Showing posts with label Myths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Myths. Show all posts
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Huh? 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 "Atheist Confessions: I wish there was a Heaven." 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.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Subtitle says it all
Longenecker has once again demonstrated what a deceitful hypocritical dumb-ass he truly is. "The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism: Jesus rose from the dead. How's that for evidence that God exists?" is one of his worst pieces, yet. That's pretty bad. If you don't want to waste your time on this idiotic crap just think about the sub-title. It is a pretty good summary of his deficient thinking process.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
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.
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.
Monday, January 18, 2016
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.
"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.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
A first century Jew
Taryn Flynn gets one thing right in "Jesus Wasn’t White And Here’s Why That Matters." The Jesus figure is generally believed to have been a first century Middle-Eastern Jew. Such a first century Jew would not have looked like a modern Western European white guy. Virtually everything else in the piece is, of course, complete non-sense since it all relies on assumptions and willful ignorance. Not only is there no historical evidence for Jesus existence to begin with even if you could make a case for Jesus existence you then have the problem of deciding on which Jesus was the real one. The scriptures that contain information on the Jesus figure do not agree on any aspect of that figure. They actually seem to describe separate individuals. Or, more accurately, separate perceptions and preferences for a Messiah persona.
Though it is true that the Jesus figure would not have been a white guy it is equally true that the odds that he existed at all are very low. So it may not matter all that much. I understand why Flynn found the need to point out how this white version has been used for despicable purposes but it is not the only variation that has lead to negative consequences.
Though it is true that the Jesus figure would not have been a white guy it is equally true that the odds that he existed at all are very low. So it may not matter all that much. I understand why Flynn found the need to point out how this white version has been used for despicable purposes but it is not the only variation that has lead to negative consequences.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Conflating Religion With Morality
David Gushee seems to have trouble following the train of thought he himself initiates. In "Do the Democrats have a moral agenda for 2016?" he does note how superficial politicians can be when talking about religion. Sadly, that's about the only thing Gushee gets right. Throughout the piece he tacitly accepts the all to prevalent view that religion automatically translates into morality. It doesn't. He never seems to realize that his conflation of the two only serves to reinforce a blatantly false and dangerous myth. It should also occur to anyone with any sense of history, reason, and decency that mixing religion into politics has almost always made things worse.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
2 Titles, 1 Delusion
E.J. Dionne's September 20th column for the Washington Post has two equally idiotic titles. The one under which it is publicly available on the Post's website, "Pope Francis’s actions speak louder than his words", is completely opposite. Francis has spoken far more about reforming the church than he has acted on. In fact, the very few "actions" he has taken are pathetically minor and feeble. The title the same column was given after being published in the EBSCO databases, "Francis's radical challenge", is also full of shit. The fourth paragraph is a pretty good summary of the whole piece.
"It’s hard to see how progressives don’t come out ahead, simply because the pope has radically reordered the priorities of the church. He is not fighting culture wars. He is fighting against them. This, in part, is what accounts for his broad popularity among former Catholics, Americans of other faiths and even secularists and atheists."
Actually, it's pretty easy to see how anyone with the ability to think critically can handily refute every sentence of this paragraph. As I have previously pointed out in numerous posts, Francis has in no way altered church doctrines. He has done nothing to significantly reform church practices or policies, either. The only noticeable difference between Francis and his predecessors is in style. He's better at PR. How is he not involved in fighting "culture wars" if he heads the organization that is constantly opposing secular egalitarian policies supported by a majority of citizens in multiple countries? He is complicit if not leading the charge to impose narrow religious views on everyone; Catholic or not, religious or not. His popularity among non-Catholics is questionable. Outside Christians it is even more debatable.
Essentially, Dionne is taking the approach that the Catholic Church's hierarchy tends to favor. Ascribe your own baseless personal opinion onto everyone as if it is factual. It isn't. Simply repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make it anymore a part of reality. It just demonstrates how willfully ignorant and delusional theists can be.
"It’s hard to see how progressives don’t come out ahead, simply because the pope has radically reordered the priorities of the church. He is not fighting culture wars. He is fighting against them. This, in part, is what accounts for his broad popularity among former Catholics, Americans of other faiths and even secularists and atheists."
Actually, it's pretty easy to see how anyone with the ability to think critically can handily refute every sentence of this paragraph. As I have previously pointed out in numerous posts, Francis has in no way altered church doctrines. He has done nothing to significantly reform church practices or policies, either. The only noticeable difference between Francis and his predecessors is in style. He's better at PR. How is he not involved in fighting "culture wars" if he heads the organization that is constantly opposing secular egalitarian policies supported by a majority of citizens in multiple countries? He is complicit if not leading the charge to impose narrow religious views on everyone; Catholic or not, religious or not. His popularity among non-Catholics is questionable. Outside Christians it is even more debatable.
Essentially, Dionne is taking the approach that the Catholic Church's hierarchy tends to favor. Ascribe your own baseless personal opinion onto everyone as if it is factual. It isn't. Simply repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make it anymore a part of reality. It just demonstrates how willfully ignorant and delusional theists can be.
"5 Things Christians Should Remember This Election Cycle"
I'm pretty sure that Benjamin Corey means well in his September 17th blog post. A few of his points have some merit, though in a superficial and somewhat self-serving manner. However, he fails to note the most important point for any theist to remember during any election cycle.
The United States of America is NOT a theocracy! We live in a democracy. Religion should not be imposed on anyone. All Americans are free to worship or not as they see fit. Religion has no place in public policy. Period. So all his nonsense about Christian standards and criteria is misguided, even arrogant. He seems to think, like far too many Christians, that he really knows the true Jesus and the essence of Christianity.That there even was/is a Jesus or an essential Christianity is in itself a myth.
The United States of America is NOT a theocracy! We live in a democracy. Religion should not be imposed on anyone. All Americans are free to worship or not as they see fit. Religion has no place in public policy. Period. So all his nonsense about Christian standards and criteria is misguided, even arrogant. He seems to think, like far too many Christians, that he really knows the true Jesus and the essence of Christianity.That there even was/is a Jesus or an essential Christianity is in itself a myth.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
A bit late, and far too short
It is nice to see at least a few mainstream outlets acknowledge perceptions of the current Pope are inaccurate even if those pieces tend to be rather shallow and weak. One of the few recent articles to feebly point out this disconnect from reality came from Time in the form of "The Top 4 Misconceptions About Pope Francis." In comparison to all the misconceptions surrounding Francis this really is pathetic. If it were just a starting point for a series of short pieces on the myths surrounding the current Pope it might work well as a gentle way to broach the subject but I doubt Time will follow it up with anything even remotely resembling a substantial analysis. The author, a liberal leaning Catholic activist, never bothers to point out that the Pope has not actually even hinted at let alone attempted to change a single Catholic doctrine. The few practices he's made minor adjustments to are of little to no consequence and are easily ignored and/or over-ridden by local clergy. Sadly, this does not seem to be accidental either. The minuscule steps taken by Francis to combat economic corruption and child rape seem to have been designed to allow a lot of leeway for those most responsible for such crimes. The very few who have been punished in some manner are simply being used by the Vatican and its pontiff as a relief valve, a public relations sacrificial goat.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Editing the "Bible"
The Religion Q&A blog's August 16th post, "Why were some verses removed from the New Testament?", actually pretty good. However, it does omit quite a bit that relates to the question posed.
The post does a pathetic job of dispelling one of the major myths/misconceptions that seem to be at the heart of the qustion.
"CASSANDRA’S QUESTION:
I’m just shocked by the information I just received about the N.I.V. Bible, that many verses of the Scriptures have been removed. So I’m searching for a reliable version of the Bible to study from. Any suggestions?"
Cassandra seem to think that there is a single original "Bible." There isn't. According to the best available research there never has been a single complete original version of either the Old or New Testament. All versions of the Bible are interpreted and edited. What's worse for those self-deluded willfully ignorant dumb-asses who claim it is the "word of God" is that there isn't even a single original copy of any of the Books of the Bible (Old or New). There isn't one intact "original" copy of any of the Books. I thought it would be a good idea to repeat that. Not that it will sink into the the psyche of any who insist the Bible is authoritative. The Bible is simply a compilation of fragmentary ancient writing that the blindly devoted routinely repackage.
There is nothing remotely definitive or authoritative in any of the current versions of the Bible. There can't be since every Book of it can be debated as to which fragments are best to use for that specific part of the Bible. Not one Book has been agreed upon by contemporary theological and historical scholars. No one who knows anything about the Bible should be "shocked" by it's editing and selections. In reality, there are no "reliable" versions in the way Cassandra seems to want.
The post does a pathetic job of dispelling one of the major myths/misconceptions that seem to be at the heart of the qustion.
"CASSANDRA’S QUESTION:
I’m just shocked by the information I just received about the N.I.V. Bible, that many verses of the Scriptures have been removed. So I’m searching for a reliable version of the Bible to study from. Any suggestions?"
Cassandra seem to think that there is a single original "Bible." There isn't. According to the best available research there never has been a single complete original version of either the Old or New Testament. All versions of the Bible are interpreted and edited. What's worse for those self-deluded willfully ignorant dumb-asses who claim it is the "word of God" is that there isn't even a single original copy of any of the Books of the Bible (Old or New). There isn't one intact "original" copy of any of the Books. I thought it would be a good idea to repeat that. Not that it will sink into the the psyche of any who insist the Bible is authoritative. The Bible is simply a compilation of fragmentary ancient writing that the blindly devoted routinely repackage.
There is nothing remotely definitive or authoritative in any of the current versions of the Bible. There can't be since every Book of it can be debated as to which fragments are best to use for that specific part of the Bible. Not one Book has been agreed upon by contemporary theological and historical scholars. No one who knows anything about the Bible should be "shocked" by it's editing and selections. In reality, there are no "reliable" versions in the way Cassandra seems to want.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
What makes an event "religious"?
Theists do genuinely seem to have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that religion can only have any meaning if they make it have meaning. In and of itself religion is nothing. This is demonstrated quite nicely in a recent blog post on the Religious News Service. A line towards the end of Cathy Grossman's "Better than church? Religions’ social events have higher purpose" is great at indicating just how willfully ignorant and/or self-deluded she and so many other theists tend to be.
"There’s also a twist to the popularity of religious events: People with no religious ties like them, too."
Grossman fails to notice that not one of the types of events discussed prior to this statement requires any religious elements whatsoever. In other words, the "events" that are so popular are secular in nature. Every type of event noted already is enjoyed by the non-religious without any religious trappings. That non-religious don't care about those details nearly as much our theistic fellows is not news. This is the same type of mentality that leads theists to be surprised when they discover their friendly neighbor atheist actually likes Christmas carols. It is silly. Unfortunately, it tends to indicate a greater level of misunderstanding.
"There’s also a twist to the popularity of religious events: People with no religious ties like them, too."
Grossman fails to notice that not one of the types of events discussed prior to this statement requires any religious elements whatsoever. In other words, the "events" that are so popular are secular in nature. Every type of event noted already is enjoyed by the non-religious without any religious trappings. That non-religious don't care about those details nearly as much our theistic fellows is not news. This is the same type of mentality that leads theists to be surprised when they discover their friendly neighbor atheist actually likes Christmas carols. It is silly. Unfortunately, it tends to indicate a greater level of misunderstanding.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Ignorance may not be bliss but....
Even if ignorance really isn't bliss it certainly provides comfort and cover for many individuals, especially theists. I came across a letter to the editor last week that I found somewhat interesting. The first read through of Miss Fogg's "Defense of Christians doesn’t mean ‘special rights’(Letter)" seems relatively naive and harmless but if you reread it you may notice it is an example of an attitude that is highly corrosive. She finds the need to defend an individual who quite frankly doesn't need defending. He isn't actually being attacked. i couldn't even find any examples of people who are supposedly attacking "the April 23 opinion of columnist, Don Roberts."
Miss Fogg seems to have drank the cool-aid that willfully ignorant self-righteous assholes like Roberts have been doling out for years. Yes, that would be an attack on Roberts opinions and his character. Unlike Roberts I can point out why he deserves both criticism and derision. He represents a variety of mean spirited myths and stereotypes. He also is a very dishonest self centered individual who does wish to see the right of others stripped away. Despite lying to herself about Roberts not claiming "special rights" for Christians, Fogg fails to see all the propagandist bullshit Roberts' "In defense of Christianity - Maine legislators should take note: Christians have rights, too" contains. Just start with the title. Who is challenging the actual rights of Christians? Why would Maine's legislators, who are predominantly Christian, fail to protect their own rights?
Roberts sets the tone of his opinion piece very clearly in the first paragraph:
"The world is experiencing a war against Christianity. Our nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, faces the greatest challenge to our existence in modern times. Amazingly, our enemy, the radical Islamic terrorist movement, is underestimated at the highest levels of American government."
The religious right loves to use the symbols and language of warfare. I'd also point out that he is pushing the conservative, and false, notion that the US was founded to be a "Christian Nation." I have previously commented on this bogus premise.* Roberts is the one being belligerent and is most certainly trying to claim "special" status for Christianity. The sad truth is that any group you can identify has been, and in many instance are still being, abused, persecuted, and even killed somewhere in the world. It isn't right. It should be stopped. That is not what he's trying to bring attention to. He doesn't give a shit about all the other groups. I seriously doubt he is all that concerned about all Christians either. I don't get the impression from his writings that he has any problem persecuting "Christians" who don't conform to his favored version of the faith.
Sorry, Miss Fogg but you are blinded by your own biases. Roberts is not the champion you seem to think he is.
*Conflation Nation (4-12-15)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2015/04/conflation-nation.html
Miss Fogg seems to have drank the cool-aid that willfully ignorant self-righteous assholes like Roberts have been doling out for years. Yes, that would be an attack on Roberts opinions and his character. Unlike Roberts I can point out why he deserves both criticism and derision. He represents a variety of mean spirited myths and stereotypes. He also is a very dishonest self centered individual who does wish to see the right of others stripped away. Despite lying to herself about Roberts not claiming "special rights" for Christians, Fogg fails to see all the propagandist bullshit Roberts' "In defense of Christianity - Maine legislators should take note: Christians have rights, too" contains. Just start with the title. Who is challenging the actual rights of Christians? Why would Maine's legislators, who are predominantly Christian, fail to protect their own rights?
Roberts sets the tone of his opinion piece very clearly in the first paragraph:
"The world is experiencing a war against Christianity. Our nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, faces the greatest challenge to our existence in modern times. Amazingly, our enemy, the radical Islamic terrorist movement, is underestimated at the highest levels of American government."
The religious right loves to use the symbols and language of warfare. I'd also point out that he is pushing the conservative, and false, notion that the US was founded to be a "Christian Nation." I have previously commented on this bogus premise.* Roberts is the one being belligerent and is most certainly trying to claim "special" status for Christianity. The sad truth is that any group you can identify has been, and in many instance are still being, abused, persecuted, and even killed somewhere in the world. It isn't right. It should be stopped. That is not what he's trying to bring attention to. He doesn't give a shit about all the other groups. I seriously doubt he is all that concerned about all Christians either. I don't get the impression from his writings that he has any problem persecuting "Christians" who don't conform to his favored version of the faith.
Sorry, Miss Fogg but you are blinded by your own biases. Roberts is not the champion you seem to think he is.
*Conflation Nation (4-12-15)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2015/04/conflation-nation.html
Sunday, April 5, 2015
"Do You Believe"
I believe that there is a subset of Christians who should be grateful they can even manage to walk and talk at the same time. Christian films do tend to be incredibly ridiculous. Even though I have not yet seen the movie Do You Believe I have come across a number of reviews that leads me to assume it will be no better than some of the Christian themed films I've seen in the past. For instance, one of the reviews that was relatively sympathetic to the film reveals some rather blatant propagandistic falsehoods innate to the script.
According to Newsday's Rafer Guzman:
"It develops when an EMT, Bobby (Liam Matthews), tends to a man half-crushed in a worksite accident. Bobby checks the man's religious affiliation -- "I don't know," he answers -- then presses a wooden crucifix into his hand and encourages him to accept Jesus as his savior (he does, before dying). Not surprisingly, this lands Bobby in hot water, and soon he feels pressured to apologize for his faith.
It's a dilemma meaty enough to sustain an entire film -- but not this one, which isn't interested in digging deeply into issues. Instead, Bobby becomes the victim of rampant secularism."
Did you catch that? The EMT comes across a severely wounded man and the first thing he does is try to convert him. Calling this guy out for being incompetent and lacking any semblance of professional ethics gets distorted into his being persecuted. Last I knew his first and only job would be to do whatever he could to save the guys life not act like a preacher. From what I can tell before getting around to seeing it myself, the film is essentially just a series of logical fallacies and emotional ploys strung together.
For a more entertaining review of the film I'd recommend the Scathing Atheists' take on it.
http://scathingatheist.libsyn.com/scathingatheist-110-do-you-believe-edition
According to Newsday's Rafer Guzman:
"It develops when an EMT, Bobby (Liam Matthews), tends to a man half-crushed in a worksite accident. Bobby checks the man's religious affiliation -- "I don't know," he answers -- then presses a wooden crucifix into his hand and encourages him to accept Jesus as his savior (he does, before dying). Not surprisingly, this lands Bobby in hot water, and soon he feels pressured to apologize for his faith.
It's a dilemma meaty enough to sustain an entire film -- but not this one, which isn't interested in digging deeply into issues. Instead, Bobby becomes the victim of rampant secularism."
Did you catch that? The EMT comes across a severely wounded man and the first thing he does is try to convert him. Calling this guy out for being incompetent and lacking any semblance of professional ethics gets distorted into his being persecuted. Last I knew his first and only job would be to do whatever he could to save the guys life not act like a preacher. From what I can tell before getting around to seeing it myself, the film is essentially just a series of logical fallacies and emotional ploys strung together.
For a more entertaining review of the film I'd recommend the Scathing Atheists' take on it.
http://scathingatheist.libsyn.com/scathingatheist-110-do-you-believe-edition
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Psalmist Lecrae
I won't pretend to know much about Lecrae's music but I don't really need to. Claudia May's Patheos piece "Lecrae: A Modern-Day Psalmist Voices the Messiness of Humanity Through Hip-Hop" is as much about him as an individual as it is about his music. I have seen interviews with Lecrae and based on his own presentation of himself I can say I am not impressed. I am pretty sure that by "psalmist" May does not mean self-righteous deceitful hypocritical asshole. If she did I'd have to completely agree with her since he is a self-deluded pompous ass. I have previously pointed out why I have such a low opinion of Lecrae.
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
Monday, February 16, 2015
"Angry Atheist" Debunked
The myth of the angry atheist has been pretty thoroughly dismantle on numerous occasions by a variety of other so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. However, I thought it worth posting since "The Myth of the Angry Atheist" is one of the first studies of its kind to be published. Brian P. Meier (Gettysburg College), Adam Fetterman (North Dakota State University), Michael D. Robinson
(North Dakota State University,Main Campus), and Courtney M. Lappas (Lebanon Valley College) do an excellent job systematically taking apart this ridiculous bigoted stereotype.
(North Dakota State University,Main Campus), and Courtney M. Lappas (Lebanon Valley College) do an excellent job systematically taking apart this ridiculous bigoted stereotype.
King of Contradictions
It seems that the Pope is looking to earn himself a title similar to one commonly ascribe to Jesus. Instead of the "King of Kings" Francis is vying for the "King of Contradictions." His stance on cracking down on frivolous pampered clergy really does seem to be just a matter of PR window dressing. The Religious News Service headlines for February 10th unintentionally provided an excellent visual reference:
Notice the juxtaposition of "Ousted 'Bling Bishop' makes soft landing in Vatican" with "Pope Francis faces a big week in his effort to reform the Vatican." Umm, what reform? The German Bishop was supposedly fired for his flagrant misuse and abuse of funds. Problem with that line s that he wasn't actually fired. Just so we are clear about the message I will quote a National Catholic Reporter piece from March 2014.
"Pope Francis on Tuesday effectively fired a German bishop who had attracted controversy for extraordinary expenses on a new diocesan center, sending a signal that he is willing to oust bishops who do not align with his vision of a 'poor church for the poor.'"
What really occured was that the Pope set him aside while a new cushier position could be created for this corrupt asshole. According to the "Ousted..." piece shown above, "The post was created for Tebartz-van Elst and has the hallmarks of a “make-work” job because the Vatican couldn’t figure out what else to do with the prelate." What's wrong with doing what they said they'd do: fire his greedy ass.
This, by the way, is just another example of Francis contradiction. Another recent one includes his statements like "Pope Francis Says Catholics Don't Need To Breed 'Like Rabbits'" being quickly followed by "Couples Who Choose Not To Have Children Are 'Selfish,' Pope Says" I have pointed it out before and I'll keep pointing it out that this Pope is only set apart from his predecessors in style. When it comes to substance he really is indistinguishable from other popes.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Torching another strawman
Louise Ridley's "Does Religion Really Cause War - And Do Atheists Have Something To Answer For?" is yet another example of how theists find the need to distort a common atheist criticism in order to attack it. Ridley seems to think that claiming religion is the primary or sole cause of war is "the most common comeback from atheists to people of faith." Given that I am an atheist and I frequently read the works of other atheists as well as listen to/and or watch podcasts, interviews, documentaries, etc., that are about or by atheists you might think I'd have come across this "common comeback" quite often. I haven't. That is in fact not the argument/point that gets made. Religion is very often a cause of war or used as a justification for war. It also is frequently used to promote or rally support for a war already underway. Those are the points I'm familiar with and they are well founded.
Ridley never seems to notice that one of the quotes she uses to try to tar and feather Richard Dawkins with this bogus claim actually refutes her premise. She points out that he has stated that in the absence of religion's influence there would be "a much better chance of no more war." Notice it is not the definitive statement the strawman requires. Claiming there is a "better chance" is not that same as stating that religion is absolutely the one and only cause of all wars. It is far from the same thing.
Ridley also tries to make it sound like she has ample evidence to disprove the connection between religion and war. She draws nearly all her information from a single report, "Five Key Questions Answered on the Link between Peace and Religion?", of the Institute for Economics and Peace. The report is loaded with bias and methodological issues. One problem is that the report itself assumes a number of myths and stereotypes about atheists and about the perceived connection between religion and war. Even upon an initial reading it is hard to miss the authors favorable bias toward religion. They want to find a way to claim that religion is not only not violent but that it is essential to promoting peace. Even if all the finding were sound, which they are not, it still does not provide the type of evidence Ridley thinks it does. At best it would refute the claim she thinks atheists commonly make about religion's role in war. But, as I've already pointed out, that is a false argument.
Later in the piece she does at least get a few things correct. She does concede that the Communist leaders who committed various atrocities, though atheists, did not do so in the name of atheism. I will give her credit for not falling pray to that all too common fallacy that many theists seem to enjoy throwing around. Overall the piece was interesting but a bit irritating.
Ridley never seems to notice that one of the quotes she uses to try to tar and feather Richard Dawkins with this bogus claim actually refutes her premise. She points out that he has stated that in the absence of religion's influence there would be "a much better chance of no more war." Notice it is not the definitive statement the strawman requires. Claiming there is a "better chance" is not that same as stating that religion is absolutely the one and only cause of all wars. It is far from the same thing.
Ridley also tries to make it sound like she has ample evidence to disprove the connection between religion and war. She draws nearly all her information from a single report, "Five Key Questions Answered on the Link between Peace and Religion?", of the Institute for Economics and Peace. The report is loaded with bias and methodological issues. One problem is that the report itself assumes a number of myths and stereotypes about atheists and about the perceived connection between religion and war. Even upon an initial reading it is hard to miss the authors favorable bias toward religion. They want to find a way to claim that religion is not only not violent but that it is essential to promoting peace. Even if all the finding were sound, which they are not, it still does not provide the type of evidence Ridley thinks it does. At best it would refute the claim she thinks atheists commonly make about religion's role in war. But, as I've already pointed out, that is a false argument.
Later in the piece she does at least get a few things correct. She does concede that the Communist leaders who committed various atrocities, though atheists, did not do so in the name of atheism. I will give her credit for not falling pray to that all too common fallacy that many theists seem to enjoy throwing around. Overall the piece was interesting but a bit irritating.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
....not unless you are very ignorant
The very first paragraph sets the tone and never wavers from massive doses of idiocy and bigotry.
"Picture a typical religious convert and you are likely to conjure up a zealous American-style preacher, or the ginger-bearded jihadi fronting recruitment videos for Islamic State in Syria. The phrase 'the fervour of the converted' is common parlance, giving the impression that converts are attracted to extreme aspects of faith."
I have known many individuals from acquaintances to family and friends who have converted from one faith to another, sometimes more than once, and none of them have ever turned out to be zealots or jihadis. It never would have occurred to me to automatically connect "convert" with extremists of any stripe. Why would I? Why would anyone?
It's funny how many theists insists that atheists are bigoted and ignorant when they come up with nonsensical shit like this with such regularity.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Lecrae: neither humble nor honest
The Blaze's "The Simple Question This Famed Christian Rapper Has for Atheists Like Richard Dawkins" is a rather laughable attempt to pass off a blatantly propagandist puff piece as an actual news story. Both the author of the written part and the interviewer in the embedded video all but stick their tongues up Lecrae Moore's self-righteous ass. And, he is quite self-righteous.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Stick with comedy
"As a comedy website, we tend to stay away from too much talk about religion. Sure, we'll run the occasional article about Jesus riding dragons -- but no way are we going to start declaring huge aspects of major religions 'wrong.' That's just not our place, and we'll never do it ... after today.
Oh, relax. We're just going to point out some popular misconceptions about certain religions. Of course there's no wrong religion.*
*Except for Scientology."
Above is how Cracked.com kicks off "5 Myths You Probably Believe About Major Religions". It is still somewhat tong-in-cheek but overall is meant to be taken seriously. So I will. Though, they are not outright "wrong" they are themselves assuming far too much. The whole piece is based on a specific set of interpretations and biases. The "myths" described in the piece are just as accurate a portrayal of the various concepts and beliefs as those expressed by the author, Pat Carnell. Basically, in the strictest sense of the term "myth" they are not any such thing.
The 5 "myths" Carnell claims to be setting the record straight about are (the appear in descending order):
#5. The Amish Do Not Use Technology
#4. The Star of David Is the Official Ancient Symbol of Judaism
#3. Creationists Have Been Dragging Down Scientific Progress for Millennia
#2. Muslims Reject Jesus
#1. Buddhism Has No Heaven or Hell
I'll use #2 as an example of what I mean. It isn't a myth. It is a misunderstanding that is sometimes used to bash Muslims. Most Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet. That much is true. If you stopped with that little factlet it would seem to be a myth that Muslims reject Jesus. The problem is that the Jesus figure means different things to different groups. Just accepting that Jesus is one prophet among many other prophets does not express his significance to Christians. Muslims DO REJECT the idea that Jesus was more than another prophet. They do not accept him as a savior. They do not accept him as an incarnation of God/God made flesh. In effect they do not accept Jesus in the way that Christians do. Stated more plainly, they do reject the Jesus virtually every Christian means when they invoke the name. So, yes, in fact from a Christian Theological perspective Muslims definitely reject Jesus (the Messiah).
Most of the other explanations of these "myths" are similarly flawed. They can only be seen as true from a very specific and narrow interpretation. This should not surprise any one who has spent any time studying religion. Religion by its nature is highly subjective and amorphous. What may be viewed as "myth" or "stereotype" in one set of circumstances ends up being true in others, at least to the practitioners of that religion.
Cracked probably should stick with their usually comedic take on subjects. Comedy does not have to be accurate to be funny. You don't have to back up what you write or say with anything substantial. Carnell doesn't seem to have the interest or ability to really comment on religion in a thoughtful manner.
Oh, relax. We're just going to point out some popular misconceptions about certain religions. Of course there's no wrong religion.*
*Except for Scientology."
Above is how Cracked.com kicks off "5 Myths You Probably Believe About Major Religions". It is still somewhat tong-in-cheek but overall is meant to be taken seriously. So I will. Though, they are not outright "wrong" they are themselves assuming far too much. The whole piece is based on a specific set of interpretations and biases. The "myths" described in the piece are just as accurate a portrayal of the various concepts and beliefs as those expressed by the author, Pat Carnell. Basically, in the strictest sense of the term "myth" they are not any such thing.
The 5 "myths" Carnell claims to be setting the record straight about are (the appear in descending order):
#5. The Amish Do Not Use Technology
#4. The Star of David Is the Official Ancient Symbol of Judaism
#3. Creationists Have Been Dragging Down Scientific Progress for Millennia
#2. Muslims Reject Jesus
#1. Buddhism Has No Heaven or Hell
I'll use #2 as an example of what I mean. It isn't a myth. It is a misunderstanding that is sometimes used to bash Muslims. Most Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet. That much is true. If you stopped with that little factlet it would seem to be a myth that Muslims reject Jesus. The problem is that the Jesus figure means different things to different groups. Just accepting that Jesus is one prophet among many other prophets does not express his significance to Christians. Muslims DO REJECT the idea that Jesus was more than another prophet. They do not accept him as a savior. They do not accept him as an incarnation of God/God made flesh. In effect they do not accept Jesus in the way that Christians do. Stated more plainly, they do reject the Jesus virtually every Christian means when they invoke the name. So, yes, in fact from a Christian Theological perspective Muslims definitely reject Jesus (the Messiah).
Most of the other explanations of these "myths" are similarly flawed. They can only be seen as true from a very specific and narrow interpretation. This should not surprise any one who has spent any time studying religion. Religion by its nature is highly subjective and amorphous. What may be viewed as "myth" or "stereotype" in one set of circumstances ends up being true in others, at least to the practitioners of that religion.
Cracked probably should stick with their usually comedic take on subjects. Comedy does not have to be accurate to be funny. You don't have to back up what you write or say with anything substantial. Carnell doesn't seem to have the interest or ability to really comment on religion in a thoughtful manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)