"...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.

"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.  

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.

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.

Isn'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, "Pope Francis: A ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ faith is heretical" noted:
"Pope Francis has called on Catholics to adopt a 'healthy realism' in their approach to their faith, and he decried rigid idealists as heretics."
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. 

Even the "best representations" are pathetic

I have read or viewed many of the pieces mentioned in Peter Stanford's Guardian piece, "The 10 best representations of God in culture", and highly recommend them. They are wonderful. However, it is rather telling if not somewhat amusing that virtually every single example further demonstrates how pathetically weak the God concept is and how deluded theists tend to be about it. They all provide examples of how innately contradictory and or convoluted the attributes of God are. Quite a few of the pieces either imply or outright state that God is not perfect. As I've pointed out this is a huge problem since if God isn't perfect, and therefore all-powerful, it opens the door to polytheism. Why would there be only one supernatural entity with immense power? The flipside is that perfection is logically impossible. No entity can both exist and be perfect. This is, of course, just one example of the flaws revealed even with the "best representations of God in culture". The lame dismissive excuse so often used by theists that human perception is to blame since we are imperfect doesn't cut it. They never seem to notice that by that standard they themselves can't or should be wasting there time on the concept.

"...way of knowing the Bible."

Anne Carpenter's blog post "A Theory on Catholics and the Bible" is pretty amusing. It is so loaded with hypocrisy, ignorance, and downright stupidity that I had to chuckle through it. Her idea of "knowing" the Bible is rather pathetic. In parts she partially admits that being able to cite specific passages isn't a sign of knowledge and yet in other parts that's precisely what she's saying. She also seems to think that being familiar with the most common and weakest apologetics is a form of wisdom. No, it isn't. It seems that Protestants are just as feeble as Catholics when it comes to understanding scripture. Cherry picking and interpreting passages so they fit what you want them to mean is not "knowing" them anymore than simply being able to parrot select passages is "knowing" the Bible.

Elections are Civic not Religious

A couple of recent posts on Patheos does a pretty good job summarizing and exemplifying a number of all too common ignorance laced misconceptions. The two major assumptions that pervade both "The Perfect Religious President" and "7 Ways to Prepare Spiritually to Vote" are:
1. Mixing religion and politics is a good thing;
2. Religion and Spirituality mean the same thing to every one.

Both are horribly misguided. The good that religion may or may not represent is highly debatable. Mixing religion into politics is less debatable but still tends to provoke arguments. There is far more to support the position that mixing religion into politics is a terrible idea. There is absolutely no legitimate debate that religion and spirituality are as amorphous as they are subjective. No one agrees on even a basic definition let alone a specific set of traits or characteristics.

By its very nature religion is divisive and riddled with all sorts of problems that tend to only unnecessarily complicate everything it touches. We are all best served when religion is kept away from public policy and governance. Religion should only be tolerated when it is kept to be a personal matter. Individuals should vote their conscience but I also hope that they examine their motivations before casting their vote. Everyone should ask themselves why they are voting and what they are voting for. I have yet to get the impression that "religious voters" ever do any such thing.

3 out of 4

Andy Gill does a decent job with three of his "Four Thing You Should Know Before Reading the Bible." Out of the following four can you spot which isn't like the others;

"1. The Bible, it’s an ever changing and never finished set of manuscripts....
2. In fact, according to many textual critics, there are more variances than there are words in the New Testament....
3. The Bible, it’s not a history book; it’s a collection of various texts over an unknown amount of time....
4. There’s a difference between tradition and divine revelation.?..."

Number four just doesn't work. Gill never seems to notice that religious "tradition" and "divine revelation" can't really be separated. Both are equally subjective and unfounded. Both are refuted by basic logic and critical thinking. Both are dependent on each other. Gill also never seems to realize that the first three undermine the whole premise of divine revelation. Logically, divine revelation should be as unchanging as it is infallible. Scriptures, and not just Judeo-Christian ones, are neither. It may seem somewhat ironic that scripture is not divine in any way but that has more to do with cultural bias than anything else. All scriptures are human fabrications. It would be nice if some day the majority of humanity finally accepts such scriptures for the anachronistic childish nonsense they've always been.

"...shows with religion subplots"

I get why Ambrosino might want to claim a connection to Mercy Street in his "The Faithful Viewer: 3 new shows with religion subplots" but the other two don't seem to make much sense. I've seen the same trailers for You, Me and the Apocalypse and Lucifer that Ambrosino has. They both seem to be very tongue-in-cheek. I get the impression that they make fun of religion far more than they are meant to model it. I have to assume he finds the need to make some type of theological connection to for similar reasons that many theists try to claim correlations between things they like and faith. They need to constantly deceive themselves that religion has an innate meaning and connection to reality. Too bad for the theists that religion has no innately beneficial meaning or connection to anything in reality.

Not Quite 10

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Julian Baggini. However, that is no reason to avoid pointing out a few errors in his "10 surprising facts about atheism." Eight of the ten are indisputably factually. The other two are not actually facts, at least not as he expresses them.

"3. Atheism is not necessarily dogmatic."
This one is misleading since it implies that atheism can be dogmatic. How? Atheism is the lack of a religious based belief system. Though, it is true that atheists as individuals can be dogmatic that is not the same thing. There is no direct causation. Individual males can be sexist. That neither means that the gender can be sexist nor that individuals of the female gender can't be sexist. Implications and conflations do not establish a "fact."

"4. Being an atheist means that you believe the balance of evidence shows that God does not exist. This is not the same as saying that you are 100% certain God does not exist."
I wish this were completely true and therefore a fact. It isn't. Many atheist I have met or interacting with in some way do fit this characterization but not all. There are atheists who lack a belief in god without ever considering the state of evidence for or against God's existence. An individual does not need to consider the "balance of evidence" for something in order to believe or disbelieve in it. Baginni is correct in pointing out the discrepancy between reasonable belief/disbelief and 100% certainty.

Both of these errors seem to hint at an all too common myth. Atheism is not an actual "ism." I  understand and appreciate why some atheists want to turn it into one but that does not change the fact that by definition Atheism is not a belief system but rather the lack of a specific type of belief system.

One God?

I realize I have pointed this out before but any number of comments and incidents routinely pop-up that further demonstrate that a subset of theists really are a bunch of winey, hypocritical, self-deluded dumb-asses. The "controversy" surrounding Wheaton College's actions against one of its own professors is just another such incident. I have found the ongoing arguments and debates over Larycia Hawkins Facebook post about Jews and Christians both worshipping one God very entertaining. It's mind-boggling that the morons who have criticized her never seem to notice just how badly this exposes their feeble "beliefs." If they really believed in what they claim there is absolutely nothing controversial about the statement made by Hawkins. There can't be. They might be able to claim one group or the other is worshipping God in the wrong way*. However, if there is only one God then there are no other gods to worship. Everyone who professes belief in one God by default would have to be worshipping the same God. Silly theists.

A lot of ink has been wasted on this nonsense over the past two months but there are a handful that were at least slightly interesting. They are worth a quick glance.

December 16, 2015
The “Same” God? Volf Speaks
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/12/16/the-same-god-12/

December 16, 2015
At Wheaton: No God but Our God
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2015/12/at-wheaton-no-god-but-our-god/

December 17, 2015
Do Jews “worship the same God,” Wheaton?
http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2015/12/17/do-jews-worship-the-same-god-wheaton/

January 7, 2016
The Real Reason Wheaton College is Terminating Larycia Hawkins: Loving the Common “Enemy”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/the-real-reason-wheaton-college-is-terminating-larycia-hawkins-loving-the-common-enemy/


*This is actually an equally stupid claim but at least it wouldn't be an outright contradiction.

Is Jeffrey Salkin Mormon?

It may seem an idiotic question if you are familiar with Jeffrey Salkin's blog Martini Judaism. After all, Judaism is right in the title. However, if you use the same logic of a few of the posts he's put out  over the past week or so it makes sense. It seems that any individual he happens to like the work of can be proclaimed Jewish. His short piece "Woody Allen, Jewish despite himself" at least has some superficial merit. Woody was raised in a Jewish family. He himself is actually an atheist. He is not a practicing Jew and can only be called a Jew in a flimsy cultural sense of the term. His more recent piece, "Was Sinatra Jewish?", is just nonsensical crap. Sinatra never had even a vague affiliation with Jews beyond those that anyone else with friends or acquaintances who happened to be Jewish would have.

In both instances Salkin does a lot of cherry-picking to force the careers of these two men into a mold of his own warped logic's devising. It's as sad as it is pathetic. With both pieces he could have used a few of the vague associations to discuss and examine the whole idea of Jewish identity. There's always been a bit of debate over whether Jewishness is a matter of faith, ethnicity, culture, or a mixture. Just as there have always been questions about to what extent the previous question matters. It is a very interesting topic well worth thinking about. It's too bad Salkin's writing more closely resembles that asinine Mormon practice of "baptizing" individuals as Mormon after they are dead whether they expressed any interest in Mormon faith while alive. It's stupid, dishonest, arrogant, and disrespectful.

Fear of "Religious Education"?

Celia Walden's "Why are we so afraid of teaching Religious Education properly to children?" is rather poorly thought out and very misleading. The title itself conveys a number of the problems contained within the piece. To start with "religious education" as a term is rather amorphous and subjective. Walden never even attempts to narrow the scope of the phrase. She also includes the word "properly" in that title that is equally problematic. It doesn't take long to realize that she herself has a rather narrow understanding and perception of the subject she so pathetically blathers on about.

Personally, I see no reason to be afraid to teach about religion within the appropriate context. Teaching what the major world religions have believed over time and how those beliefs have effected history and society is quite reasonable. This means the teaching "about" not the teaching "of" religion. Promoting a particular faith or attacking a specific faith or even the lack of faith should not be allowed under any circumstances within the confines of public education. Mixing "religious education" into History, Philosophy, or Sociology classes, among others, is not only appropriate it is favorable, assuming it is approached in the manner I referenced above.

Heartening, sort of

I find it positive that so few women trust the Church when comes to advice on reproductive issues. However, the tone of Timothy Morgan's "Survey: Women distrust churches for abortion advice" implies to some degree that women do turn to the church for advice on other matters. That I find quite disturbing. Even if you ignore all the incidences where various religious groups have blatantly lied or behaved in deceitful unethical ways the "Church" would still be a horrible source of advice in virtually all matters of concern. Religion is authoritarian and highly subjective by its very nature. Facts and reality play little to no role in any of its activities or beliefs. Making decisions based solely on opinion, hearsay, or outright fantasy is a terrible idea with potentially grave consequences. No one in their right mind should be taking advice of any type from religion, period.

It's a fool's question

I've heard the question numerous times before and to be blunt I'm getting tired of it. Why so many people fall for such a stupid questions is truly mind-boggling. "Can Atheism Replace Religion?" is so loaded with ignorance it is almost surreal. Neither the author of this specific post, Michael W. Austin, nor the man being criticized seems to grasp that there is literally nothing to "replace." What trait or quality of religion do people really need? Which of those wants or needs cannot be satisfied outside religion? Virtually every positive outcome that has been ascribed to religion is neither innate or unique to religion. Again, there is no need to replace anything. The question only works if you make the most ignorant and foolish assumptions.

Christianity and patriotism

I found Benjamin Corey's recent post, "To Start Thinking Like Christians, We Need To Stop Thinking Like Americans", rather amusing. He seems to be saying that good Christians cannot also be patriotic. According to him if you think about Jesus to the extent that a good Christian should you cannot and should not think as much about your country. To some degree his logic does make sense. If Jesus and the coming Kingdom are the primary focus why would a Christian be all that concerned about any earthly matters, let alone those connected to a specific country? The thing about this that I find so entertaining is that I have no doubts that many of the same ignorant bigoted dumb-asses who froth at the mouth when you suggest that "under God" in the pledge is antithetical to our Constitution would agree with Corey without ever noticing the contradiction and hypocrisy of their stance.

The sham of multi-faith dialogue

I agree that it is far better for different faiths to get along rather than harass and persecute each other but that does not mean that "interfaith" or "multi-faith" proponents and activists are not full of shit. I'm sure many of the groups that have been advocating for this approach to religion are well meaning but they fail to acknowledge some innate problems with this movement. Ultimately, all religions are divisive. Cooperation can only go so far. A recent post on the Patheos blog Uncommon God, Common God inadvertently admits to this rather important and disturbing flaw.

In the very opening paragraph of "Don’t Compromise on Multi-Faith Dialogue" Paul Metzger states,
"Moreover, while multi-faith engagement seeks to safeguard against manipulation and bait and switch strategies of evangelism, it also seeks to provide compelling reasons why one would/should become an adherent of a particular religious tradition."
Reread that sentence and think about what he's really saying. Right away you should notice the contradiction. The latter part of the sentence is explicitly about evangelizing. So, yes, the approach is at least partially about "bait and switch." Many individuals and groups really are as concerned with converting and spreading their favored faith over all others. That is not cooperative or tolerant. The  truth is that theists view their faith as having more merit and therefore all others are of lesser value. Why else would have continued to be part of their religion?

Rhetorical or not

I do understand that in many instances when a theist asks a question like the title in a recent Watching God post, "Should Christians Watch Horror Movies?", it is meant as a rhetorical device as it is a genuine inquiry. However, I find such questions to be by their nature ignorance laden. Anyone who values critical thinking should see just how foolish these questions tend to be. The answer is always what the theist asking prefers it to be. There are no definitive well founded answers. There cannot be any given the completely subjective amorphous nature of supernatural based concepts.

Paul Assay goes through the motions of reviewing some of the common reasons given for supporting or opposing watching Horror movies among Christians but it is notable that he never gets around to a rather obvious problem with allowing horror movies. They tend toward the absurd. If anyone among the theist crowd ever made a push to dismiss them on this point they run the risk of exposing their beloved religious beliefs to the same critique. That's a far larger problem than any of the others Assay does note.

No such "peace" has been made

The Fortune piece entitled "The Pope makes peace between science and faith" is patently absurd. Not only does the author fail to provide any arguments to support the claim the piece routinely slips into a whole slew of logical fallacies. Almost nothing stated stands up to even the slightest fact checking or critical thinking. Reading this short bit of tripe is rather tedious and painful. Kluger starts with a number of cheap shots at atheists and never gets much better in his reasoning. And, of course, a key point never seems to cross his mind.

The very idea that the head of one of the largest Christian denominations could ever bridge the gap between science and faith is ludicrous. For whom is Christianity named? The Christ figure is the antithesis of science and critical thinking. Who in their right mind can truly reconcile the notion that a person can spontaneously raise themselves from the dead? No one who really respects the scientific method can accept the resurrection stories. What about the miracles? What about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. According to Catholic teaching the Eucharist literally, not symbolically, becomes the body of Christ the moment the priest blesses it. Since when is magic part of Science?

Sorry, Jeffrey Kluger, but you are a complete moron if you think the Pope's agreeing with scientific consensus on a few specific topics qualifies as making "peace between science and faith."