselves. They are the type of morons that you could demonstrate in person undeniable proof of "x" and if it doesn't fit their beliefs they will refuse to accept or even acknowledge "x."

So, be wary of sites and pieces like this one. Just reading such horrendous tripe can temporarily drop your IQ, or raise your blood pressure a few points.

*Just to clarify, the piece in this instance doesn't actual contain a single argument. It's more of a one direction rant.

"...the religiously stranded..."

I will admit that the article containing the phrase in the title above isn't quite as stupid as it first seems.  "Finding a home for the religiously stranded: Marmur" does contain a few decent points. None are new or particularly insightful but worth reviewing on occasion. However,  they do not come any where near compensating for the boat load of stupid that is in the piece. There are far too many logical falicies and general lapses in reason to cover. I will, instead, point out some of the foolish implications of the title that are carried through the body of the article.

As I have pointed out in previous posts over the years I have come to believe two things about most theists. 1. Most theists do not ever bother to think through wher their professed beliefs lead logically; and/or 2. Most theists don't truly believe most of what they claime to (other behaviors and beliefs are too contradictory). The phrase "religiously stranded" seems to be just another example of this. How can you possibly be "stranded" from a belief or set of beliefs? It makes no sense on the surface of it. After think more about the type of beliefs being talked about it becomes even more absurd. Most of the individuals alluded to not only believe in God they seem to believe in the more abstract version of the God concept. If God truly is the perfect and all powerful divine entity they claim how is it even remotely possible to be separated. God would literally be the source of everything and simultaneously present in all things. Even considering being "stranded" would be a contradictions of terms.

Silly nonsensical crap is laced throughout the implications and applications of this phrasing. There is no logical or reasonable way to use "religiously stranded" without revealing numerous philosophical and intellectual shortcomings of any and all religious concepts associated with it.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Ending the year with more faux-atheism

So in the past few weeks there have been more tales of "atheists" converting to Christianity. Like in the overwhelming majority of such instances, they are full of shit. The brief Christianity Today piece on Charlie Mackesy is so loaded with red flags its amazing that anyone would fall for such tripe. I'll stick with the two of the more blatant bits of nonsense. Mackesy talks about two separate and quite distinct incidences that he claims "turned away from atheism and embraced Christ." Given that he only converted from atheism to Christianity once how can both stories be the turning point that brought him to Jesus? Yet, that is how he tells both stories. This is, of course, without even looking at how foolish the details of each story happen to be. The other problem with his loss of "atheism" stem from his lack of understanding of either atheism or theism. He seems to confuse his misunderstanding with what religion is in general versus specific organized religions with an actual lack of religious beliefs. He talks about why he didn't want to be Christian prior to his supposed conversion. There's not only no reason to believe he lacked any religious belief, there are plenty of reasons to assume he held a variety of them that he simply didn't want labeled in any way. Basically, he fell for, in part, the false dichotomy of religious versus spiritual. He assumed he was an "atheist" since he didn't identify with a specific organized faith.

Then there's the professional bullshitter, Mark Bauerlein. Given his role at First Things and that rags track record of highly misleading and/or outright fabrications there is no reason to trust anything the man claims. It is also notable that though prior to his supposed conversion there is plenty of writing by which he could have been labeled either liberal or libertarian there is absolutely nothing to indicate he was an atheist. The only sources that can be found on this conversion is Mark himself. And, again, given his inclination to push various ideologically driven narratives with little support it is far safer to assume he has made it up. Unlike Mackesy, he does not seem to be confused about the terminology involved or the underlying meaning(s) of each term. He is just a deceitful prick looking to push a story that advances his own current interests.