tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64150852625252146312024-03-12T16:02:35.553-07:00a theisThis blog is intended to represent the thoughts of one particular atheist, me. Some of my views may be shared by others and some may not.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.comBlogger817125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-89570384104411883392017-09-17T08:22:00.002-07:002017-09-17T08:22:19.528-07:00Gushee says farewell to RNSDavid Gushee's farewell blog post, "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2017/09/14/gushee-ends-rns-column/" target="_blank">After 30 years, a farewell column</a>", is an interesting though inadvertent admission of the innate divisiveness of religion. Part of him still seems to want to latch on to the false premise that it is the specific individuals involved that create the conflicts rather than the ideas being grossly flawed and untenable. His most honest moment in the whole column probably comes in the fourth paragraph where he states:<br />
"<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">After all, there are only so many interesting ways to say what we all know — American Christians are as hopelessly divided as the rest of American culture..."</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">Sorry David, your frustration and disallusionment was the natural and inevitable outcome of honestly trying to understand religion. </span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-54107225697494524682017-07-08T07:17:00.001-07:002017-07-08T07:17:14.950-07:00I can't count the number of times of seen a variation of the meme below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglbaNhaI-TG8s8JIDk_8Gvk4DhtkbYOCbsn1MTkacyHNO5axCmE14FIOGgpddF9Sh6XFtssGNVwmDhyoDlmvnECNl8l0cvSBo6CTdS4mfDf6heTcYlm7DsEViES3Eg8R6tkdqCFGxuGFil/s1600/IMG_0729.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglbaNhaI-TG8s8JIDk_8Gvk4DhtkbYOCbsn1MTkacyHNO5axCmE14FIOGgpddF9Sh6XFtssGNVwmDhyoDlmvnECNl8l0cvSBo6CTdS4mfDf6heTcYlm7DsEViES3Eg8R6tkdqCFGxuGFil/s320/IMG_0729.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Even setting aside that the basic premise is an affront to one of the founding principles of our nation, Separation of Church and State, this is an incredibly self serving and idiotic view. All it really does is confirm that many Christians are willfully ignorant and/or self deluded. Christ, and therefore Christianity, is not a good source of comparison. At least not for for any self-respecting decent human being. If you have doubts about this characterization you really need to read/reread the Gospels and pay attention to what's actually there.<br />
<br />
For example:<br />
<br />
In Matthew 10:22-28 Jesus is a complete asshole to the non-Jews around him which he follows up latter in the same chapter 10:34-35 with an outright endorsement of divisiveness and intolerance.<br />
<br />
Then there are some cute passages in Mark where he does in fact make a statement that I fail to see any other interpretation other than a big-ol Fuck-the Poor (Mark 14:3-7) which he also follows up with yet another endorsement of hate (Mark 14:26).<br />
<br />
This, of course, pales in comparison to his Luke 19:27 command to his followers to round up all non-followers and commit mass murder.<br />
<br />
Basically, criticizing Republicans on the gounds of not being "true" Christians is utter bullshit. Depending on your preferred interpretation you could argue that they are being good Christians by being utter bastards. Then again, if you need a horrendous work of fiction like the Bible to guide your behavior I have to assume you are a completely unethical moron.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-17034508533252395122017-04-16T05:38:00.002-07:002017-04-16T05:43:05.333-07:00Connor gets "Secularism" wrongOnce again Connor Wood demonstrates his lack of critical thinking and poor understanding of science. Right from the start of "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2017/03/is-a-secular-america-a-worse-america/" target="_blank">Is a secular America a worse America?</a>" he makes a number of idiotic conflations. He writes as if there is only one possible definition of secularism. Wrong. In the context of political science secularism has far more to do with the system of governance than the individual preferences of the citizens under that government. Generally, the two are fairly closely aligned but do not have to be. For a government to be "secular" it must make an effort to separate religion from government. Historically speaking, a non-secular America would not be America at all. Separation of Church and State is a basic principle of our Constitution. Anyone who tries debating that is a wilfully ignorant fool.<br />
<br />
Connor also conflates organized religion with religion in general. This is equally foolish and ignorant. Not belonging to an identifiable religious group does not make an individual non-religious. The more individuals move away from organized religions the more, not less, important secularism becomes. In theory, if a religious group is large enough or influential enough it can provide a certain level of protection to its members in the form of social or economic power. If the group is small or there are many different groups (like in our country) this is not effective. Having codified protections from government has been the best and most effective way to ensure everyone can worship or not how they see fit. Basically, regardless of an individuals religious preference the only way to ensure religious freedom/freedom of conscience is through secularism, through Separation of Church and State.<br />
<br />
Not surprisingly,Wood shows once again how much of a misnomer his blog's title is. This piece is just another example of his writing from an entirely religious perspective with religious motives and predetermined conclusions. It is the antithesis of science.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-79486870556718762017-04-05T08:01:00.001-07:002017-04-05T08:01:37.629-07:00PR Pope admits divisiveness and contradictions (inadvertantly)It has been roughly a week and a half since I read the Catholic News Agency piece<a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/let-go-of-false-lights-that-lead-down-the-wrong-path-pope-says-10789/" target="_blank"> "Let go of 'false lights' that lead down the wrong path, Pope says</a>." No one seems to have followed up or comment on it that I can find. This is interesting since if you think about its contents critically for more than a few minutes it reveals that the Pope inadvertently admitted that Christianity is divisive and that the Pope routinely conveys contradictory messages. Consider:<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<i>“If now I were to ask you, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that he can change your heart? Do you think you can see reality as he sees it, not as we do? Do you believe that he is light, that he gives us the true light?...abandoning false lights...cold and fatuous light of prejudice against others, because prejudice distorts reality and builds hate against those who we judge without mercy and condemn without an appeal.”</i></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-top: 5px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: none; font-family: -webkit-standard;">If Jesus is the "true light" doesn't that at least imply that all other religions and beliefs are "false lights"? How is this compatible with previous appeals to treating all faiths equally? How does this not contradict to some degree the last part of the quotation. If you are compelled by faith to assume all other religions and beliefs are false how can you not become prejudiced against them? Logically, this notion seems to lead to and even demand prejudice and divisiveness.</span></div>
<br />
<br />a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-47461597031093146522017-02-12T05:59:00.001-08:002017-02-12T05:59:31.257-08:00Is that the right question?In his recent piece, "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2017/02/are-colleges-too-liberal/" target="_blank">Are colleges too liberal?</a>" 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)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-78169828841667466512017-01-29T05:15:00.000-08:002017-01-29T05:15:12.274-08:00Arch Bishop meet StupidityEven 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 "<a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/in.10.years.italy.will.all.be.muslims.because.of.atheism.a.weak.church.and.stupidity.archbishop.warns/103918.htm" target="_blank">In 10 Years, Italy 'Will All Be Muslims Because of Atheism, a Weak Church, and Stupidity,</a>' 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.<br />
<br />
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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-2346328209929653192017-01-16T04:44:00.000-08:002017-01-16T04:44:42.466-08:00Arragonce vs. Delusion vs. StupidityAnd, 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 "<a href="https://reigndropsblog.com/2017/01/08/everyone-needs-jesus-even-you/" target="_blank">Everyone Needs Jesus...Even You.</a>" 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." <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
*Just to clarify, the piece in this instance doesn't actual contain a single argument. It's more of a one direction rant.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-89445745032206915012017-01-16T04:32:00.000-08:002017-01-16T04:44:42.469-08:00"...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. "<a href="https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/03/finding-a-home-for-the-religiously-stranded-marmur.html" target="_blank">Finding a home for the religiously stranded: Marmur</a>" 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-49981180890400962862016-12-31T12:01:00.000-08:002016-12-31T12:01:34.281-08:00Ending the year with more faux-atheism<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">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 <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gospel.song.moves.atheist.to.tears.inside.filthy.toilet.now.hes.an.evangelist/103384.htm" target="_blank">Christianity Today piec</a>e 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 "<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #212121;">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.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #212121;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #212121;">Then there's the professional bullshitter, <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/12/from-atheism-to-first-things" target="_blank">Mark Bauerlein</a>. 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. </span></span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-51101595336928890512016-12-18T05:08:00.002-08:002016-12-18T05:08:53.941-08:00"...don't have enough faith to..."There's a "statement" that a certain subset of theists seem to adore and you've probably heard it from a few notable pundits as well. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is such an idiotic thing to say or write. I've never fully understand what this is even suppose to accomplish beyond making it's proponent look like a complete moron. It never seems to cross their mind that the expression is a blatant contradiction. If you have even a little faith then by definition you can't be an atheist. I have heard a few dumb-asses try to justify this drivel by claiming that those who use this mean faith in the sense of trust. Of course, these inane apologists never bother looking at the statement in the context it was expressed. I have yet to come across an example where the individual(s) did not clearly use "faith" in a religious sense.<br />
<br />
Basically, if you see or hear this sentence from someone it is safe to assume they are idiots. They don't have a clue what atheism actually is or what the fuck they are talking about. Just to make sure there can be no confusion about this conclusion:<br />
<br />
"A" is the Latin prefix for none or without<br />
"Theism" is a religious belief system<br />
"A" + "Theism" = atheism or a lack of any religious based beliefs<br />
<br />
Not only is there no faith required, it is required that there be no faith to meet the definition.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-72421218352582186702016-11-27T12:37:00.005-08:002016-11-27T12:37:58.600-08:00Salkin does it againJeffrey Salkin just can't seem to help himself. Everyone and anything he likes even a little bit he magically converts to Judaism. His latest installment of delusional wishful projection is "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/11/23/thanksgiving-jewish-holiday/" target="_blank">Thanksgiving is a Jewish Holiday</a>." The premise, like previous Salkin "conversions", is incredibly flimsy. According to the tippler of Martini Judaism:<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">Franklin wanted the Great Seal of the United States to feature a scene of Moses standing at the shores of the Red Sea, and the waters preparing to devour Pharaoh and his armies."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">An immediate red flag is that he offers no citation what so ever. Having a background in history I am aware of a wide range of arguments our founding fathers had but never came across this one. I assume he either made this one up or got it from an equally credulous fool. Even if the story had merit it still doesn't make the idea "Jewish." All his arguments stem from this type of nonsense. He conflates specific Jewish rites and rituals with a variety of rather universal concepts. He also never seems to note that there is plenty of reason to believe that a wide variety of the stories and pracices of early Judaism were borrowed from the religions that preceded it or were contemporaneous to it. Is Salkin really really Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, Scythian....?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">Basically, by Salkin's very feeble standards everything is _______ (fill in your favored bias). You can make any claim you want about anything since the only real measure is your own preferences and ability to shovel bullshit. </span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-25513081769924599482016-11-20T04:20:00.000-08:002016-11-20T04:20:04.933-08:00Did Francis just denounce the Catholic Church?I find it rather interesting that Religious News Service ran thes two pieces simultaneously: "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/11/19/pope-francis-denounces-growing-demonization-of-enemies-and-outsiders/" target="_blank">Pope Francis denounces growing 'demonization</a> of enemies and outsiders'" and "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/11/18/because-of-the-u-s-bishops-voters-guide-i-may-leave-the-church/" target="_blank">Because of the U.S. bishops’ voters guide, I may leave the church.</a>" The latter being just another of many instances where the Catholic Church does smear and lie about any individuals or groups it doesn't like. Though, it has been years since I routinely attended church I have been to plenty of masses and religious based gatherings, Catholic or otherwise, over the years. And, yes as an atheist I have attended a variety religious rites, rituals, ceremonies.... I have often heard phrases like "faithless", "unfaithful", "without faith", and so forth. It was clear that the priests meant atheists and in some instances non-Christian or even non-Catholic. In every instance, what followed those words and phrases was derogatory and degrading. They went out of their way to use their pulpit to demonize.<br />
<br />
So, until Francis actually backs up his rhetoric with something of substance I have to assume he is either very deceitful or incredibly self-deluded. If he isn't just using another PR ploy he needs to wake the fuck up and deal with the fact that his Church is involved in the demonization that he claims to oppose.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-20917242286646533932016-11-06T18:18:00.000-08:002016-11-06T18:18:29.872-08:00Tomb of Pandering BullshitSo begins the start of another silly season. A recent New York Times piece, "<span style="font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world/middleeast/jesus-tomb-opened-jerusalem-constantine.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Crypt Believed to Be Jesus’ Tomb Opened for First Time in Centuries</a>", is as credulous as it is pandering. The very notion that there is an actual tomb of Christ is a huge assumption based on the flimsiest of "evidence." Even more ridiculous is the idea that the location is known. Three of the four Gospels briefly mention the burial. I do mean briefly. The only physical description given in Matthew (28), Luke (23-24), and John (20) are that it is "hewn from stone." That's the full extent of the descriptive details of Christ's "tomb." Basically, any cutout space in rock within the limits of old Jerusalem could be claimed as the tomb of Christ. </span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-1015622680541380132016-10-02T12:27:00.002-07:002016-10-02T12:27:22.428-07:00"...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.<br />
<br />
Posts like Travis Eaves' "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/that-is-not-my-jesus_us_57e6b4e7e4b00267764fc221" target="_blank">That is Not My Jesus</a>" 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.<br />
<br />
Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-58549067815334374192016-09-25T12:12:00.000-07:002016-09-25T12:12:00.763-07:00"Why Atheism Is Dead on Arrival"?!From the very first paragraph of his piece in the <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-atheism-is-dead-on-arrival-opinion-169528/" target="_blank">Christian Post Dan Delzell</a> makes it clear that he is a complete dip shit.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: #fafafa; color: #363636; font-family: SecondaryFont, Helvetica-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Roboto; font-size: 18px;">"Atheists try not to think about the question: 'Why is there something </span><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: #fafafa; color: #363636; font-family: SecondaryFont, Helvetica-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Roboto; font-size: 18px;">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."</span></i><br />
<i><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: #fafafa; color: #363636; font-family: SecondaryFont, Helvetica-Light, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Roboto; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></i>
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-48318701501715866422016-08-28T15:50:00.001-07:002016-08-28T15:50:27.758-07:00"You Can’t Love People and Hate Their Religion""<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2016/08/you-cant-love-people-and-hate-their-religion/" target="_blank">You Can’t Love People and Hate Their Religion.</a>" 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. </span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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, "</span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">The first reason that this won’t work is that personhood cannot be separated from religious belonging</span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">" 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.</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">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. </span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-24416185203098022772016-08-21T07:19:00.002-07:002016-08-21T07:19:57.695-07:00More Mind-Body bullshit<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Charles Camosy gets a few things right in a round about way in his "<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #484848;"><a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/08/18/you-are-not-your-brain-why-a-head-transplant-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/" target="_blank">You are not your brain: Why a head transplant is not what you think it is.</a>" 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. </span></span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-90030934722565887172016-07-17T07:55:00.001-07:002016-07-17T07:55:04.167-07:00Conflation. That's whySimon 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.<br />
<br />
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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-56871625136700494582016-07-10T03:27:00.000-07:002016-07-10T03:27:16.746-07:00Huh? 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 "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/atheist-confessions-i-wish-there-was-a-heaven/" target="_blank">Atheist Confessions: I wish there was a Heaven.</a>" 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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-38585261995128983382016-06-26T08:22:00.001-07:002016-06-26T08:22:42.748-07:00Hypocrite be thy nameAnd the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/06/20/pope-francis-to-catholics-who-are-you-to-judge-others/" target="_blank">Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?</a>'" 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. "<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/most-modern-marriages-are-invalid-pope-says-cuff-remarks-n594121" target="_blank">Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks</a>" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.<br />
<br />
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.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-2828459822475786772016-06-12T05:01:00.000-07:002016-06-12T05:01:28.876-07:002 Questions as dumb as PragerDennis Prager's recent "<a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/two_questions_for_atheists#.V11J4Wsrw7w.mailto" target="_blank">Two Questions for Atheists</a>" is a rather nice demonstration of what an ignorant narrow minded fool he is. About the only intelligent observation is; "To <span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: white; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif;">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.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Droid Serif, serif;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br /></span></span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif;">"1. </span><em style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">Do you hope you are right or wrong?</em><br /><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif;">2.</span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif;"> </span><em style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">Do you ever doubt your atheism?"</em><br />
<span style="font-family: Droid Serif, serif;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><i><br /></i></span></span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Droid Serif', serif;">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.</span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-14205414969831308222016-06-11T11:43:00.001-07:002016-06-12T05:01:28.873-07:00Isn't that what the clergy do?Pope Francis is back to his hypocritical dumb-ass antics that the media so adores. A recent Religious news service piece, "<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #484848; font-family: tablet-gothic-condensed, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/06/09/pope-francis-a-my-way-or-the-highway-approach-to-faith-is-heretical/" target="_blank">Pope Francis: A ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ faith is heretical</a>" </span>noted:<br />
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">"Pope Francis has called on Catholics to adopt a 'healthy realism' in their approach to their faith, and he decried rigid idealists as heretics."</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: white; color: #151719; font-family: leitura-news, Georgia, serif;">First, I don't think Francis quite understands what the term "realism" means. Is there a single Catholic doctrine that is realistic in any sense of the word? I can't think of one. And, rigid application of faith is pretty much one the major functions of all clergy. </span>a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-73785003546314209882016-06-05T11:09:00.004-07:002016-06-05T11:11:57.660-07:00A pacifist mass-murdererOnce again self deluded Christians insist on perpetuating all sorts of delusional characterizations of their favorite fictional character: Jesus. Benjamin Corey's "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/was-jesus-a-pacifist/" target="_blank">Was Jesus a Pacifist</a>" claims a rather predictable and foolish answer to his rhetorical title. Nope not even close. Given the multiple passages in which the Christ figure acts in a decidedly violent manner this is a rather weak supposition. When you take into account one of the passages I have frequently referenced, Luke 19:27, it becomes outright absurd. Jesus clearly demands his followers commit mass murder. That would seem to be the antithesis of pacifism. Sorry Christians but the Prince of Peace, as described in various scriptural passages, is not only not a very pleasant individual he's pretty fucking scary. Even if you kiss his ass he has no probably turning on you. Just read how he treats his supposed disciples in a variety of passages throughout the Gospels.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-7232346104867124172016-05-22T17:18:00.000-07:002016-05-22T17:18:16.475-07:00"Bloodsuckers"?I find it rather entertaining that the Pope would <a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/05/19/pope-francis-rips-bloodsucking-bosses-and-prosperity-theology/" target="_blank">call others bloodsuckers</a>. What tangible services do priests in general provide? And, the Pope! How much real work does that pampered overprivileged ass do? That the assholes he labels bloodsuckers are just as much leeches as he is just adds to the absurd humor of it.a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6415085262525214631.post-28472791363163003032016-05-01T14:53:00.000-07:002016-05-01T14:53:21.426-07:00It means something, alrightI found Thomas Roberts RNS piece, "<a href="http://religionnews.com/2016/04/29/psychedelic-drugs-can-deepen-religious-experiences-commentary/" target="_blank">Psychedelic drugs can deepen religious experiences</a>", to be as revealing as it is entertaining. Go ahead and try re-reading the title without smirking just a little. Religion really is fucked up crap. The very notion that screwing with your perception to make it more meaningful is pretty telling. As Robert's notes:<br />
"Researchers at Johns Hopkins reported that 33 percent of the volunteers in their 2006 psilocybin study said their experiences were one of the five most important spiritual experiences in their lives. And 38 percent said they were the single most spiritual significant experience."<br />
This seems to support the position that spirituality is a fabrication of the mind that has little to no real merit. <br />
<br />
Roberts piece further comments that:<br />
"But entheogens can provide experiences that help people understand what had previously been only abstract religious ideas. Concepts such as awe, sacredness, eternity and grace can become profound with meaning with entheogens."<br />
It doesn't seem to occur to him or the researchers that intentionally warping your perceptions doesn't make the abstract anymore substantial. What exactly do they mean by "understand"? Can these individuals clearly or adequately explain or quantify their experiences for others? If they can't why should anyone give a shit what these individuals think they've experience through the use of a chemical crutch?<br />
<br />a theishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16792023144049709855noreply@blogger.com0