Saturday, April 26, 2014

Simply oozing

How is it that a certain set of theist consistently outclass each other in the amount of utter crap they can cram into a single piece of writing? It would seem that at some point a limit has to be found. Tim Stanley would appear to hold the current record with his Telegraph blog post "Militant atheists should thank God that they live in a Christian country." With only six paragraph it is so packed full of bullshit it makes you wonder if miracles are real. The title alone is so bad I feel the need to repeat it just to come to terms that a "writer" could be that fucking inept.

Militant atheists should thank God that they live in a Christian country

It is stunning. So much stupidity, bias, and willful ignorance in a single line. Applying "militant" to vocal atheists has been taken apart so many times I find it hard to believe that someone with an IQ over 60 and an attention span slightly better than a goldfish could have missed it. Stanley does mention Dawkins by name so there is a solid example that can be completely refuted. There is no weasel room to claim he meant a different person or type of atheist. Dawkins, like the rest of the "New Atheists", has not only never advocated the use of violence but has on numerous occasions corrected the mischaracterization of his works for such deceitful smears.

Mr. Stanley also seems to have drank rather deeply from the same batch of Kool-Aid that the "Christian Nation" assholes here in the US have been swilling for years. No, England is no more a "Christian country" than is the US. It is this self-important factually challenged mentality that oozes from the title and drizzles through the paragraphs that follow it. There is no real thought involved. He simply parrots from others all sorts of faux-history and apologetics. Sadly, he can't even be consistent or coherent while layering on this type of shit. In the fifth paragraph, while going on about what we all owe to religion he gleefully quotes that it is "...from teachings and presumptions that are specifically Christian." Yet the very next paragraph starts, "This is not unique to Christianity."

Huh? If you insist the guy you are quoting is dead-on wouldn't making a statement that says the exact opposite just a sentence later be noticeable as a blatant contradiction? It is, however, a pretty good summary of the piece. It doesn't manage to make a single valid point. It just repeats tired myths and does it in a very weak incoherent manner. It is somewhat amusing how he manages to reference, if vaguely, politics, philosophy, and theology all without the slightest understanding in any of it. If it weren't for his clearly malicious intent it might be comparable to how a toddler first starts exploring his/her own house. Too bad this  piece of shit came from an adult with access to the mainstream media.

Oh, and I'm also not sure how or why someone would thank an entity that is completely fictional. Wouldn't that be a bit like my thanking Papa Smurf for helping me read and respond to Stanley's worthless blog post?

No comments:

Post a Comment