Sunday, October 2, 2016

"...not my Jesus."

I seriously doubt Christians will ever "understand" the most basic trait of Jesus. Jesus is a myth. This is somewhat ironic since it is that trait that has allowed them to play games with the Christ figure all this time. Since there never was a real Jesus every sect and flavor of the Christian faith can easily make whatever claim they want. They shape the Christ into whatever best suits there needs. In some ways this is the greatest asset Christainity has when comes to perpetuating itself.

Posts like Travis Eaves' "That is Not My Jesus" just reinforce what I have long since concluded about most Christians' inability to think critically about their beliefs especially those regarding the Christ figure. The subtitle does a pretty good job exposing his willful ignorance; "The more I get to know Jesus, the less I recognize him in His church today." Like so many before him, Eaves cherry picks passages that fit what he wants to believe and ignores or glosses over the rest. It isn't even remotely possible to "know" Jesus even if you make the huge assumption that he ever existed. Our only "record" of this figure(s) comes from scriptures which do not agree on anything and frequently contradict each other or spiral into incoherent gibberish. There has also never been one "church" and certainly not one that can be directly linked to a non-existent founder.

Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

"Why Atheism Is Dead on Arrival"?!

From the very first paragraph of his piece in the Christian Post Dan Delzell makes it clear that he is a complete dip shit.

"Atheists try not to think about the question: 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'Atheism has no rational answer to this fundamental question, and even considering the question has the potential to chip away at the beliefs of an atheist."

Delzell seems to be be making multiple mistakes. First, I think he is conflating atheists with scientists. The "something from nothing" bullshit is a common straw man argument that narrow minded fools have favored for quite some time. Consensus among Astro-physicists is that something, namely energy and matter, has always existed. The "Big Bang" shaped that existence into the universe as it currently is. As for atheists not thinking about it, why would we waste time on something so assinine. Something has always existed. What would be the point of questioning that?

Delzell also never seems to notice the bit of projection he's employing. Where did God come from? Without the use of special pleading doesn't this mean that theists try not to think about how God (something) came from nothing? If God has always existed what makes God any more plausible than energy and matter having always existed? Oh wait, that would be more plausible since it would not require intention or agency.

There is nothing rational about Delzell's tired apologetics. It is just more of the same mish-mash of logical fallacies and slight of hand semantics that so many theist try passing off as legitimate arguments.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

"You Can’t Love People and Hate Their Religion"

"You Can’t Love People and Hate Their Religion." Actually, yes, you can. Robert Hunts piece starts by use that old logical fallacy, guilt-by-association, and never gets around to coming up with anything better. From start to finish its a mash-up of conflations, logical fallacies, and a whole lot of bullshit. 

Hunt can seem to accept that religion is not an innate part of an individual's identity. It is an aspect of it but it is choice. People choose to belong or leave a faith and always have. Despite being a construct of society, religion is not a person.  Statements like, "The first reason that this won’t work is that personhood cannot be separated from religious belonging" is demonstrably false. It's also rather narrow minded and bigoted. It most certainly can be separated. You are a person whether you are religious or not. Also, loathing a religion is not automatically connected to the individuals within that religion. I fucking hate the Catholic Church! I have absolutely nothing against the average Catholic. I loathe the doctrines and policy of the institution of the Catholic Church. I also have a great deal of animosity toward the Pope and the rest of the top leadership of the Catholic hierarchy. I don't actually hate them. I hate the consequences of their collective actions and beliefs.

I, unlike the individuals Hunt uses as examples, would never seek to harm or restrict the rights of a single Catholic including that religion's leaders or encourage anyone else to act in a discriminatory manner. Their beliefs are a different matter altogether. I despise most of their beliefs. Quite a few atheists seek to undermine religions because they care about people. They see the negative consequences religion causes and want to end it.  

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.